An argument for forced sterlization

[Yahzi]

http://www.alternet.org/story/44254/

Pastor Heneghan of Gospel Community Church sees the issue of population growth in more biblical terms, specifically those taken from Genesis and Revelation. "Some people think that what I'm doing -- having 11 children -- is wrong. I don't really get into that much. The Bible says 'be fruitful and multiply.' That's my belief system. They don't believe in God, so they think we have to conserve what we have. But in my belief system, He's going to give us a new earth." Overpopulation isn't a problem in a universe where God promises a clean global slate.
And people keep asking how religion harms me.

[Beth]

And this shows religion has harmed you how?

[jimlintott]

The Bible says 'be fruitful and multiply.'

He is completely misinterpreting this passage. God is actually asking for more gay mathematicians.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

This guy has mad a biblical argument for allowing for environmental degredation. How is it moral to render the planet unlivable for most species on this planet including our own? But hey, if the rapture is going to happen anyway, why not go hog wild!!!! Do religious people have to fv<k everything up?

[joobz]

He is completely misinterpreting this passage. God is actually asking for more gay mathematicians.

Sir, I'm taking you to court. You owe me one new keyboard.:D

[Minarvia]

An argument for forced sterilization - Sylvia Browne.


Okay, I couldn't resist!

[crucial_fiction]

Sir, I'm taking you to court. You owe me one new keyboard.:D

we just need a couple of others, then we can go class action on him!

[I less than three logic]

we just need a couple of others, then we can go class action on him!
Count me in as well. :D

[I less than three logic]

And this shows religion has harmed you how?
Well, I can’t speak for Yahzi, but reading such nonsense and willful ignorance tends to give me a headache.

[thomps1d]

And this shows religion has harmed you how?

Unless the fellow that was quoted was hitting the OP with a hammer at the time he made the quote, there's no direct harm in the quote. The harm comes in when that attitude is considered over time.

Why worry about overpopulation/pollution/depletion of natural resources/global warming/insert major environmental issue here if God will make it all better?

Why research alternative fuels if you think that God will just do a cosmic refuelling of the earth when global oil supplies run low? Why bother adhering to Kyoto protocols or even generally attempting to lower harmful emissions if God is going to place a big old divine band-aid on the atmosphere when it becomes too damaged?

If just one or two nutballs hold these opinions, even the indirect harm is small. However, this sort of attitude seems pretty prevalent in the world, at least in the case of Christianity.

[Yahzi]

And this shows religion has harmed you how?
You can't see what is wrong with wanting to have 6 kids a generation?

Society cannot operate solely off of law. It is necessary that people choose to be fair in most cases, even when no law or power of the state can compel them.

These people are quite deliberately choosing unfairness, at the expense of the rest of the world. They are hogging more than their share of the future pie.

I am not an enviromental alarmist. I think the six billion people on the planet can learn to live with some environmental changes. We can manage our fishiers, pollution, etc. But... sixty billion people? Six hundred billion people? At some point it simply becomes ridiculous. At some point even the most hardcore Libertarian zealot has to admit there are too many people.

How long does it take to get to those numbers when you triple the population every generation? How do these Quivering idiots think the world will cope with such numbers?

The answer, of course, is that their children will kill our children. This is obvious, insomuch as it is the only possible answer.

And you still can't see how this is harm to me?

[luchog]

And people keep asking how religion harms me.

This is what I hate about nutjob, anti-intellectual fundies -- their habit of cherry picking biblical passages to support their own desires and prejudices while ignoring how many others they're violating.

Yes, G-d does say to "be fruitful and multiply"; but this idiot also seems to have ignored the verse where G-d also commands us to "be good stewards of the land". It isn't ours to f**k up on a whim, there are generations coming after us who have every bit as much right to it as we do.

And contrary to the guy's millenialist attitude, scripture also says that "no man knows the time of his return", and adjures against that kind of thinking as strongly counterproductive to leading a proper life. This putz is a very good example why that proscription is in there.

[Beth]

You can't see what is wrong with wanting to have 6 kids a generation?

Yes I understand why some people consider it wrong, but that isn't the same as thing causing harm. I consider many things wrong, but that doesn't equate to being harmed by others doing things I consider wrong. For example, I consider adultery wrong, but if you choose to commit adultery, I am not harmed by your action. How are you being harmed by someone who has 11 children?

Society cannot operate solely off of law. It is necessary that people choose to be fair in most cases, even when no law or power of the state can compel them.

These people are quite deliberately choosing unfairness, at the expense of the rest of the world. They are hogging more than their share of the future pie.

By this logic, people who earn above the median income are deliberately choosing unfairness and should voluntary choose to forgo their excess earnings. Americans are hogging the worlds more than our share of the planets resources and we are choosing to be unfair to the rest of humanity.

Well, there's a certain logic to the above arguments, but unless you're willing to extend your argument to such situations and claim that there is also harm in those situations, I don't think you can claim harm due to some one else's choice to have lots of children based on this argument alone. You need to be more specific about what actions that result in "hogging of resources" are harmful and why.


I am not an enviromental alarmist. I think the six billion people on the planet can learn to live with some environmental changes. We can manage our fishiers, pollution, etc. But... sixty billion people? Six hundred billion people? At some point it simply becomes ridiculous. At some point even the most hardcore Libertarian zealot has to admit there are too many people.

How long does it take to get to those numbers when you triple the population every generation? How do these Quivering idiots think the world will cope with such numbers?

The answer, of course, is that their children will kill our children. This is obvious, insomuch as it is the only possible answer.

Yes, I understand there are serious problems with overpopulation. But your "only possible answer" is not. In fact, I don't even find it a terribly likely scenario. Many others are possible. Even if you are correct, there are good odds that by the time such slaughter happens, both groups will include your descendants. Not to mention that I wouldn't be placing any bets on which side wins. Your descendants could end up killing theirs.


And you still can't see how this is harm to me?

No, I don't see it how it is harmful to you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And this shows religion has harmed you how?
Well, if he is the only dickwad to follow his own advice, then it doesn't harm me or my children or future generations. So let's hope that's the case.

~~ Paul

[exarch]

By this logic, people who earn above the median income are deliberately choosing unfairness and should voluntary choose to forgo their excess earnings. Americans are hogging the worlds more than our share of the planets resources and we are choosing to be unfair to the rest of humanity.

I agree completely. All these things are unfair. And I hardly think that rich American's wishing to keep driving big SUVs or maintain a certain economic power in this world should thus give them a free pass to "unsign" the Kyoto agreement. But that didn't stop them it seems.

It's unfair to poor Brazillian farmers who want to cut down a bit more rainforest so they have more land to grow food, but they're not allowed because (now rich) people in Europe and the US already cut down their forests during the past millenium, and need to preserve the Amazon so the planet doesn't run out of oxygen.

On the one hand we've got some of the world's poorest nations asking for a little break so they can get their economy going, and then one of the richest nations on the planet complaining that others are getting preferential treatment and they want that too. In fact, you needen't even look on a global scale to see christian fundies complaining that others are getting "preferential" treatment, when all they're asking for is an equal break (gay marriage and benefits anyone?).

This is about thinking long-term, and then thinking even longer term. Something this guy is obviously not concerned about in the least. So yeah, on his own, he's not hurting anyone. But his words are taken as gospel by those who look up to him, and together they are taking a big risk with the planet's future, and brushing away objections to their behavior as unimportant, because "god will fix it".

[Yahzi]

Yes I understand why some people consider it wrong,
You think overpopulation is a subjective issue?

but that isn't the same as thing causing harm.
You think the damage done by overpopulation is not harm?

I consider many things wrong, but that doesn't equate to being harmed by others doing things I consider wrong. For example, I consider adultery wrong, but if you choose to commit adultery, I am not harmed by your action.
How could you be harmed by my adultery? Can you point to any numbers?

Do you think I cannot point to numbers?

How are you being harmed by someone who has 11 children?
Ok, I think I get it. You do not know what the words "overpopulation" and "environmental degradation" mean.

Americans are hogging the worlds more than our share of the planets resources and we are choosing to be unfair to the rest of humanity.
Yes, obviously. We are being unfair because if everyone lived our lifestyle, the planet would die.

This does not mean Americans should live like poor people. It means we should live sustainably. If we want to drive SUVs, we should at least make them hybrids.

You need to be more specific about what actions that result in "hogging of resources" are harmful and why.
Only to people who do not know what the words mean.

Yes, I understand there are serious problems with overpopulation.
No, you do not. You have spent the entirety of this post asserting that you do not understand what the problems with overpopulation are.

In fact, I don't even find it a terribly likely scenario. Many others are possible.
Apparently "history" is another subject you are unfamiliar with.

Even if you are correct, there are good odds that by the time such slaughter happens, both groups will include your descendants.
So that makes it ok?

Not to mention that I wouldn't be placing any bets on which side wins. Your descendants could end up killing theirs.
I DON'T WANT ANY KILLING!

Was that not obvious? Did you somehow fail to grasp that I, as a reasonable, moral human being, would prefer a future that contains as little killing as possible, regardless of who wins or loses?

No, I don't see it how it is harmful to you.
Because you don't see a future in which my descedants have to kill and be killed by crazy Christians because there aren't enough resources as harmful.

Apparently we need to add "harmful" to the list of words you don't understand.

Yes, Beth, if we decide that environmental degradation and genocidal war due to overpopulation is not "harmful," then I cannot show that harm results from these people's actions.

:where's that icon of a man throwing his hands up in utter defeat:

[exarch]

Who has that quote in their signature, of another poster saying: "Why do you care about things that won't happen for another 50 or 100 years from now?" Or something like that anyway.

I mean, yeah, why should we care about being responsible for handing the next generation a planet that's been damaged beyond repair? Why should we care about being responsible for the end of mankind? Sure, we could buy a slightly less impressive car and have a few less babies and avert mankind from ending in that way, but it's a couple hundred years in the future, so who cares, right?

And then they say atheists have no morality. I think it's religious people who derive their morality from goat-herders that lived 2000 years ago who may perhaps be slightly wrong, or at least outdated.

[Beth]

You think overpopulation is a subjective issue? Yes. The number of people the planet can support is determined by a substantial number of factors, some of which are highly subjective.

You think the damage done by overpopulation is not harm? Diid I say that? No.

How could you be harmed by my adultery? Can you point to any numbers? No, I am not harmed by your adultery. That was my point. An action can be considered "wrong" but that doesn't imply that it is also harmful. You have classified an action (having many children) as "wrong" but you have not provided any evidence regarding how it has/will harm you other than speculation regarding future wars and their outcomes. I don't accept such speculations as evidence of harm.

Do you think I cannot point to numbers? I'm quite sure you can. But can you establish a solid connection between a) the "wrong" action (a specific individual with many children) and b) harm to you? That was your claim in the OP. Numbers that show that human overpopulation is harmful to the environment are not sufficient because they support a claim I don't dispute.

Ok, I think I get it. You do not know what the words "overpopulation" and "environmental degradation" mean. I'm not disputing the contention that human overpopulation and environmental degradation are harmful and are problems that need to be dealt with. I dispute the idea that a specific person choosing to have lots of children and justifying their choice with the bible is an example of religion harming you.


Did you somehow fail to grasp that I, as a reasonable, moral human being, would prefer a future that contains as little killing as possible, regardless of who wins or loses? No, I don't fail to grasp that. I fail to grasp the connection between the facts of your OP and the claim you made regarding being harmed by religion. Generalities about the problems of overpopulation and future wars are not evidence of harm to you.

Because you don't see a future in which my descedants have to kill and be killed by crazy Christians because there aren't enough resources as harmful. Apparently we need to add "harmful" to the list of words you don't understand.

Did I say that such a scenario wasn't harmful? No. I said that I didn't see such a scenario as being inevitable and thus, don't accept such speculations as evidence of harm. Presumably you have no evidence for that aspect of your claim. (I'm assuming if you did, you would have presented it.) Instead you pretend I don't understand basic words like "harmful". Yeah, right.

[Beleth]

Yahzi -
Future overpopulation is harmful, but it is not harmful to me because I will be dead by then.

That, of course, is no reason to ignore its danger.

I think you and Beth are talking past each other.

This guy has mad a biblical argument for allowing for environmental degredation. How is it moral to render the planet unlivable for most species on this planet including our own?
Cause the Bible says it is! Psalms 8:5-8. God has put all things under humanity's feet. Yet Another Place the Bible makes you go "Hmmm."

[joobz]

Yahzi -
Future overpopulation is harmful, but it is not harmful to me because I will be dead by then.

That, of course, is no reason to ignore its danger.

I think you and Beth are talking past each other.


Cause the Bible says it is! Psalms 8:5-8. God has put all things under humanity's feet. Yet Another Place the Bible makes you go "Hmmm."
Little known fact:
The Bible was actually the first choose your own adventure story.

[I less than three logic]

Yes. The number of people the planet can support is determined by a substantial number of factors, some of which are highly subjective.
Diid I say that? No.

No, I am not harmed by your adultery. That was my point. An action can be considered "wrong" but that doesn't imply that it is also harmful. You have classified an action (having many children) as "wrong" but you have not provided any evidence regarding how it has/will harm you other than speculation regarding future wars and their outcomes. I don't accept such speculations as evidence of harm.

I'm quite sure you can. But can you establish a solid connection between a) the "wrong" action (a specific individual with many children) and b) harm to you? That was your claim in the OP. Numbers that show that human overpopulation is harmful to the environment are not sufficient because they support a claim I don't dispute.
I'm not disputing the contention that human overpopulation and environmental degradation are harmful and are problems that need to be dealt with. I dispute the idea that a specific person choosing to have lots of children and justifying their choice with the bible is an example of religion harming you.

No, I don't fail to grasp that. I fail to grasp the connection between the facts of your OP and the claim you made regarding being harmed by religion. Generalities about the problems of overpopulation and future wars are not evidence of harm to you.



Did I say that such a scenario wasn't harmful? No. I said that I didn't see such a scenario as being inevitable and thus, don't accept such speculations as evidence of harm. Presumably you have no evidence for that aspect of your claim. (I'm assuming if you did, you would have presented it.) Instead you pretend I don't understand basic words like "harmful". Yeah, right.
Why do I get the impression that you're just being overly pragmatic simply to argue? :confused:

[Beth]

Why do I get the impression that you're just being overly pragmatic simply to argue? :confused:

Ok, I like to argue well enough. No denying that!

[Thanz]

According to the CIA world factbook, the total fertility rate of the United States is estimated at 2.09, which is just about replacement fertility.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Considering that the people you complain of are part of the United States, I really don't see them as contributing to the global overpopulation problem. They are simply picking up the slack for people who are not having as many kids to keep the total fertility at or near replacement level.

Look at the countries with the top 5 fertility rates: Niger, Mali, Somalia, Uganda and Afganistan. Not exactly hotbeds of fundamentalist Christianity. Put simply, the guy you complain of is not the problem.

[Silly Green Monkey]

His having kids is not the problem, but his trying to convince everybody else that he is right (and therefore they should have kids) is.

[Cuddles]

Yes. The number of people the planet can support is determined by a substantial number of factors, some of which are highly subjective.

Irrelevant. The fact is that at some point there will be too many people. It doesn't matter how much people disagree on how many that is or when it will happen, if the population keeps growing, we will run out of space. If everyone has 11 children it will happen much faster, which is exactly what this guy is telling everyone to do. This is what Yahzi is arguing against.

[Thanz]

His having kids is not the problem, but his trying to convince everybody else that he is right (and therefore they should have kids) is.
Ah. So sharing an opinion that you don't agree with is somehow a problem. And harmful, to boot. Gotcha.

This argument by Yahzi (and others) is the worst kind of slippery slope argument imaginable. As I have shown above, these people (at the absolute highest) are simply keeping the population of the United States at or near replacement level. However, the number of families is estimated in the article as "thousands, to low tens of thousands". Even if the average family size is 10, that's about 100,000 people. Out of 300 million. .0003% of the United States. An insignificant speck in comparison to the world population. To say that these particular people pose any real threat to the world's resources is simply intellectually dishonest.

[Yahzi]

Yes. The number of people the planet can support is determined by a substantial number of factors, some of which are highly subjective.
Sure. If we all live like Eskimos, the planet could support a lot more people.

Are you willing to live like an Eskimo? No? Then your position is hypocritical, and can be dismissed.

The lowest standard of living you can expect other people to accept is the one you accept.

That was my point. An action can be considered "wrong" but that doesn't imply that it is also harmful.
An action that does not harm anyone is not wrong. Adultery is wrong because it harms someone; just not me. If it harmed no one at all, then it would not be wrong. So you are completely incorrect: an action is considered wrong solely because it is harmful.

Unless you think adultery is wrong because it is defined by God to be wrong. But even then it's usually explained as harming God.

You have classified an action (having many children) as "wrong" but you have not provided any evidence regarding how it has/will harm you other than speculation regarding future wars and their outcomes. I don't accept such speculations as evidence of harm.
I'm not disputing the contention that human overpopulation and environmental degradation are harmful and are problems that need to be dealt with.
Pick one, Beth. Either overpopulation is harm, or it isn't.

I dispute the idea that a specific person choosing to have lots of children and justifying their choice with the bible is an example of religion harming you.
Ah, here's the rub.

You don't know where overpopulation comes from.

My dear Beth, that is a fact I am unprepared to explain to you. Perhaps your mother can have a talk about the birds and the bees.

I said that I didn't see such a scenario as being inevitable and thus, don't accept such speculations as evidence of harm. Presumably you have no evidence for that aspect of your claim. (I'm assuming if you did, you would have presented it.)
I cannot present evidence that overpopulation will inevitabley result in genocide. All I can present is evidence that it has, repeatedly and invariably, in the past. My evidence is called "history."

You are in the bizarre position of asserting that loading a gun, pointing it at your head, and pulling the trigger do not constitute harm. Since after all, the only "evidence" you have that it will result in harm is speculation based on several hundred years of history with guns. The damage of the bullet is not inevitable; the gun could misfire this time; so by your logic you have no right to prevent me from firing it.

Instead you pretend I don't understand basic words like "harmful". Yeah, right.
Actually, I was being nice. I know you understand what the words mean. I just didn't want to accuse you of blatant equivocation. But the fact that your future harm is meaningful, and mine is not, is just hypocrisy.

[Yahzi]

Considering that the people you complain of are part of the United States, I really don't see them as contributing to the global overpopulation problem. They are simply picking up the slack for people who are not having as many kids to keep the total fertility at or near replacement level.
And when I come into your house and take your TV, I'm just picking up the slack for all the times you buy new TVs. Where's the harm?

Having more children because you assume other people will have less is not fair.

Furthermore, the stated goal of these people is to continue to have more children. They are not "picking up the slack." They are endorsing behaviour that cannot be sustained.

[Yahzi]

This argument by Yahzi (and others) is the worst kind of slippery slope argument imaginable.
Thanz, it is not a slippery slope. It is a mathematical fact.

If you do as these people wish you to do, there will be too many people. If we allow these people to do as they wish for the next 20 generations or so, there will be too many people. What part of this is slippery?

Your argument that these people are harmless presumes that they are powerless. Even though I despise and loathe them, I do not have so little respect for them as to assume they are jokes.

[ponderingturtle]

Ah. So sharing an opinion that you don't agree with is somehow a problem. And harmful, to boot. Gotcha.

This argument by Yahzi (and others) is the worst kind of slippery slope argument imaginable. As I have shown above, these people (at the absolute highest) are simply keeping the population of the United States at or near replacement level. However, the number of families is estimated in the article as "thousands, to low tens of thousands". Even if the average family size is 10, that's about 100,000 people. Out of 300 million. .0003% of the United States. An insignificant speck in comparison to the world population. To say that these particular people pose any real threat to the world's resources is simply intellectually dishonest.

But it is the same rational that other major religions use to ban birth control and such.

But as long as our children have better weapons and technology and can successfully kill and eat their children when the time comes, what is the harm anyway?

[Yahzi]

I think you and Beth are talking past each other.
As far as I can grasp it, Beth's argument seems to be that overpopulation is not inevitabely harmful, and therefore speculations that it might be harmful are inadequate.

I think it's called the "Pollyanna" defense. :D

[Thanz]

Thanz, it is not a slippery slope. It is a mathematical fact.

If you do as these people wish you to do, there will be too many people. If we allow these people to do as they wish for the next 20 generations or so, there will be too many people. What part of this is slippery?

Your argument that these people are harmless presumes that they are powerless. Even though I despise and loathe them, I do not have so little respect for them as to assume they are jokes.
You concern is about the impact that a group of people, about 100,000 people, will have over 500 years from now? This is your argument for "forced sterilization", one of the most invasive violations of personal liberty imaginable? Simply because they want to have kids?

No, this is a slippery slope at best. Far larger problems exist in terms of world population. Niger, with a population of 12.5 million, has a fertility rate of close to 7.5. So does Mali, with a population of 11.7 Million. If you want to talk about mathematical inevitability, talk about these nations that have over 100 times each the number of people of this small group of fundamentalist Christians and huge fertility rates.

As for hogging more than their share of the pie, let's compare 2 families. Both have a father that makes a good living, let's say he makes $100,000. The mother stays at home with the kids. Family A has 2 kids. Family B has 8. The sole source of income for both is the same, but family A is consuming 25,000 per year per capita. Family B, 10,000 per year per capita. Who is hogging more resources? And which is actually using the world's resources more efficiently?

