Re: memes, or genes...
On 26 Jul 2008, at 03:25, Bruce Bostwick wrote: There's one particular domestic religious movement here in this country that is presently doing exactly that. It's probably not the first one most people might think. Google quiverfull for more info, the first half dozen hits will tell you a lot. Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
environmental impact
hkhenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Energy is everything --without it, we can't produce food (on anything like the scale it's being produced now, we can't get to and from work or do most of the kinds of work we do, we can't transport goods from where they're made to where they're needed, etc. With more of it, with lower cost and less to zero environmental impact, yes, we could make Earth look like Coruscant and sustain it indefinitely. But the if that energy source exists is a BIG if. I'm hoping it's found very soon. snip Keith one could say that the measure of a civilization could be determined by how much energy it consumes, but whether a civilization susvives could be determined by its environmental impact... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
memes, or genes...
i would hope that genetic modification is in the forecast (as long as we keep a pool of wild humans). jon You don't find the thought of virtually immortal genetically enhanced humans keeping a pool of wild humans is somewhat inhumane? Regards, Wayne. there are many reasons for storing seeds: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10338057 http://science.howstuffworks.com/seed-bank.htm hybridization of human stock increases the gene pool. sperm and ovum banks can also preserve diversity when bad genes are removed by genetic modification. jon jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
William wrote: Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Jul 26, 2008, at 6:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 26 Jul 2008, at 03:25, Bruce Bostwick wrote: There's one particular domestic religious movement here in this country that is presently doing exactly that. It's probably not the first one most people might think. Google quiverfull for more info, the first half dozen hits will tell you a lot. Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? Not so far, or at least if there is a limit, they don't seem to have found it yet. Thank you all for coming around to the self-evident point I made five minutes ago. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug If that were their motivation, I'd agree. But at 8-10 or more per family, and with the fundamentalist neopentecostal homeschooling those kids receive, they'll be able to elect their own theocrats to office at virtually every level of our government in about 30-40 more years or so. Whether that triggers another Dark Age before we reach near- total industrial and economic collapse is hard to say, but this movement in particular has been playing the long game for close to 100 years (or more, depending on the definition of where it began), and this is one of their many long-term strategies. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam, Serenity ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On 26 Jul 2008, at 16:49, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? The quiverfull beliefs are vile and perverted. Quiverfull authors such as Pride, Provan, and Hess extend this idea to mean that if one child is a blessing, then each additional child is likewise a blessing and not something to be viewed as economically burdensome or unaffordable. When a couple seeks to control family size via birth control they are thus rejecting God's blessings he might otherwise give, and possibly breaking his commandment to be fruitful and multiply. [1] [...] Thus, the key practice of a Quiverfull married couple is to not use any form of birth control and to maintain continual openness to children, to the possibility ofconception, during routine sexual intercourse irrespective of timing of the month during the ovulation cycle. This is considered by Quiverfull adherents to be a principal, if not the primary, aspect of their Christian calling in submission to the lordship of Christ. A healthy young Quiverfull couple might thereby have a baby every two years, meaning that as many as 10 children or more might be born during a couple's fertile years. [Ibid] [...] Quiverfull authors and adherents advocate for and seek to model a return to Biblical Patriarchy. Families are typically arranged with the mother as a homemaker under theauthority of her husband with the children under the authority of both. Parents seek to largely shelter their children from aspects of culture they as parents deem adversarial to their type of conservative Christianity. Additionally, Quiverfull families are strongly inclined toward homeschooling and homesteading in a rural area. [Ibid] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
Bruce If that were their motivation, I'd agree. But at 8-10 or more per family, and with the fundamentalist neopentecostal homeschooling those kids receive, they'll be able to elect their own theocrats to office at virtually every level of our government in about 30-40 more years or so. Whether that triggers another Dark Age before we reach near- total industrial and economic collapse is hard to say, but this movement in particular has been playing the long game for close to 100 years (or more, depending on the definition of where it began), and this is one of their many long-term strategies. I just don't see it happening according to their script. Of those 8 or 10, how many are going to follow their parent's ideology lock step? How many will rebel and provide a backlash? How isolated can they remain in a society changing as rapidly as ours? Mormons have practiced something similar to this ideology for over a hundred years; are they taking over the world? In any case, what are we going to do about it? Tell them they can't have babies? Force them to educate their kids the way we think they should? What we really need is for responsible, intelligent, enlightened people to stop making excuses for _not_ having children. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: memes, or genes...
Actually, that is standard Roman Catholic teaching as well. Except that a lot of American Catholics don't do it. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: memes, or genes... Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:55:02 -0500 On Jul 26, 2008, at 6:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 26 Jul 2008, at 03:25, Bruce Bostwick wrote: There's one particular domestic religious movement here in this country that is presently doing exactly that. It's probably not the first one most people might think. Google quiverfull for more info, the first half dozen hits will tell you a lot. Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? Not so far, or at least if there is a limit, they don't seem to have found it yet. Thank you all for coming around to the self-evident point I made five minutes ago. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: What we really need is for responsible, intelligent, enlightened people to stop making excuses for _not_ having children. Would you consider some excuses to be reasonable? And, if responsible, enlightened people are having children, at what point do they get to decide how many is enough? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's one particular domestic religious movement here in this country that is presently doing exactly that. It's probably not the first one most people might think. Google quiverfull for more info, the first half dozen hits will tell you a lot. Ooo, an online fertility cult! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On 26 Jul 2008, at 17:24, Pat Mathews wrote: Actually, that is standard Roman Catholic teaching as well. Except that a lot of American Catholics don't do it. The Catholics allow natural family planning. The quiverfulls forbid any. Lemmings Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Jul 25, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] what parts of the population are doing their best to outbreed everyone else, and why? it seems to me that less developed countries are the culprits, partly because children are a source of labor... i would hope that genetic modification is in the forecast (as long as we keep a pool of wild humans). You don't find the thought of virtually immortal genetically enhanced humans keeping a pool of wild humans is somewhat inhumane? Perhaps some would say posthuman, instead of inhumane? http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
Julia wrote: Would you consider some excuses to be reasonable? Of course. The one I think is lame, though, is that they are somehow saving the planet by deciding not to have children. And, if responsible, enlightened people are having children, at what point do they get to decide how many is enough? Of course I'm not proposing that anyone be forced to do anything. I just think that the idea that a couple is being more responsible by _not_ having children is pure bulls__t unless there are real mitigating circumstances; if you don't have the means or the temperament or even the desire to have children. I just don't want to hear that there is some beneficent altruistic sacrifice being made. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis 1:28
Julia wrote: Would you consider some excuses to be reasonable? Of course. The one I think is lame, though, is that they are somehow saving the planet by deciding not to have children. And, if responsible, enlightened people are having children, at what point do they get to decide how many is enough? Of course I'm not proposing that anyone be forced to do anything. I just think that the idea that a couple is being more responsible by _not_ having children is pure bulls__t unless there are real mitigating circumstances; if you don't have the means or the temperament or even the desire to have children. I just don't want to hear that there is some beneficent altruistic sacrifice being made. Doug And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. surely you don't believe that gawd created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth? it is not a sacrifice, doug, it is a duty to the planet. no righteous deity would justify destroying habitates to accommodate human expansion. even by reducing materialism and careful husbanding (no pun intended) of resources, we are destroying habitats at a prodigious rate just to feed over six billion hungry humans. sure the planet can sustain higher human populations, but there is a limit. surely we have already reached the point where your deity would say that enough is enough. responsible, enlightened people are too rational to compete in the birthrate race, but they still hold the upper hand in the arms race. as the various fundamentalist schisms succeed in their over population goals they'll continue to war against the heretics, and those who leave the fold. people have a right to breed irresponsibly, but at some point it is going to bite us all in the buttocks!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
I just don't see it happening according to their script. Of those 8 or 10, how many are going to follow their parent's ideology lock step? How many will rebel and provide a backlash? How isolated can they remain in a society changing as rapidly as ours? Mormons have practiced something similar to this ideology for over a hundred years; are they taking over the world? In any case, what are we going to do about it? Tell them they can't have babies? Force them to educate their kids the way we think they should? What we really need is for responsible, intelligent, enlightened people to stop making excuses for _not_ having children. Doug are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage... we can't stop them from breeding, but we can intervene when there is child and spousal abuse. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
Jon wrote: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. surely you don't believe that gawd created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth? it is not a sacrifice, doug, it is a duty to the planet. no righteous deity would justify destroying habitates to accommodate human expansion. even by reducing materialism and careful husbanding (no pun intended) of resources, we are destroying habitats at a prodigious rate just to feed over six billion hungry humans. It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). sure the planet can sustain higher human populations, but there is a limit. surely we have already reached the point where your deity would say that enough is enough. Not my deity, no matter which one you're referring to. responsible, enlightened people are too rational to compete in the birthrate race, but they still hold the upper hand in the arms race. as the various fundamentalist schisms succeed in their over population goals they'll continue to war against the heretics, and those who leave the fold. people have a right to breed irresponsibly, but at some point it is going to bite us all in the buttocks!~) Only if the rest of us decide we are saving the planet by _not_ breeding. 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? jon I might. There, I said it. If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, I wouldn't suggest that. But this species has proven time and time again that the majority of its individuals do, in fact, act only on a motivation of immediate self-gratification and very often completely counter to collective benefit, even in the case of driving a population explosion that continuously paces or exceeds our best efforts at meeting demands for basic necessities such as food and shelter, and in the case of creating gross inequities in wealth that make virtual Olympic god-kings out of the wealthiest one percent or so, and exploit and starve large numbers of other people in the poorest parts of the world. And one big factor of this is a perceived right to reproduce that is common to most cultures, our own included, that makes it seem abhorrent to place any restrictions on how many children any family may have. China has its back farther up against the wall than many other countries, and even with its massive population and the strains on its natural resources, it has to fight the perception that its one- child-per-family policy is some sort of assault on its citizens' civil rights. Yes, if I were to become dictator of the world, placing restrictions on who was and was not allowed to have children would be on the table. I'd likely be despised and hated for it, but I'd still at least consider it, if only to give us some fighting chance of a managed population decrease. Reduce the earth's population to 1-2 billion or so, with the knowledge we now have of agriculture and food production, and earth becomes close to a utopia. The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system. I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where people could live and produce food there without life support, with the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth. With a controlled population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty massive spaceflight/colonization initiative .. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. MENCKEN ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children Yes. to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? I don't know about balancing anything, but I do believe that the more enlightened people, the better off we'll all be. the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage... we can't stop them from breeding, but we can intervene when there is child and spousal abuse. Yes we can and we should, but that has little to do with what I'm arguing. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. Bulls__t. The problems in underdeveloped nations will be ameliorated when their people become more educated. We could deprive ourselves of resources and send the proceeds directly to those nations and it wouldn't do a bit of good. They have to be able to pull themselves up. Whatever we can do to catalyze that, we should do. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? Of course not. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
