Birth control in less developed nations

[St_Francis]

You haven’t looked hard enough. This is what I have in mind when I keep banging on about individual’s responsibility to be aware of what’s going on in the world and not just handing over the money and trusting someone else will do it. YOU can influence the charities, YOU should be more active rather than passive.
Of course I’m not intending to just pick on you as an individual - I am talking ‘everyone’, including myself.

So, are you saying that we should be skeptical and question things? Should we consider, for example, the long-term effects of actuons? Should we challenge the powers-that-be when we have concerns?

“Time will tell” is not good enough! Time might tell that a lot of people suffered unnecessarily because ordinary people didn’t make it their business to do some of their own research - to be aware of the science, the politics, the geography etc etc.!!

There are some arguments that I myself am not well-qualified to get involved in or that I don’t feel like having yet again or which I do not want to distract from the main point. Whether or not the world is on the verge of complete and total collapse due to X, Y, or Z has been a set of issues since Malthus in the 1700s. Sometimes I do need to wait to find out who was correct simply because I don’t have the time or the expertise to a good job at presenting the information.

Be ‘optimistic’? Why? Do you have sound reasons for going for the optimistic model?

The history of gloom-and-doom arguments.

I’d be interested to hear what you think of this:

thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-smile-or-die

This was very interesting. I think an argument for considering the wider picture is a very good one, and we, americans at least, do have an awful habit of thinking we are more powerful than we are and ignoring possible negative consequences. Our history of destroying the family through divorce is a good example of that.

At the same time, one must maintain balance. Sure, it’s absurd to think that that thinking good thoughts will cause good things to hapoen to one. I see the Catholic way of thinking as being much more balanced and healthy: that this world is a vale of tears, so be grateful for the good things that come your way, and learn to deal with the bad things in a healthy manner.

However, one can go too far in the opposite direction of the type of foolish optimism she discusses, and think everything is going to turn out badly, or that one has no power to affect anything at all. One might think, there are a lot of people and few resources, we have to fix this problem. And then they advocate serious population reduction, without considering all the ramifications or all the alternatives.

(But I can wait until after that trip!!)

I’ve gotten a lot of work done and still manage to keep my mind occupied Thanks for your help in this

 

[davidv]

It is not ‘true’.

How do you know this?

It is a belief. Lots of people share it but it is, nonetheless, a belief!

Does believing it make in untrue?

Other religions are as sure about THEIR truths too. Me? No, I believe things to be right and wrong and continually question myself…because I don’t KNOW, any more than you do. To put it bluntly, I see it as you having the comfort of the removal of personal responsibility.

The difference is that I have someone I can trust to tell be the truth, whether I believe it or not.

From all I’ve read of his teachings. The idea of a hugely rich and powerful institution so full of rules and hierarchies seems so obviously not what he was all about that it puts me in mind of the emperor’s new clothes or the elephant in the room (for want of a better simile which escapes me right now).

Sounds like a strawman to me.

I could ask EXACTLY the same thing of you.

So? Hopefully we would both answer that teaching lies is not a good thing.

 

[Kelt]

How do you know this?

If we’re talking about everything the church teaches - because the dogma was drawn up by men over the centuries, and nobody has a monopoly on ‘the truth’. This is not to say there aren’t truths within what it teaches but nothing supernatural can be proved, so it’s a belief.

Does believing it make in untrue?

No! but it doesn’t make it true either.

The difference is that I have someone I can trust to tell be the truth, whether I believe it or not.

That doesn’t make sense. If you don’t believe something then you must believe that someone who DOES believe it is wrong! They might believe something is true, but be wrong…and you might be right after all! It’s dangerous to unquestioningly trust someone else to be right - even over your own instincts. That’s how communism kept its power - it’s shades of 1984!

Sounds like a strawman to me.

Don’t follow…it just seems obvious to me. Jesus got frustrated with people who got bogged down with details of rules of law at the expense of action.

So? Hopefully we would both answer that teaching lies is not a good thing.

Who’s teaching lies?

 

[Kelt]

So, are you saying that we should be skeptical and question things? Should we consider, for example, the long-term effects of actuons? Should we challenge the powers-that-be when we have concerns?

Yes absolutely!

There are some arguments that I myself am not well-qualified to get involved in or that I don’t feel like having yet again or which I do not want to distract from the main point. Whether or not the world is on the verge of complete and total collapse due to X, Y, or Z has been a set of issues since Malthus in the 1700s. Sometimes I do need to wait to find out who was correct simply because I don’t have the time or the expertise to a good job at presenting the information.

