🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 01 Dec 98 18:27:54 GMT, Melissa9Z@Zmho.net (Melissa) wrote:

>In article <3663798f.26571820@news1.newscene.com>,
>   not@here.org (guess away) wrote:
>>On Mon, 30 Nov 98 04:41:17 GMT, Melissa9Z@Zmho.net (Melissa) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <36620f82.3305864@news1.newscene.com>,
>>>   not@here.org (guess away) wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>>>>Must be damn close to 100%, hunh, if the Catholic Church's messages
>>>>>>are to blame.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well Catholics aren't perfect either. Ever heard of the term "cafeteria 
>>>>>Catholic"? Someone who picks & chooses what they'll follow. So they could 
>be 
>>>>>kept totally ignorant of modern birth control methods ( because the church 
>>>>>tells them that ) and be having babies in, and out of wedlock, who the heck 
>>>>>knows?
>>>>
>>>>Now you're just grasping at straws. :)
>>>>
>>>>The RCC isn't my religion of choice, but I don'r rhink it is the cause
>>>>for all things bad in the world. 
>>>
>>>I never said it was, *did* I?
>>
>>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.

>>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. :)

>>>>Overpopulation is the result of too
>>>>many people and not enough predation in the system. People like to
>>>>have sex, and the direct result of that unless you make birth control
>>>>or abortion mandatory is that the population is going to explode.
>>>
>>>AND the RCC is against all meaningful forms of BC, aren't they?!
>>>( if you think abstinence and rhythm are meaningful, we'll throw you in the 
>>>same room with a hot member if the opposite sex, using just them, and see )
>>
>>Abstinence is meaningful, it's just not practiced. :)
>
>Amen. Here's to indulgence. 

Well, everything in moderation.

>>>>I predict that in the next 20 years, China will stop being so polite
>>>>about its expansionist policies and will start the next major war,
>>>>perhaps the 'Big One' unless they start enforcing totalitarian
>>>>measures for population control.
>>>
>>>They already have, or didn't you hear? Infanticide is common there on female 
>>>newborns and the state has mandated no more than one child per couple or they 
>>>get forced into an abortion. Both of which totally stink and are totalitarian 
>>>as hell. I'd much rather see it done freely through education, propaganda, 
>and 
>>>freely available BC means.
>>
>>Well, so would I, but when it gets to crisis level, you have to go for
>>the most effective option available. Martial law is almost completely
>>effective in any situation.
>
>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. People want to have children, even when there are already
too many out there. 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?

>I've always felt disdain for the bumper sticker that says; "Live simply so that 
>others may simply live", because it's the old "band aid over a cancer" 
>approach. We should all cut back on our lifestyles, so that others can 
>continue to breed like roaches and demand that we support theirs doing that? 
>Not!

When you start expanding the system beyond immediate self and your
circle of family and friends the whole life thing gets pretty damned
complex. This is just another example where there are no easy answers.

>That's my opinion  - Melissa