Wanna get your freak on?
September 6, 2001 12:53 PM   Subscribe

Wanna get your freak on? Then perhaps you should move to this town, they're looking for a few good men & women to help bump up their population.
posted by kingmissile (20 comments total)
please, have more babies. that overpopulation you have been hearing about is just some urban myth.
posted by chrisroberts at 12:54 PM on September 6, 2001

Niemela has in the past dug into his own pockets to encourage Inari mothers. He paid 20,000 markka ($3,000) to the mother of the first baby born in the town last year, and one markka to the father, which he said corresponded to the father's input.

That's totally unfair! The mother contributed 1 egg and the father contributed millions of sperm to the effort.
posted by msacheson at 12:57 PM on September 6, 2001

sorry, tangent: I was thinking about this the other day while watching the US Open. They had Bill Murray in the booth with them and Ted Robinson happened to ask him how many kids he has. He said 6. I thought he was kidding, then another commentator, McEnroe I think (you know the one that looks like Beavis), said "I have 6 too."

It just seems irresponsible to me to have that many kids.


(really! just picture McEnroe with his shirt collar pulled over his forehead!)
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:59 PM on September 6, 2001

K - why? Both Murray and McEnroe certainly have the resources to care for 6 children in more than adequate way. Why is it irresponsible? It's not like people aren't dying everyday to help balance things out. If it were a single parent on welfare and no ambition to get a job, yes, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
posted by starvingartist at 1:04 PM on September 6, 2001

I don't know... to me if overpopulation is a problem, it doesn't matter how rich the parent is. The same amount of world resources will be consumed (in fact probably more) by the offspring of a rich family.
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:11 PM on September 6, 2001

And as far as the people dying every day argument...the same number of people would die every day, but you can change the equation by not having 6 kids, therefore easing world population albeit in a small way.

Of course, I could help out the quation by dumping some Drano in my coworkers' coffee pot. hmm.

posted by Kafkaesque at 1:18 PM on September 6, 2001

We're really overdue for a plague, Kafkaesque, I'm sure things will swing your way soon.
posted by dong_resin at 1:19 PM on September 6, 2001

Of course, I could help out the quation by dumping some Drano in my coworkers' coffee pot. hmm.

Perhaps the most brilliant thought I have ever read on the Internet.

I have heard (my lord I am so link-deficient these days) that it takes 2.1 children per person to make up for those who kick the bucket. Can anyone find a link on this? Still, you are right about the 6 kids per family kinda negating that...
posted by adampsyche at 1:22 PM on September 6, 2001

mr. resin, I know you were kidding, but do you think 6 kids is OK? I am just wondering here.

I am pretty ambivalent about having kids at all, myself.

By the way, my sincere apologies for thread hijacking. And for misspelling "equation".

posted by Kafkaesque at 1:28 PM on September 6, 2001

Overdue for a plague?

Uh... HIV/AIDS, anyone?

Maybe not so immediately dramatically quantifiable as, say, ebola or hanta, but the same death percentage.

And then we always have human-made plagues like drugs, alcohol, and murder.

As for population issues; remember, we have more old people living longer that make up a large percentage of the population at large.
posted by rich at 1:28 PM on September 6, 2001

Maybe my Drano thing is misplaced then, Rich. After all, I do live pretty near Leisure World. I'm more than willing to do my part.
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:34 PM on September 6, 2001

HIV/AIDS: oh please! However mind-numbingly destructive AIDS is, it doesn't really qualify as an old-school plague. You kids these days!

For one thing, the vectors are known, easily prevented, and it's not even very contagious. If I stand in a room filled with one hundred AIDS patients, I stand zero risk of dying. I can live and work in close proximity with any number of identified and non-identified patients, and I stand zero risk.

Try the same stunt with WW1 influenza, and I'm probably doomed.

For a disease to be truly fearsome, it has to either be airborne or have a vector we can't identify, so that we can't mitigate our risk. I can completely eliminate my risk of AIDS with two simple steps, so it's not exactly terrifying (and a multi-year incubation period doesn't exactly work wonders in the terror department either). Now, if I could catch it by walking down the street, then we're talking about a plague!
posted by aramaic at 1:48 PM on September 6, 2001

my sister says she plans to have 6 to 8 children. i don't care how many Grand Slam titles you've won or, in the case of my sister, right wing Bible thumpin sermons you've given, the facts all point to this world not being able to sustain much more in the way of population growth. i told her that i don't think she, or i, or you, or mcenroe, or even the queen of sheba have the right to have that many children. frankly, less is more here. i don't see a big problem in this town trying to put up another 100 on the population counter, but in general, let's try to keep this population party as small as possible.
posted by whoshotwho at 2:00 PM on September 6, 2001

another half forgotten stat: the average U.S. baby will, in its lifetime, consume the same amount of natural resources as something like 100 third world babies. anybody know if i am remembering correctly here? anybody got a link?
posted by rorycberger at 2:36 PM on September 6, 2001

re: resource consumption, is it ok to have scads of kids as long as you raise them as energy-conscious compulsively recycling vegetarians?

i actually did an oral report on zero population growth for my ecology class back in college... not the best topic to present at a catholic university.
posted by brigita at 2:44 PM on September 6, 2001

Personally, I don't believe in having kids. Aside from my thoughts about the world being a cruddy place, I think that with all of the kids out there that need to be adopted, it's SELFISH to procreate. Once all of the parentless kids have been adopted, then we'll talk... until then, I think having kids just isn't a good idea.
posted by kingmissile at 3:13 PM on September 6, 2001

yeah, it's a tough situation. I have pretty much decided not to procreate, but I recognize that the urge for procreation is a real factor. I guess what non-breeders like my wife and I should do is to calculate exactly the money we would spend if we had a kid, and donate that to children's hunger organizations.

Then again, my sister is due in a few days and I know I am going to spoil that kid rotten.

posted by Kafkaesque at 3:27 PM on September 6, 2001

i told her that i don't think she, or i, or you, or mcenroe, or even the queen of sheba have the right to have that many children.

Queen Of Sheba: Who are you to command the Queen of Sheba?
posted by lotsofno at 5:31 PM on September 6, 2001

I meant "plague" in the far more amusing, black death sense of the term. Also, for the record, I agree that six kids is a bit much.
posted by dong_resin at 5:40 PM on September 6, 2001

Finnish women need to get knocked up? I am so there. Public service and all.

My mom always hoped I'd marry a Scandinavian.
posted by dhartung at 6:11 PM on September 6, 2001

« Older take back the night, darling   |   An interesting structure (gimmick? excuse?) for... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments