An argument for forced sterlization [Archive]

Beth

15th November 2006, 12:00 PM

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

15th November 2006, 12:08 PM

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

15th November 2006, 12:57 PM

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

15th November 2006, 01:02 PM

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

15th November 2006, 01:55 PM

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

15th November 2006, 01:57 PM

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

15th November 2006, 02:34 PM

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

15th November 2006, 02:40 PM

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

15th November 2006, 03:06 PM

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

15th November 2006, 04:51 PM

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

16th November 2006, 08:29 AM

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

16th November 2006, 09:44 AM

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

16th November 2006, 09:52 AM

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

16th November 2006, 11:36 AM

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

16th November 2006, 11:40 AM

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

16th November 2006, 11:43 AM

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

16th November 2006, 11:48 AM

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

16th November 2006, 11:50 AM

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

16th November 2006, 11:51 AM

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

16th November 2006, 12:08 PM

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

16th November 2006, 12:49 PM

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

16th November 2006, 03:24 PM

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

16th November 2006, 03:54 PM

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

17th November 2006, 07:25 AM

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

17th November 2006, 08:36 AM

Thanz

17th November 2006, 08:57 AM

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

17th November 2006, 09:19 AM

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

17th November 2006, 09:41 AM

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

17th November 2006, 09:53 AM

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

17th November 2006, 10:46 AM

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

17th November 2006, 02:07 PM

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

17th November 2006, 02:14 PM

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

17th November 2006, 02:20 PM

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

17th November 2006, 02:23 PM

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

17th November 2006, 02:29 PM

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

17th November 2006, 02:54 PM

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

17th November 2006, 04:18 PM

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

18th November 2006, 12:13 AM

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

18th November 2006, 12:16 AM

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

18th November 2006, 02:21 AM

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

18th November 2006, 03:13 AM

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

18th November 2006, 02:33 PM

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

18th November 2006, 02:34 PM

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

18th November 2006, 02:45 PM

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

18th November 2006, 04:50 PM

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

18th November 2006, 11:56 PM

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

19th November 2006, 04:38 AM

Iron chariots also work.

Thanz

20th November 2006, 08:07 AM

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

20th November 2006, 08:14 AM

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

20th November 2006, 09:23 AM

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

20th November 2006, 09:41 AM

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

20th November 2006, 10:00 AM

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

20th November 2006, 10:49 AM

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

20th November 2006, 11:20 AM

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

20th November 2006, 11:22 AM

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

20th November 2006, 11:25 AM

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

20th November 2006, 11:41 AM

wolfgirl

20th November 2006, 11:46 AM

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

20th November 2006, 12:03 PM

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

20th November 2006, 12:06 PM

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

20th November 2006, 12:26 PM

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

20th November 2006, 02:28 PM

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

21st November 2006, 06:27 AM

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

21st November 2006, 09:50 AM

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

22nd November 2006, 08:56 PM

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

22nd November 2006, 09:00 PM

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

22nd November 2006, 09:42 PM

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

22nd November 2006, 09:59 PM

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