🚀 go-pugleaf

a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> In article <7418nj$qgf$3@news1.rmi.net>,
>   "Dan D." <dand@rmi.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > You could ask him what to do about the starving masses, but he'd probably
> > tell you to let them eat cake.
> 
> No, I would not, but you would probably say kill them.
> 
> Actually, I have fed and clothed poor worldwide through donations to
> religious charities, what have you done? The simple fact is that there is
> adequate food, but inadequate delivery, due to political and economic
> conditions in third world countries. 

It happens here in America as well. See http://earthops.org/feedthem/

> The other fact is that nothing you do
> will change it much.

Hey, even Jesus was fatalist about this.

>  If you could raise them up from their poverty, educate
> and develop them, the problems might go away, but I don't know a way to do
> that, especially given the goverments in the third world countries. The fact
> is they were starving, poor, and uneducated a hundred years ago, just as they
> are today, and halving their population or doubling it is not going to change
> that. Feed them and you create more poverty down the line, don't feed them
> and the population levels at a lower level, but conditions do not change.

Actually, they do - when the populations crash within a restricted area, when
the populations begin to reorganize, and new governments are formed, Rescue
moves in when it can do some good. And Rescue makes sure that the excesses of
the former regimes, including the collaborations of the religious castes, are
not repeated. First things offered, cure for disease, and food; second thing
offered, more food, seed stock and sustainable/appropriate agriculture and
intensive remedial technical educations; third thing offered, non-exploitative
Elevation to the post-technical world. Conditions change very rapidly then, in
an underpopulated yet resource- and processing-rich environment.

I hate to point out how to make Jesus a liar when he said "the poor will be
with us always."

but it is time for a new vision. Within 50 years, with some sense, there need
be no poor, except those who work _very_ hard to choose poverty.

> So
> tell us your answer? Was I wrong on what you would say, like you were wrong
> on my statement?
> 
> > That's exactly what we have today.
> 
> People in poverty breed more than developed and educated societies do. There
> is a maximum population they can sustain, however. The US could easily
> sustain twice it's current population on existing farmland with current
> technology with little or no loss in the standard of living as far as food
> goes.

You have completely ignored the problem of nitrogen saturation and runoff
contamination killing the seas.

> How far past that can we go? No one really knows. 

Actually, we're getting a better idea all of the time. your rhetoric is
unsupported by current scientific thought.

> The problem with the
> undeveloped countries is that they lack the infrastructure and education
> needed to put the changes in effect to develop, and the existing governments
> are unable to help, usually due to corruption. Therefore they are doomed to
> breed up to their individual maximum sustainable populations, then die off in
> starvation and disease, with war as a real possability. Feed them or not,
> little difference will be made, except to give someone a few good moments
> here in the world. This is not indicative of population conditions and growth
> potental and limits in the US, nor does it indicate a dumbing down through
> breeding in the US, or elseware. Population is not the problem, it is the
> symptom, and the Catholic church is not the disease, bad government is.

Unsustainable population _growth_ is the symptom, the problem is largely (not
entirely, not at all) a cultural standard that does not recognize limits to
growth, and in democracies, the government that such cultures keep empowering.

> 
> > Religion did actually serve a purpose at one time.
> 
> Religion serves a purpose today, a spiritual one, as well as serving as a
> moral guide through life. You are free not to partake in it, but you enjoy
> the fruits of religion today.

Screw religion, embrace spirituality. Religion is the property of the priests.
Spirituality is your own. "eliminate the middleman". You don't need an
organization of priests to contact your higher power.

> 
> > Not that I'm a proponent of religion as a means to brainwash or scare
> > people into more sustainable behavior...
> 
> So what do you suggest as a means to brainwash or scare people into more
> sustainable behavior:P

A damned fine education.

> 
> > I prefer education, but you can only lead a sheep to water.
> 
> So what? People choose to educate themselves when given the chance, as the
> growing level of education in the US indicates.

In some populations. Other populations in the US, notably the hispanic
community, increasingly fails to complete even highschool.

> It is not a real option in the
> worst places to live, unless other conditions are treated first.
> 
> > ->Oh, and don't forget, since the intelligentsia are always steered into a
> > ->celibate priesthood, the fastbreeding chasteness-incapables will also be a
> > ->little bit short on inherent intelligence.
> > ->Is that what you _really_ want?
> 
> > Too late.  It's already here.
> 
> Not at all, the good places to live remain good places to live, and the bad
> places still suck, and when one does change, it is due to bad government or
> war(kinda the same thing), or the occasional natural disaster, and the premise
> that the intellegent automatically seek preisthood is false to begin with.

You have yet to demonstrate the falsity of that premis. 

Note also that often change _does_ take place, through the actions of
conscience of ethical, sane,  persons. 

> 
> And none of this is the fault of the Catholic Church, any more than it is the
> fault of any other group with a long history.
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

-- 
    Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
          Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
  Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
 Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.      http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/