[I less than three logic]

As for hogging more than their share of the pie, let's compare 2 families. Both have a father that makes a good living, let's say he makes $100,000. The mother stays at home with the kids. Family A has 2 kids. Family B has 8. The sole source of income for both is the same, but family A is consuming 25,000 per year per capita. Family B, 10,000 per year per capita. Who is hogging more resources? And which is actually using the world's resources more efficiently?
Wow, this has to be the most flawed comparisons ever. You just took the total income and divided it by the number in the household. What about a whole list of other factors, such as tax breaks? Family A is paying more taxes than family B due to child tax exemptions and credits. Family B will most likely use more money from government grants to send their children to higher education as well. You can’t simply divide the family income into the total number of family members to get the per capita use of resources.

ETA - Just thought I'd add that I'm not arguing in favor of forced sterilization, and I'm also not so sure Yahzi meant so literally either. :)

[Jorghnassen]

Gotta go with Thanz. We're talking about one guy who may convince at most an insignificant number of people for a very limited amount of time (I'd say 2 generations at most, being generous, my own father has 10 siblings, all productive members of society I might add, somehow none of them got nearly as many children). It's a non problem in the Western world. To even mention forced sterilization half seriously boggles the mind.

[Beth]

As far as I can grasp it, Beth's argument seems to be that overpopulation is not inevitabely harmful, and therefore speculations that it might be harmful are inadequate.

Nope. My argument is that you haven't established that the person in question or his religion is a cause of overpopulation. Thanz has addressed that issue nicely. I've also been giving you a hard time because the way you phrased the OP indicated that you personally were being harmed by such actions. I couldn't let such an obvious overstatement go by without comment, but I've not time to play today. Sorry.

[Thanz]

Wow, this has to be the most flawed comparisons ever. You just took the total income and divided it by the number in the household. What about a whole list of other factors, such as tax breaks? Family A is paying more taxes than family B due to child tax exemptions and credits. Family B will most likely use more money from government grants to send their children to higher education as well. You can’t simply divide the family income into the total number of family members to get the per capita use of resources.
A simplistic comparison, yes. But even with the factors that you describe, I think that they still consume less per capita than the smaller family (on a dollar value basis). Also factor in that these families are typically homeschooled.

Next, the whole idea that these people are hogging more than "their share" of resources is repugnant. Yahzi seems to be saying that each family should get x units of resources - and that this guy and his decendants are grabbing more of that than they should. This ignores the inherent worth and equality of each of these children as individuals. People who are using more than than "their share" live in 23 bedroom mansions for 4 people, drive Hummers and have private jets. Not the religious family living simply with a number of kids.

ETA - Just thought I'd add that I'm not arguing in favor of forced sterilization, and I'm also not so sure Yahzi meant so literally either. :)
Well, Yahzi can be quite strident. He did title his post that way. He even says that it is obvious that the descendants of this group will be killing the descendants of his - which is so ridiculous an argument as to be the opposite of "obvious".

[petre]

I prefer to sum up reproductive rights with a list (which lines up with Yahzi's arguement):

1. There are limitations on reproduction
2. People starve

Every society chooses one (or maybe both) of the above. If you believe people in general won't limit their own reproduction and that society shouldn't impose limits on reproduction, then you need to accept that the result of your beliefs is going to be that people will starve (either literally by failing to obtain proper nourishment, or suffering from lack of other limited resources).

Social engineering always leads to rather unpleasant choices, it's a matter of scale. I'm doing my part by not siring offspring I suppose.

[Thanz]

I prefer to sum up reproductive rights with a list (which lines up with Yahzi's arguement):

1. There are limitations on reproduction
2. People starve

Every society chooses one (or maybe both) of the above. If you believe people in general won't limit their own reproduction and that society shouldn't impose limits on reproduction, then you need to accept that the result of your beliefs is going to be that people will starve (either literally by failing to obtain proper nourishment, or suffering from lack of other limited resources).

Social engineering always leads to rather unpleasant choices, it's a matter of scale. I'm doing my part by not siring offspring I suppose.
The United States is in the enviable position that it needs to choose neither of these options. It has no artificial limits on reproduction - and even circumvents natural limits at fertility clinics. With all of that, the fertility rate is still ever so slightly below replacement level. Further, with the amount of resources that the United States has, there is no reason for anyone to starve. If there is a starvation problem, it is one of distribution, not absolute numbers. There is more than enough food and other resources in the United States so that people need not starve.

[petre]

The United States is in the enviable position that it needs to choose neither of these options. It has no artificial limits on reproduction - and even circumvents natural limits at fertility clinics. With all of that, the fertility rate is still ever so slightly below replacement level. Further, with the amount of resources that the United States has, there is no reason for anyone to starve. If there is a starvation problem, it is one of distribution, not absolute numbers. There is more than enough food and other resources in the United States so that people need not starve.

I may be misunderstanding your post, or you mine, but I believe that the US has a positive population growth (above the replacement level, as I understand that term). For the sake of a quick reference:
http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm. I note that the fertility rate is listed at 2.1335 per woman, which (again, by my understanding of terms) would be a net population growth of around 6.6% per generation as a result of reproduction. It may be that this data is recent, and that you were basing your statement on some prior data (say, in the 1.98 range?).

I completely agree that today the issue of starvation is one of distribution though. I haven't any numbers to back it up, but I'm fairly confident the current resources of the US are sufficient to meet the basic needs of every person living within its borders.

However, given the current (and historic) rate of population growth it seems clear that it is unsustainable indefinately.

[Thanz]

I may be misunderstanding your post, or you mine, but I believe that the US has a positive population growth (above the replacement level, as I understand that term). For the sake of a quick reference:
http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm. I note that the fertility rate is listed at 2.1335 per woman, which (again, by my understanding of terms) would be a net population growth of around 6.6% per generation as a result of reproduction. It may be that this data is recent, and that you were basing your statement on some prior data (say, in the 1.98 range?).
My statements are based on the link I provided above, which puts US total fertility at 2.09. Replacement fertility is generally considered to be about 2.1. Which is why I say ever so slightly below replacement.

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate)

Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which women would have only enough children to replace themselves and their partner. By definition, replacement is only considered to have occurred when the offspring reach 15 years of age. If all offspring survived to the age of 15 the replacement rate would be exactly 2, but in practice it is affected by childhood mortality. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries and has not been evaluated for poorer countries. At this rate, population growth through reproduction will be approximately zero, but will also be affected by male-female ratios and mortality rates.

[Francesca R]

An argument for forced sterlizationI disagree with a lot in that (long, boring) article. But nothing there is an argument for forced sterilisation.

You can't see what is wrong with wanting to have 6 kids a generation?Of course not. People can have as many children as they wish, or none. Some want more or less than the average. That's liberty

These people are quite deliberately choosing unfairnessWanting more or less than the average is not unfair in a free society. Disallowing people to do so is unfair.

You think overpopulation is a subjective issue?Overpopulation predictions evidently are. Remember Paul Erlich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb)? He was proved incorrect. Thomas Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus) likewise.

You think the damage done by overpopulation is not harm?
If overpopulation happens it is harmful. So is underpopulation. The latter has the effect of making you too poor to retire.

According to the CIA world factbook, the total fertility rate of the United States is estimated at 2.09, which is just about replacement fertility.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html)
Right. And look at most of Europe and Japan running at well below replacement fertility.

His having kids is not the problem, but his trying to convince everybody else that he is right (and therefore they should have kids) is.Only if it actually produces overpopulation in the US. Otherwise it's free speech. Stopping free speech is more of a problem IMO.

Thanz, it is not a slippery slope. It is a mathematical fact.What is a mathematical fact? It is not a mathematical fact that the US will be overpopulated.

[I less than three logic]

A simplistic comparison, yes. But even with the factors that you describe, I think that they still consume less per capita than the smaller family (on a dollar value basis). Also factor in that these families are typically homeschooled.

Next, the whole idea that these people are hogging more than "their share" of resources is repugnant. Yahzi seems to be saying that each family should get x units of resources - and that this guy and his decendants are grabbing more of that than they should. This ignores the inherent worth and equality of each of these children as individuals. People who are using more than than "their share" live in 23 bedroom mansions for 4 people, drive Hummers and have private jets. Not the religious family living simply with a number of kids.
I didn’t mean to imply that family A uses resources better than family B only that your comparison was way to simple and a little misleading as a result. There are many, many factors that would determine which family uses fewer resources per capita than just the size of the family and their income.

Well, Yahzi can be quite strident. He did title his post that way. He even says that it is obvious that the descendants of this group will be killing the descendants of his - which is so ridiculous an argument as to be the opposite of "obvious".
Perhaps I took this thread the wrong way. I thought he meant it as more of a joke. You know, like: “Here’s an argument for forced sterilization. Just two words: Toby Keith. Had his parents been sterilized we wouldn’t be subjected to that noise he calls music.” :)

[Yahzi]

You concern is about the impact that a group of people, about 100,000 people, will have over 500 years from now?
The flip side of this is: you don't care about what impact people will have in the future.

As I said, your argument dismisses these people. You assume they have no power, that they can be disregarded as ineffective lunatics. I have more respect for them than that. I think what they do matters, because I think what all of us do matters. I am not in your position, where I can dismiss the lives and efforts of an entire class of people as insignificant.

This is your argument for "forced sterilization", one of the most invasive violations of personal liberty imaginable?
When did you lose your sense of humor? Or perspective? Have I, at any point, actually argued for forced sterlization? Do my posts discuss the methods or implementation of such a program? Is it not clear to any native English speaker that the title is simply hyperbolic? (Apologies to our non-native speakers, if they were confused.)

If you haven't read Johnathan Swift, that's not my fault.

Simply because they want to have kids?
Why are you constructing strawman arguments?

My complaint is quite clearly that they want to have too many kids. The difference between "have kids" and "have too many kids" is critical.

It is dishonest of you to characterize my argument so inappropriately. I take this dishonesty as evidence you have no better arguments to offer.

Far larger problems exist in terms of world population.
So you're suggesting that before America bothers to address its own over-population tendencies, we should force other nations to address theirs.

What happened to the notion of personal responsiblity? What happened to the notion of fairness? Why are you arguing that it is ok for us to do bad as long as someone else is doing worse?

And which is actually using the world's resources more efficiently?
Do you want to live like the family making $10,000?

No?

Then your argument is hypocrisy, and can be discarded without further investigation.

As for me, I think that everyone should live at least as well as I do. You apparently think that's some kind of dangerous communist notion.

And in any case, I was talking about hogging future resources, because I was assuming a future in which resources were distributed more fairly. Call me an optimist.

But your argument boils down to claiming that as long as we can keep Africians poor and starving, it's ok for us to have as many kids as we like.

Where is the real Thanz, and what have you done with him?

[Yahzi]

We're talking about one guy who may convince at most an insignificant number of people for a very limited amount of time
I'm sure Tiberus' advisors gave him the same advice.

It's a non problem in the Western world.
Given the influence of Creationism, this seems wholly unwarranted optimism.

You also seem to think that the very notion of fairness is not important.

To even mention forced sterilization half seriously boggles the mind.
Don't they teach this in literature class anymore? (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

[Yahzi]

Of course not. People can have as many children as they wish, or none. Some want more or less than the average. That's liberty
So... if I want to salt my ground with radioactive waste, so that it will be 10,000 years before anyone can even step on it, I should be allowed?

I mean, it's my land. I bought it. It's a free country. That's liberty!

Wanting more or less than the average is not unfair in a free society. Disallowing people to do so is unfair.
Your inability to comprehend the future effect of people's actions is a cognitive deficiency, not an argument.

Overpopulation predictions evidently are.
So your argument is: overpopulation can't happen, because it will magically go away.

The idea that perhaps the reason overpopulation is not as dire as predicited is because people did something, and the notion that drawing attention to and arguing against the actions of this lunatic fringe is doing something, never seems to enter your head.

If overpopulation happens it is harmful.
If?

Only if it actually produces overpopulation in the US. Otherwise it's free speech. Stopping free speech is more of a problem IMO.

What is a mathematical fact? It is not a mathematical fact that the US will be overpopulated.
I'm sorry, but I cannot effectively discuss with people who cannot mulitiply large numbers.

[Yahzi]

Nope. My argument is that you haven't established that the person in question or his religion is a cause of overpopulation.
Where do you think overpopulation comes from, Beth? No, seriously. What do you think the cause of overpopulation is?

I've also been giving you a hard time because the way you phrased the OP indicated that you personally were being harmed by such actions.
So you concede that overpopulation is harm; it just isn't harm to me. Harming my kids isn't harm to me. Harming my future interests isn't harm to me.

By that logic, what's wrong with cutting down the entire rainforest, as long as the last tree falls the second after I die?

I couldn't let such an obvious overstatement go by without comment, but I've not time to play today. Sorry.
I can understand how your pretzel logic is a strain to maintain.

[Yahzi]

But as long as our children have better weapons and technology and can successfully kill and eat their children when the time comes, what is the harm anyway?
I think you've caught on.

What's wrong with murder, as long as it's happening in other cities? Ones I don't plan to visit?

:D

[Thanz]

The flip side of this is: you don't care about what impact people will have in the future.

As I said, your argument dismisses these people. You assume they have no power, that they can be disregarded as ineffective lunatics. I have more respect for them than that. I think what they do matters, because I think what all of us do matters. I am not in your position, where I can dismiss the lives and efforts of an entire class of people as insignificant.
Finished stuffing this man of straw? No, I am not dismissing the efforts of an entire class of people as insignificant. I am saying, first of all, that there is no way to accurately predict what impact, if any, these people's philosophy will have in 500 years. Who knows if it will even last that long? Who knows if it will even be passed on to most of their own kids?

Next, I am saying that from a pure numbers perspective (you know, the math) the group is simply too small to have a significant impact on the world's population. So I do not say, as you imply here, that what they do doesn't matter - of course it matters to them and those that they interact with. But, it really doesn't matter on a global population scale. These people aren't even a significant population force in the United States, let alone the world.

Lastly, nowhere in my posts did I say anything that would disrespect their beliefs. That all comes from you. You are the one calling them lunatics. You are the one who started the thread with the title "an argument for forced sterilization", be that a joke or not. You are the one who assumes that they will murder your descendants. And then you have the gall to say that you are respecting them, and I am not.

My complaint is quite clearly that they want to have too many kids. The difference between "have kids" and "have too many kids" is critical.
And who decides what is "too many"? You? The government? What makes you think that you should have any say whatsoever in the reproduction decisions of other people? The idea that you should have any say at all is remarkable. The fact that you aim your outrage only at the fundamentalist Christians who say they do this for religious reasons is not surprising.

It is dishonest of you to characterize my argument so inappropriately. I take this dishonesty as evidence you have no better arguments to offer.
You mean like taking my argument that the group is too small in number to have a significant impact on world population, in comparison to other groups, and making it seem like I am disrespecting them as people? Like that? Right back atcha, Yahzi.

You have no argunment whatsoever on the math, that you touted in your other posts. If you did, you would make it by now instead of this misconstrued, straw attack.

So you're suggesting that before America bothers to address its own over-population tendencies, we should force other nations to address theirs.
Not in the slightest. I am pointing out that you, Yahzi, like to point out the follies of people like fundamentalist Christians, with blinders on as to what impact it may actually have. You are not really concerned with overpopulation - if you were, you might address these other countries. No, you are concerned with pointing out stuff you disagree with regarding American Christianity. You have just dressed it up in different clothes.

Further, as has been pointed out to you already, the US does not have over-population tendencies. The Total fertility rate is at replacement levels. Which you haven't meaningfully addressed.
What happened to the notion of personal responsiblity? What happened to the notion of fairness? Why are you arguing that it is ok for us to do bad as long as someone else is doing worse?
No, again I am pointing out the personal foibles of one Yahzi, internet forum poster. You don't care about overpopulation. You care about people having lots of kids for reasons that you don't think are adequate. You know what? Those people are not abdicating personal repsonsibility. They are raising their kids. How is policing their personal decisions your buisiness? How is it possibly unfair if they want to have more kids?
Do you want to live like the family making $10,000?

No?

Then your argument is hypocrisy, and can be discarded without further investigation.
What kind of argument is this? If I don't make the same decision as others, I am not allowed to respect their decision? Or, I am not allowed to point out that you accusing them of using more than their share of resources is factually incorrect? What does it matter how much I use - I am not making the argument that they are hogging the resources. You are. No hypocrisy on my part.

As for me, I think that everyone should live at least as well as I do. You apparently think that's some kind of dangerous communist notion.
I have no idea where you get that from. If you have a reasonably affluent American lifestyle, then (somewhat ironically) this is the attitude that will cause real problems - I don't think that the world can support everyone living in a middle class American lifestyle now, let alone in hte future.

And in any case, I was talking about hogging future resources, because I was assuming a future in which resources were distributed more fairly. Call me an optimist.
You are an optimist.

And in the future, if things are distributed more fairly, how can anyone hog any of it? How is the fact that Bob has ten descendants relevant to a hogging argument? Your position treats Bob's descendants as a monolithic block, and denies Bob's descendants their worth as individuals in their own right.

But your argument boils down to claiming that as long as we can keep Africians poor and starving, it's ok for us to have as many kids as we like.
Nowhere have I said anything like that. Again, I am pointing out that your concern is not really global population, but rather taking a swipe at those crazy Christians.

Where is the real Thanz, and what have you done with him?
The real Thanz is right here. The twisted and straw-puft odd interpretations of my argument just make it seem as though they are from bizarro land. But those are of your own making, not mine.

Now, where is the real Yahzi? You know, the one who is totally with me on things?

[Jorghnassen]

You also seem to think that the very notion of fairness is not important.


Strawman. So do you start threads with the intent of discussing things or just to twist the words of those who disagree with you and stroke your ego?

[Yahzi]

I am saying, first of all, that there is no way to accurately predict what impact, if any, these people's philosophy will have in 500 years.
It seems pretty straightforward.

Let's recap:

Overpopulation is bad. Overpopulation comes from having too many kids. These people want to have more than their share of kids.

Conclusion: they are bad.

Your arguments are:

1) Overpopulation isn't necessarily bad.

2) Overpopulation isn't bad for Yahzi.

3) It's ok that some Americans are having too many kids because poor black people are starving in Africa.

4) There's nothing wrong with someone doing as they would not allow others to do. The fact that if everyone did as the Quiverfull idiots do, the world would be uninhabitale for even the Quiverfull idiots, does not strike you as an argument for the immorality of their actions.

This is ludicrous.


The fact that you aim your outrage only at the fundamentalist Christians who say they do this for religious reasons is not surprising.
I have plenty of outrage. Enough for everyone. Really. I just happened to be responding to this particular newspaper article.

You might as well excuse the Washington sniper on the grounds that I didn't object to every other murder committed in the last 100 years.

Accusing me of bias because I can only complain at 60 words a minute is ludicrous.

For the record, I think overpopulation is bad. Everywhere. But I think it's particularly bad when it occurs in a society allegedly savvy enough to understand why it is bad.

How is policing their personal decisions your buisiness? How is it possibly unfair if they want to have more kids?
How is anything anyone does to the environment my business? Is that what you are asking?

Ludicrous.

If I don't make the same decision as others, I am not allowed to respect their decision?
You think they made a decision to be poor?

F******* ludicrous.

If you have a reasonably affluent American lifestyle, then (somewhat ironically) this is the attitude that will cause real problems - I don't think that the world can support everyone living in a middle class American lifestyle now, let alone in hte future.
And your solution is to lower our lifestyles. I am arguing for changing our social mores and values so that everyone can have the lifestyle I want to have; you are arguing for allowing other people to choose to condem all of us to overpopulation, and thus requiring all of us to lower our standard of living, even while you claim I am not being harmed.


I realize you are only viewing this thread through the lens of "How Yahzi hates Christianity." This is a false perspective: I am not an anti-Christian bigot. I am an anti-religious bigot. I despise them all.

But your arguments are embarrasing. You have surrendered morality, common sense, mathematical reasoning, and simple fairness, all in your desire to paint me as prejudiced.

It's embarassing.

[Yahzi]

Strawman. So do you start threads with the intent of discussing things or just to twist the words of those who disagree with you and stroke your ego?
Do you know what irony is?

Or perhaps your second sentence was meant to be an example.

I'll tell you what: when the people arguing against me (Thanz and Beth) demonstrate that they care about fairness, then I'll stop bringing it up.

But if you examine their arguments you will see that their position is that it is ok for the Quiverfull to engage in actions that the Quiverfull would not accept other people doing.

Also, you will see a constant assumption that overpopulation is not bad, as long as people are willing to live with less, and that it is ok for other people to choose less for me, but not ok for me to object to them making that choice for me.

[Francesca R]

Your inability to comprehend the future effect of people's actions is a cognitive deficiency, not an argument.Your "I can't hear you . . .I can't hear you" insistence that your predictions be accepted as truth is amusing. I now know enough after one interaction with you, to be reasonably confident that you are not up to debate. :)

Demonstration of reflexive inability/unwillingness to read and understand text. . . .

So your argument is: overpopulation can't happen, because it will magically go away.No, your argument is that it will happen. Your argument is OK as far as it goes. Your insistence that it be accepted as "mathematical fact" is ludicrous.

Ironic attempt to "magically" explain away the errors of the past . . .

