Ante-natal classes

[Andrew D]

You have been deliberately mischaracterizing my position for years, Crackpot. You are continuing to do so.

I have been arguing for years that we need to do something about human overpopulation precisely (in part) to avoid such draconian policies as forced abortions and forced sterilizations. I have made the point again and again and again that we need to adopt "rational and humane" policies -- a phrase I have employed time after time after time -- so that we can avoid the kinds of things that the PRC has already done and which many other nations will do if we don't avert the looming crisis.

But you don't care what I have actually written. You care only about what you wish that I had written. And the reason for that is plain for everyone to see: You cannot support your position with facts and reasoning, so you are reduced to lying about mine.

If you ever decide to engaging the actual issues presented rather than twisting my position into something it has never been -- you really do have reading-comprehension difficulties; just look at your gaping incomprehension of the omnipotence problem -- get back to me. Until then, just keep on spewing shit. After all, this is a free-speech board, so there is no limit to the quantum of your idiocy which the rest of us will tolerate.

[Crackpot]

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.p ... #msg501318

These people are walking arguments for involuntary sterilization.

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.p ... #msg501546

No. They should be condemned for the crime against humanity that is having nineteen children.

It doesn't much matter that they're apparently paying their own way. (When those who don't, like the Octomom, sponge off of the rest of us, that adds insult to injury, but the injury is the same regardless.)

We are all in the same lifeboat, and people like these are doing their best to capsize it. They should be thrown overboard and left to the sharks.

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.p ... #msg501561

The couple in question, Crackpot, are enemies of the entire human species. Only people who hate humanity breed like that. No morally developed person deliberately has more than two offspring.

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.p ... #msg501596

No, you don't need to go beyond the obvious, Crackpot.

It is obvious to everyone who thinks that deliberately having more than two offspring is evil.

QED.

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.p ... #msg501714

Deliberately having more than two offspring is evil. All of us know it. The end.

While it does look like I have erred on the mandatory sterilization charge (I really thought you had made that charge at some point (other than the probable hyperbole quoted) but from what I can find you don't support that position though I wound't put it past you when you're in your excessively contrarian moods) it stands that you are outspoken and overly combative whenever the situation comes up.

THough i must say after I left the quoted discussion you finally did outline some rather reasonable responses though I disagree some of your conclusions

[Andrew D]

Yes, well, you conveniently omitted salient portions of that discussion. Such as this one:

In my judgment, we are heading rapidly toward catastrophe. If we do not take rational and humane steps to reduce our population, it will be reduced by other means. It might be reduced by war, as when millions of starving Chinese invade their neighbors in search of sustenance, thereby triggering a nuclear holocaust. It might happen by famine, as when the rich countries decide that they can feed only themselves and slam the doors on the poor countries. It might happen by thirst, as when the available supplies of fresh water are no longer enough to give everyone enough to drink, and the people of the countries that cannot afford desalination just dry up and die. It might happen by any of various other means, in any of various combinations. But however it happens, it won't be pretty.

And this one:

Step one should be, in my judgment, to make the means available to them. There is a widespread perception in the developed world that most people in the developing world have numerous children because they want to. And there is considerable truth to that: Many people, lamentably, still live in conditions such that having numerous children is an economic advantage, and choosing to have few or even no children amounts to economic suicide.

But that is not true everywhere. Many people in the developing world -- and surveys, especially among women, have repeatedly borne this out -- do not want to have numerous children. But they have no realistic alternative. The abstinence option is just silly. The realistic alternatives are various forms of birth control. But if one lives somewhere where one has no access to condoms or birth-control pills or diaphragms or whatever, or if one has no money to purchase whatever of those might be available, all the education in the world is going to accomplish nothing.

Which is why we in the rich countries should be paying for this. There are evidently millions of people in the developing world who would happily practice contraception, but they can't. We can fix that. And we should.

And this one:

[Quote from: Big RR on December 17, 2009, 01:29:45 PM]
Because, failing voluntary controls on growth, at some time it may cease to remain a personal choice; that's a day I dread, but it could come.

Exactly. I also dread that day. I don't want governments to end up telling people how many children they can have; I want us to figure out what we can do now, before governments, assuming that they want to ensure the survival of their governed populations, start (at least, the ones that haven't already started) telling people how many children they can have. Which is exactly why I have been asking what people think about how we can prevent that dreadful day from ever coming about.

Etc.

The "reasonable responses" which I "finally" outlined are the same positions which I had espoused the time before. And the time before that. And the time before that. And ....

But I'm not much interested in playing decontextualize-the-quotation. The point remains what it always has been: Either we formulate and implement rational and humane methods of reducing the human population, or the human population gets reduced by irrational and/or inhumane means. You appear to prefer the latter. I do not.

[Crackpot]

That's what you keep missing about what I'm saying. Which is nothing more than overpopulation is a localized issue and should be addressed as such further depressing the birth rate in countries where it is already sluggish doesn't help the global problem because it merely creates a the illusion of a relief valve for where it is a problem.

The "reasonable responses" which I "finally" outlined are the same positions which I had espoused the time before. And the time before that. And the time before that. And ....

Sorry but what you quoted there and what I quoted above are not the same. One is outlining a rational plan the other is a dogmatic declaration of morality.

And no I don't desire your "inhumane" means, but war, (civil or otherwise) will likely a be the outcome in states that refuse to take steps to control their populations. It is a fact that war (of some sort) erupts when resources become limited. while that may be undesired it makes more sense than ceding ground to their irresponsible ways to prevent it.

[Scooter]

That's what you keep missing about what I'm saying. Which is nothing more than overpopulation is a localized issue and should be addressed as such further depressing the birth rate in countries where it is already sluggish doesn't help the global problem because it merely creates a the illusion of a relief valve for where it is a problem.

You have it precisely backwards. The problem of overpopulation isn't about how many bodies are occupying a particular space, it's about how many resources are consumed by those bodies. Avoiding one birth in the developed world will contribute to solving that resource problem as much as avoiding five or six (perhaps more) births in the developing world.

[Crackpot]

so the goal is to globally lower the standard of living?

[Scooter]

The goal is to have as many resources as possible available for each person on the planet.

[Crackpot]

That would be better achieved through conservation, renewable resources, and better eating habits than wiping out the first world wouldn't you think?

[Scooter]

Who said anything about wiping out the first world? The first world was built by immigration its indigenous populations were really wiped out; immigration could help repopulate it again long before there was any sort of population crisis.

[Crackpot]

First

Only in the US, Canada and AUS, as far as the first worlders go. (and the extent of their being "wiped out" is debatable) Western Europe and Japan are pretty much native.

Second

Immigration to the first world alone can't and won't solve the problem.

Third

Immigration is only successful to the degree that the immigrants are willing to assimilate into their new culture. (No, I am not talking about total assimilation but one must be dense to not see the problems Western Europe is experiencing (to varying degrees) in this regard.)

And lastly

Who said anything about wiping out the first world?

Missing my hyperbole aside...

You were the one that said we could have 6 2nd and 3rd world people for every first worlder, standard of living be damned.

I Just think we can achieve a high standard of living as well as a stable sustainable global population to the extent that those who are willing to invest in it.

[Scooter]

First

Only in the US, Canada and AUS, as far as the first worlders go. (and the extent of their being "wiped out" is debatable) Western Europe and Japan are pretty much native.

Go back a couple of thousand years, or even less. Who is living there now is not who was living there then.

Second

Immigration to the first world alone can't and won't solve the problem.

Still not clear on what this alleged "problem" is...

Third

Immigration is only successful to the degree that the immigrants are willing to assimilate into their new culture.

Depends on whose perspective. Norman immigrants to England after the Conquest weren't particularly interested in assimilating. England was a hell of a lot better off by 1400 than it would have been had the Conquest never happened.

By your definition, the societies created in the Americas by European immigration have been complete failures (because European settlers most emphatically did not "assimilate" into their new surroundings).

You were the one that said we could have 6 2nd and 3rd world people for every first worlder, standard of living be damned.

I never said anything of the sort.

Reducing the birth rate in Western Europe, North America, Japan, etc. would not damage the standard of living in those countries at all.

But lowering the birth rate in those countries will free up more resources than the same reduction in the birth rate happening in Africa.

I Just think we can achieve a high standard of living as well as a stable sustainable global population to the extent that those who are willing to invest in it.

Perhaps if that was actually a coherent sentence I might be able to agree with it.

[Crackpot]

Go back a couple of thousand years, or even less. Who is living there now is not who was living there then.

As we were speaking in terms of modern countries I had assumed we were speaking in terms of the last 500 or so years depending on the age of the current country and form of governance.

Still not clear on what this alleged "problem" is...

You were unaware you stepped into a discussion on overpopulation?

You were the one that said we could have 6 2nd and 3rd world people for every first worlder, standard of living be damned.

I never said anything of the sort.

you said:

Avoiding one birth in the developed world will contribute to solving that resource problem as much as avoiding five or six (perhaps more) births in the developing world.

That combined with your seeming lack of interest in corresponding standard of living lead me to believe that was a valid characterization.

Reducing the birth rate in Western Europe, North America, Japan, etc. would not damage the standard of living in those countries at all.

Depends on the amount you're talking about. most of those are already below 1 for 1 less immigration.

But lowering the birth rate in those countries will free up more resources than the same reduction in the birth rate happening in Africa.

Resources available to whom? The first world already has abundant resources and people are immigrating to partake of them. Unfortunately as history has proven simply trowing excess resources at those in need does little (and sometimes unfortunately hinders the process) due to political issues at their destinations.

I Just think we can achieve a high standard of living as well as a stable sustainable global population to the extent that those who are willing to invest in it.

Perhaps if that was actually a coherent sentence I might be able to agree with it.

