- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
This extraordinarily judgmental statement from a previous poster really raises my hackles.
Those who value the immediate and superficial rewards of careers and freedom over procreation are demonstrating the lower quality of their genes, and should and will be replaced by those who are of higher quality.
Considering what I see breeding nowadays (and the offspring that have resulted), I would strenuously disagree with the "quality" judgment. I would also point out that a LOT of children with serious genetic issues that would have been fatal fairly recently are being kept alive now--and adding those flawed genes to the gene pool. So I think choosing whether or not to have children doesn't exactly have much to do with the relative quality of one's genes.