The idea that perhaps the reason overpopulation is not as dire as predicited is because people did something, and the notion that drawing attention to and arguing against the actions of this lunatic fringe is doing something, never seems to enter your head.

You're not doing much. You're ranting on a message board. It looks like if you were allowed to you would severely restrict people's liberty against their will. Fortunately I doubt you will ever have this power. In the meantime, rant all you want.

Repeated insistence in the truth of the individual's statements and feigned disbelief about non-acceptance . . .

If?If.

I'm sorry, but I cannot effectively discuss with people who don't accept my megaphone tacticsFixed it for you :)

[AWPrime]

You concern is about the impact that a group of people, about 100,000 people, will have over 500 years from now? This is your argument for "forced sterilization", one of the most invasive violations of personal liberty imaginable? Simply because they want to have kids?

No, this is a slippery slope at best. Far larger problems exist in terms of world population. Niger, with a population of 12.5 million, has a fertility rate of close to 7.5. So does Mali, with a population of 11.7 Million. If you want to talk about mathematical inevitability, talk about these nations that have over 100 times each the number of people of this small group of fundamentalist Christians and huge fertility rates.
Why are your restricting it to american fundamentalists?

I feel that all those irresponsible breeders should be sterilized.

[ysabella]

I first ran into the Quiverfull movement when I was pregnant and looking at different parenting forums. I found it on mothering dot com, and I was really quite disturbed.

The things that disturbed me, however, had nothing to do with overpopulation. They had more to do with the weird feelings of entitlement and non-responsibility that the women seemed to have. Most of them were in their early 20s and lived in more rural areas (in fact, two lived in counties neighboring mine, much to my horror).

Also interesting was the strange way that birthin' babies is some kind of measure of holiness - the extrapolated Biblical ideal here is to let the Lord control your womb by not interfering with 'secular' birth control, and God will give you the specific children he wants you to have, and as many as He thinks you can handle. Some felt that using birth control will cause you to have the wrong children as well as the wrong number of children. If you open your womb to the Lord, that might mean no kids, or 3 kids, or 17 kids. Women who could not conceive were told that was God's plan for them, yet on the other hand, all these women aspired to at least 4 kids, some talking about 8, and the more kids...the more smug.
Incidentally, while birth control was a "secular" no-no, fertility treatment was considered perfectly acceptable and nobody called it "secular."

Back to the entitlement - many of these women seemed to feel it was everyone's job to help support their families. It became the husband's job to make the money because it would not be godly for these holy mothers to work outside the home, especially as many aspired to homeschool (and given the average spelling/grammar ability...um, eek). Several discussed the 'dirty looks' those secular ignoramuses at the WIC (that's Women, Infants, and Children - basically a welfare food program) would give them when they brought their kids in. They mentioned how their families would say "Not another one!" and might even stop forking over money to help them out. They discussed how non-holy so many landlords were about their noisy families. They all talked about how the Lord would provide and how their kids would be better people, less materialistic, if they didn't have much.
What really irritated me was one woman talking about how the Lord provided for her family directly. Her husband had been out of work for two years, and I think they had four kids. A neighbor gave them a check and it was just enough to cover some needed car repairs. A woman from their church gave her a box of really nice children's clothes, second-hand but in great shape. This woman blissfully gave thanks for what the Lord sent along, as if these people were not humans with free will, but protoplasmic agents for the Lord to drop His largesse on her holy self. Seriously, that's how it came off to me. Personally, I would think she would be glad and thankful that she had fine people as neighbors and fellow churchgoers - who saw her raggedy kids and decided to do something about it - instead, she saw it as a telegram directly from the Lord. (This irritates me personally, because my "Jesus freak" sister shows the same behavior sometimes and it bothers me.)

The non-responsibility is an element that cannot be ignored in this movement. First of all, these women describe the joy of forgoing all birth control, ever. And they gladly hang up all responsibility for earning money, ever. Yet they have what they see as a desirable role - godly mother - and feel specially rewarded by God. It got really interesting when a 30-something mother of four who had two special-needs kids, who said she wasn't sure she could handle having another. All these excited 20-somethings urged her to pray and leave it in the hands of the Lord, who would surely have His reasons and only send her what she could handle. Some felt that even abstinence wasn't sufficiently holy. So if you're having disabled kids, or massively autistic kids - keep having them.

Incidentally, I figure that while these women assume they can raise their kids to be similarly religious, it will not work all the time, probably not even most of the time.

[ysabella]

Regarding all this talk about the planet and overpopulation, here I always thought international adoption was kind of a nice idea. But if I adopted a kid from Vietnam or the Philippines, suddenly his/her usage of resources would go way up. Bad for the planet, right?

[Francesca R]

If you believed that, nobody is stopping you from migrating to Hanoi or Manila and downsizing your resource consumption. Good for the planet, right?

[ysabella]

Right, according to this way of thinking. Of course, I could just kill myself, and save the jet exhaust that it would take to take me to Hanoi or Manila.

[Yahzi]

the extrapolated Biblical ideal here is to let the Lord control your womb by not interfering with 'secular' birth control, and God will give you the specific children he wants you to have, and as many as He thinks you can handle.
That is such a strange idea.

I mean, we're talking about the Big Guy here. He's laid the foundation of the Earth, created all life, flooded the planet, raised the dead, and made the sun stand still.

But a little slip of rubber is enough to thwart His Divine Will?

:D :D :D

[AWPrime]

Iron chariots also work.

[Thanz]

It seems pretty straightforward.

Let's recap:

Overpopulation is bad. Overpopulation comes from having too many kids. These people want to have more than their share of kids.
Yet, you have never said what is one's fair "share of kids". You also haven't said who gets to decide that number, and why. Further, you have steadfastly ignore the fact that the US does not have overpopulation tendencies - they are at replacement fertility even with the Quiverfull people.
Conclusion: they are bad.
Only if we accept your premises, which I don't.
Your arguments are:

1) Overpopulation isn't necessarily bad.

2) Overpopulation isn't bad for Yahzi.

3) It's ok that some Americans are having too many kids because poor black people are starving in Africa.

4) There's nothing wrong with someone doing as they would not allow others to do. The fact that if everyone did as the Quiverfull idiots do, the world would be uninhabitale for even the Quiverfull idiots, does not strike you as an argument for the immorality of their actions.
Actually, I haven't made any of these arguments. Are you confusing me with someone else? Or do you just feel like you can pick whatever arguments you like to argue against? The "quiverfull" movement, such as it is, is simply not large enough to have a significant impact on the World's population.
This is ludicrous.
What I think is ludicrous is you inventing arguments for me and completely ignoring hte arguments I actually make.

You might as well excuse the Washington sniper on the grounds that I didn't object to every other murder committed in the last 100 years.
Well, no. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that you are complaining about the guy who jostled you on the subway while another guy is busy firing a machine gun at you.

Accusing me of bias because I can only complain at 60 words a minute is ludicrous.
Oh, poor Yahzi. Yes, that's what I'm doing. Or maybe, just maybe, I'd think that if you were serious about an issue you would talk about the real issue, and not sime minor footnote to the issue.

For the record, I think overpopulation is bad. Everywhere. But I think it's particularly bad when it occurs in a society allegedly savvy enough to understand why it is bad.
Again, the US is fully absorbing these people with no overpopulation.
How is anything anyone does to the environment my business? Is that what you are asking?
No, I thought I was pretty clear. Why do you get to decide how many kids someone else has? Who are you to decide that X is enough, but X+1 is terrible? You haven't even quantified your objection. How many is too many?
You think they made a decision to be poor?

F******* ludicrous.
I think they have made a decision to make do with less. Lead a less lavish lifestyle. Not ludicrous. Is something wrong with living simply?
And your solution is to lower our lifestyles. I am arguing for changing our social mores and values so that everyone can have the lifestyle I want to have; you are arguing for allowing other people to choose to condem all of us to overpopulation, and thus requiring all of us to lower our standard of living, even while you claim I am not being harmed.
That's not my solution - that is my observation. The world could not sustain the entire population in the lavish American lifestyle. You can put on blinders if you wish, but according to the standards of much of the world, Americans live high on the hog. I am not trying to knock down your lifestyle - just point out that your dream of extending it to the world's population is unsustainable.

I realize you are only viewing this thread through the lens of "How Yahzi hates Christianity." This is a false perspective: I am not an anti-Christian bigot. I am an anti-religious bigot. I despise them all.
At least you are honest about your bigotry. That doesn't make it forgivable, however.
But your arguments are embarrasing. You have surrendered morality, common sense, mathematical reasoning, and simple fairness, all in your desire to paint me as prejudiced.

It's embarassing.
You haven't even addressed the arguments I have made, choosing instead to create strawmen to fight. Unless and until you address my actual arguments, don't tell me they are embarrassing. They seem to have completely flummoxed you.

[Beth]

What I think is ludicrous is you inventing arguments for me and completely ignoring the arguments I actually make.


Thanks Thanz. That's exactly how I feel about his arguments and why I've stopped wasting my time typing responses.

[Roboramma]

If you believed that, nobody is stopping you from migrating to Hanoi or Manila and downsizing your resource consumption. Good for the planet, right?

If you think about it, this comment fits very nicely with Yahzi's point about fairness:
You're saying, "If it is better for the kid to live in poverty so as to use fewer resources, then it is better for you to live in poverty so as to use fewer resources."

Which is basically the point that Yahzi is making when he talks about fairness regarding this issue. If you wouldn't give up your quality of life, then it's hypocritical to suggest that there isn't a problem when there aren't enough resources for others to enjoy that quality of life as well.

[Beth]

The problem is that "quality of life" is a very subjective concept. For many people, an important aspect of their "quality of life" is having kids. Yahzi is suggesting that his concept of "quality of life" is of higher priority than that of those who value having many children as being an important aspect of "quality of life". If some people prefer to live frugally in order to support more children, that isn't harming others because, as Thanz points out, such folks are NOT contributing to overpopulation here in the US.

Now, if they were to be successful in convincing a enough of the population to believe and behave as they do that it affected our growth rate, Yahzi would have a point. Until then, his rants comes across as anger directed towards them due to their religious beliefs, rather than a logical rational argument against society allowing people to have a large number of children.

[Francesca R]

If you wouldn't give up your quality of life, then it's hypocritical to suggest that there isn't a problem when there aren't enough resources for others to enjoy that quality of life as well.Not accurate since I made no such suggestion. But the problem of compelling people to live on a certain level of resources is IMO worse than the problem of unequal access privileges to resources.

[Yahzi]

If some people prefer to live frugally in order to support more children,
But the number of kids you have affects my quality of life.

Because I define a quality life as a fair one; my quality of life will be diminished if a) I have to live with less material goods, or b) other people have to live with less material goods.

You can only have as many kids as you want if those kids are prepared to have less material goods than I (or you) want to have.

You are presuming that it is fair to birth kids into a world where they will always have less than others because they were condenmend to the life-style choice (resource allocation scheme) of their parents.

I am asserting that whatever lifestyle your parents chose should not condemn a person to that lifestyle; furthermore, I am asserting that it won't; that children whose parents lived frugally will not themselves want to live frugally.

And if those kids are to be given a fair share of the world's resources, then the size of the share has to diminish, because there are now more people.

I cannot happily live in a world where parents have constrained their descendants to poverty. And those poor people cannot live happily in my world, either; they will demand a fair share.

that isn't harming others because, as Thanz points out, such folks are NOT contributing to overpopulation here in the US.
Your entire argument is that it is OK for people to do things, as long as everyone doesn't do them.

If everyone did as Quiverfull does, even Quiverfull would be unhappy. But you excuse Quiverfull's actions because not everyone does as they do.

What ever happened to the Golden Rule? When did it become "ranting" to complain that a group of people are not doing as they would have others do?

Until then, his rants comes across as anger directed towards them due to their religious beliefs, rather than a logical rational argument against society allowing people to have a large number of children.
1. My anger is directed at their unfairness. I have mentioned this several times, and you have simply ignored it.

2. I don't need to explain why society cannot allow everyone to have a large number of children. Mathematics explains that. And if I have to explain why society cannot allow different rules for different people, then this discussion is beyond my scope.

[Yahzi]

Yet, you have never said what is one's fair "share of kids". You also haven't said who gets to decide that number, and why.
Fair share is pretty easy to determine. It's the same for everybody.

Objective reality gets to decide the number. How many people can the planet support at what level of resource consumption? First you decide how you want to live, then reality tells you how many people you get. After that, fairness is a matter of long division.

Further, you have steadfastly ignore the fact that the US does not have overpopulation tendencies - they are at replacement fertility even with the Quiverfull people.
You have steadfastly ignored the point that this is not because of the Quiverfull.

By your argument, littering is ok, because other people routinely pick up trash.

If everyone did as Quiverfull does, then Quiverfull's actions would be harmful. What part of this do you dispute?
Only if we accept your premises, which I don't.
Please tell me which of these premises you reject:

1. Overpopulation is bad.

2. Having too many kids leads to overpopulation.

3. People should always do as they would have others do.

Actually, I haven't made any of these arguments.
You have made argument number 4, and you make it again here:

The "quiverfull" movement, such as it is, is simply not large enough to have a significant impact on the World's population.
You are excusing the Quiverfull movement because not everyone does as Quiverfull does. You are arguing it is ok for them to do something, because not everyone will.

How is this not a complete violation of the Golden Rule? How is it fair for them to engage in action that, if everyone did it, they would unhappy?

What I think is ludicrous is you inventing arguments for me and completely ignoring hte arguments I actually make.
I am not ignoring the arguments you make. Your only argument is that people don't have to be fair.

Well, no. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that you are complaining about the guy who jostled you on the subway while another guy is busy firing a machine gun at you.
What makes you think I don't rant and rail against the other problems, too? Is there anything in this thread that gives you the impression that I approve of, or even do not disapprove of, overpopulation in other countries?

We are talking about a specific group and a specific newspaper article. I have explicity stated that my position is consistent. Therefore, anything I say about this case can be assumed to apply to all those other cases.

Why is this not sufficient?

Why do you get to decide how many kids someone else has?
Why do you keep asking who sets the limit on how many people the planet can support? You already know the answer is objective reality. And as for who decides how much material wealth counts as sufficient, you already know part of the answer: not less than what you have.

I think they have made a decision to make do with less. Lead a less lavish lifestyle. Not ludicrous. Is something wrong with living simply?
My comments presumed that the "they" in the above sentence were "poor people in third world nations." Apparently I don't know who you mean by "they."

That's not my solution - that is my observation. The world could not sustain the entire population in the lavish American lifestyle. You can put on blinders if you wish, but according to the standards of much of the world, Americans live high on the hog. I am not trying to knock down your lifestyle - just point out that your dream of extending it to the world's population is unsustainable.
It is not your observation - it is mine. I am the one who pointed out that the entire world cannot enjoy the American life-style. And I am the one who pointed out this is not fair, or sustainable.

Now, given that we both acknowledge the problem, what is the solution? My solution is to stop population growth until technology catches up to the pointer where everyone can enjoy an American lifestyle. If this also means my lifestyle stops improving until everyone catches up, that's fine by me. A small price to pay, as I see it.

What is your solution? Why, you don't have one. And you are unwilling to contain population growth, or better, decrease the world's population, to relieve the problem.

Consider this: suppose I choose not to have any kids, so as to make my ideal of a fair world a little easier. Your Quiverfull idiots get to trump my choice without asking me. How is that fair?

If I want a world with less people, and fairer resource allocation, there is no way for me to help make that world happen. Because you have given Quiverfull the unfettered right to mortgage the future as much as they like, irrespective of anyone else's actions, desires, or hopes.

At least you are honest about your bigotry. That doesn't make it forgivable, however.
When was I ever dishonest? Can you point to any text in this thread - or for that matter, any other thread - that justifies the above claim? Or will you at least admit this is something you read into my text on your own.

As for whether or not my bigotry is justified - that is a topic for another time. In this particular case my prejudices (I would call them "astute observations") about religion are not relevant. My disgust with Quiverfull is not because of their religious position, but because of the unfairness of their position. That they justify this unfairness by asserting a Divine Right is not relevant at the moment.

You haven't even addressed the arguments I have made, choosing instead to create strawmen to fight. Unless and until you address my actual arguments, don't tell me they are embarrassing. They seem to have completely flummoxed you.
What has flummoxed me is that you do not recognize the unfairness of your arguments.

You keep arguing that it is ok for people to do as they would NOT have others do. Your entire defense of these people's actions is, "It's ok because other people clean up after them."

[Yahzi]

Not accurate since I made no such suggestion. But the problem of compelling people to live on a certain level of resources is IMO worse than the problem of unequal access privileges to resources.
I have tried, several times, but I simply cannot make any sense out of this comment.

[Yahzi]

If you think about it, this comment fits very nicely with Yahzi's point about fairness:
There is another fairness issue, which both Thanz and Beth are avoiding.

Is it fair for Quiverfull to engage in behaviour that they do not want everyone else engaging in?

Beth and Thanz keep arguing that Quiverfull's actions are acceptable precisely because not everyone does them. I would like to know how this is "fair." Failing that, I would like to know why Quiverfull gets a pass on fairness.

[wolfgirl]

Let me preface this by saying that I consider overpopulation to be one of the premiere issues of our time, and one that will only become worse with time. Most other social problems can be seen to grow out of this one...poverty, hunger, crime, pollution, extinctions, habitat destruction, etc.

I don't believe in forced sterilization, but neither does Yahzi. I do, however, believe that people should have the decency to take it upon themselves not to have 11 kids! Okay, so it's only a few thousand people, so it only comes out to around 100,000 people. But that's just THIS generation. If all of those 100,000 kids have 11 kids each, and then they have 11 kids each, etc., they will certainly become a problem. And yes, maybe they won't all have 11 kids each. But the argument is against the IDEA of them doing so, and certainly their parents will teach them that that is right and good and that will be the INTENTION. So I would argue that that intention is bad in and of itself.

And these Quiverfull nut-jobs aren't the only people out there professing this type of behavior. Every once in a while there's an article in the local paper or a story on the local news about some family with 12 kids or something, and they're always made out to be come kind of heroes, as if anybody couldn't have 12 kids if they were stupid enough to want to. Why do they glorify it?

And finally, a lot of people have been arguing that we don't face overpopulation IN THIS COUNTRY, so we shouldn't be worried about it. (I would argue that point, but let's just say for argument's sake that I concede it...) There is one planet, and one planet only, for us all to share. At some point, the overpopulation in other countries will affect us here. The total number of people on the planet is what is going to cause trouble, not which countries we happen to live in. That just seems like such a typical American attitude...it's not affecting me, so why should I care?

For the record, I have two kids and deliberately chose not to have any more partly because of the whole "fairness" issue...why should I have more than my fair share of children and contribute to the problem of overpopulation?

[wolfgirl]

By your argument, littering is ok, because other people routinely pick up trash.I think this bears repeating because it seems to neatly sum up the entire argument, as I see it.

People shouldn't do things, like litter or have too many kids, because it's wrong. The fact that most people don't do it doesn't make it right for the few that do. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

[Beth]

Let me preface this by saying that I consider overpopulation to be one of the premiere issues of our time, and one that will only become worse with time. Most other social problems can be seen to grow out of this one...poverty, hunger, crime, pollution, extinctions, habitat destruction, etc. I agree that overpopulation can be a serious problem, I am no longer convinced (once I was) that overpopulation is the root cause of the problems you are listing.

I don't believe in forced sterilization, but neither does Yahzi. I do, however, believe that people should have the decency to take it upon themselves not to have 11 kids! Okay, so it's only a few thousand people, so it only comes out to around 100,000 people. But that's just THIS generation. If all of those 100,000 kids have 11 kids each, and then they have 11 kids each, etc., they will certainly become a problem. And yes, maybe they won't all have 11 kids each. But the argument is against the IDEA of them doing so, and certainly their parents will teach them that that is right and good and that will be the INTENTION. So I would argue that that intention is bad in and of itself.

So what exactly are you advocating as a "solution" to this problem. If it's not forced sterilization, what are you advocating here? Censorship or supression of their ideas regarding family size? Or are you just expressing your disagreement with their ideas but don't feel anything actually needs to change?

And these Quiverfull nut-jobs aren't the only people out there professing this type of behavior. Every once in a while there's an article in the local paper or a story on the local news about some family with 12 kids or something, and they're always made out to be come kind of heroes, as if anybody couldn't have 12 kids if they were stupid enough to want to. Why do they glorify it?

Well, I don't take it as "glorification", just as human interest articles. I enjoy articles about people raising odd animals, such as monkeys, lions, or emu's. If everybody were to decide they wanted to keep pet lions, that would easily turn into a problem, but because few people actually want to do so, it isn't. Likewise, despite the advocacy for large families by such groups, it isn't likely to become a popular way of life in the U.S.A.

And finally, a lot of people have been arguing that we don't face overpopulation IN THIS COUNTRY, so we shouldn't be worried about it. (I would argue that point, but let's just say for argument's sake that I concede it...) There is one planet, and one planet only, for us all to share. At some point, the overpopulation in other countries will affect us here. The total number of people on the planet is what is going to cause trouble, not which countries we happen to live in. That just seems like such a typical American attitude...it's not affecting me, so why should I care?