Jon wrote: are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children Yes. to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? I don't know about balancing anything, but I do believe that the more enlightened people are, the better off we'll all be. cheap trick to split the question and distort the context, doug. who determines what is enlightened? you, me, the jihadists, the christians, the zionists, OR the buddhists? do you really want to engage in a birthrate race based on who has the material wealth to provide for more greedy consumers versus say islamic ascetics who will blow up oil tankers and poison the environment to get their way? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage... we can't stop them from breeding, but we can intervene when there is child and spousal abuse. Yes we can and we should, but that has little to do with what I'm arguing. Doug you know full well that it has everything to do with the kind of fanatics that use ruligion and the bible as a justification for patriarchy. these are the people you want to breed because they have the wherewithal to provide for their offspring and educate them to proselytize their faith. the birthrate race will prove to be just as destructive as the arms race. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). Only if the rest of us decide we are saving the planet by _not_ breeding. 8^) Doug it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will suffer. it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the planet by breeding. people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth are not about to invest in breeding units of labor when it is not necessary, unless they are doing it to spread their dogma. the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming so much and put more revenues into an enlightened' educational system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources. there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:23 AM Subject: Re: memes, or genes... On Jul 25, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] what parts of the population are doing their best to outbreed everyone else, and why? it seems to me that less developed countries are the culprits, partly because children are a source of labor... i would hope that genetic modification is in the forecast (as long as we keep a pool of wild humans). You don't find the thought of virtually immortal genetically enhanced humans keeping a pool of wild humans is somewhat inhumane? Perhaps some would say posthuman, instead of inhumane? http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm Dave Actually I was thinking more along the lines of evil or reprehensible. The post didn't say anything about gene banks, it talked about keeping wild humans. I get annoyed with people who think that mankind is a blight on the world and that the world would be a better place if homo sapiens dies out or civilisation totally collapses. There is nothing desirable about sentinent beings, dying, getting sick, growing old, getting eaten or generally suffering when there is an alternative. The sooner we can go post human the better. If someone wants to revert to the old style genome when they turn 18 fair enough, but kids shouldn't have that choice made for them by their parents, Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
Jon wrote: it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. Bulls__t. The problems in underdeveloped nations will be ameliorated when their people become more educated. We could deprive ourselves of resources and send the proceeds directly to those nations and it wouldn't do a bit of good. They have to be able to pull themselves up. Whatever we can do to catalyze that, we should do. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? Of course not. Doug how can i possibly refute the bovine excrement argument? the problem, doug, is that many undeveloped nations rich in resources are governed by despots who need to maintain an ignorant population in poverty so they can continue to use the wealth for their own purposes. when advanced societies enable this so they can continue their global trade advantage it is simply the new colonialism. how can you say we can't help the ver countries we are exploiting with our resources? it would only be just if advanced countries jointly used sanctions and other incentives to forve ALL oppressive governments to provide for their people. jon what do you believe can be done to catalyze human rights in those countries; pre-emptive attacks? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Everytime I hear the phrase best and the brightest I think of David Halberstram and Vietnam john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis 1:28
Doug Pensinger wrote: It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin unfortunately, throughout history, it is the the best and the brightest who have perpetrated evils on the poor and downtrodden. there have been exceptions, but over and over again governments and religions have used their ideology or dogma to justify exploitation in the name of spreading civilization. again i ask, what gives any one the right to determine whose agenda is enlightened? what gives any religious schism the right to dictate reproduction, and/or a monopoly on values, ethics, or morality? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:38 AM Subject: Genesis What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? jon I agree with Doug. If people only raised the number of children they were able to support nuture AND everyone one was in a position to know that number AND if everyone was able to ensure they didn't have more than that number, we would end up with the appropriate world population, and far less suffering. What's more a lot of people are probably well off today because their parents and grand parents made good decisions about the number of offspring they could support. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will suffer. it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the planet by breeding. people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth are not about to invest in breeding units of labor when it is not necessary, unless they are doing it to spread their dogma. So if its a numbers game, how do you win by not having children? the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming so much and put more revenues into an enlightened' educational system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources. I agree with that argument. But if I don't have kids and get them to believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe when I pass? Do you think you and I are going to change everyone else's mind in the next few years? there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive. If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. And you'll find that we were the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted to come here or, that they wanted to emulate our society. That we use far more than our share of the world's resources is a problem, but the fact that we were one of several nations that were aware of the environmental problems that we're facing was a positive. Unfortunately, because of poor leadership, we've lost our way. But I digress. My real point is that I can only do so much in my lifetime, but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and by helping them to raise good kids. Refusing to do so as some sort of righteous statement is ultimately self-defeating. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system. I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where people could live and produce food there without life support, with the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth. With a controlled population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty massive spaceflight/colonization initiative .. I'd like to see Mars colonised too, but it is not a solution to overpopulation. I can't see it ever being possible to send people to Mars at a faster rate than they are being born. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia wrote: Would you consider some excuses to be reasonable? Of course. The one I think is lame, though, is that they are somehow saving the planet by deciding not to have children. And, if responsible, enlightened people are having children, at what point do they get to decide how many is enough? Of course I'm not proposing that anyone be forced to do anything. I just think that the idea that a couple is being more responsible by _not_ having children is pure bulls__t unless there are real mitigating circumstances; if you don't have the means or the temperament or even the desire to have children. OK, that's what I was getting at -- I've heard too much about one friend's family of origin to *not* support her decision not to create another human being that would be forced into being related to that clusterf*** of a family. And, given that they raised her, she believes she does not have the ability to parent well. (She makes a great surrogate aunt to certain families; we don't see her very often, but every interaction she's had with my kids have been good, and she appreciates the effort I put into parenting.) So, I think that if we're not on the same page, at least we overlap by a paragraph or two. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] unfortunately, throughout history, it is the the best and the brightest who have perpetrated evils on the poor and downtrodden. there have been exceptions, but over and over again governments and religions have used their ideology or dogma to justify exploitation in the name of spreading civilization. again i ask, what gives any one the right to determine whose agenda is enlightened? what gives any religious schism the right to dictate reproduction, and/or a monopoly on values, ethics, or morality? jon I would love to see a summary of the good evil deeds that the best brightest have been responsible for over the years and contrast that with the deads of the worst dimmest, but it hasn't been done and I suspect it is impossible to do. What justification do you have for your assertion? I don't think Hitler or Pol Pot or Idi Amin would be classified as best brightest, do you? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
Bruce wrote: That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? Absolutely not, but I had the wherewithal to make that decision for myself. And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. I don't see very much merit there. That sounds like eugenics to me. All I'm saying is that if I believe I'm capable of raising good kids then it does not benefit society for me to decide not to do so. The corollary being that if you're capable of raising good kids and you decide not to because you think bringing another person into the world is harmful, I think you're fooling yourself and depriving the world of a good people. These are personal decisions, not to be dictated by religions or governments. If I were president of the world, I'd endeavor to set a good example. 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: the problem, doug, is that many undeveloped nations rich in resources are governed by despots who need to maintain an ignorant population in poverty so they can continue to use the wealth for their own purposes. when advanced societies enable this so they can continue their global trade advantage it is simply the new colonialism. how can you say we can't help the ver countries we are exploiting with our resources? it would only be just if advanced countries jointly used sanctions and other incentives to forve ALL oppressive governments to provide for their people. Because if we just send them resources 1) there's no assurance that they will receive them via a layer of corrupt bureaucrats and 2) even if they do receive those resources it teaches them nothing about how they can sustain themselves. Please understand that I am not opposed to humanitarian relief; I'm very much in favor of it, but it is not a long term solution. what do you believe can be done to catalyze human rights in those countries; pre-emptive attacks? To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has the power and the resources to correct severe problems. If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned and for good reason (see Iraq). Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
At 11:21 AM Saturday 7/26/2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 26 Jul 2008, at 16:49, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? The quiverfull beliefs are vile and perverted. Quiverfull authors such as Pride, Provan, and Hess extend this idea to mean that if one child is a blessing, then each additional child is likewise a blessing and not something to be viewed as economically burdensome or unaffordable. When a couple seeks to control family size via birth control they are thus rejecting God's blessings he might otherwise give, and possibly breaking his commandment to be fruitful and multiply. [1] [...] Thus, the key practice of a Quiverfull married couple is to not use any form of birth control and to maintain continual openness to children, to the possibility ofconception, during routine sexual intercourse irrespective of timing of the month during the ovulation cycle. This is considered by Quiverfull adherents to be a principal, if not the primary, aspect of their Christian calling in submission to the lordship of Christ. A healthy young Quiverfull couple might thereby have a baby every two years, meaning that as many as 10 children or more might be born during a couple's fertile years. [Ibid] [...] Quiverfull authors and adherents advocate for and seek to model a return to Biblical Patriarchy. Families are typically arranged with the mother as a homemaker under theauthority of her husband with the children under the authority of both. Parents seek to largely shelter their children from aspects of culture they as parents deem adversarial to their type of conservative Christianity. Additionally, Quiverfull families are strongly inclined toward homeschooling and homesteading in a rural area. [Ibid] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull You quoted the beliefs, but you failed to explain why the beliefs described in each quote are perverted. I presume you think the answer is self-evident, but for those of us dummies with IQs that fall slightly under 200 would you mind addressing each quote individually with the specific reason you find the beliefs presented in it perverted? (IOW, not just, It's a belief based on religion, and 'religion is evil and must be destroyed'.) TIA. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 02:35 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I just don't see it happening according to their script. Of those 8 or 10, how many are going to follow their parent's ideology lock step? How many will rebel and provide a backlash? How isolated can they remain in a society changing as rapidly as ours? Mormons have practiced something similar to this ideology for over a hundred years; are they taking over the world? In any case, what are we going to do about it? Tell them they can't have babies? Force them to educate their kids the way we think they should? What we really need is for responsible, intelligent, enlightened people to stop making excuses for _not_ having children. Doug are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage Specify damage. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 03:09 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, Perhaps that would be easier if reproduction were not so strongly linked to gratification . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
At 04:05 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: I get annoyed with people who think that mankind is a blight on the world and that the world would be a better place if homo sapiens dies out or civilisation totally collapses. That makes at least two of us. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 03:55 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed As the hot dog vendor said to the Zen master http://www.ouuf.org/Humor/zen.html: Change comes only from within. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 05:44 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has the power and the resources to correct severe problems. If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned and for good reason (see Iraq). I know I sure wouldn't have wanted Saddam Hussein and his sons and other relatives and cronies running the world the way they ran Iraq. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
are you suggesting it is rational to have more enlightened children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage Specify damage. . . . ronn! :) religious cults that charge their flock to multiply in order to fulfill some principle ordained by a deity are committed to expanding population growth at an exponential rate that will have drastic effects on the planet as a whole. anyone who promotes that sort of irresponsibility withour regard for other species of plant and animal life irritate me no end. what makes homo sapiens so special that they have the right to destroy each other and other species as well? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
memes, or genes...
