Janice E. Dawley wrote:
>
> At 04:25 PM 7/24/97 +0800, Melanie Dunstan wrote:
> >Nicole Youngman wrote:
> >>
> >> How about sociologist-in-training? <g> Actually, yes, better-off people
> *do*
> >> tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. <snip>
> >
> >One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like
> >this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is
> >SELFISHNESS.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'd like some clarification. I took this hypothetical situation to mean:
> the TINKs have money, therefore they are selfish, and therefore they have
> no children. The other couple are poor, therefore they are not selfish,
> therefore they have children. I can't see how this makes any sense.
>
> -- Janice
>
> -----
Nope, sorry Janice, that's upside down. The meaning of the story is that
the reason the Tinks don't have kids is BECAUSE they are selfish - they
would rather enjoy their chosen lifestyle with its material, childless,
benefits, than give ANY of it up in order to experience the joys a
family can bring. There was no intention to comment on the selfishness
or otherwise of the other family - they were merely props to the main
action.
It is open to speculation whether the same mind-set would apply were the
Tinks to be of less-than average income....
-- Regards
Melanie Dunstan
in Perth, Australia
Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm
Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:30 PDT