I think you are misunderstanding the crux of the argument. It isn't that overpopulation isn't a problem here so we need not be concerned about it. it's the idea that because overpopulation is a problem elsewhere, the situation will be improved if we insist that families here - where it isn't an issue - limit their family size. I don't see what Yatzi is advocating as being any help to problem of overpopulation in the world. Thanz has been more eloquent than I in that regard.


For the record, I have two kids and deliberately chose not to have any more partly because of the whole "fairness" issue...why should I have more than my fair share of children and contribute to the problem of overpopulation?

For the record, I also have two kids and deliberately chose not to have any more partly because I did not want to contribute to the problem of overpopulation.

[ysabella]

Oh, I wanted to add a couple of other points. Not on the overpopulation side of the discussion, but on the Quiverfull philosophy and why I think women get into that.

I do have some sympathy for how these Quiverfull chicks feel. My pregnancy was somewhat unexpected. We had been forgoing birth control for a long time, and I had come to believe I would require fertility treatments in order to conceive, but suddenly found I was pregnant. As the pregnancy went on and tests showed we had a healthy son on the way, I couldn't help but feel so lucky and thankful about it. Now that he's here, we can hardly believe how wonderful he is. So, a lot of positive feelings there, feeling specially lucky, feeling happy, feeling thankful, and feeling like we have this wonderful unexpected gift.
Give those feelings to a 20 year-old woman who is not overly intellectual/educated and who is very religious, and she will attribute this to being specially blessed by God. Also, she will want to feel that way again. Planning the subsequent children will not result in the special "I've Been Chosen For a Special Gift From the Lord" side of the feeling.

Also, I have met a few women who, in their 20s, experience a form of agoraphobia. They become frightened of the big scary world and finding their place in it, and retreat to something that seems somehow safe to them. What I've seen the most is inappropriate marriages. I think they see it as a way to assume an acceptable role in society, but be able to foist off a lot of personal responsibility to another person. This is not something I can prove, merely something I have personally observed, and I think it may affect some women who retreat into the Quiverfull lifestyle to mask their own feelings of inadequacy - inability to earn a living, to live alone, etc.

[Thanz]

Fair share is pretty easy to determine. It's the same for everybody.

Objective reality gets to decide the number. How many people can the planet support at what level of resource consumption? First you decide how you want to live, then reality tells you how many people you get. After that, fairness is a matter of long division.
Again, you are not providing a number. But even aside from that, your proposal is at best problematic as the world cannot sustain the current population in the comfort to which you have become accustomed. according to this (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1998/en/pdf/hdr_1998_overview.pdf), the richest 20% of the world's population consume 86% of the world's resources annually. You simply cannot raise the other 80% to that consumption level and expect any kind of long-term sustainability. Your rosy-eyed wish for a woonderful consumer happy world requires massive population decreases. I don't imagine you advocate going on a killing spree.

You have steadfastly ignored the point that this is not because of the Quiverfull.

By your argument, littering is ok, because other people routinely pick up trash.

If everyone did as Quiverfull does, then Quiverfull's actions would be harmful. What part of this do you dispute?
I dispute that this is a moral issue in the way that you posit it. Not all choices are moral or immoral on the calculus that you present. Let's take another example. Let's say Bob chooses to be an accountant. But, if everyone chooses to be an accountant, no one will grow food. People will starve and die. That is Bad. So, is Bob's choice immoral? I mean, according to you, he is doing what he cannot advocate everyone doing.

No, some choices must be evaluated in light of what everyone else is doing. Bob's choice is not immoral as other people do choose to grow food. Just as if Bob chooses to have 4 kids instead of 2, and he can support those kids, that is not immoral either.

Please tell me which of these premises you reject:

1. Overpopulation is bad.

2. Having too many kids leads to overpopulation.

3. People should always do as they would have others do.
Number 3, as explained above. Not all choices are examinable in this manner.

You are excusing the Quiverfull movement because not everyone does as Quiverfull does. You are arguing it is ok for them to do something, because not everyone will.

How is this not a complete violation of the Golden Rule? How is it fair for them to engage in action that, if everyone did it, they would unhappy?
See above. Also, I can formulate the moral question in a way that doesn't violate the golden rule - people should be at liberty to decide their own reproduction. Do you disagree with that?

I am not ignoring the arguments you make. Your only argument is that people don't have to be fair.
I disagree that what they are doing is unfair. Again, to make the unfairness argument, you treat the children as chattle of their parents instead of individuals in their own right.
Why do you keep asking who sets the limit on how many people the planet can support? You already know the answer is objective reality. And as for who decides how much material wealth counts as sufficient, you already know part of the answer: not less than what you have.
Objective reality, Yahzi, says that this is not possible with the current population.
My comments presumed that the "they" in the above sentence were "poor people in third world nations." Apparently I don't know who you mean by "they."
quiverful people.
It is not your observation - it is mine. I am the one who pointed out that the entire world cannot enjoy the American life-style. And I am the one who pointed out this is not fair, or sustainable.
Where did you point this out? Which post? I must have missed it.

Now, given that we both acknowledge the problem, what is the solution? My solution is to stop population growth until technology catches up to the pointer where everyone can enjoy an American lifestyle. If this also means my lifestyle stops improving until everyone catches up, that's fine by me. A small price to pay, as I see it.
Your "solution" is impossible - unless you suddenly have a lot of hope in the Steorn people. Simply stopping population growth is insufficient to bring up the lifestyle to the one that you enjoy.

What is your solution? Why, you don't have one. And you are unwilling to contain population growth, or better, decrease the world's population, to relieve the problem.
There is no easy solution. If I could solve this particular conundrum, I'd be the greatest person in the history of the World. I fully believe that the solution to world hunger will not pop out of an internet forum discussion.

Consider this: suppose I choose not to have any kids, so as to make my ideal of a fair world a little easier. Your Quiverfull idiots get to trump my choice without asking me. How is that fair?
Personal freedom. Ain't that a bitch?

If I want a world with less people, and fairer resource allocation, there is no way for me to help make that world happen.
No, there isn't. At least not on a global scale. And given that you are not willing to give up any of your own lifestyle, it would seem not on a personal level either.
Because you have given Quiverfull the unfettered right to mortgage the future as much as they like, irrespective of anyone else's actions, desires, or hopes.
I am not in a position to either grant them or take away any rights. And I do not see them mortgaging the future. I see them reproducing - only the most fundamental desire in the history of life as we know it. Not just humanity, but all life strives to reproduce. It is one of the fundamental characteristics of life. And you want to deny it to them, or at the very least restrict it, for your pie-in-the-sky vision of a flat panel tv in every living room and two cars in very garage on the planet. What was that about fair, again?


When was I ever dishonest? Can you point to any text in this thread - or for that matter, any other thread - that justifies the above claim? Or will you at least admit this is something you read into my text on your own.
What claim? That you are an anti-religious bigot? How about when you say "I am an anti-religious bigot."

If you somehow think that I was accusing you of being dishonest about your bigotry, I wasn't. Some others on this board may be. I was saying that your acknowledgement of your own bigotry does not justify it.

[luchog]

I have tried, several times, but I simply cannot make any sense out of this comment.

Then you should spend more time studying English. It made perfect sense.

And you really need to define "fairness", so far your only definition is "how I think everyone should live".

[Francesca R]

How is this not a complete violation of the Golden Rule?The golden rule is nonsense. "Treat others as you would treat yourself" implies that a suicidal person should kill everybody without their consent, a masochist should harm others without their consent, and a glutton should force-feed everybody.

How is it fair for them to engage in action that, if everyone did it, they would unhappy?If everyone did a great many things, the world, um . . . "wouldn't work"

By the way, are you also going to agitate for everyone to form a monogamous couple and force them to have 2.1 children even if they want none? It will be interesting to see how you force the 0.1 out of them.

Your concept of fairness is wrong-headed, and your arguments are absurd :D

[fls]

I wonder if the religious cannibalize their own.

And I'm worried about the effect of the International Screw for Science Day (http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=254) on over-population.

Linda

[Yahzi]

The golden rule is nonsense.
That explains a lot.

You can get someone else to explain to you why your arguments are invalid. I'm done with you.

[Yahzi]

Then you should spend more time studying English. It made perfect sense.

And you really need to define "fairness", so far your only definition is "how I think everyone should live".
If you don't understand fairness, I am not going to try and explain it to you.

I quite clearly stated that it is unfair to expect other people to live with less than I have. I also stated that it is unfair to let other people make decisions that affect me, without allowing me to affect those decisions. Your ability to turn that into "how I think everyone should live" does not speak well of either your English or your logic skills.

So far, we have two contestants disqualifed for arguing that unfairness is OK. I wonder how our other contestants will fare?

[Yahzi]

Again, you are not providing a number.
Why should I provide a number?

Objective reality sets the number. It turns out that about 2.1 is the rate of replacement. Ergo, it would seem obvious that if every person had exactly one child, the population would slowly decline. Indeed, the concept of replacing yourself by having exactly one child to replace yourself would seem to lead to a fair and equitable... replacement.

However, if the situation changed, the number would change. See, this is the difference between absolute, religious morality and objective, secular morality. You want me to assign some magic number that is independent of the circumstances. I keep telling you the number depends on the circumstances; indeed, making the number not depend on actual reality is the quickest way to tragedy that I can imagine.

I have stated that objective reality determines the number several times now. Why is that not sufficient as an answer?

But even aside from that, your proposal is at best problematic as the world cannot sustain the current population in the comfort to which you have become accustomed.
Do you even read my posts?

I brought this point up here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2101804&postcount=27

I repeated it here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2106788&postcount=50

And I explicitly stated it here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2111998&postcount=66

Why do you keep telling me facts that I already know, and have repeatedly demonstrated my knowledge of?

Your rosy-eyed wish for a woonderful consumer happy world requires massive population decreases. I don't imagine you advocate going on a killing spree.
And your solution is... what, exactly? Continue to live in a world in which some people have plenty, and others do not?

Are you arguing that we should perpetuate the current injustice of the world?

No, some choices must be evaluated in light of what everyone else is doing.
Bob's choice does not affect me. I can choose to grow food or not, independent of Bob's chosen career.

I cannot choose to gradually reduce the world's population burden through natural ageing if Bob chooses to have the kids I didn't have.

Just as if Bob chooses to have 4 kids instead of 2, and he can support those kids, that is not immoral either.
So if I choose a world in which everything is divided up fairly, my descendants must do with less because Bob chose to have more kids.

And this strikes you as fair?

Again, I have to ask: are you advocating against a world in which resources are divided fairly?


Also, I can formulate the moral question in a way that doesn't violate the golden rule - people should be at liberty to decide their own reproduction. Do you disagree with that?
Does their reproduction affect me? Then yes, I disagree.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If I can show that your decisions harm me, then I get to have a say in your decisions.

Beth's optimism aside, overpopulation harms me. Therefore, I have a right to help make the decision.

If their reproduction had no material effect on me, then you would be right. But it does have a material effect on me.

I disagree that what they are doing is unfair. Again, to make the unfairness argument, you treat the children as chattle of their parents instead of individuals in their own right.
Are you even reading my posts? I am the one who asserts it is unfair to punish children for the actions of their parents. Thus, I am the one who points out that my decision to treat the children fairly means that the parent's decision on how many children to have affects me.

It is you that would condemn the children to a live of less resources, because their parents chose their lifestyle for them, by choosing how many people would share the availble resources. While I realize this choice is at some level unavoidable, my sense of fairness demands that I choose at least no less than I got; that I at least stablize the population rather than grow it.

Your position excuses the parents for chosing less for their children.

Objective reality, Yahzi, says that this is not possible with the current population.
How is it you read the three posts I repeated, above, and still did not grasp that I understand this - indeed, that I was the first one to bring it up?

Where did you point this out? Which post? I must have missed it.
See the three links, above.

Simply stopping population growth is insufficient to bring up the lifestyle to the one that you enjoy.
It's a step in right direction. Besides, I did mention that I was hoping that advancing technology could catch everyone else up. But of course, expecting you to actually read what I post might be asking too much.

There is no easy solution. If I could solve this particular conundrum, I'd be the greatest person in the history of the World. I fully believe that the solution to world hunger will not pop out of an internet forum discussion.
I can assure you that as long as people are not interested in fairness, there will continue to be problems of all kinds.

Personal freedom. Ain't that a bitch?
You define the right to circumscribe my future as "personal freedom?"

Do you extend this personal freedom to any other activity? Is there any other behaviour I may engage in that materially affects your future but is protected by personal liberty?

Salting the ground with uranium? Cutting down the rainforest? Poisioning the seas? Exhausting the ozone? Or, perhaps, creating a virus that will kill your children but not mine?

Why do you make a special exemption for reproduction?

No, there isn't. At least not on a global scale.
Well, there you go. Life sucks, and there's nothing we can do about it. Might as well enjoy the fun.

You have just asserted that there is no point in trying. I suppose, from your perspective, that makes sense: no doubt you hold that this sinful world will only be rendered livable when Jesus comes to fix everything.

And people ask me how religion harms me!

And given that you are not willing to give up any of your own lifestyle, it would seem not on a personal level either.
A rather strong statement to make, absent any evidence.

And I do not see them mortgaging the future. I see them reproducing - only the most fundamental desire in the history of life as we know it. Not just humanity, but all life strives to reproduce. It is one of the fundamental characteristics of life. And you want to deny it to them, or at the very least restrict it, for your pie-in-the-sky vision of a flat panel tv in every living room and two cars in very garage on the planet. What was that about fair, again?
First, lets deal with the strawmen. Why did you say "deny?" When did I ever say deny? At what point did I ever suggest that people should not be allowed to reproduce at all? Where did I say this?

Why should I even bother to respond to your arguments when you do not read my posts, and then proceed to slander and mischaracterize my argument in the most extreme manner?

Second, let's deal with your comment about the "pie-in-the-sky" future. From that dismissive tone are we to take it that you are OK with the current situation? Are you OK with it continuing on indefinitely? If your argument is that life is unfair, then fine: you should have said, back in the beginning, "Yes, I know it means my kids will have to murder your kids, and I'm OK with that."

Finally, note that once again you dispute the notion that restricting people's reproduction is necessary to controlling the rate of population growth. And you point to the innate desire to breed, apparently oblvious to how animals manage their population levels. Do you know how animals manage their populations, Thanz? Would you like us humans to use those methods? Or would you prefer that we humans find a fairer and less blood-soaked method?

What claim? That you are an anti-religious bigot?
You're not even reading your own posts now.

You accused me of hiding the fact that I was an anti-Christian bigot. I pointed out that I never, at any point, concealed my prejudices for all religious idiocy. You seem to have forgotten what it is you accused me of, which makes my defense against such accusation rather difficult.

I was saying that your acknowledgement of your own bigotry does not justify it.
My "bigotry" is justified by logic and experience. To that end, it's not really bigotry so much as "astute observation," as I made clear before. However, I suppose it would be technically coherent to define my automatic and reflexive dismissal of magical thinking as a prejudice.

I applaud you for at least trying to deal with the moral issue. However, your arguments are invalid, as I have shown, because you fail to recognize that the number of children other people have has a direct and material effect on me. You have offered no reason why reproduction should be granted a special exemption from the ordinary rules of how we manage our liberties; and I strongly suspect, you can offer no rational reason. But I am prepared to be proven wrong.

[Yahzi]

I agree that overpopulation can be a serious problem, I am no longer convinced (once I was) that overpopulation is the root cause of the problems you are listing.
Until you offer some evidence of why the future will be different than the last 250,000 years of the past, it would seem the better part of skepticism and caution to assume overpopulation will continue to aggravate the same kinds of problems it has always aggravated.

So what exactly are you advocating as a "solution" to this problem.
I thought that was pretty obvious: public ridicule.

How did we reduce racism from its dominance in the 50's to its much more muted level of today? Education, law, and social programs, yes; but mostly, by changing social attitudes. It is no longer considered acceptable to spout openly racist views in polite society. And look... people do it a heck of a lot less than they used to.

I did my part to heap public ridicule on the Quiverfull idiots. But you, for some reason, seem to think they should be protected from our scorn.

Given that you reject changing social attitudes, what do you advocate as a solution?

If everybody were to decide they wanted to keep pet lions, that would easily turn into a problem, but because few people actually want to do so, it isn't.
In fact, the number of animals bred and born in captivity is greater than that in the wild... and it is a problem (http://www.lionstigersnbears.org/About_LTB.htm)

Likewise, despite the advocacy for large families by such groups, it isn't likely to become a popular way of life in the U.S.A.
You keep excusing them because not everybody does what they do.

the situation will be improved if we insist that families here - where it isn't an issue - limit their family size. I don't see what Yatzi is advocating as being any help to problem of overpopulation in the world.
YOu don't see that we would have more moral authority - and therefore success - in convincing other societies to change their social attitudes if we changed ours first?

You really think we can go to Nigeria and tell them to limit their family sizes, and when they point to the Quiverfull, we can just say, "Oh, those are rich white Christians - the rules are different for them."

For the record, I also have two kids and deliberately chose not to have any more partly because I did not want to contribute to the problem of overpopulation.
And the logic train simply falls over and dies.

If the actions of the Quiverfull cannot materially affect the population, how in the heck does your individual action materially affect the population?

How can you claim credit for your choice, while denying the Quiverfull any blame for theirs?

How can you think your personal actions matter, while you assert that the actions of an entire organized group do NOT matter?

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/k020.gif

[Zygar]

The golden rule is nonsense. "Treat others as you would treat yourself" implies that a suicidal person should kill everybody without their consent, a masochist should harm others without their consent, and a glutton should force-feed everybody.

Umm, this makes utterly no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

[Francesca R]

Evasion of the argument, appeal to unknown authority . . .

That explains a lot.

You can get someone else to explain to you why your arguments are invalid. I'm done with you.Ah . . . OK . . .

I now know enough after one interaction with you, to be reasonably confident that you are not up to debate. :)—QED :D

Umm, this makes utterly no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Criticism:_Not_a_.22rule.22) may help

A logical loophole in the positive form of Golden "rule" is that it would require a masochist to harm others, even without their consent, if that is what the masochist would wish for himself. This loophole can be addressed by invoking a supplementary rule, which is sometimes called the silver rule. This states "treat others in the way that they wish to be treated". The silver rule could demand that the golden rule be re-written as "Do unto others as they would have done unto them".However, the golden rule may create another logical loophole. In a situation where an individual's background or belief may offend the sentiment of the majority, the golden rule may imply ethical majoritarianism if the Golden rule was to be enforced as if it were a law.

Now—"Do unto others as they would have done unto them" does not appear to me to point towards forcing reproductive restriction onto members of society who would like more children.

[Cuddles]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I feel I should point out one thing to those who keep claiming the USA is only just at "replacement fertility". The USA census (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) website says One birth every.................................. 8 seconds
One death every.................................. 12 seconds
Even without migration you are well above replacement levels.

[Mashuna]

So if I choose a world in which everything is divided up fairly, my descendants must do with less because Bob chose to have more kids.

And this strikes you as fair?

Again, I have to ask: are you advocating against a world in which resources are divided fairly?

I've only skimmed the thread quickly, but what does 'fair' mean here? Are we talking equality of opportunity, equality of outcome or some third option that I'm missing?

[exarch]

Right. And look at most of Europe and Japan running at well below replacement fertility.

Yeah, why do you think that is?
The more religious and backward a country is, the higher the fertility rate. You might even be tempted to think the two are related ...

[Thanz]

Why should I provide a number?
The reason you need to provide a number is that you are claiming they are having too many, and that it is unfair, and that it is harming you. there must be some sort of baseline to make these judgments.
Objective reality sets the number. It turns out that about 2.1 is the rate of replacement. Ergo, it would seem obvious that if every person had exactly one child, the population would slowly decline. Indeed, the concept of replacing yourself by having exactly one child to replace yourself would seem to lead to a fair and equitable... replacement.
Does this mean you are placing the number at 1 or 2 children per family? If not, what more do you need to know about "objective reality" to say?

However, if the situation changed, the number would change. See, this is the difference between absolute, religious morality and objective, secular morality. You want me to assign some magic number that is independent of the circumstances. I keep telling you the number depends on the circumstances; indeed, making the number not depend on actual reality is the quickest way to tragedy that I can imagine.
Climb off the high horse for a second there. I am not asking you to assign a magic number - I am asking for a number based on your assessment of "objective reality". You keep railing about fairness and unfairness, and the fair share of kids, etc. Well, what is the basis for it? That is my question.

I have stated that objective reality determines the number several times now. Why is that not sufficient as an answer?
Because it is like I am asking you who won the game last night, and your only reply is "the team that scored the most points". It doesn't actually tell me anything that I want to know.

Do you even read my posts?

I brought this point up here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2101804&postcount=27

I repeated it here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2106788&postcount=50

And I explicitly stated it here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2111998&postcount=66

Why do you keep telling me facts that I already know, and have repeatedly demonstrated my knowledge of?
Really, Yahzi, I just don't see in those first two points any acknowledgement of the fact that the world cannot sustain the current population (without any growth) at an American standard of living. I only see statements that overpopulation is bad, and that you want everyone to have at least your standard of living. You certainly didn't bring up the point - you don't even acknowledge it until the third one. DO you read your own posts?

And your solution is... what, exactly? Continue to live in a world in which some people have plenty, and others do not?
I have already said that I have no pat answers.

