🚀 go-pugleaf

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. The other fact is that nothing you do
will change it much. 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. 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. How far past that can we go? No one really knows. 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.

> 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.

> 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

> 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. 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.

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