Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Props to Al for the well-written article. I would recommend more Jeopardy shows. That'll show her :) [Advice for others - don't compete against Al at Jeopardy.]
I don't really know the answer to the question. But Al's argument sounds about right. As for me, I don't have the greatest of luck with the lot of you girls, so I don't bother most of the time. It's more of a risk/reward thing. But I'm sure there are others with more positive self-images who are still confused by the whole thing.
On a different note, most of the countries in Europe, along with Canada, Japan, and South Korea all have lifetime fertility rates of below 2.0 kids per woman per lifetime. For those math majors among us, that's the minimum number required to maintain the population. It seems the prominent lifestyle of "let's get the population educated and career-oriented" is keeping a lot of countries' populaces from wanting to be mommies and daddies. Paradoxically, it's considered beneficial for the families to have fewer children and enjoy other things, but it has a negative affect on taxation, skilled labor, and other things. I find this remarkably interesting. Prepare for countries of wealthy nations to promote "family life". Either that or watch the next generation rebel against our materialistic ways. Internet statistic of the day: If Japan's fertility rate of 1.3 kids/woman/lifetime were to be kept up for the next 1,000 years, their population would drop to 130 people.
Not a rant. Just something I realized recently. Damn you, CBC.