Are you arguing that we should perpetuate the current injustice of the world?
No. I am merely pointing out that raising everyone to an american standard of living is not possible. Which means that Americans (and other Western industrialized nations) will probably have to give up some stuff in order to raise the standard for others.

Bob's choice does not affect me. I can choose to grow food or not, independent of Bob's chosen career.
Just as other people choose to have kids or not, independent of your chosen reproductive habits.
I cannot choose to gradually reduce the world's population burden through natural ageing if Bob chooses to have the kids I didn't have.
And you can't choose to gradually reduce the world's number of accountants, either, if Bob chooses to become an accountant.

So if I choose a world in which everything is divided up fairly, my descendants must do with less because Bob chose to have more kids.

And this strikes you as fair?
In a world where everything was divided up fairly, your kids would have to do with less regardless of whether Bob has any kids.

And no, it does not strike me as unfair if in a world where resources are divided fairly that everyone might have to do with less.

Again, I have to ask: are you advocating against a world in which resources are divided fairly?
No, I am not. But you seem to be: you simply cannot have a world where resources are divided fairly and you get to maintain the current American lifestyle. Unfortunatley, it is a bit of a zero-sum game. In order for the standard of living to come up dramatically for the majority of the world, the standard of living in the Western industrialized nations will have to decrease.

Does their reproduction affect me? Then yes, I disagree.
Well, no, it doesn't affect you.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If I can show that your decisions harm me, then I get to have a say in your decisions.
You haven't shown how they harm you.

Beth's optimism aside, overpopulation harms me. Therefore, I have a right to help make the decision.

If their reproduction had no material effect on me, then you would be right. But it does have a material effect on me.
Again, I don't see it. Overpopulation is a problem in general for the world. I do not see its consequences visiting themselves on you and your robust American lifestyle.

Are you even reading my posts? I am the one who asserts it is unfair to punish children for the actions of their parents. Thus, I am the one who points out that my decision to treat the children fairly means that the parent's decision on how many children to have affects me.

It is you that would condemn the children to a live of less resources, because their parents chose their lifestyle for them, by choosing how many people would share the availble resources. While I realize this choice is at some level unavoidable, my sense of fairness demands that I choose at least no less than I got; that I at least stablize the population rather than grow it.

Your position excuses the parents for chosing less for their children.
And here is where we have a fundamental disconnect. My sense of fairness does not require others to make the same decisions that I do. You may want your kids to have all of the do-dads and PS3s they can carry. If I choose to live a more simple life with my family, that is my choice. And if a Quiverful person decides to live even more simply than I do, that is their choice. And neither you nor I have any say in that. Nor do we have to "excuse" it - there is nothing to excuse.

All parents choose the level of material comforts that their children have when growing up. Some have more choice than others due to different income levels. Further, those children will grow up and then make the decisions for themselves.

Your position condemns the parents for not choosing a higher consumption of resources. And you claim to care about the future.
How is it you read the three posts I repeated, above, and still did not grasp that I understand this - indeed, that I was the first one to bring it up?
I am still trying to figure out why you think you brought it up.

It's a step in right direction. Besides, I did mention that I was hoping that advancing technology could catch everyone else up. But of course, expecting you to actually read what I post might be asking too much.
I read it. And I dismissed it as wishful, Steorn-driven thinking. Where is your love for objective reality now? Objective reality is that we are not going to come up with some magic star-trek replicator to solve the world's resource problems.

You define the right to circumscribe my future as "personal freedom?"
Oddly, I don't see them as "circumscribing your future".

Do you extend this personal freedom to any other activity? Is there any other behaviour I may engage in that materially affects your future but is protected by personal liberty?

Salting the ground with uranium? Cutting down the rainforest? Poisioning the seas? Exhausting the ozone? Or, perhaps, creating a virus that will kill your children but not mine?
Funny, but I simply don't see Bob habing 6 kids as even remotely equivalent to any of these actions.

Why do you make a special exemption for reproduction?
Because it is not directly harmful to you. If you create a virus that kills me, that is directly harmful. If I have more kids than you, it may put an infitessimal amount of more strain on the world's resources, but it doesn't directly harm you.

You have just asserted that there is no point in trying. I suppose, from your perspective, that makes sense: no doubt you hold that this sinful world will only be rendered livable when Jesus comes to fix everything.

And people ask me how religion harms me!
Please, hyperbole man. Did I say anything at all in there about Jesus? I didn't even say that there was no point in trying. I was just saying that your actions alone in reproductive choices simply make no impact on global population. And they don't. If you really want to make an impact, you will contribute to efforts in education and provision of birth control to those nations with extremely high birth rates.

A rather strong statement to make, absent any evidence.
Your dogged insistence that you and your descendants have no less than what you currently have is, in fact, evidence that you do not want to actually raise anyone's lifestyle if it means any impact on your personal life.

Second, let's deal with your comment about the "pie-in-the-sky" future. From that dismissive tone are we to take it that you are OK with the current situation? Are you OK with it continuing on indefinitely? If your argument is that life is unfair, then fine: you should have said, back in the beginning, "Yes, I know it means my kids will have to murder your kids, and I'm OK with that."
Your prognostication that my kids will have to kill your kids is far from fact. And I have not advocated it.

Finally, note that once again you dispute the notion that restricting people's reproduction is necessary to controlling the rate of population growth. And you point to the innate desire to breed, apparently oblvious to how animals manage their population levels. Do you know how animals manage their populations, Thanz? Would you like us humans to use those methods? Or would you prefer that we humans find a fairer and less blood-soaked method?
And what method is that? Forced sterilizations? Seems rather unfair to me.

You accused me of hiding the fact that I was an anti-Christian bigot. I pointed out that I never, at any point, concealed my prejudices for all religious idiocy. You seem to have forgotten what it is you accused me of, which makes my defense against such accusation rather difficult.
Where, exactly, did I accuse you of this? When I said that at least you don't hide it? Or when I said that your motivation was more from your bigotry than from global population concerns?

Really, Yahzi, I have never accused you of hiding your bigotry. I have known you are an anti-religious bigot for some time now. I don't think it is a mystery to anyone who reads your posts.


I applaud you for at least trying to deal with the moral issue. However, your arguments are invalid, as I have shown, because you fail to recognize that the number of children other people have has a direct and material effect on me. You have offered no reason why reproduction should be granted a special exemption from the ordinary rules of how we manage our liberties; and I strongly suspect, you can offer no rational reason. But I am prepared to be proven wrong.
I don't see the "direct and material effect". At best, I could see a "slight and incidental effect". And your arguments about numbers are ALL based on an "us vs. them" paradigm that denies the worth of each individual as individuals.

Let's say that the world eventually does get some fairer distribution of resources. Even with no population growth, this will mean that the top people will have to come down some. It is a mathematical inevitibility. So, in this world the average consumption of resources in the Western world drops. Now, let's further postulate that you have had one child and I have had three. In this brave new world, each of our children receives the same amount of resources (the average for the Western world). According to your notion of fairness, is this fair or unfair?

[Yahzi]

I've only skimmed the thread quickly, but what does 'fair' mean here? Are we talking equality of opportunity, equality of outcome or some third option that I'm missing?
It doesn't matter. Any of those would be fairer than what we have right now. It is not necessary to precisely define exactly what a fair allocation of resources is before observing that the current allocation of resources ain't.

[Yahzi]

The reason you need to provide a number is that you are claiming they are having too many, and that it is unfair, and that it is harming you. there must be some sort of baseline to make these judgments.
The baseline is obvious. The rate of replacement.

If I am complaining that the world is already too populated, then it seems pretty obvious that increasing the population would be something I would complain about.

Does this mean you are placing the number at 1 or 2 children per family? If not, what more do you need to know about "objective reality" to say?
Didn't I answer this question here:

Indeed, the concept of replacing yourself by having exactly one child to replace yourself would seem to lead to a fair and equitable... replacement. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2120093&postcount=79)

Because it is like I am asking you who won the game last night, and your only reply is "the team that scored the most points". It doesn't actually tell me anything that I want to know.
You don't know that having more kids then one per person will cause the population to grow?

I only see statements that overpopulation is bad, and that you want everyone to have at least your standard of living. You certainly didn't bring up the point - you don't even acknowledge it until the third one. DO you read your own posts?
Rather than argue about what my first two links showed, let us just observe this response.

You are acknowledging that my third link does explicitly state the issue. Which then makes the question I asked quite pertinent:

Why did you repeat this information to me after the post in which you now acknowledge I clearly state this information?

I have already said that I have no pat answers.
This is like arguing with a Creationist.

C: "Evolution is wrong!"

E: "Um... do you have a different explanation?"

C: "No... but Evolution is wrong!"

You don't need an answer, Thanz. There is a perfectly good answer lying right there on the table. To reduce the problem of overpopulation, we should reduce the number of children people have. What, specifically, is wrong with this answer? If you do not have a better answer, then what is unworkable or unacceptable about this one?

Suggesting that we simply ignore the problem and let someone else solve it is an answer, btw: it is actively choosing war, famine, pestilience, and genocide. If we let Nature address the population issue, these are the tools she will use to fix it. Your abdication of human responsiblity is a direct and immediate vote for the above.

No. I am merely pointing out that raising everyone to an american standard of living is not possible.
We already established that I know this. Why are you repeating it?

Which means that Americans (and other Western industrialized nations) will probably have to give up some stuff in order to raise the standard for others.
I finally see your argument, revealed it all its true glory:

"I don't want to give up any of my stuff!"

No, I am not. But you seem to be: you simply cannot have a world where resources are divided fairly and you get to maintain the current American lifestyle.
I know this. You know I know this. Why do you keep repeating it?

Well, no, it doesn't affect you.
The basis of your argument is that overpopulation does not harm me. Even though it is harmful to the human population in general.

Again, I don't see it. Overpopulation is a problem in general for the world. I do not see its consequences visiting themselves on you and your robust American lifestyle.
You just spent half a page explaining how my robust lifestyle cannot be shared by the entire world. You then acknowledged that this is basically unfair.

And now you ask how I am harmed by overpopulation?

The only way I can reconcile these statements is to assume that you do not find living in an unfair world to be harmful to me. As long as I'm the one benefitting, that is.

Again, back to the "but we have all the stuff, so what's the harm?" line of thinking.

And here is where we have a fundamental disconnect. My sense of fairness does not require others to make the same decisions that I do. You may want your kids to have all of the do-dads and PS3s they can carry. If I choose to live a more simple life with my family, that is my choice.
Once again you simply ignore the fact that your decision to live a simple life with more kids damns your children to the same decision.

You cannot seem to grasp that the resources of the world are finite.

And if a Quiverful person decides to live even more simply than I do, that is their choice. And neither you nor I have any say in that.
You cannot seem to grasp - indeed, you actively dispute - that their current choices can affect my future.

You do this by denying that overpopulation causes me harm.

And you deny that by pointing out that I have the lion's share of the resources, so what am I complaining about.

Do I really have to explain to you why I find a world in which I am rich and others are poor to be unacceptable?

All parents choose the level of material comforts that their children have when growing up... Further, those children will grow up and then make the decisions for themselves.
Here is the disconnect.

YOu cannot grasp that the parent's choices about the size of the world population affect the children, regardless of what choices the children make.

Your position condemns the parents for not choosing a higher consumption of resources. And you claim to care about the future.
I am not even going to respond to your strawmen anymore.

I read it. And I dismissed it as wishful, Steorn-driven thinking.
I don't know who Steorn is, and I don't care.

Fact 1: quality of life has risen due to technology - not just increased resource consumption. Smarter use of our goods, not just more use.

Fact 2: this process does not show any signs of stopping.

Conclusion: the quality of life of everyone on the planet can be slowly and eventually raised due to gains in technology.

Oddly, I don't see them as "circumscribing your future".
You described exactly how the circumscribed my future, above.

The fundamental disconnect is that you do not think living in a world of unfairness is harm, as long as you're the one doing the unfairing.

Because it is not directly harmful to you. If you create a virus that kills me, that is directly harmful. If I have more kids than you, it may put an infitessimal amount of more strain on the world's resources, but it doesn't directly harm you.
I am not even going to respond to the illogic in this statement.

And they don't. If you really want to make an impact, you will contribute to efforts in education and provision of birth control to those nations with extremely high birth rates.
What makes you think I don't?

Does contributing to those causes require me to remain silent in the face of stupidity at home?

Your dogged insistence that you and your descendants have no less than what you currently have is, in fact, evidence that you do not want to actually raise anyone's lifestyle if it means any impact on your personal life.
You are incorrect. I would happily reduce my lifestyle if I beleived it would result in an actual, meaningful increase for the rest of the world. And the prhase "dogged insistence" is your mis-reading. What I am doggedly insisting is that the minimum requirement of fairness is that one does not expect others to do with less. I did not put an upper limit on fairness; I simply pointed out that fairness requires one to go at least this far.

Your prognostication that my kids will have to kill your kids is far from fact.
This fact is obscured only as long as one remains mathematically and historically illiterate.

And what method is that? Forced sterilizations? Seems rather unfair to me.
See my post above, on social attitudes.

I don't see the "direct and material effect". At best, I could see a "slight and incidental effect". And your arguments about numbers are ALL based on an "us vs. them" paradigm that denies the worth of each individual as individuals.
Another convulted way of saying, "Overpopulation causes harm, but not to Yahzi."

Now, let's further postulate that you have had one child and I have had three. In this brave new world, each of our children receives the same amount of resources (the average for the Western world). According to your notion of fairness, is this fair or unfair?
Suppose I chose to have one child, so that my child would have more resources.

Now you answer the question: is your having 3 kids fair or unfair? Is your trumping the decision I make for my children fair or unfair?

Now, to be consistent, my decision to have one kid also affects your kids: it means that, in a world where everything is divided fairly, your kids get more. My decision to have less children to improve my child's life improves everyone's. Just as your decision to degrade your child's life by having more children degrades everyone's

Can you see why one is fair, and one is not?


To sum up:

1. You refuse to consider me harmed by overpopulation, even while you define overpopulation as a harm.

2. You refuse to acknowledge that reproductive decisions by other people affect the communal state of all people.

3. You continue to defend Quiverfull's actions from censure based on the fact that other people are doing worse.

[Thanz]

Yahzi - I feel like we are talking past each other here to a certain extent. I really don't know where you are getting some of your characterizations of my arguments, and I think you are feeling the same. I will therefore try and be selective in my reply.

This is like arguing with a Creationist.

C: "Evolution is wrong!"

E: "Um... do you have a different explanation?"

C: "No... but Evolution is wrong!"

You don't need an answer, Thanz. There is a perfectly good answer lying right there on the table. To reduce the problem of overpopulation, we should reduce the number of children people have. What, specifically, is wrong with this answer? If you do not have a better answer, then what is unworkable or unacceptable about this one?
I was responding not about population growth, but about resource allocation. To reduce overpopulation, you need to do the things I stated in my last post - which is to work to reduce the birthrate in those areas that have extremely high birthrates.

We already established that I know this. Why are you repeating it? Because from your posts I don't see you grasping it.
I finally see your argument, revealed it all its true glory:

"I don't want to give up any of my stuff!"
This is exactly how I see your argument and position that the baseline for standard of living must be your standard of living. "Not less than what you have now" is what you have been repeating throughout. Your position, not mine.

I know this. You know I know this. Why do you keep repeating it?
Because you don't seem to grasp the implications of it when you continue to insist on the American lifestyle as a baseline for resource allocation.
You just spent half a page explaining how my robust lifestyle cannot be shared by the entire world. You then acknowledged that this is basically unfair.

And now you ask how I am harmed by overpopulation?

The only way I can reconcile these statements is to assume that you do not find living in an unfair world to be harmful to me. As long as I'm the one benefitting, that is.
Considering that you are asserting direct harm to you, yes. If Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor, is he harming the poor?

Again, back to the "but we have all the stuff, so what's the harm?" line of thinking.
Again, that is your position - by insisting that your lifestyle cannot be lessened.

You cannot seem to grasp that the resources of the world are finite.
I grasp that quite fine. I am not insisting my current lifestyle be the baseline, as you are.
Do I really have to explain to you why I find a world in which I am rich and others are poor to be unacceptable?
Unless you are willing to give up some your riches to the poor, yes you do. Because I see you consistently saying it is unfair to suggest that you or your decendants ever give anything up.
I don't know who Steorn is, and I don't care.
They claim to have invented a free energy, perpetual motion type device.
Fact 1: quality of life has risen due to technology - not just increased resource consumption. Smarter use of our goods, not just more use.

Fact 2: this process does not show any signs of stopping.

Conclusion: the quality of life of everyone on the planet can be slowly and eventually raised due to gains in technology.
I have to ask for evidence of these assertions. The UN report on consumption I linked earlier seems to disagree with you. According to it, world consumption has increased at an unprecedented rate - hitting $24 trillion in 1998, twice that of 175, 6 times that of 1950 and 16 times that of 1900.

While I agree that technology does help raise the standard of living and should help in the more efficient use of resources in the future, simply making these bald statements that technology will save us is like sticking your head in the sand. The only way that a more fair distribution of resources is going to occur is if those of us in the Western world lose some of them, and lower our lifestyles.

You are incorrect. I would happily reduce my lifestyle if I beleived it would result in an actual, meaningful increase for the rest of the world.
Glad to hear it. How many children will you be sponsoring (http://www2.worldvision.ca/sponsorship/app?service=page/Child&lang=en&type=H&mc=3292174)?
And the prhase "dogged insistence" is your mis-reading. What I am doggedly insisting is that the minimum requirement of fairness is that one does not expect others to do with less. I did not put an upper limit on fairness; I simply pointed out that fairness requires one to go at least this far.
Wrong. This position allows those who have the current lion's share of the resources to keep it, even though you acknowledge it as unfair.

You are saying it is unfair for them to have it, but also unfair to ask them to give it up. You can't have it both ways.

Suppose I chose to have one child, so that my child would have more resources.
More than what? More than other people? More than now? The first is unfair, as acknowledged by you. The second is even less fair.

Now you answer the question: is your having 3 kids fair or unfair? Is your trumping the decision I make for my children fair or unfair?
Fair to who?

Now, to be consistent, my decision to have one kid also affects your kids: it means that, in a world where everything is divided fairly, your kids get more. My decision to have less children to improve my child's life improves everyone's. Just as your decision to degrade your child's life by having more children degrades everyone's

Can you see why one is fair, and one is not?
Again, fair to who?

[Yahzi]

Yahzi - I feel like we are talking past each other here to a certain extent.
We are not talking past each other.

You are simply ignoring what I write.

To reduce overpopulation, you need to do the things I stated in my last post - which is to work to reduce the birthrate in those areas that have extremely high birthrates.
This is a strawman. At no point did I ever dispute this. At no point did I ever suggest we did not need to do this.

What I did say was, "The fact that group X contributes a large amount, and group Y contributes a small amount, does not excuse group Y from criticism."

You have argued that we should ignore Quiverfull's contribution - to the point of not even complaining about it - because their effect is small.

Because from your posts I don't see you grasping it.
Read this sentence:
It is not your observation - it is mine. I am the one who pointed out that the entire world cannot enjoy the American life-style. And I am the one who pointed out this is not fair, or sustainable.
Tell me how that does not exhibit a grasp of the fact that the entire world cannot enjoy the American life-style.

This is exactly how I see your argument and position that the baseline for standard of living must be your standard of living.
Again, this is not us talking past each other: this is you not reading the actual words I wrote.

What I repeatedly said was that the minimum standard of fairness was the lifestyle you enjoy; that you cannot, under any circumstance, expect people to live with less. This is the baseline of fairness. You may choose to allow others more than you have, but you cannot choose to allow others less than you have and still be fair.

This makes no statements about whether or not fairness will require us to live with less. It simply states that fairness will not allow us to live with more, as long as others are not getting more.

Being a reasonable person, I recognize that the world is not fair, and is likely not to be fair for a considerable time. However, that in now way excuses us making it less fair. I am not asking people to drop everything and make the world perfectly fair; I am asking them to simply stop making it less fair.

The state of fairness of the world is a product of the actions of each and every individual. By excusing the unfair actions of Quiverfull because other Americans are extra fair, you are excusing unfairness. Beth already made it clear that she chose to limit her reproduction, for the sake of the planet. You are defending Quiverfull's right to invalidate her choice.

In effect, you have said that no one may vote for less population, but anyone who wants to may vote for more; and you have called this "personal freedom." It is freedom in the sense of a one-party system; the freedom to vote or not vote for your choice, because no effective means of providing for any other choice are allowed.

Because you don't seem to grasp the implications of it when you continue to insist on the American lifestyle as a baseline for resource allocation.
What I am insisting on is that Americans at least stop increasing, that Americans settle for what they have while the rest of the world catches up. I am too realisitic to expect Americans to substantially reduce their lifestyle to help others, and I'm not even sure it is fair to ask them to; however, I think it is quite clear that we can spend our future gains on others, at minimal harm to ourselves and signficant gain to everyone.

Considering that you are asserting direct harm to you, yes. If Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor, is he harming the poor?
This explains a lot.

You have presumed that "living in a just world" is of zero value to me. You have presumed that I have no moral values, that material wealth is all I care about, that as long as I have material wealth I don't care how I got it or who got hurt in the process.

Once again we see the Christian mind-set in action. Why care about all the people going to Hell, as long as you're getting into Heaven? What's wrong with winning your salvation at the price of some other guy's life?

