Pope says low birth rates in Canada due to 'pervasive effects of secularism'

[RustyBattleship]

We are part of the natural environment though.

-dale

But aren't we (homo sapien species of the anthropoids) supposed to be the "thinking" creature that can control his portion of the environment so it does not RADICALLY change the rest of the environment?

I recall the old TV show "Real People" and they interviewed a man in Mexico bragging about all the children his wife has born for him. I think it was like 18 or 20. Then they really shocked the audience when BOTH he and his wife admitted to him having at least 16 more OUT OF WEDLOCK.

As Dr. Phil would scream, "Just WHAT were you THINKING?"

Probable answer, "No thinking needed, just some Tequila, an erection and a woman nearby."

That human "contribution" to our environment I think we can do without.

[Bluesman]

But aren't we (homo sapien species of the anthropoids) supposed to be the "thinking" creature that can control his portion of the environment so it does not RADICALLY change the rest of the environment?

I recall the old TV show "Real People" and they interviewed a man in Mexico bragging about all the children his wife has born for him. I think it was like 18 or 20. Then they really shocked the audience when BOTH he and his wife admitted to him having at least 16 more OUT OF WEDLOCK.

As Dr. Phil would scream, "Just WHAT were you THINKING?"

Probable answer, "No thinking needed, just some Tequila, an erection and a woman nearby."

That human "contribution" to our environment I think we can do without.

You want to kill him? Or his kids? Or just control him and his reproductive choice?

See, the problem with the population-worriers was put best by the phrase from PJ O'Rourke that neatly sums up their position: 'Not enough of me, WAY too much of YOU'.

If they're brown and poor, well, then we're talking about over-population. But if they're pink and wealthy, well, that's just a choice.

Feh. We're not over-populated, and we never will be. We're under-free.

[THL]

We kinda beat this subject to death in the overpopulation thread, but what the heck. Do you all realize that we could fit the entire population of the earth in a suburb the size of Texas? Not including infrastructure. So let's get the UN to force everybody to move to Texas, and we'll be all right, right?

Can I opt out of moving to Texas please? I'll stay in IL and suffocate.

[RustyBattleship]

You want to kill him? Or his kids? Or just control him and his reproductive choice?

See, the problem with the population-worriers was put best by the phrase from PJ O'Rourke that neatly sums up their position: 'Not enough of me, WAY too much of YOU'.

If they're brown and poor, well, then we're talking about over-population. But if they're pink and wealthy, well, that's just a choice.

Feh. We're not over-populated, and we never will be. We're under-free.

Just one thing in counterpoint. I presume you are aware of the fact that more people are born every year than die every year. Even with the Chinese birth control of allowing only one child per couple (and preferably only males at that). Even during our greatest wars, birth rates still out distanced death rates. The Bubonic Plague wiped out a lot of people, but in only one part of the Earth.

Therefore, statistically, there are more people alive today than EVER died.

And we are a VERY long way of building starships to take us to habitable planets - if there are any.

[Horrido]

We are part of the natural environment though.

-dale

No, we clearly are NOT part of the natural environment any longer. Our biotic potentials and resource collection and has gone WAY beyond our natural, physical means. We are no longer subject to predation, we are no longer subject to the major reproductive-limiting diseases, we are no longer restricted by our own physical bodies and mobility in what we can gather to sustain ourselves. We modify the environment massively to suit our own will, rather than be subject to it. How do even remotely argue that we are part of the natural environment? And unless you have a PhD in some form of environmental science and a lifetime career of concerned, honest, and objective personal research involved there-in, which my contacts have, I'm going to put the conclusions of the people who's experiences I know and trust over crack-pot internet commentary every single time.

Trying to stay on subject (what was it anyway?) I don't see where overpopulation is depleting the oceans except perhaps in whales, tuna, crabs, etc. like the rainforests.

Actually, that's a common fallacy many hold, simply because few people can actually see and monitor the ocean floor. International fishing, driftnets, and dredgenets (or whatever nets they use to scrabe the ocean botten) does the oceanic equivalent of clearcutting 1/4 of the world's forrests every year. The ecology is totally destroyed. Another good example is Boston harbor, where shellfish were nearly completely fished-out during the late 1800s. Beginning in the 19th century, it took the shellfish population just THREE days to completely filter out all of Boston Harbor. Today, it take 18 MONTHS. We've basically put ourselves in the situation of a slowly boiling frog. We don't live long enough or have good enough memories to register what we have lost and destroyed, and how things have changed. Even I've taken notice in how the biodiversity has been paved-over and destroyed in the last 25 years. In 150 years, there is now less than 2% of the original, native landscape for SE Washington State. Everything else has been clear-cut, farmed, or paved.

You want to kill him? Or his kids? Or just control him and his reproductive choice?

See, the problem with the population-worriers was put best by the phrase from PJ O'Rourke that neatly sums up their position: 'Not enough of me, WAY too much of YOU'.

If they're brown and poor, well, then we're talking about over-population. But if they're pink and wealthy, well, that's just a choice.

Feh. We're not over-populated, and we never will be. We're under-free.

We need to control reproductive choice. There is no right to reproduce. Population-worries aren't Chicken Littles, we see how population dynamics works, and H. sapiens is on a pretty bad bender that not even Robert Downy, Jr. could rival. And Mr. O'Rourke is correct, just not in the way he wants to be. There is not enough of "me", because "I" don't overpopulate or over-exploit resources. "I" behave in a biologically responsible manner. Way too many of "you" breed like rats, over-exploit resources and over-pollute and don't care (or even register) what you destroy in the process. I don't care what color they are or what their economic status is, I don't want to see the global community, at this point, averaging more than 2 children per male-female couple until we're down to a 2 billion average, which seems to be the conventionally accept carrying capacity ol' Mother Earth has for H. Sapiens.

Feh. We're not over-populated, and we never will be. We're under-free.

We are over-populated, and we've been that way for at least half-a-century. We are also, as a global population, under-free, but that doesn't mean carte-blanche to behave irresponsibly, especially reproductively and in regards to exploiting global resources, especially oil and fresh water. And keep in mind, while the United States is an agriculturally powerful nation, it is STILL dependent upon PETROLEUM-DERIVED FERTILIZERS to make that production! The oil goes away, so does a goodly percentage of our food supply!

[ArmchairGeneral]

I keep trying to figure out this whole petroleum and fertilizer thing. Fertilizers contain three main elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Petroleum contains two main elements: carbon and hydrogen. Where's the overlap? I believe all petroleum actually does is serve as an energy source, so coal or methane could probably serve as well as petroleum.

[Bluesman]

We need to control reproductive choice. There is no right to reproduce.

I'm going to leave the rest of your idiotic ravings for somebody else to fisk, in order to point out THAT howler.

We'll take it one sentence at a time.

Who is 'we', that you would have control reproductive choice? Each individual? No, your second sentence takes it completely away from the individuals. Therefore, commissar, I suppose you mean a governmental body. A regulated, empowered crew of governmental enforcers of human reproduction; that's what you're contemplating, correct?

And what form does this 'control' take, Herr Doktor? Perhaps we'll use the 'post coitus' approach, and after a non-sanctioned, unapproved, extra-governmental impregnation occurs, we'll strap the criminal (formerly known by backwards cultures as 'mothers') to a gurney and forcibly abort the 'indiscretion' (formerly known as a 'child').

Or, perhaps threats of prosecution and internment into a labor camp (I know; the irony is just tailor-made for THAT one, huh?) will prevent these incorrigible humans from trying to destroy our little Utopia by having all those icky little consumers/polluters.

The second sentence is just so absolutely god-damned evil I really can't think of any sarcasm to really cover it - sorry.

Did you think about what you wrote? Is this REALLY your position on these matters? I mean, I KNOW you have some crazy/whacko/lunatic notions about over-population, and I guess that would follow on with some nutso thinking about the subject, but apart from being titanically WRONG about what human freedom is all about, you also seem to have an evil streak in you that wants to control - no, actually DENY - the most basic of human freedoms.