You quoted the beliefs, but you failed to explain why the beliefs described in each quote are perverted. I presume you think the answer is self-evident, but for those of us dummies with IQs that fall slightly under 200 would you mind addressing each quote individually with the specific reason you find the beliefs presented in it perverted? (IOW, not just, It's a belief based on religion, and 'religion is evil and must be destroyed'.) TIA. . . . ronn! :) One way to win an argument is to nit pick your opponent to death. My I.Q. is closer to 100 than 200, and I get it, Ronn. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
At 07:17 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: You quoted the beliefs, but you failed to explain why the beliefs described in each quote are perverted. I presume you think the answer is self-evident, but for those of us dummies with IQs that fall slightly under 200 would you mind addressing each quote individually with the specific reason you find the beliefs presented in it perverted? (IOW, not just, It's a belief based on religion, and 'religion is evil and must be destroyed'.) TIA. . . . ronn! :) One way to win an argument is to nit pick your opponent to death. My I.Q. is closer to 100 than 200, and I get it, Ronn. Jon Oh, I get it, all right. William is a very intelligent person with some interesting things to say on many topics, but he has a knee-jerk one-note answer when it comes to anything that has to do with religion, spiritual matters, or anything like that, and I'm calling on him to actually justify it instead. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 07:12 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: are you suggesting it is rational to have more enlightened children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage Specify damage. . . . ronn! :) religious cults that charge their flock to multiply in order to fulfill some principle ordained by a deity are committed to expanding population growth at an exponential rate that will have drastic effects on the planet as a whole. anyone who promotes that sort of irresponsibility withour regard for other species of plant and animal life irritate me no end. what makes homo sapiens so special that they have the right to destroy each other and other species as well? jon See my response to Wayne. Clearly YM does V. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Neo-Colonialism
Because if we just send them resources 1) there's no assurance that they will receive them via a layer of corrupt bureaucrats and 2) even if they do receive those resources it teaches them nothing about how they can sustain themselves. Please understand that I am not opposed to humanitarian relief; I'm very much in favor of it, but it is not a long term solution.I guess you skimmed over the part where I said advanced countries (especially those who profit from trade with these nations) should jointly impose sanctions and other incentives to force oppressive governments to provide for their own people. (in the same manner as uplift species have an obligation to improve the lot of their client species.) what do you believe can be done to catalyze human rights in those countries; pre-emptive attacks? To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has the power and the resources to correct severe problems. If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned and for good reason (see Iraq). Doug the global economy has been structured to maintain the historical status quo of the rich feeding off the poor. the united nations, world bank and other international institutions could do a lot more to correct those inequities, and make sure relief is targe to those who need it. i used the model of pre-emptive attack against iraq as a prime example of how the most powerful nation in the world attempted to use its power to corner iraq's oil under the guise of opening them up to democracy.jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis 1:28
I would love to see a summary of the good evil deeds that the best brightest have been responsible for over the years and contrast that with the deads of the worst dimmest, but it hasn't been done and I suspect it is impossible to do. What justification do you have for your assertion? I don't think Hitler or Pol Pot or Idi Amin would be classified as best brightest, do you? Regards, Wayne. i believe someone already explained how that was exemplified by america's involvement in vietnam. there are many other examples of how u.s. foreign policy has been an instrument of evil, maybe not on a level with alexander, julius caesar, stalin, mao, or pol pot, et al, but certainly not altruistic as claimed by bushco and company. cetainly savage barbariansm such as idi amin and hitler, consider themselves to be the best and the brightest as they engage in genocide. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
memes, or genes...
One way to win an argument is to nit pick your opponent to death. My I.Q. is closer to 100 than 200, and I get it, Ronn. Jon Oh, I get it, all right. William is a very intelligent person with some interesting things to say on many topics, but he has a knee-jerk one-note answer when it comes to anything that has to do with religion, spiritual matters, or anything like that, and I'm calling on him to actually justify it instead. . . . ronn! :) i figured you were pulling his chain, but william is right, if a bit of a zealot agains religion. better that than the opposite... jon! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
So if its a numbers game, how do you win by not having children? actually you lose by having too many children and overpopulating the planet... the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming so much and put more revenues into an enlightened' educational system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources. I agree with that argument. But if I don't have kids and get them to believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe when I pass? Do you think you and I are going to change everyone else's mind in the next few years? no, but neither is realistic to expect enlightened advocates to change any minds. better to focus on solutions that have a chance of working. you can't assume that the force of numbers can always outweigh the power of ideas. if that were the case we would never have progressed beyond the dark ages. it is far easier to change the world now than it was during feudal times. there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive. If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. And you'll find that we were the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted to come here or, that they wanted to emulate our society. That we use far more than our share of the world's resources is a problem, but the fact that we were one of several nations that were aware of the environmental problems that we're facing was a positive. Unfortunately, because of poor leadership, we've lost our way. you ahve got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened the gap between haves and have nots far more than under clinton. But I digress. My real point is that I can only do so much in my lifetime, but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and by helping them to raise good kids. Refusing to do so as some sort of righteous statement is ultimately self-defeating. Doug i have sired two sons and endeavoured to teach them the consequences of overpopulation and greed. i won't be around to see what happens to their generation as a result of the legacy of materialism they have inherited. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On Jul 26, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:09 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, Perhaps that would be easier if reproduction were not so strongly linked to gratification . . . . . . ronn! :) You do have a point there. :) (Although the gratification need not necessarily be linked to reproduction. Modern technology can sometimes be very helpful in that regard.) This is an amazing honor. I want you to know that I spend so much time in the world that is spinning all the time, that to be in the no- spin zone actually gives me vertigo. -- Stephen Colbert during an interview on FOX News, The O'Reilly Factor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Jul 26, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:17 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: You quoted the beliefs, but you failed to explain why the beliefs described in each quote are perverted. I presume you think the answer is self-evident, but for those of us dummies with IQs that fall slightly under 200 would you mind addressing each quote individually with the specific reason you find the beliefs presented in it perverted? (IOW, not just, It's a belief based on religion, and 'religion is evil and must be destroyed'.) TIA. . . . ronn! :) One way to win an argument is to nit pick your opponent to death. My I.Q. is closer to 100 than 200, and I get it, Ronn. Jon Oh, I get it, all right. William is a very intelligent person with some interesting things to say on many topics, but he has a knee-jerk one-note answer when it comes to anything that has to do with religion, spiritual matters, or anything like that, and I'm calling on him to actually justify it instead. . . . ronn! :) The religious movement currently under discussion is one with a fairly well documented history of unhealthy behaviors including enabling, perpetuating, and interfering with investigation of a continuous multigenerational cycle of almost all imaginable forms of child abuse, coercive fund=raising practices that in some cases take more than half of the incomes of a majority of the congregation and often resort to private investigators to shake down holdouts, rampant and egregious use of their ministries to promote right-wing political agendas, and even organized takeovers of churches from other more moderate denominations. They use the language, trappings, and symbolism of Christianity, but they are actually Bible based cults tied together in a loose leaderless-cell organization with theocratic ambitions. All of this is thoroughly researched. I do, however, concede your point in that that discussion is not about religion or anything spiritual, at least not in the commonly understood definition of those words. It is about something pretending to be religion, that is destructive in exactly the ways religion is constructive. And if there is anyhing perverted, I would think that would be the very definition of the word .. religion should feed the soul, not feed *on* it. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed. -- M. L. King ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
I agree with Doug. If people only raised the number of children they were able to support nuture AND everyone one was in a position to know that number AND if everyone was able to ensure they didn't have more than that number, we would end up with the appropriate world population, and far less suffering. What's more a lot of people are probably well off today because their parents and grand parents made good decisions about the number of offspring they could support. Regards, Wayne. if only people who could afford to reproduce did, who would do all the work? certainly not paris hilton!~) the present generation of young adults have a sense of entitlement and completely different work ethic than my parents who survived the depression and came from large families. my granfather needed every one of his surviving children to work the farm in olds, alberta, canada. the house he built for his family at the end of the 19th century is now a historical monument. my father helped build the grand coulee dam and worked two jobs most of his adult life. you do not see this sort of work ethic from today's kids who often live in their parents' basement and spend their disposable income on fashion, video games, and entertainment, etc. after i served in the navy my youth was misspent pursuing sex, drugs and rock roll. gas was cheap and the power of the dollar made it possible for me to work six months after college and save enough to travel the world for three years. then i fathered a child in 1972 and suddenly woke up to the responsibility of adulthood. that responsibility was all i could handle until my son was grown. at 36 he still has not fathered a child. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Neo-Colonialism
- Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:32 AM Subject: Neo-Colonialism the global economy has been structured to maintain the historical status quo of the rich feeding off the poor. the united nations, world bank and other international institutions could do a lot more to correct those inequities, and make sure relief is targe to those who need it. I've never believed in conspiracies. Greed - sure, incompetance - yes, indifference - yep, fear - yes that too, but not in global conspiracies orchestrated by a powerful few. I think the global economy is what it is, because of the sum of everybody's individual actions, both in rich countries and in poor countries. I don't think it has been structured. I think it has evolved. i used the model of pre-emptive attack against iraq as a prime example of how the most powerful nation in the world attempted to use its power to corner iraq's oil under the guise of opening them up to democracy.jon I think the US went into Iraq for multiple (mostly bad) reasons. I don't think it was anywhere as simple as, lets go in to get the oil. I think that is a way to simplistic theory. The world and human behavior is very complex - no doubt beyond the analysis of even a Hari Seldon. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
memes, or genes...