The simple point seems to be: you don't care if the rest of the world starves, as long as your kids eat. I don't expect you to change your moral stance. I do expect you to grasp that I care.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to list the many, many ways in which Robin Hood is at best not helping, and at worst actually harming the poor.

They claim to have invented a free energy, perpetual motion type device.
Comparing the established trend of technological innovation to free energy strikes you as a rational argument?

I have to ask for evidence of these assertions... <snip strawman>
While I agree that technology does help raise the standard of living and should help in the more efficient use of resources in the future,
If you have to ask for evidence of my assertion, then why do you - in the very next paragraph - agree with my assertion?

As for the strawman, I never said consumption had not risen; I specifically stated that technology had increased our lifestyle by more than just increasing resource consumption. Your citing increased consumption is yet another example of your refusal to read the words I write.

Generally, when my opposition begins contradicting themselves in the space of a single post, I declare victory and move on. If you have gotten to the point where you argue with everything I say, even the facts you then proceed to agree with in the next paragraph, it does not seem productive to continue.

The only way that a more fair distribution of resources is going to occur is if those of us in the Western world lose some of them, and lower our lifestyles.
You really seem to have a problem with projectile mathematics.

It would appear to be a simple calculation: if technology increases lifestyle even a little bit without increasing consumption, and if this increase is not consumed by enlarging the top lifestyles, how long will it take for the bottom lifestyles to catch up to the top without increasing consumption?

Somehow you multiply a small rate by an unknown time period and come up with never.

Now I, personally, would prefer not to wait that long. I would prefer that we find meaningful ways to reduce our lifestyle and increase the rest of the world's. However, I recognize that is not a choice I can make for everyone else.

But asking them to restrain their increase on consumption; asking each and every one of us to begin to make future choices that are fair and sustainable if everyone behaved that way (without giving up what we currently have or even changing the choices we made in the past); this does not strike me as beyond the pale.

The point of this entire argument is that does strike you as unreasonable: you do not want to see the Quiverfull restricted in their right to allocate future resources. Even if said restriction is the same we would place on anyone.

In sheer point of fact, you want to place this restriction on others, while not placing it on the Quiverfull. And your reason for letting the Quiverfull off the hook is because people like Beth have cleaned up for them.

How is that fair to Beth?

Glad to hear it. How many children will you be
I placed a restriction on my contribution: it has to be meaningul.

Feeding starving children will not help overpopulation; in sheer point of fact, it will only make it worse. We already learned this from the Green Revolution; at least, those of us paying attention did.

For crying out loud, even game wardens do not solve the problem of starving deer foals by putting out food. Do you know why they don't? Do you assume it is because they don't care about baby deers?

Show me where I can contribute to a fund that will force those African governments into secular democracies where women have access to birth control, equal political rights, and Social Security programs, and I'm on board.

You are saying it is unfair for them to have it, but also unfair to ask them to give it up. You can't have it both ways.
There are degrees of fairness. Some things are more unfair than others. I know you know this; I know that in any other context than this argument, you are perfectly aware of this distinction.

I also know that you understand that morality requires one to chose the most fair choice available.

More than what? More than other people? More than now? The first is unfair, as acknowledged by you. The second is even less fair.
You laid out the hypothetical. I used exactly the same terms. If I choose to have one child so that future resources are divided amongst fewer people, that means all those future people get more resources. How is this less fair?

On the other hand, if you choose to have the child I chose not to have, then you have invalidated my voice; you have negated my choice. How is this fair?

Is it fair to condemn your children to live with no more than what you have? Why yes, it is fair, because you are treating them as you would treat yourself. (Unless you are markedly unhappy with what you have.)

Is it fair to condem your children to live with less than you have? Why no, because you would not choose less for yourself.

Is it fair to condem your children to live with more than you have? Why yes, because a) you would chose it for yourself, if you could, and b) if they don't like it, they can always choose less (but due to physical reality, they cannot always choose more).

What part of your thought-experiment still confuses you?

Fair to who?
And now you've forgotten what the word "fair" means.


Again, to sum up: you defend Quiverfull's right to have as many children as they like, on these arguments:

1) Other people's reproductive choices do not affect me.

2) It's ok for some people to behave in a way that they would not want everyone to behave.

3) If group X is doing bad things, then it's wrong to criticize group Y for doing the same bad thing but in smaller quantities.

4) Resorted to arguing against my assertions in one paragraph, and then agreeing with them in the next.

[Zygar]

Umm, this makes utterly no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Criticism:_Not_a_.22rule.22) may help

Ok. I get the point. But I still fail to see how the Golden Rule means "If you are suicidal, then kill people without their permission." I just have a problem with the whole "without their permission" part. I don't see how the Golden Rule implies that you must do unto others without them having any input into the result. After all, even a suicidal person would want to choose the time and manner of their own death.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My mom--a good old-fasioned Catholic--had 10 kids and went to her priest to talk about it. (She really had had enough.) He said that the instruction to "be fruitful, mulitply and fill the earth" was directed to the human race in general, not to her in particular.

[Yahzi]

I don't see how the Golden Rule implies that you must do unto others without them having any input into the result. After all, even a suicidal person would want to choose the time and manner of their own death.
You have, of course, hit the nail squarely on the head.

Everyone wants their desires and wishes respected. Even masochists and suicidal people want their personal freedom to pursue their goals to be respected.

Ergo, by the Golden Rule, they must respect other people's personal desires and wishes.

The "masochist" attack on the Golden Rule is not a logical argument; it is a sign that the arguer has not actually considered the issue for more than seven seconds. The chance that an arguer will consider the issue in depth just because you pointed out the obvious generally approachs zero.

It also betrays a startling lack of understanding about what masochism is and why people pursue it. Or for that matter, suicide.

In other words, it is a fact-free response. Like chaff dumped by jet to dodge incoming missles, it's only meant to divert.

[Yahzi]

He said that the instruction to "be fruitful, mulitply and fill the earth" was directed to the human race in general, not to her in particular.
Funny, yes. :D

But also to the point: the Quiverfull think God is talking to them specifically. They think their actions are not a general statement on humanity, but a divine sanction on their personal behavour.

Now, once you've decided God directly approves of your behavour, how do you suppose that affects your interactions with other people? If your actions are divinely sanctioned, what happens to the idea of "reasonable doubt" and "scientific evidence?"

And people ask me how religion has harmed me!

[luchog]

If you don't understand fairness, I am not going to try and explain it to you.

I understand "fairness" far better than you do, apparently, since I understand that it's a vague, catch-all term that is strongly dependent upon a particular context and value system.

I quite clearly stated that it is unfair to expect other people to live with less than I have. I also stated that it is unfair to let other people make decisions that affect me, without allowing me to affect those decisions. Your ability to turn that into "how I think everyone should live" does not speak well of either your English or your logic skills.

So you reply to a request for clarification with more vague and evasive language. You need to define your terms.

1) What do you consider a "fair" living standard. Simply saying "how I live right now" is nothing more than an expression of personal preference. You need to quantify it.

2) How do you justify the definition of "fair". What data do you use to demonstrate that this standard is more fair than any other? How does it relate to resource sustainability and quality of life in the short term as well as long term? What corroboration do you have for this judgement?

3) How is the value system you use to determine fairness objectively and demonstrably better than any other?

At least I have English and Logic skills. So far you've demonstrated neither.

So far, we have two contestants disqualifed for arguing that unfairness is OK. I wonder how our other contestants will fare?
Translation: "I can't answer the point, so I'm going to ignore and keep preaching my vague, poorly-constructed philosophy."

[luchog]

I have stated that objective reality determines the number several times now. Why is that not sufficient as an answer?

Because you have not, at any point, defined what "objective reality" is. You use it as the basis for any number of potentially contradictory assertions; and have not once at any point given any hint at what you consider "objective reality" to be. Until you can give at least a fundamental description of the "reality" and demonstrate why it's "objective", then your whole argument is based on specious nonsense.

[Thanz]

You have argued that we should ignore Quiverfull's contribution - to the point of not even complaining about it - because their effect is small.
You can (and have) compalin loudly about it. Just as I can point out that, mathematically speaking, it is a tempest in a teapot. You scream bloody murder at the pinhole in the hull of the boat while the waves are crashing over the side.
Tell me how that does not exhibit a grasp of the fact that the entire world cannot enjoy the American life-style.
I have already explained this to you: your insistence that the world can have an American lifestyle for everyone. More below.
What I repeatedly said was that the minimum standard of fairness was the lifestyle you enjoy; that you cannot, under any circumstance, expect people to live with less. This is the baseline of fairness. You may choose to allow others more than you have, but you cannot choose to allow others less than you have and still be fair.
Yet, isn't this exactly what you are doing by sitting on your success and allowing the vast majority of the poor live with less, with a vague hope that "technology" will solve the problem?

Being a reasonable person, I recognize that the world is not fair, and is likely not to be fair for a considerable time. However, that in now way excuses us making it less fair. I am not asking people to drop everything and make the world perfectly fair; I am asking them to simply stop making it less fair.
It is wrong to ask people to make the world more fair? Really?

The state of fairness of the world is a product of the actions of each and every individual. By excusing the unfair actions of Quiverfull because other Americans are extra fair, you are excusing unfairness. Beth already made it clear that she chose to limit her reproduction, for the sake of the planet. You are defending Quiverfull's right to invalidate her choice.

In effect, you have said that no one may vote for less population, but anyone who wants to may vote for more; and you have called this "personal freedom." It is freedom in the sense of a one-party system; the freedom to vote or not vote for your choice, because no effective means of providing for any other choice are allowed.
This is just wrong. Beth's actions are NOT invalidated by Quiverfull. All that Beth can do, indeed all anyone can do, is control their own reproduction. Beth's actions have exactly the same effect regardless of what other people do: it reduces the population by whatever number of kids she would like to have but foregoes.

You want to extend that control to others. Despite your formulation of the "golden rule" in another post: Everyone wants their desires and wishes respected. Even masochists and suicidal people want their personal freedom to pursue their goals to be respected.

Ergo, by the Golden Rule, they must respect other people's personal desires and wishes.
Why can't you respect other people's personal desires and wishes?

What I am insisting on is that Americans at least stop increasing, that Americans settle for what they have while the rest of the world catches up. I am too realisitic to expect Americans to substantially reduce their lifestyle to help others, and I'm not even sure it is fair to ask them to; however, I think it is quite clear that we can spend our future gains on others, at minimal harm to ourselves and signficant gain to everyone.
Wow. It is unfair to ask people to stop being so unfair.

You have presumed that "living in a just world" is of zero value to me. You have presumed that I have no moral values, <snip>
Just another example of you not actually getting what I say, as an excuse for an anti-religious rant. Nice.

Comparing the established trend of technological innovation to free energy strikes you as a rational argument?
I am saying that you need a device such as this if you expect the rest of the world to "catch up" to the American lifestyle.

If you have to ask for evidence of my assertion, then why do you - in the very next paragraph - agree with my assertion?
The difference, Yahzi, is one of degree. I acknowledge that technology helps - it just doesn't help to the degree that you seem to think it does. The majority of the increase in lifestyle is increased consumption, not technology.

As for the strawman, I never said consumption had not risen; I specifically stated that technology had increased our lifestyle by more than just increasing resource consumption. Your citing increased consumption is yet another example of your refusal to read the words I write.
It is not a strawman at all - you need to prove that this increase in lifestyle is due to technology rather than just increased consumption. Pointing out the huge increase in consumption is part of my point - technology has not counteracted that increase. It may have even contributed to it for certain things - like people printing emails instead of the vaunted "paperless office". Technology has not had much success in curbing consumption - why do expect it to have such miraculous effects in the future?

Generally, when my opposition begins contradicting themselves in the space of a single post, I declare victory and move on. If you have gotten to the point where you argue with everything I say, even the facts you then proceed to agree with in the next paragraph, it does not seem productive to continue.
As you can see, it is not a contradiction. It is you not understanding the idea of degree and the interrelated nature of technology and consumption. And your dismissing of the actual consumption numbers and rapid increase as a strawman just displays that you are unwilling or unable to come to grips with the deficiencies in your argument about the saving nature of technology.

It would appear to be a simple calculation: if technology increases lifestyle even a little bit without increasing consumption, and if this increase is not consumed by enlarging the top lifestyles, how long will it take for the bottom lifestyles to catch up to the top without increasing consumption?

Somehow you multiply a small rate by an unknown time period and come up with never.
As close to never as is important: if it takes 10,000 years, the majority of the world's resources will be used up by then.

The point of this entire argument is that does strike you as unreasonable: you do not want to see the Quiverfull restricted in their right to allocate future resources. Even if said restriction is the same we would place on anyone.Again, when you talk of "allocating future resources" you deny the inherent worth of each individual.
I placed a restriction on my contribution: it has to be meaningul.

Feeding starving children will not help overpopulation; in sheer point of fact, it will only make it worse. We already learned this from the Green Revolution; at least, those of us paying attention did.
Ah, I see. You don't actually give a damn about the standard of living of those people who are actully living in squalor now. You only care about some hypothetical future world where technology has solved our problems and you are worried to death that maybe in a fairer world your kid won't have 2 SUV's and a 50" plasma T.V.

Why do you not care about the standard of living of people who are actually alive today? Do they not count? You said this: "I would happily reduce my lifestyle if I beleived it would result in an actual, meaningful increase for the rest of the world." Was that just BS? Sponsoring a child will have an actual meaningful increase in the lifestyle of that child and his/her family. Much more of an increase than the deprivation to you would be. But you are unwilling to do it.

You claim that living in an unjust world harms you. But you won't do a damn thing to help those who actually need your help now.

And you ask why I think your rant is just a transparent attack on religion, and not fueled by some actual concern about population and living standards?

There are degrees of fairness. Some things are more unfair than others. I know you know this; I know that in any other context than this argument, you are perfectly aware of this distinction.

I also know that you understand that morality requires one to chose the most fair choice available.
And, somehow, you think that the most fair choice available is to allow those who take up an unfair share of the world's resources to continue to do that until some vague and undefined "technology" at some vague and undetermined time allows the rest of the world to maybe catch up.

You laid out the hypothetical. I used exactly the same terms. If I choose to have one child so that future resources are divided amongst fewer people, that means all those future people get more resources. How is this less fair?

On the other hand, if you choose to have the child I chose not to have, then you have invalidated my voice; you have negated my choice. How is this fair?
I have not negated your choice. Your choice is to have one less child to divide the resources among. That choice is the same - there is one less child.

In essence, you are saying "I had one less kid so that he could have a third of the pie. You had 3 kids, so now my kid only gets a quarter of the pie. That is not fair. You have negated my choice."

Here is the problem with that. First of all, you have not said who it is unfair to. Is it unfair to your kid? No. He is not entitled by birthright to one third of the pie. He is getting exactly the same amount as the other kids. They all get the same amount - and that is inherently fair.

Is it unfair to you, the parent? Again, no. Your child is not entitled to one third of the pie in this brave new world - they are just entitled to their fair share. Which they receive. Has it negated your choice? No. If you had 2 kids, each would have had 20% instead of 25%.

No, the problem isn't other people negating your choice. The problem is your overwhelming sense of entitlement. Your scenario only makes sense if you fell that fairness demands that your kid get 1/3 of the pie. This sense of entitlement would lead you to believe that it would be more fair if your kid got his 33%, and the other 3 each get 22%.

Which is more fair: a world where one kid gets 33% and 3 kids get 22%, or a world where each kid gets 25%?

Your arguments lead me to believe that you think the first scenario is more fair, with the dream that "technology" will somehow raise the other three to the same level. Which would be 132%. And you wonder why I compare your arguments to Steorn?

[exarch]

No, I am not. But you seem to be: you simply cannot have a world where resources are divided fairly and you get to maintain the current American lifestyle. Unfortunatley, it is a bit of a zero-sum game. In order for the standard of living to come up dramatically for the majority of the world, the standard of living in the Western industrialized nations will have to decrease.

I still have a whole lot of reading to do on this thread, but I would just like to point out that this assertion is completely untrue. I don't see how the current Western lifestyle would be impossible for everyone. True, it is impossible at the moment. But the equasion is "population + resources = lifestyle". You seem intent on lowering the lifestyle to have enough resources for the whole population, while it's clear that lowering the population will free up more resources to raise the lifestyle, and technological advances could increase the resources available.

True, none of it is an instant fix, but rather a long term endeavour, and unfortunately it seems there's some people around who are actively trying to undermine it by selfishly increasing the size of their litter regardless of the consequences. And they obviously know the consequences, since they've even got an excuse ready to explain why they don't care about that.

Regarding "fairness", I'd say "replacement" is fair, although at the moment, replacement is still too much, since currently our earth is populated by more people than can be supported in a proper fashion. They live, they survive, but in what conditions? And they regularly require the rich with their western lifestyles and scientific knowledge to dole out some charity donations for aid and relief efforts, because even surviving seems to be too difficult to manage.

I suppose a good start might be to bring the "replacement value" in third world nations down to around 2 kids per couple, so lots of kids who currently die before adulthood are no longer "necessary". They take up lots of resources, and they never get old enough to give anything back. This will raise the quality of living automatically, and thus be part of the solution against overpopulation. And obviously, reproductive education is another major part of that, whether it's in the US or in third world nations.

[Thanz]

I still have a whole lot of reading to do on this thread, but I would just like to point out that this assertion is completely untrue. I don't see how the current Western lifestyle would be impossible for everyone. True, it is impossible at the moment. But the equasion is "population + resources = lifestyle". You seem intent on lowering the lifestyle to have enough resources for the whole population, while it's clear that lowering the population will free up more resources to raise the lifestyle, and technological advances could increase the resources available.
The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the main problem is overpopulation, which is not the case. As posted earlier (post #73) the top 20% of the population consume 86% of the resources annually. That means, of course, that 80% of the world's population are splitting the remaining 14%. It will take a lot more than reducing fertility and some vague hope in "technology" to povercome that disparity.

Next, your equation is incorrect. The correct equation would be "resources/population=lifestyle".

Applying that to the situation lined out in the report, and you have 20% of the people (about 1.2 billion) consuming 86% of the resources (about 20.64 trillion) for an average of 17,200 per person.

At the other end of the scale, we have 80% of the population (4.8 billion) sharing the other 14% (3.36 trillion) for an average of 700 per person. To raise this level to 17,200, the population decrease would have to be massive. In order for the world to have the consumption levelled at 17,200, the population would have to decrease to about 1.4 billion.

Thus, I say that in all practical terms, the American lifestyle is impossible to attain for the entire world well into any foreseeable future.

[exarch]

1) What do you consider a "fair" living standard. Simply saying "how I live right now" is nothing more than an expression of personal preference. You need to quantify it.

Why do you need to quantify it? I know what I personally think is fair, and what I consider unfair. If someone is doing the same job as me and getting only half the pay, that's unfair. I someone is doing the same job as me and getting paid twice as much, I also consider that unfair, although they probably won't mind getting too much. Do you really need me to tell you exactly how much I make to allow me to say what I think is fair and what I think isn't?

Perhaps you simply fail to understand that what different people consider to be "unfair" is in fact a matter of personal preference and nothing more. You can't quantify it because it's different for everyone.

But despite that, it's possible to describe some basic living standard that everyone agrees is a step up for most of the world's population. I'm sure there's vast improvements to be made by simply using the existing resources more efficiently. If the US population would decrease, maybe that would free up resources for other nations? I'm not saying it's all as straight forward as this, but at least it's another argument for why even the little "dent" in the global population growth would have a much larger impact coming from a nation like the US, compared to, say, Ethiopia.

[exarch]

Thus, I say that in all practical terms, the American lifestyle is impossible to attain for the entire world well into any foreseeable future.

Perhaps I should ignore my own argument from the previous post, and ask you to quantify "the American lifestyle".

You've simply calculated that to be 17'200 per person, but I think that's a bit simplistic. I think the distribution of wealth in the US probably mimics the distribution of wealth in the world pretty closely, with a very small percentage of the population getting an excessively large piece of the pie, while there's a substantial portion of the population who are barely getting around. That is, they make a lot of money compared to a family living in a third world nation, but they can barely afford a roof over their heads just the same. The difference is their roof is made from shingles or roofing, instead of straw and mud.

I suppose you first have to figure out what the "average American lifestyle" is before you can go dismiss it as unattainable in the near or not so distant future.

But aside from that, while it may not be possible to make the world fair for everyone, at least right away, we can definitely make it a hell of a lot less unfair with a lot less effort.

[Yahzi]

I understand "fairness" far better than you do, apparently, since I understand that it's a vague, catch-all term that is strongly dependent upon a particular context and value system.

Because you have not, at any point, defined what "objective reality" is.
You may rest your pen on my behalf; we're done.

[Thanz]

I suppose you first have to figure out what the "average American lifestyle" is before you can go dismiss it as unattainable in the near or not so distant future.

But aside from that, while it may not be possible to make the world fair for everyone, at least right away, we can definitely make it a hell of a lot less unfair with a lot less effort.
Well, how about this (http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc.mhtml?i=gginnews&s=wapo031206), which confirms what I am saying:

Everybody knows how big his actual footprint is, but until a friend sent me the link to www.ecofoot.org/ , I was blissfully ignorant of the size of my ecological footprint. The Web site, created by the Earth Day Network, surveys users' eating, transportation and housing choices and spits out an estimate of how many planets would be needed to sustain the world if everyone on Earth lived the same lifestyle. The bad news? If everyone in the world lived like me, we would need three planets to sustain us. Even worse, the average American lifestyle would require 5.3 planets.