I wasn't the one jumping in on a discussion without reading up on what had been said previously.

[rubato]

Give to Planned Parenthood. They help to reduce unwanted fertility and ensure that wanted children are better cared for.

Give to organizations which provide birth control and health education to woman in 3rd world countries. Educating and empowering women has the largest effect on reducing fertility.



yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

I was quite aware of what I was responding to and how I responded to it. Pity that you chose, as you are wont to do, to read something into my response that simply wasn't there.

[Crackpot]

cross posted

I Just think we can achieve a high standard of living as well as a stable sustainable global population to the extent that those who are willing to invest in it.

Perhaps if that was actually a coherent sentence I might be able to agree with it.

I wasn't the one jumping in on a discussion without reading up on what had been said previously.

That may have been uncalled for often my punctuation isn't up to snuff often rendering my thoughts murky.

let me try it again:
I think we can achieve a high standard of living as well as a stable sustainable global population. Unfortunately that is limited by those who are unwilling (for whatever reason) to work toward that goal.

[Crackpot]

I was quite aware of what I was responding to and how I responded to it. Pity that you chose, as you are wont to do, to read something into my response that simply wasn't there.

Perhaps you too are being unclear.

[Scooter]

Mayhap I was. And mayhap reading into this:

Avoiding one birth in the developed world will contribute to solving that resource problem as much as avoiding five or six (perhaps more) births in the developing world.

any implication that anyone should be lowering their standard of living is the product of an overimaginative mind.

[Andrew D]

That's what you keep missing about what I'm saying. Which is nothing more than overpopulation is a localized issue and should be addressed as such further depressing the birth rate in countries where it is already sluggish doesn't help the global problem because it merely creates a the illusion of a relief valve for where it is a problem.

You have it precisely backwards. The problem of overpopulation isn't about how many bodies are occupying a particular space, it's about how many resources are consumed by those bodies. Avoiding one birth in the developed world will contribute to solving that resource problem as much as avoiding five or six (perhaps more) births in the developing world.

The goal is to have as many resources as possible available for each person on the planet.

A crucial component of "hav[ing] as many resources as possible available for each person on the planet" is reducing the total number of people on the planet. Even if the resources were divded among us with perfect equality -- which doesn't seem to be in the offing any time soon -- the size of each slice of the pie depends on how many slices we have to cut. Each person gets a lot more resources if a finite pool of total resources is divded evenly among one billion people than if it is divided among nine billion people.

And the resources are simply petering out. Fisheries are declining, and their rates of decline are increasing. Fresh water is getting harder and harder to come by, which is turning once-great agricultural areas into deserts and/or chemical swamps. California's Central Valley, one of the world's great agricultural-production areas, is just plain dying: The water table is steadily dropping, the heavy-metal-contaminant load is steadily rising, etc. And so on.

And then there is the matter of what people discharge as well as of what they consume. As I demonstrated not long ago, even if we could reduce our per capita output of greenhouses gases by one-third between now and 2050 -- an unlikely achievement, especially considering the populous countries whose per capita emissions of greenhouse gases are growing rapidly -- unless we do something about population growth, our total output of greenhouse gases will be exactly what it is today. In other words, our herculean efforts will have accomplished exactly nothing.

We cannot go on like this -- not if we want a reasonable and sustainable standard of living for ourselves, our loved ones, our posterity, and the rest of our fellow human beings. Whether the human population of our planet will be reduced is not a serious question; it will. The serious questions are when and, most importantly, how.

[dales]

I love my two daughters and delight how they have grown into mature young women.

[Andrew D]

So do you want them to inherit a planet that has been turned into a wasteland?

I love my godchildren. I delight in how the three of them who are adults have grown into mature young woman and men. (The oldest of the adult three is a woman; the younger two of those three are men.)

My youngest godchild is one of my nephews. Both of my nephews (the one who is one of my godchildren and the one who is not) are growing, much to my delight, into mature young men. (They just have a way to go yet.)

(By the way, my second-oldest godchild -- my oldest godson -- has been diagnosed with cancer. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He is undergoing chemotherapy. It seems to be working well. But one never knows. He is 24. Prayers, positive thoughts, and anything else that anyone chooses to offer will be greatly appreciated.

((Even by an agnostic. As an agnostic, I can pray genuinely, because I recognize that the God to whom I am praying may actually exist. Anyway, whatever you might think about my beliefs, and whatever resentments I may have engendered by my postings about various religious institutions, please do not let them get in the way. Colin is perfectly innocent of whatever my sins may be.))

We should be looking out for our children, nieces , nephews, cousins, godchildren, etc. But the question that circumstances urgently present to us is how we should be doing so.

I think that what we ought to do is implement rational and humane policies designed to reduce human population. (E.g., universally available contraception.) Unfortunately, millions of people and hosts of socio-cultural institutions (religious and otherwise) seem hell-bent on propelling us in the opposite direction.

Which do you prefer?