🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>>>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. :)

..
>>Amen. Here's to indulgence. 
>
>Well, everything in moderation.

That's why I didn't say "overindulgence". 

[...]
>>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.

> People want to have children, even when there are already
>too many out there.

Tell them to find another spaceship to go overpopulate. 

>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.

It's interesting to consider that the leadership of a spacecraft DOES have to 
be totalitarian, or it could threaten the lives of all on board. Food for 
thought.


That's my opinion  - Melissa

"It's not easy being cute." - The Warner Brothers' sister Dot.

To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
in my email address.