[Beerina]

This guy has mad a biblical argument for allowing for environmental degredation. How is it moral to render the planet unlivable for most species on this planet including our own? But hey, if the rapture is going to happen anyway, why not go hog wild!!!! Do religious people have to fv<k everything up?

For environmental degradation to be harmful, it would have to have a detractive effect to the quality of life that exceeds the beneficial effects of modern society. In this, the evidence is sorely lacking. Indeed, the evidence is that, in a free society, the more, the better. (http://juliansimon.org) We do know that if government sits to heavily on society, or refuses to protect basic freedoms, that the quality of life can actually fall, if not merely lag, murderously, behind where it otherwise would have.

[Beerina]

You can't see what is wrong with wanting to have 6 kids a generation?

Society cannot operate solely off of law. It is necessary that people choose to be fair in most cases, even when no law or power of the state can compel them.

These people are quite deliberately choosing unfairness, at the expense of the rest of the world. They are hogging more than their share of the future pie.

I am not an enviromental alarmist. I think the six billion people on the planet can learn to live with some environmental changes. We can manage our fishiers, pollution, etc. But... sixty billion people? Six hundred billion people?

This is an argument from incredulity.

In a free, open society, imagine how much faster technology will develop with 60 billion people. With 600 billion. When the entire amount currently spent these days on research for, say, cancer and heart disease and aids can be tucked into a small corner of some medium-sized corporation's budget. Or to develop private rocketry and space stations just on the remote chance there'll be something profitable to it.

Or to come up with solutions to environmental problems.

Doesn't seem like such a stupid, or awful situation, does it? Economic observations support this scenario, not the chicken little one.



At some point it simply becomes ridiculous. At some point even the most hardcore Libertarian zealot has to admit there are too many people.

Long before we reach theoretical limits based on the number of atoms in the local vicinity, the only real issue is not "too many", in some nebulous, forboding sense, but of too little freedom. Only in that manner can there suddenly be too many people to feed.

How long does it take to get to those numbers when you triple the population every generation? How do these Quivering idiots think the world will cope with such numbers?

In a free society, they do, because government officials are not authorized to squat atop the economy, slowing it. And where there's a need for food, free marketers will work to satisfy it.

Yes, this upsets the command-and-control mentality that, unfortunately for us, almost seems built-in to the human mind and how it perceives the world.

[Beerina]

This is what I hate about nutjob, anti-intellectual fundies -- their habit of cherry picking biblical passages to support their own desires and prejudices while ignoring how many others they're violating.

Yes, G-d does say to "be fruitful and multiply"; but this idiot also seems to have ignored the verse where G-d also commands us to "be good stewards of the land". It isn't ours to f**k up on a whim, there are generations coming after us who have every bit as much right to it as we do.

Ironically, if the Bible were true, and if this world and what you say actually were God's intention for it, that's an argument for us to trash it all because I, for one, don't want to play some god's stupid, stupid games. :mad:

[Yahzi]

You can (and have) compalin loudly about it. Just as I can point out that, mathematically speaking, it is a tempest in a teapot. You scream bloody murder at the pinhole in the hull of the boat while the waves are crashing over the side.
If I point out that my local golf club won't let black people join, will you dismiss my complaints as petty because there's still so much active racism in the South?

Also, you need to get your arguments in order. Are you asserting that a) what they are doing is insignificant, or b) that it is fair?

I have already explained this to you: your insistence that the world can have an American lifestyle for everyone.
You persist in illiteracy. I have insisted that the fairest minimum requires everyone to have an American lifestyle. Your use of the word "can" is a strawman, employed to divert attention from the real issue.

First my argument is about what is fair. Until we decide what is fair, it seems premature to try and decide if that fairness is acheivable.

Yet, isn't this exactly what you are doing by sitting on your success and allowing the vast majority of the poor live with less, with a vague hope that "technology" will solve the problem?
You asserted that America can tolerate the Quiverfull because our growth rate is under control.

Why do you suppose our growth rate is under control?

The normal answer is: our education, social security, and health care. In other words, our wealth.

No longer content with failing to provide an answer, you are now attacking the one answer we have. You are suggesting that unless we are willing to be poor to help others, we can't pretend to care: while ignoring the fact that the reason others have the problem is because they are poor.

It is wrong to ask people to make the world more fair?
No reasonable interpretation of the passage I wrote can result in this comment.

You are at the point where you read each paragraph I write solely to find errors with it. Without any regard to context, meaning, or simple decency.

This is just wrong. Beth's actions are NOT invalidated by Quiverfull.
Now you have forgotten what the word "invalidated" means.

Beth understands the contradictory nature of her own position, which is why she has so abruptly stopped responding to this thread.

All that Beth can do, indeed all anyone can do, is control their own reproduction.
After castigating me so frequently on the limits of technology, it is surprising to see you fail to understand the limits of morality.

People can and do, quite often, control other people's reproduction. Darfur is an ongoing example. Perhaps you should try googling for "genocide."

The question before us is not whether people will control other people's reproduction - history assures us that they will. The question before us is how they should do so. By refusing to advocate for social norms as a method, you are de facto advocating for famine, pestilence, and war - the classical answers.

You want to extend that control to others. Despite your formulation of the "golden rule" in another post:
Why can't you respect other people's personal desires and wishes?
Yes. I wish to compel others to be fair. That is acceptable within the terms of the Golden Rule.

Why can't other people respect my desires and wishes about the decisions I make for my children? You keep pretending that the number of children other people have does not affect me. As if the population each of us chooses for the future were a private choice.

Wow. It is unfair to ask people to stop being so unfair.
There is a reasonable argument to be made for why we need not plunge ourselves into poverty to redress other people's bad choices, or even unavoidable disasters. However, that argument is not currently relevant to the question at hand.

The difference, Yahzi, is one of degree. I acknowledge that technology helps - it just doesn't help to the degree that you seem to think it does.
What degree do I think it does? Would you care to indicate where I specified a quantity other than "small?"

The majority of the increase in lifestyle is increased consumption, not technology.
This is becoming tedious. Once again you upbraid me with facts I have already stated to be true.

It is not a strawman at all - you need to prove that this increase in lifestyle is due to technology rather than just increased consumption.
You are asking me to prove that a "small" amount of increase in lifestlye is due to technology.

Fine. I will do so, just as soon as you prove this statement:
I acknowledge that technology helps
You are demanding that I prove facts you have stipulated in the previous paragraph.

Then you assign a strawman - for instance, the amount of change - and rail against me for something I never said.

Technology has not had much success in curbing consumption - why do expect it to have such miraculous effects in the future?
When did I say I expected it to have miraculous effects? I specifically stated "small." You agree that it has small effects. Then you charge me with "miraculous."

Why are you incapable of addressing my argument as I present it?

As close to never as is important: if it takes 10,000 years, the majority of the world's resources will be used up by then.
You seem to be suggesting one of several policies.

1. Since we only have 10,000 years left, we might as well enjoy them.

2. The world can never be fair, so we should settle for some people living in poverty as a permanent condition.

3. We should all reduce our consumption of resouces to the point where we can be fair and sustainable.

Now, #3 would seem to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion. However, I would like you to explain to me how #3 is compatible with your defense of Quiverfull's right to consume future resources without regard to anyone else.

If you want us to reduce our consumption to fairly sustainable rates, then doesn't Quiverfull's choice to have lots of kids come under the same rules of reduction?

Again, when you talk of "allocating future resources" you deny the inherent worth of each individual.
I don't even know what you mean by this.

When I talk of allocating future resources, I mean fairly. I presume the inherent worth of each individual is the same.

Is that what you are objecting to? Do you think we should acknowledge that some people are worth more than others?

Ah, I see. You don't actually give a damn about the standard of living of those people who are actully living in squalor now. You only care about some hypothetical future world where technology has solved our problems and you are worried to death that maybe in a fairer world your kid won't have 2 SUV's and a 50" plasma T.V.
I wonder if is possible for you to confine your discussion to facts that are actually available to you.

I do give a damn about the standard of living of other people. That's why I brought it up.

I do look to technology to solve our problems, because the alternative - genocide - strikes me as a worse solutiont than virtually any other solution, even if the other solution takes a long time.

I am worried that my children will have less than me. Since I view what I have as the minimum necessary to reduce population growth in the first place, and since I don't have any SUVs or plasma TVs, I find it irrational to suggest that the long-term solution to population growth is to destroy precisely those cultures that have solved their population growth problem.

Given the West as the only example of a culture that has reduced population growth without resorting to the power of the State, it strikes me that the most reasonable way to get other cultures to achieve the same effect is by the same path.

We have no reason to suspect that a population can control its growth in the absence of the wealth you decry.

Was that just BS? Sponsoring a child will have an actual meaningful increase in the lifestyle of that child and his/her family. Much more of an increase than the deprivation to you would be. But you are unwilling to do it.
You simply refuse to read my words.

I explained why sponsering a child of famine does not help. I explained how it actually makes the problem worse. I described what needs to be done to actually help.

I am unwilling to do it because I know it will only add to the problem. I do not think one hungry child today is more important than two hungry children tomorrow.

You claim that living in an unjust world harms you. But you won't do a damn thing to help those who actually need your help now.
Again, you make remarkably strong claims based on no evidence.

And you ask why I think your rant is just a transparent attack on religion, and not fueled by some actual concern about population and living standards?
What are you saying here?

Do you think I object to Quiverfull's actions solely because they are Christian? Are you suggesting that if it were some secular society that were advocating having lots of "bright" kids to out-populate the religoius zealots, I would not object?

If you wish to so deeply question my integrity, perhaps you should provide some evidence.

My "rant" was a complaint about how religion harms me. The way it harms me, in this particular case, is through its magical thinking and arrogance concerning reproduction.

And, somehow, you think that the most fair choice available is to allow those who take up an unfair share of the world's resources to continue to do that until some vague and undefined "technology" at some vague and undetermined time allows the rest of the world to maybe catch up.
Your indignation would ring truerer if you had actually, at any point, suggested a better alternative.

In essence, you are saying "I had one less kid so that he could have a third of the pie. You had 3 kids, so now my kid only gets a quarter of the pie. That is not fair. You have negated my choice."
Try thinking of it this way. There's a pie on the table. You and I both want to take some of it home for our families. I say, "Well, I have a wife and one kid, so I want three shares of the pie."

And you say, "Well, I have a wife and... a million kids! So I'll take virtually the entire pie, and you can have 3 millionths of it."

Now tell me: do you think you're being fair in the above scenario?

Is it unfair to you, the parent?
Yes. Because as a parent, I am entitled to some say over what kind of future my child faces.

You are asserting that other parents get to decide what the future is like for all our children without consulting me.

How can you not see that?

The problem is your overwhelming sense of entitlement.
And finally, we get the real meat of your argument.

Your arguments lead me to believe that you think the first scenario is more fair, with the dream that "technology" will somehow raise the other three to the same level. Which would be 132%. And you wonder why I compare your arguments to Steorn?
Your failure to understand your own thought-experiment is beyond my ability to repair.

There is a finite amount of resources at any given time. If you choose to have more children, then you are inevitably - whether through fairness or simple practicality - ensuring that my children will recieve a smaller slice of those resources. Making this decision about my future without consulting me is unfair.

You may, through the law of fairness, choose a future for your children that is no worse than the one we have. Or you may choose to take actions that will improve their future. What you may not do is degrade their future and mine without my permission.

What part of this do you not understand?

[Yahzi]

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the main problem is overpopulation, which is not the case..
So it's overconsumption that's the problem.

Quiverfull should be allowed to have as many kids as they like, and the rest of us should just tighten our belts to allow it.

Because that's fair?

[Yahzi]

This is an argument from incredulity.

In a free, open society, imagine
You don't seem to understand what "incredulity" means.

Not beleiving in your imagined scenario is not the same thing as being unduly incredulous.

You may be right; but you may be wrong. Should we bet the farm - the future existance of the entire race - on your imagination?

Your imagination is not a compelling argument. That you thought it would be is itself a compelling bit of evidence, but not for anything complimentary.

Or to come up with solutions to environmental problems.
Human beings require a certain amount of living space. The amount of living space on the planet is a finite number, insomuch as the surface area of a globe is a finite number. No amount of technology will change this fact.

Doesn't seem like such a stupid, or awful situation, does it?
Kindly direct your attention to Thanz's posts to me, wherein he adequately expresses the absurdity of your postion.

[Yahzi]

For environmental degradation to be harmful, it would have to have a detractive effect to the quality of life that exceeds the beneficial effects of modern society.
Do you honestly not understand the concept of over-consumption?

Are you honestly unaware that we can take X amount of fish out of the ocean every year, forever, but if we take X+1 amount out, in some period of years there will be no fish left?

Degrading the environment's future ability to sustain our lifestyle is harmful. To us, both now and in the future.

This is the Nth person who has argued that the future is irrelevant. What is going on here?

[exarch]

Degrading the environment's future ability to sustain our lifestyle is harmful. To us, both now and in the future.

This is the Nth person who has argued that the future is irrelevant. What is going on here?

I think the same issue pops up during global warming discussions. People might be skeptical of doomsday scenarios, but there's only a limited amount of time to fix the problem before it becomes unfixable, so it's worth taking a good look at it rather than simply dismissing it as alarmist nonsense.

[Thanz]

You persist in illiteracy. I have insisted that the fairest minimum requires everyone to have an American lifestyle. Your use of the word "can" is a strawman, employed to divert attention from the real issue.

First my argument is about what is fair. Until we decide what is fair, it seems premature to try and decide if that fairness is acheivable.
Hogwash. You may as well say that it is only fair if everyone gets a million dollars. An unfair situation exists presently. Your solution is one that is impossible and unsustainable, and continues the unfairness. And you call it fair.

Now you have forgotten what the word "invalidated" means.

Beth understands the contradictory nature of her own position, which is why she has so abruptly stopped responding to this thread.
Beth left because she was tired of you making up arguments for her instead of addressing what she actually said. See post #61.
After castigating me so frequently on the limits of technology, it is surprising to see you fail to understand the limits of morality.

People can and do, quite often, control other people's reproduction. Darfur is an ongoing example. Perhaps you should try googling for "genocide."

The question before us is not whether people will control other people's reproduction - history assures us that they will. The question before us is how they should do so. By refusing to advocate for social norms as a method, you are de facto advocating for famine, pestilence, and war - the classical answers.
This is a perfect example of why arguing with you is so annoying. The only two options for you are criminalizing reproduction above a certain number or mass genocide. There is no middle ground. Since I disagree with one, I must agree with the other. That is quite simply BS. I can be both against genocide and against circumscribing reproductive freedom through force.
Why can't other people respect my desires and wishes about the decisions I make for my children? You keep pretending that the number of children other people have does not affect me. As if the population each of us chooses for the future were a private choice.
They DO respect your desires and wishes. They don't force you to have more kids. They don't force you to have less kids. And they ask the same in return from you. You don't seem to realize that the choice for global population isn't yours to make. Within the bounds of morality that you claim to know about, you can only control your own reporduction.
There is a reasonable argument to be made for why we need not plunge ourselves into poverty to redress other people's bad choices, or even unavoidable disasters. However, that argument is not currently relevant to the question at hand.
There is a difference between saying "plunge yourselves into poverty" and "stop being such a hog". Why do you see everything in extremes?

What degree do I think it does? Would you care to indicate where I specified a quantity other than "small?"

When did I say I expected it to have miraculous effects? I specifically stated "small." You agree that it has small effects. Then you charge me with "miraculous."
When you said this (post#66):My solution is to stop population growth until technology catches up to the pointer where everyone can enjoy an American lifestyle. If this also means my lifestyle stops improving until everyone catches up, that's fine by me. A small price to pay, as I see it.
If technology could actually raise everyone's lifestyle to the American lifestyle, that would not be "small", it would indeed be "miraculous".
3. We should all reduce our consumption of resouces to the point where we can be fair and sustainable.

Now, #3 would seem to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion. However, I would like you to explain to me how #3 is compatible with your defense of Quiverfull's right to consume future resources without regard to anyone else.

If you want us to reduce our consumption to fairly sustainable rates, then doesn't Quiverfull's choice to have lots of kids come under the same rules of reduction?
Less important than the gross number is the amount of resources each consumes. If a quiverfull household consumes the same amount of resources as a smaller family, due to lifestyle choices, should they be derided because of an arbitrary number?

I don't even know what you mean by this.

When I talk of allocating future resources, I mean fairly. I presume the inherent worth of each individual is the same.

Is that what you are objecting to? Do you think we should acknowledge that some people are worth more than others?
Your arguments are such that you believe that some are worth more than others. Specifically, your progeny. You feel that they should get more resources because of the choices you make on the number of their siblings. Your argument is that someone with 5 siblings should receive less than someone with 1 sibling, because otherwise it would not be fair. And that denies the fact that each person has the same inherent worth and should be entitled to equal resources. By saying that someone with 5 siblings should get less, just because they have 5 siblings you deny their worth as individuals.


What are you saying here?

Do you think I object to Quiverfull's actions solely because they are Christian? Are you suggesting that if it were some secular society that were advocating having lots of "bright" kids to out-populate the religoius zealots, I would not object?
Would you object? Maybe. Would you start a thread talking about how atheism and skeptics harm you? Not a chance.
Try thinking of it this way. There's a pie on the table. You and I both want to take some of it home for our families. I say, "Well, I have a wife and one kid, so I want three shares of the pie."

And you say, "Well, I have a wife and... a million kids! So I'll take virtually the entire pie, and you can have 3 millionths of it."

Now tell me: do you think you're being fair in the above scenario?
I would try thinking of it that way, if it were at all relevant. But it is not - and it is not the scenario. I don't have a million kids, and neither do the quiverful people. The reason the above scenario is unfair is that I would be lying about the million kids. If I said "Well, I have a wife and 4 kids, so I would like 6 shares of pie" that would be fair. Each individual would get the same amount of pie.

Yes. Because as a parent, I am entitled to some say over what kind of future my child faces. And you have some. Your decision not have any other kids will most certainly have much more a direct impact on your kid than any decision that I make. But you can't control everything.

You are asserting that other parents get to decide what the future is like for all our children without consulting me.

How can you not see that?
Are you consulting them? Aren't you making choices that affect the future?

Sorry, but you do not have to be consulted on all decisions, and you have no right to be consulted on all decisions. People make personal decisions every day that will affect the future lives of others either directly or indirectly. All without consultation. It's called life. It's the price we pay for personal freedom. If you want to live somewhere where others dictate many of the personal decisions that affect others (like reproduction), move to China. I'm sure you will love it there.

And finally, we get the real meat of your argument.
And we see your dazzling failure to address it, snipping out the questions you cannot answer.

Your failure to understand your own thought-experiment is beyond my ability to repair.
I understand it just fine. You seem to be having trouble, which you solve by ignoring the tough questions.

There is a finite amount of resources at any given time. If you choose to have more children, then you are inevitably - whether through fairness or simple practicality - ensuring that my children will recieve a smaller slice of those resources. Making this decision about my future without consulting me is unfair.
You do not have the ability, or the right, to control the future. Further, given the current disparity in resources and your stead refusal to give anything up to address it, I don't see it as inevitable that your child will have less resources. I see your child having the same "I got mine, and it isunfair to ask me to do with less" attitude as you.

You may, through the law of fairness, choose a future for your children that is no worse than the one we have. Or you may choose to take actions that will improve their future. What you may not do is degrade their future and mine without my permission.

What part of this do you not understand?
The part where a fair allocation of resources throughout the world, where each person actually has a fair share of the world's resources, is unfair. That part.

Also, the part where you think it is appropriate for you to be consulted on other's peoples personal decisions. Not just appropriate - but required. That part too.

And the part where the 'law of fairness' means that I can perpetuate the current situation which is unfair to that vast majority of the world's population. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that part too.

[Yahzi]

An unfair situation exists presently. Your solution is one that is impossible and unsustainable, and continues the unfairness. And you call it fair.
Do you even remember what we are talking about?

My "solution" is that we should upbraid rich white Americans who have more than their share of kids.

Your "solution" is that we should not do so.

And you're castigating me for perpetuating the unfairness?

You are the one strenously arguing for the perpetuation of the system we currently have; the one where you get to have as many kids as you want. You're the one who doesn't want to change anything.

Beth left because she was tired of you making up arguments for her instead of addressing what she actually said. See post #61.
Beth returned to make at least one additional post after that. However, she did not return after I pointed out her gigantic logical flaw. And wisely so, I would add.

This is a perfect example of why arguing with you is so annoying. The only two options for you are criminalizing reproduction above a certain number or mass genocide.
This is why debating with you is so annoying. When did I say criminalize?

WHEN DID I SAY CRIMINALIZE?

Please point to the post wherein I said "criminalize."

I can be both against genocide and against circumscribing reproductive freedom through force.
Where did I suggest force? Would you care to point to the post where I suggested force?

You have repeated your strawman charge twice. Your entire argument depends upon this mischaracterization of my statements.

I quite clearly stated that social mores were the best possible answer. I made a distinction between social mores and legality at least once. I have never, at any point in this thread, or any other thread, suggested the compulsion of law. The only place the word "force" appears in my posts is in the thread title, which I quite clearly dealt with on the first page, where I linked to "A Modest Proposal" by way of explanation.

