🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>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...

>>>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. 

>>>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.

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!


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.