Fair enough!

The history of gloom-and-doom arguments.

Hmmm…the doom and gloom alerts about the financial madness were ignored weren’t they? Just because NY isn’t under water yet (as per Hollywood version) does that mean the slow but inexorable effects of future climate change aren’t going to happen? Who’s likely to suffer first so that we get to find out?

This was very interesting. I think an argument for considering the wider picture is a very good one, and we, americans at least, do have an awful habit of thinking we are more powerful than we are and ignoring possible negative consequences. Our history of destroying the family through divorce is a good example of that.

At the same time, one must maintain balance. Sure, it’s absurd to think that that thinking good thoughts will cause good things to hapoen to one. I see the Catholic way of thinking as being much more balanced and healthy: that this world is a vale of tears, so be grateful for the good things that come your way, and learn to deal with the bad things in a healthy manner.

However, one can go too far in the opposite direction of the type of foolish optimism she discusses, and think everything is going to turn out badly, or that one has no power to affect anything at all.

One might think, there are a lot of people and few resources, we have to fix this problem. And then they advocate serious population reduction, without considering all the ramifications or all the alternatives.

Don’t we? We managed with less people before - living within our means. What won’t work about that now? What alternatives?

 

[St_Francis]

Yes absolutely!

But you disagreed with the Kenyan bishops when they did that?

Hmmm…the doom and gloom alerts about the financial madness were ignored weren’t they? Just because NY isn’t under water yet (as per Hollywood version) does that mean the slow but inexorable effects of future climate change aren’t going to happen? Who’s likely to suffer first so that we get to find out?

*Evaluate. *Even I knew the housing bubble would bust, and I couldn’t figure out why everyone was falling for it for so long. OTOH, for over 200 years we’ve heard prophecies of the danger of overpopulation, and after Malthus it was like, *this *time, it’s *really *true! but so far, nothing has happened. Oh, sure, there have been isolated instances of the population outstripping the resources, but not a world-wide collapse.

And Weller’s peak oil theory of the recession aside (in order to find out anything about that, I had to search for it separately), the real cause was the “irrational exuberance” of people falling for the housing bubble, which was built on made-up financial instruments.

Now, AGW, which you mention, may be true, but my investigations lead me to question its source and the related forecasts. Thus I consider the long-term ramifications of the proposed solutions and I have concerns, two things you agreed people should do. You don’t want them to be unaware and hand over their money unthinkingly and trusting other people will do the best thing, right?

Don’t we? We managed with less people before - living within our means. What won’t work about that now? What alternatives?

That’s kind of like an anorexic saying to the doctor that her goal of being 100 pounds is perfectly ok because when she was 12 she weighed only 100 pounds and was percectly healthy, leaving out the fact that she was also quite a bit shorter!

The downside of a sudden and drastic reduction of population is what the West is facing now: lots of old people, few young people. Putting off starting to have children and ending up trying to care for elderly parents and children at the same time. Being the only child available to care for the parents, instead of one of two or more.

And of course, being the elderly person for whom there is little help…

What are the alternatives?

Providing immediate aid when necessary, but then working towards helping the people of the area become self-reliant, to create their own workable economy, not based on working for transnationals corporations who will pull out when the wages get too high.

 

[JimG]

It strikes me as odd to be reading a discussion of overpopulation when the looming crisis is plummeting fertility rates. I’ve just started reading Jonathan V. Last’s book “What to Expect When No One’s Expecting.” He focuses on America’s falling fertility rates, and looming demographic disaster, but fertility rates are dropping everywhere.

Overpopulation? We should be so lucky.

WSJ review of the book.

 

[Kelt]

It strikes me as odd to be reading a discussion of overpopulation when the looming crisis is plummeting fertility rates. I’ve just started reading Jonathan V. Last’s book “What to Expect When No One’s Expecting.” He focuses on America’s falling fertility rates, and looming demographic disaster, but fertility rates are dropping everywhere.

Overpopulation? We should be so lucky.

WSJ review of the book.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

 

[davidv]

If we’re talking about everything the church teaches - because the dogma was drawn up by men over the centuries, and nobody has a monopoly on ‘the truth’. This is not to say there aren’t truths within what it teaches but nothing supernatural can be proved, so it’s a belief.

How does this demonstrate that the Church’s teaching on abc is untrue?

No! but it doesn’t make it true either.