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of evil or reprehensible. The post didn't say anything about gene banks, it talked about keeping wild humans. I get annoyed with people who think that mankind is a blight on the world and that the world would be a better place if homo sapiens dies out or civilisation totally collapses. There is nothing desirable about sentient beings, dying, getting sick, growing old, getting eaten or generally suffering when there is an alternative. The sooner we can go post human the better. If someone wants to revert to the old style genome when they turn 18 fair enough, but kids shouldn't have that choice made for them by their parents, Regards, Wayne. if parents don't make that choice we won't become post human. the best time to fiddle with genes is in the womb, or before, not after. if some decide not to meddle, and only procreate as wild humans, that is their choice. i expect they will die out in time as their offspring are left behind. i believe it is of paramount importance that humanity stores as many as possible diverse genotypes of all species of plant and animal life. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genesis
I might. There, I said it. If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, I wouldn't suggest that. But this species has proven time and time again that the majority of its individuals do, in fact, act only on a motivation of immediate self-gratification and very often completely counter to collective benefit, even in the case of driving a population explosion that continuously paces or exceeds our best efforts at meeting demands for basic necessities such as food and shelter, and in the case of creating gross inequities in wealth that make virtual Olympic god-kings out of the wealthiest one percent or so, and exploit and starve large numbers of other people in the poorest parts of the world. And one big factor of this is a perceived right to reproduce that is common to most cultures, our own included, that makes it seem abhorrent to place any restrictions on how many children any family may have. China has its back farther up against the wall than many other countries, and even with its massive population and the strains on its natural resources, it has to fight the perception that its one- child-per-family policy is some sort of assault on its citizens' civil rights. Yes, if I were to become dictator of the world, placing restrictions on who was and was not allowed to have children would be on the table. I'd likely be despised and hated for it, but I'd still at least consider it, if only to give us some fighting chance of a managed population decrease. Reduce the earth's population to 1-2 billion or so, with the knowledge we now have of agriculture and food production, and earth becomes close to a utopia. The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system. I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where people could live and produce food there without life support, with the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth. With a controlled population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty massive spaceflight/colonization initiative. it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the collapse of civilization. either way, it serves us right for letting things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide collapse. the irony is that many of those who benefited from that malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: if parents don't make that choice we won't become post human. the best time to fiddle with genes is in the womb, or before, not after. if some decide not to meddle, and only procreate as wild humans, that is their choice. i expect they will die out in time as their offspring are left behind. In the cautionary tale realm, I'm flashing on _Beggars in Spain_, and specifically, the babies engineered not to sleep. Anyone who's dealt with infant twins can tell you that could be a bad idea in the short term. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Neo-Colonialism
I've never believed in conspiracies. Greed - sure, incompetance - yes, indifference - yep, fear - yes that too, but not in global conspiracies orchestrated by a powerful few. I think the global economy is what it is, because of the sum of everybody's individual actions, both in rich countries and in poor countries. I don't think it has been structured. I think it has evolved. I think the US went into Iraq for multiple (mostly bad) reasons. I don't think it was anywhere as simple as, lets go in to get the oil. I think that is a way to simplistic theory. The world and human behavior is very complex - no doubt beyond the analysis of even a Hari Seldon. Regards, Wayne. i am not saying there is a global conspiracy, wayne. bush/cheney are opportunists who fubared the global economy through sheer incompetence. the structure of haves and have nots is the human condition, it is instinctual. our species evolved by being competitive. other species survive by being cooperative. natural selection rewards those who are ruthless. don't discount oil as a motive. we would not have invaded iraq otherwise. we went into vietnam for their resources, also. most wars are fought over control of trade. religion, idealogy and wmd, etc. are just pretexts that governments use to galvanize their population. cheney/bush had planned on going after saddam before 9/11. they saw an opportunity and took it. they used fear and hate of the other to further their greed and lust for power. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
Jon Louis Mann wrote: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. surely you don't believe that gawd created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth? OTOH, if this command should be taken _literally_, then it already has been fulfilled. Man _was_ fruitful, replenished the earth and subdued it. Now it's the time to stop! Alberto the hypocrite ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On 27 Jul 2008, at 00:31, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 11:21 AM Saturday 7/26/2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 26 Jul 2008, at 16:49, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists? What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? The quiverfull beliefs are vile and perverted. Quiverfull authors such as Pride, Provan, and Hess extend this idea to mean that if one child is a blessing, then each additional child is likewise a blessing and not something to be viewed as economically burdensome or unaffordable. When a couple seeks to control family size via birth control they are thus rejecting God's blessings he might otherwise give, and possibly breaking his commandment to be fruitful and multiply. [1] Having as many children as physically possible without regard for the ability to provide for them or give them the necessary support as required by the norms of the society one lives in is irresponsible and wicked. Shoes, college funds, that kind of thing. [...] Thus, the key practice of a Quiverfull married couple is to not use any form of birth control and to maintain continual openness to children, to the possibility ofconception, during routine sexual intercourse irrespective of timing of the month during the ovulation cycle. This is considered by Quiverfull adherents to be a principal, if not the primary, aspect of their Christian calling in submission to the lordship of Christ. A healthy young Quiverfull couple might thereby have a baby every two years, meaning that as many as 10 children or more might be born during a couple's fertile years. [Ibid] Weird kinky sexual perversions about sex/breeding between consenting adults are OK but if the side-effect is producing children who cannot be properly provided for then it is evil. It's always men who lead these 'barefoot and pregnant' cults. [...] Quiverfull authors and adherents advocate for and seek to model a return to Biblical Patriarchy. Families are typically arranged with the mother as a homemaker under theauthority of her husband with the children under the authority of both. Parents seek to largely shelter their children from aspects of culture they as parents deem adversarial to their type of conservative Christianity. Additionally, Quiverfull families are strongly inclined toward homeschooling and homesteading in a rural area. [Ibid] Patriarchy is evil. Matriarchy is evil. Sexism is evil. Racism is evil. Any system of belief that holds that a person's role in life is determined by their gender, colour, or sexual orientation rather than their own needs and abilities is evil. Attempting to indoctrinate children into cults is evil. You quoted the beliefs, but you failed to explain why the beliefs described in each quote are perverted. I presume you think the answer is self-evident, but for those of us dummies with IQs that fall slightly under 200 would you mind addressing each quote individually with the specific reason you find the beliefs presented in it perverted? (IOW, not just, It's a belief based on religion, and 'religion is evil and must be destroyed'.) Explanation Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On 27 Jul 2008, at 01:26, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:17 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: You quoted the beliefs, but you failed to explain why the beliefs described in each quote are perverted. I presume you think the answer is self-evident, but for those of us dummies with IQs that fall slightly under 200 would you mind addressing each quote individually with the specific reason you find the beliefs presented in it perverted? (IOW, not just, It's a belief based on religion, and 'religion is evil and must be destroyed'.) TIA. . . . ronn! :) One way to win an argument is to nit pick your opponent to death. My I.Q. is closer to 100 than 200, and I get it, Ronn. Jon Oh, I get it, all right. William is a very intelligent person with some interesting things to say on many topics, but he has a knee-jerk one-note answer when it comes to anything that has to do with religion, spiritual matters, or anything like that, and I'm calling on him to actually justify it instead. Nonsense only requires one answer. Enough Maru. The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
