Is it rude (or even disgraceful) to have a baby in an overpopulated city that you have no plans of leaving?
America’s larger urban cities are feeling the squeeze of over-saturation of people.
There are areas of Los Angeles where it takes 1 hour to drive ½ a mile.
Disneyland is full, thus ruining it. (It used to have days where it was sparse).
Housing in such cities becomes scarce and the prices of rent and property then skyrocket.
The average worker in such cities cannot afford even a studio apartment.
Water then becomes scarce, and trees are cut down, making the droughts worse and the water even scarcer. This causes the wooded areas to dry up…. pushing coyotes, squirrels and wildcats into the city where they compete for resources and kill domestic pets.
And the spiral gets worse and worse, and nothing will solve it except having less babies.
So…. why would a couple choose to have a child, if they permanently live in an overpopulated area? Are we conditioned to think there should be no judgement of this?
Topics:
water,
housing,
babies,
Los Angeles,
children,
cars,
New York,
people,
cities,
America,
global warming,
labor,
parking,
traffic,
autos,
ethics,
social studies,
supermarkets,
population,
pollution,
civics,
parking lots
Composing members: 0
Answers
)“Great Answer”
(3)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(5)
)“Great Answer”
(4)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(3)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(3)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(4)
)“Great Answer”
(5)