Unless you backpedal ALL the way and retract those two sentences, then I'm forced to say that you're about as low a human specimen as I've ever encountered on this board. That's saying a LOT, man.

[Bluesman]

Just one thing in counterpoint. I presume you are aware of the fact that more people are born every year than die every year. Even with the Chinese birth control of allowing only one child per couple (and preferably only males at that). Even during our greatest wars, birth rates still out distanced death rates. The Bubonic Plague wiped out a lot of people, but in only one part of the Earth.

Therefore, statistically, there are more people alive today than EVER died.

And we are a VERY long way of building starships to take us to habitable planets - if there are any.

Where's the counter-point? What part of my post were you supposedly refuting?

[T-bone]

The Pope is more of a idiot than I thought..

[ArmchairGeneral]

I'm going to leave the rest of your idiotic ravings for somebody else to fisk, in order to point out THAT howler.

We'll take it one sentence at a time.

Who is 'we', that you would have control reproductive choice? Each individual? No, your second sentence takes it completely away from the individuals. Therefore, commissar, I suppose you mean a governmental body. A regulated, empowered crew of governmental enforcers of human reproduction; that's what you're contemplating, correct?

And what form does this 'control' take, Herr Doktor? Perhaps we'll use the 'post coitus' approach, and after a non-sanctioned, unapproved, extra-governmental impregnation occurs, we'll strap the criminal (formerly known by backwards cultures as 'mothers') to a gurney and forcibly abort the 'indiscretion' (formerly known as a 'child').

Or, perhaps threats of prosecution and internment into a labor camp (I know; the irony is just tailor-made for THAT one, huh?) will prevent these incorrigible humans from trying to destroy our little Utopia by having all those icky little consumers/polluters.

The second sentence is just so absolutely god-damned evil I really can't think of any sarcasm to really cover it - sorry.

Did you think about what you wrote? Is this REALLY your position on these matters? I mean, I KNOW you have some crazy/whacko/lunatic notions about over-population, and I guess that would follow on with some nutso thinking about the subject, but apart from being titanically WRONG about what human freedom is all about, you also seem to have an evil streak in you that wants to control - no, actually DENY - the most basic of human freedoms.

Unless you backpedal ALL the way and retract those two sentences, then I'm forced to say that you're about as low a human specimen as I've ever encountered on this board. That's saying a LOT, man.

A little frisky tonight?

[Bluesman]

A little frisky tonight?

Well, I mean, for the love of Gawd: "There is no right to reproduce."?!? OF COURSE THERE DAM' WELL IS, and what greater human right can you name? And this fascist wants it 'controlled'? I'd like to see the despot-in-waiting knuckle under to THAT regime: some shaved ape gets him in a head-lock and frog-marches (I am seizing that word for my own purposes.) him and his package down to the People's Vasectomy Clinic (Outpatient) #14 for his court-ordered sterilization, oh, but he's just FINE with that, right?

Balls (if you'll pardon the pun) he is. What a completely (pick one of the following)
1) idiotic
2) evil
thing to profess to believe.

[dalem]

But aren't we (homo sapien species of the anthropoids) supposed to be the "thinking" creature that can control his portion of the environment so it does not RADICALLY change the rest of the environment?

We're not "supposed" to be anything. And you're stipulating that radically changing the environment is something bad.

I recall the old TV show "Real People" and they interviewed a man in Mexico bragging about all the children his wife has born for him. I think it was like 18 or 20. Then they really shocked the audience when BOTH he and his wife admitted to him having at least 16 more OUT OF WEDLOCK.

As Dr. Phil would scream, "Just WHAT were you THINKING?"

Probable answer, "No thinking needed, just some Tequila, an erection and a woman nearby."

That human "contribution" to our environment I think we can do without.

Oh I get that you think we are overpopulating the planet or something, but it's just not a logical claim.

-dale

[dalem]

Just one thing in counterpoint. I presume you are aware of the fact that more people are born every year than die every year. Even with the Chinese birth control of allowing only one child per couple (and preferably only males at that). Even during our greatest wars, birth rates still out distanced death rates. The Bubonic Plague wiped out a lot of people, but in only one part of the Earth.

