Response to a@a.a. Personal. Off-topic.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

a,

I promised you a response. Due to time constraints I'm not going to be able to do it any kind of justice. I apologize ahead of time.

Your two specific questions focused on old-growth forests and nuclear waste. Your implication in asking the questions is that there is a choice between culling the world's population on the one hand and clear-cutting old-growth forests and disposing of massive quantities of nuclear waste on the other. I consider this to be a false dichotomy.

At the heart of our current mess (and I do indeed consider our environmental attitudes and socio-economic system in general to be a mess) are selfishness and short-term thinking -- the very same short-term thinking that led us to the Y2K problem in the first place. We're going to pay probably over $1 trillion dollars to fix Y2K. Were it not for the short-term thinking that led to Y2K in the first place -- which is endemic to our economic system at large -- that $1 trillion could have been spent in creating sustainable agriculture, energy production, you name it. Then there would be no need to clear cut forests or build more new nukes. Given enough time and an appropriate forum I think this is demonstrable.

WRT your disagreement with my arguments on population control I will simply assert my central points here, with little argumentation. You will almost certainly disagree; that's fine.

1) I believe that evidence exists to show that the world's carrying capacity is enormous and that a large carrying capacity can be achieved and sustained without raping the environment. The earth is very, very rich in resources (see, e.g., The Resourceful Earth, ed. Julian Simon) and is the recipient of a gigantic and almost totally untapped influx of fresh energy daily. The technologies for low-impact, sustainable and pleasant living for enormous numbers of people exist right now. Individual selfishness and greed, vested political and economic interests, personal and institutionalized short-term thinking prevent their implimentation. Granted, huge reorganization of the way Americans, in particular, think and live would be necessary, but the goal in the abstract is not impossible. The living standards of much of the world's population could come up, ours would of necessity come "down" (so to speak, although I don't think it truly would be down) and the earth could sustain us all.

2) I believe that the U.S. capitalist model, which has been "successfully" exported to large portions of the world, has as its fatal flaw the inability to include vital human factors (justice, beauty, fulfillment, etc.) or long-term consequences into the market price of goods and services. Such myopic assignment of prices by the supposedly disinterested Market causes us to draw dangerously, and virtually unknowingly, on long-term assets in the pursuit of cheap goods and services today. But someday the piper has to be paid. So pay him now or pay him later. I think we'll be paying him with a vengeance very soon. Perhaps we'll learn on the next go-around.

3) I believe that the anti-population/contraception/pro-abortion agenda of so much modern culture involves what will ultimately be shown to be disastrous short-term thinking. The contraceptive mentality is corrosive to the human spirit; it is analagous to the ancient Roman vomitoriums, in which Romans would consume enormous quantities of splendid food, purge themselves into large urns, and then return to table for more food, ad nauseum (pun intended). This attempt to sunder the pleasure of eating from the natural consequences of digestion is disordered behavior. Similarly, the contraceptive act has at its heart the attempt to have the pleasure of sex without its natural consequence, new life. Once that natural link is severed in peoples' minds their sexual activity becomes, in the aggragate, increasingly disordered. I submit for your consideration a logical link between the widespread availability of artificial contraception and now increasingly prevalent promiscuity, marital unfaithfulness, abortion (as backup birth control), declining respect for women with attendant violence and objectification in pornography, homosexuality as a valid "alternative" lifestyle (whereas from either a theistic or an evolutionary vantage point it is obviously disordered).

See Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" for a penetrating critique of the societal impact of a systemic contraceptive mentality (few know that Huxley wrote his book in reaction to the Anglican Lambeth Council's decision in 1930 to sanction contraception in the "hard cases," thus breaking with a 19 century unanimous Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant Christian consensus against artificial contraception. Although he was himself an agnostic, Huxley saw clearly the negative consequences of a societal embrace of contraception.)

4) Populations simply do not grow exponentially without bounds. On this point folks such as Paul Erlich have been totally discredited. Freedom is the best way to "control" population. N.B. Freedom is not the same as license.

5) As a Christian (a Catholic Christian, to be specific) I believe that ultimately the starting point to the problems we face is conversion of heart. Personal repentance and transformation are the first, necessary steps toward societal and institutional transformation. While my assertions above may seem to be the ultimate in pollyannic ravings, I believe that supernatural helps are available to those who wish to shed selfishness and pursue rightness and wholeness.

That's all I have time for. It's probably more than you wanted, anyway. You may have the last word, unless you desire elaboration from me on any of these points.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), February 03, 1999

Answers

Franklin, your otherwise excellent post is a littlel parochial in outlook. For example, birth control giving rise to declining respect for women with attendant violence , I rather doubt that assertion, as for thousands of years of inter-tribal warfare in every locale on every scale, women have been the prize of war and have been systematically and thoroughly raped by the victors with no scruples whatsoever.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.


For the edification of those wanting to join in the fracas, my original argument with Franklin can be found on the "Should we have another baby?" thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Oj5

There are already over 6 billion people in the world. We are rapidly replacing every forest on earth with concrete, asphalt and pasture for the beefeaters. We are headed into Y2K and a global depression. Your statement, and that of some others in this thread, is delusional.

At some point, probably very soon, this fallacy is going to end. There will be no more women having 4,5,6,7, and 8 babies at a time. The next few years are going to teach us not to abuse the Earth the way we have done in the past.