At 07:48 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: One way to win an argument is to nit pick your opponent to death. My I.Q. is closer to 100 than 200, and I get it, Ronn. Jon Oh, I get it, all right. William is a very intelligent person with some interesting things to say on many topics, but he has a knee-jerk one-note answer when it comes to anything that has to do with religion, spiritual matters, or anything like that, and I'm calling on him to actually justify it instead. . . . ronn! :) i figured you were pulling his chain, but william is right, if^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a bit of a zealot agains religion. :P better that than the opposite... jon! . . . ronn! :D Everybody is entitled to his own ridiculous opinion. -- W. C. Widenhouse, Capt., USAF, ca. 1977 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 08:01 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: So if its a numbers game, how do you win by not having children? actually you lose by having too many children and overpopulating the planet... the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming so much and put more revenues into an enlightened' educational system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources. I agree with that argument. But if I don't have kids and get them to believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe when I pass? Do you think you and I are going to change everyone else's mind in the next few years? no, but neither is realistic to expect enlightened advocates to change any minds. better to focus on solutions that have a chance of working. you can't assume that the force of numbers can always outweigh the power of ideas. if that were the case we would never have progressed beyond the dark ages. it is far easier to change the world now than it was during feudal times. there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive. * If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. * And you'll find that we were the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted to come here or, that they wanted to emulate our society. That we use far more than our share of the world's resources is a problem, but the fact that we were one of several nations that were aware of the environmental problems that we're facing was a positive. Unfortunately, because of poor leadership, we've lost our way. you ahve got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened the gap between haves and have nots far more than under clinton. Isn't that exactly what he said? (See the first sentence.) But I digress. My real point is that I can only do so much in my lifetime, but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and by helping them to raise good kids. Refusing to do so as some sort of righteous statement is ultimately self-defeating. Doug i have sired two sons and endeavoured to teach them the consequences of overpopulation and greed. i won't be around to see what happens to their generation as a result of the legacy of materialism they have inherited. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
At 09:47 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, William T Goodall wrote: Nonsense only requires one answer. As does knee-jerk prejudice. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush Presidency
* If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. * you've got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened the gap between haves and have nots far more than under clinton. Isn't that exactly what he said? (See the first sentence.) . . . ronn! :) You are absolutely right Ronn, this time I was the one who skimmed what was posted adn got it backwards... Jon:) Click here: YouTube - Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Presidency ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush Presidency
Click here: YouTube - Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Presidency Whoops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQK3RojM-Q ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Genesis it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the collapse of civilization. either way, it serves us right for letting things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide collapse. the irony is that many of those who benefited from that malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse. jon Which impending worldwide collapse? Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are worth your pity? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
cults and patriarchy
William T Goodall wrote: Having as many children as physically possible without regard for the ability to provide for them or give them the necessary support as required by the norms of the society one lives in is irresponsible and wicked. Shoes, college funds, that kind of thing. Weird kinky sexual perversions about sex/breeding between consenting adults are OK but if the side-effect is producing children who cannot be properly provided for then it is evil. It's always men who lead these 'barefoot and pregnant' cults. Patriarchy is evil. Matriarchy is evil. Sexism is evil. Racism is evil. Any system of belief that holds that a person's role in life is determined by their gender, colour, or sexual orientation rather than their own needs and abilities is evil. Attempting to indoctrinate children into cults is evil. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. Having as many children as physically possible only to program them to be subservient to patriarchal religious morality is evil, whether or not the children are fed and sheltered. Not sure about matriarchal hierarchies... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 11:52 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Genesis it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the collapse of civilization. either way, it serves us right for letting things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide collapse. the irony is that many of those who benefited from that malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse. jon Which impending worldwide collapse? Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are worth your pity? I know quite a few nice people who live here in flyover country. Of course, some might think the main reason they deserve pity is because they truly believe in God and as a result try to live according to the Golden Rule and other things Jesus said in the scriptures . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush Presidency
Which impending worldwide collapse? Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are worth your pity? Regards, Wayne There are more than a few Wayne. It wasn't just the heartland who voted for Bush/Cheney. I don't know when the collapse will occur. The current recession may be a precursor, or just another stock market correction. I am not optimistic that the collapse can be prevented. Obama may be able to stave off collapse for awhile, and undo some of the damage created by BC. Perhaps he can even change the course of American policy to be less militaristic. Bush's use of deficit financing not only subsidized the pre=emptive invasion of Iraq but went a long way to destroying America's infrastructure. It has brought American economy closer to the brink of financial collapse. You can not say that Bush and Cheney are not directly responsible for accelerating the energy crisis, and obscene profits for their cronys in the oil industry. There are other causes that led to the rapid increase in oil prices, but certainly the imperatives of Bush's aggressive race toward war is a major factor. Jon “Ninety percent of science fiction is crud, but then ninety percent of everything is crud” Sturgeon's Law ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