Therefore, statistically, there are more people alive today than EVER died.

And we are a VERY long way of building starships to take us to habitable planets - if there are any.

So what? The percentage of people that would actually leave the planet is no doubt small, and the remainder would respond as all populations do under pressure: pop out more kids.

-dale

[dalem]

No, we clearly are NOT part of the natural environment any longer. Our biotic potentials and resource collection and has gone WAY beyond our natural, physical means.

So... beaver dams are natural, but strip mines aren't.

We are no longer subject to predation, we are no longer subject to the major reproductive-limiting diseases,

Right, in their places we have suicide, murder, war, plane crashes and job-related fatalities.

we are no longer restricted by our own physical bodies and mobility in what we can gather to sustain ourselves.

What does that even mean? You're afraid of farming?

We modify the environment massively to suit our own will, rather than be subject to it.

More beaver dams.

How do even remotely argue that we are part of the natural environment?

Because I'm not some kind of pure energy/thought glowing guy from a Star Trek episode - when it rains I get wet, when the lava pours I get burned, and I can't outrun a tsunami.

And unless you have a PhD in some form of environmental science and a lifetime career of concerned, honest, and objective personal research involved there-in, which my contacts have, I'm going to put the conclusions of the people who's experiences I know and trust over crack-pot internet commentary every single time.

So these PhD buddies of yours have told you that humans are not part of the natural environment? And because I disagree with them I'm a crackpot? That's not a very rational position to take.

Actually, that's a common fallacy many hold, simply because few people can actually see and monitor the ocean floor. International fishing, driftnets, and dredgenets (or whatever nets they use to scrabe the ocean botten) does the oceanic equivalent of clearcutting 1/4 of the world's forrests every year. The ecology is totally destroyed. Another good example is Boston harbor, where shellfish were nearly completely fished-out during the late 1800s. Beginning in the 19th century, it took the shellfish population just THREE days to completely filter out all of Boston Harbor. Today, it take 18 MONTHS. We've basically put ourselves in the situation of a slowly boiling frog. We don't live long enough or have good enough memories to register what we have lost and destroyed, and how things have changed.

Last I checked frogs don't have books. You act as if we're a pile of grunting savages unable to pass knowledge and experience on from one day to the next.

Even I've taken notice in how the biodiversity has been paved-over and destroyed in the last 25 years. In 150 years, there is now less than 2% of the original, native landscape for SE Washington State. Everything else has been clear-cut, farmed, or paved.

So what? Even if true, why is that relevant?

We need to control reproductive choice.

How?

There is no right to reproduce.

There's no right to excrete either, but you'd have to be kind of a jacka$$ to argue the point, now wouldn't you?

Population-worries aren't Chicken Littles,

Except that they always are. List five verifiable occasions where prediction of of dire consequences due to overpopulation have proven true.

we see how population dynamics works,

How does it work? Educate us.

and H. sapiens is on a pretty bad bender that not even Robert Downy, Jr. could rival. And Mr. O'Rourke is correct, just not in the way he wants to be. There is not enough of "me", because "I" don't overpopulate or over-exploit resources. "I" behave in a biologically responsible manner. Way too many of "you" breed like rats, over-exploit resources and over-pollute and don't care (or even register) what you destroy in the process. I don't care what color they are or what their economic status is, I don't want to see the global community, at this point, averaging more than 2 children per male-female couple until we're down to a 2 billion average, which seems to be the conventionally accept carrying capacity ol' Mother Earth has for H. Sapiens.

And this magic number of 2 billion humans comes from where?

We are over-populated,

In your opinion.

and we've been that way for at least half-a-century. We are also, as a global population, under-free, but that doesn't mean carte-blanche to behave irresponsibly, especially reproductively and in regards to exploiting global resources, especially oil and fresh water. And keep in mind, while the United States is an agriculturally powerful nation, it is STILL dependent upon PETROLEUM-DERIVED FERTILIZERS to make that production! The oil goes away, so does a goodly percentage of our food supply!

Oil? I thought we were talking about uterus-stretching.

-dale