🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:06:10 -0500, klaatu <klaatu@clark.net> wrote:

>guess away wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 98 01:54:03 GMT, Melissa9Z@Zmho.net (Melissa) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <3664713c.9009980@news1.newscene.com>,
>> >   not@here.org (guess away) wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >>>>Well, you are specifically blaming it for overpopulation in this case.
>> >>>
>> >>>No, I was blaming it for advocating and promoting overpopulation, not for ALL
>> >>>overpopulation.
>> >>
>> >>I still disagree that they promote overpopulation, but I think the
>> >>argument has already become pretty circular. I think people have the
>> >>caability to decide to have or not have children both within and
>> >>without the confines of the RCC.
>> >
>> >Well, when their church tells them they'll burn in hell unless they obey...
>> >Comeon, you're just being an apologist, admit it.
>> 
>> No apologism here. I think human beings are capable of rational
>> thought and action, whether they are members of the RCC or not. The
>> RCC isn't saying 'breed or burn'. It isn't as though with a little
>> thought and planning it would be too hard to not have vaginal
>> intercourse during the week when the female is fertile.
>
>The Church also prohibits fellatio and/or reciprocal oral sex and for that
>matter sodomy. In fact, outside of abstinence, the Church prohibits any sex
>not intended to lead to reproduction fo the faithful within a sanctioned
>marriage.

Show me in the Bible where fellatio/oral sex are proscribed? Or
perhaps which pope put this policy into effect and when? RCC
prohibitions not based directly on the Bible are as flip-floppy as any
politician. :)

>> >>>>It's not as simple a thing as 'the RCC did it'. I personally think the
>> >>>>RCC is a fairly minor (if that) cause for this problem.
>> >>>
>> >>>If they're not part of the solution...
>> >>
>> >>They could very well be in the vast gray area that isn't part of
>> >>problem or solution, yes. :)
>> >
>> >No. Now go say your hail Mary's. :)
>> 
>> Sure they can be. And why would I say hail Marys? If I feel like
>> getting redemption I can pray for it, like anyone else. :)
>> 
>> >[...]
>> >>>This is an interesting point, when you hold moderate libertarian philosophy
>> >up
>> >>>to crisis philosophy. Buckminster Fuller put forth the paradigm of Earth as a
>> >>>"space ship", with limited resources in a finite enviromnet. He said that if
>> >>>you were designing one and the engineers asked you how many people you'd have
>> >>>on board, and you told them; "Oh, an ever increasing number", they'd tell you
>> >>>that you were insane! Yet this is exactly what we're doing. Balance that
>> >>>against the moderate libertarian philosophy that says people should be able
>> >to
>> >>>do whatever they please as long as they don't harm others. At what point do
>> >we
>> >>>say; hey wait a minute, this population thing is getting scary, and can
>> >>>definitely harm others.
>> >>
>> >>Quietly introduce de-fertilizing agents into the water supply to make
>> >>people have to work hard and think about having children. It would
>> >>work and make people aware of populating the earth, and probably by
>> >>accident the overpopulation problems, but it wouldn't work well in the
>> >>'bread and circuses' government the world currently uses. People want
>> >>to have sex.
>> >
>> >Sex is fine, it has the seal of approval of my religion.
>> 
>> Yes, but as I said, people also want to have children, it's part of
>> the natural life cycle of human beings.
>
>No more than two per couple seems extremely reasonable to me!

Yah, I've said that already as well, but human nature leads to a
desire to procreate. It's one of those neat instinct things.

>> >> People want to have children, even when there are already
>> >>too many out there.
>> >
>> >Tell them to find another spaceship to go overpopulate.
>> 
>> You can if you like.
>
>I'd very much like to do that. But I rather suspect that the population
>explosion will make the resources necessary for me to find another earthlike
>Homeworld inaccessible to me. In fact, such planets may be few and far
>between, and in any case might well have their own native lives from which I
>would be ethically prohibited to interfere.

Okay.

>> >>People as a whole are incapable of making the
>> >>choice to not have children (as your case against the RCC would
>> >>demonstrate). What solutions other than totalitarian ones are there?
>> >
>> >We might ask, before it becomes an even worse mess.
>> 
>> I just did, any possible solutions from your camp?
>
>I dunno, I've been celibate for a little over six years, but then again,
>obviously I am not having any kids capable of voluntary celibacy. I should
>maybe have ten kids who're capable of it but who will regard their own
>population as a laughable demonstration of overperpetuating a gene which
>wasn't exercised? How silly. 

It's not a specific gene, it's the biological imperative (instinct)
that makes us want to procreate. That's how we have survived as a
species thus far.

>China's solution, however totalitarian, may turn out to be required all
>around.

When population/acreage gets to China's level in other countries, you
betcha.

>"if things don't change"...

Yup.