One gets the distinct impression that you read the thread title and nothing else.

You don't seem to realize that the choice for global population isn't yours to make. Within the bounds of morality that you claim to know about, you can only control your own reporduction.
I brought up another example: salting the ground with radioactive waste. You ignored it. Why is that?

Because you make a special distinction for reproduction, as opposed to all other choices. However, you are unwilling to admit this.

Would you object? Maybe. Would you start a thread talking about how atheism and skeptics harm you? Not a chance.
So your entire argument comes down to an attack on my integrity and character. The basis of your complaint is the presumption of my dishonesty.

We're done.

[Yahzi]

I think the same issue pops up during global warming discussions.
I won't be responding to any more of Thanz's posts, but I direct your attention to the post above, where he says:

"You don't have the ability or the right to control the future."

Presumabley, the future is in God's hands, and any mortal attempt to shape it in our own best interests is tantamount to blasphemy...

[Cuddles]

Your arguments are such that you believe that some are worth more than others. Specifically, your progeny. You feel that they should get more resources because of the choices you make on the number of their siblings. Your argument is that someone with 5 siblings should receive less than someone with 1 sibling, because otherwise it would not be fair. And that denies the fact that each person has the same inherent worth and should be entitled to equal resources. By saying that someone with 5 siblings should get less, just because they have 5 siblings you deny their worth as individuals.

I was trying to stay out of this, but I just thought I'd point out that this is exactly the opposite of what Yahzi said. His argument is not that the 5 siblings should get less, it is that all children should get an equal amount, however many there are. The obvious outcome of this is that if someone has more children, all other children will get less. If each couple has two children, each child gets 25% of the resources available. If one couple has 10 children, each child gets 8.3%. The children in the small family now get 1/3 of the resources that they would have had, due to someone else's choice. This is what Yahzi regards as unfair, that someone else can force him or his children to have less, in spite the choices he has made himself.

[Yahzi]

I was trying to stay out of this, but I just thought I'd point out that this is exactly the opposite of what Yahzi said.
Thank you for that summation.

I'd also like to point out dividing the population problem up by national boundries seems remarkably like endorsing the idea that our descendants get to divide our piece, and their descendants get to divide theirs.

[Almo]

People who have 11 children probably bring them up to have large families. Even if nothing is said, the kids are accustomed to a full house and would probably feel lonely with only a few.

Here's the ugly bit:

If it's some kooky religion driving this, that kooky religion will be very successful in competing for resources...

[Zygar]

People who have 11 children probably bring them up to have large families. Even if nothing is said, the kids are accustomed to a full house and would probably feel lonely with only a few.

Here's the ugly bit:

If it's some kooky religion driving this, that kooky religion will be very successful in competing for resources...

Oh! You mean like the Mormons. Families like the one in Saturday's Warrior (http://www.ldsfilm.com/videos/SaturdaysWarrior.html) (which is about a family with 9 kids that struggles with the question of whether or not to have that one last child they were intended to have) are not uncommon.

[Thanz]

I was trying to stay out of this, but I just thought I'd point out that this is exactly the opposite of what Yahzi said. His argument is not that the 5 siblings should get less, it is that all children should get an equal amount, however many there are. The obvious outcome of this is that if someone has more children, all other children will get less. If each couple has two children, each child gets 25% of the resources available. If one couple has 10 children, each child gets 8.3%. The children in the small family now get 1/3 of the resources that they would have had, due to someone else's choice. This is what Yahzi regards as unfair, that someone else can force him or his children to have less, in spite the choices he has made himself.
I'm afraid that you are operating undert he same problematic midset as Yahzi. The result of 8.3% for each kid is only unfair if Yahzi's kids are somehow entitled to more than that. If they are not, there is no unfairness. If they are entitled to a certain percentage of resources (in your example, 25%), I'd really like to know the basis for that entitlement.

Again, it is telling that you are pointing to the family as unit of measurement for fairness. Why? Why are you not concerned with the individual fairness?

[Thanz]

I'm not sure why I am bothering, as you claim you won't respond anyway, but here goes...

So your entire argument comes down to an attack on my integrity and character. The basis of your complaint is the presumption of my dishonesty.

We're done.
I am arguing with your sense of entitlement and fairness. Arguments that you cannot meaningfully address. And you are a self-admitted anti-religious bigot. Consider that when you consider my charge that you would not have upbraided a group of skeptics for having too many kids.

[Cuddles]

I'm afraid that you are operating undert he same problematic midset as Yahzi. The result of 8.3% for each kid is only unfair if Yahzi's kids are somehow entitled to more than that. If they are not, there is no unfairness. If they are entitled to a certain percentage of resources (in your example, 25%), I'd really like to know the basis for that entitlement.

Again, it is telling that you are pointing to the family as unit of measurement for fairness. Why? Why are you not concerned with the individual fairness?

Which part of all children should get an equal amount, however many there are are you not capable of understanding?

The point isn't that they are "entitled" to anything, and no-one other than you has mentioned this. Pretty much the classic definition of a straw man. The point is that one person deciding to have as many children as possible forces all children to have less, regardless of what they would have had otherwise, and this is what Yahzi regards as unfair.

If a poor, rural village has just enough food for everyone, then would you regard it as fair if someone decides to have 10 extra children and forces everyone else to be hungry?

[Thanz]

The point isn't that they are "entitled" to anything, and no-one other than you has mentioned this. Pretty much the classic definition of a straw man. The point is that one person deciding to have as many children as possible forces all children to have less, regardless of what they would have had otherwise, and this is what Yahzi regards as unfair.
First, no one has actually demonstrated this cause and effect - no one has demonstrated that the number of kids that quiverfull has actually makes a difference in the amount of resources that your kids get.

Second, if they are not entitled to more, why is it unfair if they get less?

If a poor, rural village has just enough food for everyone, then would you regard it as fair if someone decides to have 10 extra children and forces everyone else to be hungry?
To do this, you are calling the very existence of some people unfair. I cannot agree with this. It treats some people as more valuable than others.

[Moochie]

Humans are the virus that will kill the planet.

M.

[Cuddles]

First, no one has actually demonstrated this cause and effect - no one has demonstrated that the number of kids that quiverfull has actually makes a difference in the amount of resources that your kids get.

Second, if they are not entitled to more, why is it unfair if they get less?

It is unfair because the effect is not limited to the next generation. The next generation will only get slightly less, but then each of them has 10 children, and so does the next, etc.. Eventually you reach a point where it is not that people don't have as much as they want, they don't have as much as they need. By having as many children as possible, and wanting everyone else to do the same, the only possibility is that we will run out of something, either resources, space or patience.

To do this, you are calling the very existence of some people unfair. I cannot agree with this. It treats some people as more valuable than others.

A child that has not even been concieved yet is not a person, even in the views of the most rabid fundamentalists. No-one here has said anything about people who are already alive except you. There is a world of difference between saying that someone currently alive should not be, and saying that they should not plan to bring even more people into being.

[Yahzi]

The point is that one person deciding to have as many children as possible forces all children to have less,
The flip side is that merely having two children instead of one also forces your children to have less than they could have.

I dealt with this on the grounds of fairness. It's fair to condemn your children to no worse of a life-style you had - unless you found your life-style wholly unacceptable.

This distinction - that you can expect others to make do with as much as you made do with, but not less - also seemed to have rather severely confused Thanz.

I commend you on your ongoing battle against cognitive dissonance.

[Yahzi]

It is unfair because the effect is not limited to the next generation.
I see from your quote that Thanz is asserting that we have not demonstrated that Quiverfull having more kids means our kids will have less.

The answer is, of course, that it won't: because we live in a society in which resources are not divided "with respect to each person's individual value." Rather, we live in a society that divides resources largely with respect to historical and geographical assignments. Our kids, being educated and well-provided for, will force Quiverfull's children to cook burgers, sweep streets, and enlist in the army (where they will spend their time killing other poor people).

For all the whining Thanz does about how unfair the current political situation is, he keeps resorting to that very unfairness as a defense against the charge that Quiverful is harming us. We can't claim harm from overpopulation because resources aren't divided fairly; but his solution to dividing resources fairly is for all of us to do with less, rather than there to be less of us.

[Thanz]

It is unfair because the effect is not limited to the next generation. The next generation will only get slightly less, but then each of them has 10 children, and so does the next, etc..
The fact that it may have a greater impact at some point in the future does not make it unfair now, unless there is an entitlement to more. Yahzi's argument boils down to this inescapable proposition: My kids are entitled to at least the same lifestyle as I am living. He puts this proward as the very basis of fairness. In reality, that proposition is a perpetuation of the extreme unfairness that exists today.

Eventually you reach a point where it is not that people don't have as much as they want, they don't have as much as they need.
There are billions of people right now in this very situation, as I am getting very tired of pointing out. There is a bigger resource problem than an overpopulation problem. And the contributions of quiverful to the overpopulation problem are miniscule.

A child that has not even been concieved yet is not a person, even in the views of the most rabid fundamentalists. No-one here has said anything about people who are already alive except you. There is a world of difference between saying that someone currently alive should not be, and saying that they should not plan to bring even more people into being.
Yes, there is a difference. But Yahzi is saying that the fact that family X had 10 kids is unfair to him. That is real people, not imaginary.

[Thanz]

I dealt with this on the grounds of fairness. It's fair to condemn your children to no worse of a life-style you had - unless you found your life-style wholly unacceptable.

This distinction - that you can expect others to make do with as much as you made do with, but not less - also seemed to have rather severely confused Thanz.
I am not confused. I simply reject this as a formulation of fairness. It is every parent's desire that their kids have it at least as good as they do. That's only natural. But I don't raise that desire to be the very basis of fairness.

[exarch]

There is a bigger resource problem than an overpopulation problem.

Are those not the same thing really?

[Zygar]

Are those not the same thing really?

They are different. Sustainability based on current usage vs. potential sustainability. I believe that we have both problems, but a far greater resource problem.

[Cuddles]

The fact that it may have a greater impact at some point in the future does not make it unfair now, unless there is an entitlement to more. Yahzi's argument boils down to this inescapable proposition: My kids are entitled to at least the same lifestyle as I am living. He puts this proward as the very basis of fairness. In reality, that proposition is a perpetuation of the extreme unfairness that exists today.

"May"? Are you seriously suggesting that if every couple had 10 children (assuming they survive to reproduce), we would not become overpopulated? This is so obviously absurd that it should not need pointing out. The population simply cannot increase indefinately. Either we can choose to stop it increasing, or it will limit itself. The ultimate way it will limit itself is through starvation or thirst, but it is likely that disease and violence would occur before this limit is reached. I agree that this does not actually harm Yahzi himself, but you seem to be suggesting that we shold take no responsibility for either our own progeny or for the species or planet as a whole.

There are billions of people right now in this very situation, as I am getting very tired of pointing out. There is a bigger resource problem than an overpopulation problem. And the contributions of quiverful to the overpopulation problem are miniscule.

How is this relevant? Malaria is a much bigger problem than CJD. This doesn't mean we should just ignore CJD. Yes, there are more problems around than just overpopulation, this doesn't mean we should pretend it doesn't exist. Once the effects of overpopulation are apparent it will be too late to do anything about it. Of course there are poor people now, and as it happens I give a lot of money and time to help them. This does not mean we should encourage them to have as many children as possible, because this would only make things worse.

Yes, there is a difference. But Yahzi is saying that the fact that family X had 10 kids is unfair to him. That is real people, not imaginary.

Yahzi did not say we should punish people who are already alive. He said it was unfair of their parents to choose to make them alive, and unfair for them to be encouraged to make as many new people alive as possible. This is not the same thing, and will continue not to be the same thing no matter how much you keep repeating this. As above, I agree that it is not unfair to him personally, but it is unfair to his future descendents, and to the rest of the planet as a whole.

[Thanz]

"May"? Are you seriously suggesting that if every couple had 10 children (assuming they survive to reproduce), we would not become overpopulated?
I am saying that is a mighty big if and assumption.

I agree that this does not actually harm Yahzi himself, but you seem to be suggesting that we shold take no responsibility for either our own progeny or for the species or planet as a whole.
No, I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting that we need to address the problem in a different way, through a fairer distribution of resources. And also through education and birth control in those areas that have a true overpopulation problem. Quiverful are an insignificant blip on the overpopulation screen.

How is this relevant? Malaria is a much bigger problem than CJD. This doesn't mean we should just ignore CJD. Yes, there are more problems around than just overpopulation, this doesn't mean we should pretend it doesn't exist. Once the effects of overpopulation are apparent it will be too late to do anything about it. Of course there are poor people now, and as it happens I give a lot of money and time to help them. This does not mean we should encourage them to have as many children as possible, because this would only make things worse.
It is relevant to Yahzi's continued insistence on solving the resource problem through technology and population controls. Touse your example, he is focussing on CJD to the exclusion of Malaria - hoping some magic technology will make the bigger problem go away.
Yahzi did not say we should punish people who are already alive. He said it was unfair of their parents to choose to make them alive, and unfair for them to be encouraged to make as many new people alive as possible. This is not the same thing, and will continue not to be the same thing no matter how much you keep repeating this. As above, I agree that it is not unfair to him personally, but it is unfair to his future descendents, and to the rest of the planet as a whole.
Again, it is only unfair if Yahzi's decendants are entitled to more. You say that it is unfair of the parents to decide to make them alive. How is that really different from telling one of them "it is unfair that you exist"? That is what I mean when I say he is denying the worth of the individual.

[Yahzi]

They are different. Sustainability based on current usage vs. potential sustainability. I believe that we have both problems, but a far greater resource problem.
Isn't the definition of "unsustainable" equal to "too many people using too much stuff?"

You become sustainable by consuming less than the environment can maintain; and you consume less either by reducing the consumption of each individual or by reducing the number of consuming individuals.

So all overpopulation problems are indistinguishable from resource problems; indeed, the definition of overpopulation is "not enough resources for the current population." Defining this solely as a resource problem, as if population were not half the equation, doesn't seem logically justifiable to me. When X*Y=Z, you can reduce Z by reducing X or Y.

[Yahzi]

As above, I agree that it is not unfair to him personally, but it is unfair to his future descendents, and to the rest of the planet as a whole.


I think it qualifies unfair to me personally, as well. My future interests have to be allowed some value; indeed, arguably the only thing I have is future interests, since the past is dead and the present is too late to change.

Telling me you'll burn my epic work of art the minute I die qualifies as personal, immediate harm to me.

But I concede this point hinges on what one means by "personal," and for the purposes of this particular conversation, it's not really important.

[Zygar]

Isn't the definition of "unsustainable" equal to "too many people using too much stuff?"

You become sustainable by consuming less than the environment can maintain; and you consume less either by reducing the consumption of each individual or by reducing the number of consuming individuals.

So all overpopulation problems are indistinguishable from resource problems; indeed, the definition of overpopulation is "not enough resources for the current population." Defining this solely as a resource problem, as if population were not half the equation, doesn't seem logically justifiable to me. When X*Y=Z, you can reduce Z by reducing X or Y.

I disagree with this definition. By calling any resource problem a overpopulation problem you are misdirecting the issue. The problem is not too many people, it is too many wasteful people. Cutting the number of people doesn't fix this. Curbing wastefulness improves sustainability over the long term much better than curbing human reproduction.

Now, I'm not proposing that we should all have 10 kids, but I am also against the Chinese "one baby for every couple" rule. We can improve the sustainability of the planet through intelligent means. There is nothing about this planet that can't sustain the number of humans on it at the moment. We simply need to find more intelligent economic solutions and more effective green energy.

[Yahzi]

I disagree with this definition. By calling any resource problem a overpopulation problem you are misdirecting the issue.
By calling it a resource problem, you are obscuring the self-evident fact that the choice is between reducing the population and reducing consumption.

Now, I happen to agree with you that we should focus on reducing wasteful consumption first, since that, by definition, cuts least into anyone's rights. If we can reduce consumption without reducing lifestyle (which is what elminating waste means), then of course that's the first option, since its best for everyone (and keep in mind I consider the number of kids you have to be part of a lifestyle).

However, one man's waste is another man's fun... so there's a problem when you try to define it too strictly. Nobody cares about switching to more efficient light-bulbs, but should we eliminate jet-skis?

(BTW, this idea of more efficient consumption is pretty much what I had in mind when I said that technology will gradually allow more people to have better lifestyles without more consumption.)

Curbing wastefulness improves sustainability over the long term much better than curbing human reproduction.
Again, as sympathetic as I am to your position, I have to point out this statement is wrong.

Reducing the population by a factor of 100 would make waste an instant non-issue.

I don't think that's the right way to go, for a lot of reasons; but it is certainly mathematically coherent. I think it behooves us to acknowledge this, so we can keep in mind those many reasons why it's not a good idea.

[Thanz]

However, one man's waste is another man's fun... so there's a problem when you try to define it too strictly. Nobody cares about switching to more efficient light-bulbs, but should we eliminate jet-skis?
Yes, people are cold and starving, but would it be fair to ask people to give up their jet-skis? :rolleyes:

Again, as sympathetic as I am to your position, I have to point out this statement is wrong.
Based on what, exactly? You have been told time and again that 20% of the world's population are consuming 86% of the resources. And you are wondering how much of that is really wasteful, and how much of that is fun stuff like jet-skis. Unbelievable.

Reducing the population by a factor of 100 would make waste an instant non-issue.
I like the use of the word "instant" as if that could ever happen through peaceful population control measures. The world has about 6.5 billion people. To reduce that by a factor of 100 means to go down to 65 million. While that would in fact make waste a non-issue, you have also eliminated the vast majority of world's population.

I don't think that's the right way to go, for a lot of reasons; but it is certainly mathematically coherent. I think it behooves us to acknowledge this, so we can keep in mind those many reasons why it's not a good idea.
Let's see how "mathematically coherent" it really is. Right now, there are about 870 million females under 15. Let's say the birth rate plummets to 1.

Those 870 million females have 870 kids, about half of which are female, or 435.

The process repeats.

Those 435 million have 435 million kids, 217.5 million females.

Those have 217.5 have 217.5, 108.75 females.

Those 108.75 have 108.75, or 54.375 million kids.

You are looking at 4 generations of a birth rate of 1, with no one presently above 15 ever having more kids, to even get the number of kids below 65 million - which ignores all of their parents and grandparents in the population count.

None of those assumptions are even remotely realisitic. The only way to get to that sort of figure is through massive deaths, which must be the "many reasons" it is not a good idea.

Why you present it as a coherent possibility is beyond me. But if the "choice" is between the massive deaths necessary to reduce population by a factor of 100 or asking people to give up things like jet-skis, that is not even worthy of the term "choice".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm certainly no bible apologist, but doesn't the quote say "be fruitful, mulitply and fill the earth"?

I think it's quite full, thank you. You can stop now.

By the way, I don't buy the whole "replacement" idea--most people now are alive for their great grandchildren's births. If you have 2 children, you are increasing the earth's population--and it will stay increased until you die. By then, your children have had children, so the increase stays. That's the population momentum you hear about. I don't think we're in any foreseeable danger of a real population crash, so let's encourage something less than "replacement".

Seriously, if world pop somehow went down by 2.7 billion, we'd only be back to 1970's population.

[William Meegan]

Don't you think that by the government allowing cellphones the public is already being forced into a sterilization program via social acceptance of the new gadgets?

That is what cellphone do to the young. Imagine every mother's son and daughter having a cellphone and giving one to their newborns. Cellphones also cause cancer in the brain and I am quoting government reports from England and the United States. Go on the internet and surf CELLPHONE, STERILIZATION and you will get the reports.

So sterilization is already an intricate part of the American way of life already.

[Yahzi]

raving lunacy
Off to the /ignore list after only the second post.

An impressive performance, but sadly not a record.

[hammegk]

Fair share is pretty easy to determine. It's the same for everybody.


I think the original, demonstrated unworkable, some would say evil, wording is better:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.



That's Yazi; always stirring the ***** ... Waaaah. Life isn't FAIR.

[Zygar]

Random burst of CT

Apparently the CT forum is leaking again. Who's in charge of containment? We need a cleanup crew, some sawdust, and some hose clamps.

[exarch]

Don't you think that by the government allowing cellphones the public is already being forced into a sterilization program via social acceptance of the new gadgets?

That is what cellphone do to the young. Imagine every mother's son and daughter having a cellphone and giving one to their newborns. Cellphones also cause cancer in the brain and I am quoting government reports from England and the United States. Go on the internet and surf CELLPHONE, STERILIZATION and you will get the reports.

So sterilization is already an intricate part of the American way of life already.

you know, just for the heck of it, I went and Googled "cellphone sterilization", and got exactly one hit, which was a reply on the HBO community "The Soprano's" subforum (http://boards.hbo.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600005763&start=6030), using it as an example of how ridiculous some people are to believe things like that. Taking the google suggested "cell phone sterilization" got me 4 hits, none of which seemed to have anything to do with cellphones causing people to go sterile, but rather what appears to be some kind of gadget for sterilizing your cellphone.


Not that this was the kind of result I expected to get (I was expecting websites of the tinfoil hat variety), but you may want to actually have some evidence handy when you make such far out and discredited claims on a skeptics board.

You might want to start searching these here forums for "cell phone brain cancer" for a really educational experience. My search turned up about 15 threads as a result.