🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 02 Dec 98 01:54:03 GMT, Melissa9Z@Zmho.net (Melissa) wrote:

>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.

No apologism here. I think human beings are capable of rational
thought and action, whether they are members of the RCC or not. The
RCC isn't saying 'breed or burn'. It isn't as though with a little
thought and planning it would be too hard to not have vaginal
intercourse during the week when the female is fertile.

>>>>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. :)

Sure they can be. And why would I say hail Marys? If I feel like
getting redemption I can pray for it, like anyone else. :)

>[...]
>>>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.

Yes, but as I said, people also want to have children, it's part of
the natural life cycle of human beings.

>> People want to have children, even when there are already
>>too many out there.
>
>Tell them to find another spaceship to go overpopulate. 

You can if you like.

>>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.

I just did, any possible solutions from your camp?

>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.

Lazarus Long for Captain!

>That's my opinion  - Melissa