I'm married and we have decided not to have any children at this time. I think you should at least wait until mid-2000 to see what the world is like.

Franklin, you must be crazy if you think population control is not needed in countries like China and Japan. You just shot yourself in your debating foot.

And I'll go one further...we already have PLENTY of abused unwanted children in this world. What would the place be like if NO abortions had been performed for the last 50 years?

Franklin, I scanned Freedom's "Scarcity or Abundance? A Debate on the Environment", is that the one? A bunch of ivory tower mumbo jumbo IMHO.

How can you say overpopulation is bogus when we now have 6.6 billion and projections are for double that in the next 25 years?

You may enjoy paying your tax dollars to feed and cloth the third world, but I have better uses for my money. The US is subsidizing countries that would not be prospering otherwise. Same for welfare. Pay unfit parents to overbreed children. This is WRONG. Its a symptom of a sick society, Franklin.

What about the effects on the environment? Do you know how long it takes to replace an old growth forest? Do you know how long nuclear power byproducts remain a health threat? Did you know the world is rapidly running out of fresh water supplies? Have you heard of global warming or do you think that is a myth also?

I'm sorry son, but you are dead wrong on this one, and I don't see any middle ground.

I appreciate your response, and I understand your convictions, but you did not answer any of my questions. Sure, it would have been nice to have spent the trillion dollars of y2k remediation on a moon base. But that's not reality. That's not the way it worked out. We have to deal with reality, Franklin. We have to deal with the human element, which unfortunately includes a lot of avarice and stupidity, and probably always will.

So I understand your time constraints, and the questions I posed do not have easy answers. So answer just one simple one for me: Why do we need more people on this planet?

-- a (a@a.a), February 03, 1999.


Humans are an Ebola-like infection on this earth as host. We will proliferate until either we kill the host, or the host counter- attacks and kills us.

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

Here's a summary of Reconstructionism. Frederick Clarkson wrote it in article titled "Christian Reconstruction" from The Public Eye. Note that the article is leftist. It tries to link the religious right movement to these reconstructionists. I don't agree with that. However, the following three paragraphs are objective and accurate:

Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely "social" or "moral" issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a "Biblical world view" and "Biblical principles" by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."

More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God's covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are "in submission" to him. In turn, the husband "submits" to Jesus and to God's laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God's laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called "theonomy."

Reconstructionism comes from Rousas John Rushdoony. Gary North is Rushdoony's son-in-law (verified through Mrs. North's driver's license).Gary North and his father-in-law haven't spoken to each other in years. They disagree over how to interpret article VI of the United States Constituion. North doesn't like Article VI because it led "directly to the rise of religious pluralism." He says that Rushdoony "pretends" that Article VI is not a "barrier to Christian theocracy."

-- think about one (yourleaders@enemy.edu), February 03, 1999.


I do not suffer fools gladly, and you sir are a fool.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), February 03, 1999.


Um, Gilda, WHICH of us sirs here is the fool ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 03, 1999.

Franklin

I respectfully submit that you are out of your mind. The sexual revolution that corrupted the morals of our society was the result of the space program.

This has been documented. After the vets returned from service in WWII the birth rate began to rise. Behind the scenes, what was going on? ROCKETRY my friend, plain and simple. Werner Von Braun and the V- 2 experiments with captured Nazi rockets!

Then the explosion of "free love" in the sixties, what was the cause? Again, witness the so called "space race" to the moon. The launching of rockets and space craft was in full swing. This has been proven to be no coincidence.

Disco debauchery...Moon landings!!!!

Must I go on??? Do you see it????

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 03, 1999.


Uncle:::

Wherever you harvested that batch from should NOT be used as a planting bed again!! The relationship you refer to is TEMPORAL not CAUSAL!!

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 04, 1999.


Franklin -- may I refer you to Barbara Tuchman's book, A Distant Mirror : The Calamitous 14th Century. Catholicism dominated Europe then, yet cruelty, license, crime and all manner of sins were endemic then, just as they are today. (Yes, yes, Uncle D., maybe Chinese playing with fireworks were responsible...) This is not an indictment of Catholicism, only a statement of historical fact.

I agree completely that transformation is needed. So far, every attempt to mass-market a method of "transformation" has failed. It has to be a creative act of the individual -- and Groupthink automatically disables creativity.

For an informed survey of human social development during the past several thousand years, I suggest Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade : Our History, Our Future .

For another view entirely of that span of history, see Daniel Quinn's Ishmael.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 04, 1999.


Chuck,

You otta know Uncle better than that by now.

-- Breybear (greybear@home.com), February 04, 1999.



Speaking of counter-attacks...AIDS virus source recently discovered, it's from monkeys in Africa, exposure to humans due to increased hunting...

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), February 04, 1999.

RC,

I agree with your statement, "Humans are an Ebola-like infection on this earth as host. We will proliferate until either we kill the host, or the host counter-attacks and kills us." (Can you and I really be this much alike?)

I would add however, that I do see an "out" by way of a long shot. We may possibly mutate or evolve into a form of "Ebola" that does not kill the host. A successful parasite seldom kills the host and may turn into a symbiote.

But, like I said, it's a long shot. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

-- a (a@a.a), March 10, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