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
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 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: 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 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
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
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