That doesn’t make sense. If you don’t believe something then you must believe that someone who DOES believe it is wrong! They might believe something is true, but be wrong…and you might be right after all! It’s dangerous to unquestioningly trust someone else to be right - even over your own instincts. That’s how communism kept its power - it’s shades of 1984!

Huh???

Don’t follow…it just seems obvious to me. Jesus got frustrated with people who got bogged down with details of rules of law at the expense of action.

My claim of strawman was based on your faulty description of the Church.

Who’s teaching lies?

Anyone who teaches that abc is morally acceptable.

 

[Kelt]

How does this demonstrate that the Church’s teaching on abc is untrue?

It’s an OPINION. Is the death penalty morally right or wrong? - it’s an opinion. If the church has an opinion on anything it is still the opinion and/or belief of a group. They have points they can argue, and another group can disagree. Neither can claim they have ‘truth’ on the matter.

Huh???

Following orders - even when you feel they are wrong is no longer a defence for soldiers!

My claim of strawman was based on your faulty description of the Church.

Matter of opinion again

Anyone who teaches that abc is morally acceptable.

Matter of opinion again. Some people would say that it was immoral to give people false hopes through religion a or religion b.
Opinion.

 

[davidv]

It’s an OPINION. Is the death penalty morally right or wrong? - it’s an opinion. If the church has an opinion on anything it is still the opinion and/or belief of a group. They have points they can argue, and another group can disagree. Neither can claim they have ‘truth’ on the matter.

Following orders - even when you feel they are wrong is no longer a defence for soldiers!

Matter of opinion again

Matter of opinion again. Some people would say that it was immoral to give people false hopes through religion a or religion b.
Opinion.

Prove it. Why is it all opinion?

 

[Kelt]

Prove it. Why is it all opinion?

If anyone could prove they had the ultimate truth about life, the universe and everything, life would be easy-peasy wouldn’t it? One religion, all in agreement because there was proof of ‘the truth’.
But you don’t have proof…you have a belief (just as followers of other religions do) that you have found a ‘proof’ that satisfies you…therefore you argue your opinion!

 

[davidv]

If anyone could prove they had the ultimate truth about life, the universe and everything, life would be easy-peasy wouldn’t it?

Who said knowing the truth was easy? I have not.

One religion, all in agreement because there was proof of ‘the truth’.
But you don’t have proof…you have a belief (just as followers of other religions do) that you have found a ‘proof’ that satisfies you…therefore you argue your opinion!

Why is my lack of proof the issue. Are we speaking of a math problem? This is the only realm where proofs are real.
Rather than proof I have evidence and a working brain to reason with.

 

[Kelt]

Who said knowing the truth was easy? I have not.

Why is my lack of proof the issue. Are we speaking of a math problem? This is the only realm where proofs are real.
Rather than proof I have evidence and a working brain to reason with.

Not easy - impossible!

I have the same evidence and a working brain to reason with too. But have we reached the same conclusion? No! But we have formed opinions! About which we can argue!

I think you summed it up when you said that maths is the only realm where proofs are REAL.
Your lack of proof is very much the issue. No proof of ‘truth’.

 

[davidv]

Not easy - impossible!

I have the same evidence and a working brain to reason with too. But have we reached the same conclusion? No! But we have formed opinions! About which we can argue!

I think you summed it up when you said that maths is the only realm where proofs are REAL.
Your lack of proof is very much the issue. No proof of ‘truth’.

Why should I trust this opinion?

 

[weller2]

And Weller’s peak oil theory of the recession aside (in order to find out anything about that, I had to search for it separately), the real cause was the “irrational exuberance” of people falling for the housing bubble, which was built on made-up financial instruments.

You realize that the derivates were built on the assumption that the real estate is a secure investment because it never goes down in price? And the reason that it is supposed to never go down in price is that there is a limited amount of land but increasing number of people?

What this ignores of course is that at some point the land becomes so expensive that nobody can afford it, at which point the market crashes.

Guess what: the situation that people cannot afford the land to live on any longer is the very definition of overpopulation!

 

[weller2]

Oh, sure, there have been isolated instances of the population outstripping the resources, but not a world-wide collapse.

A collapse happening across 1/7th of world land surface is not exactly isolated:
businessinsider.com/peak-oil-and-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union-lessons-on-the-20th-anniversary-of-the-collapse-2011-5
thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/13/Soviet-Union-Oil/

 

[Kelt]

Why should I trust this opinion?

You don’t have to. Why should I trust yours?
You can use that brain to come to a different conclusion than me.

 

[davidv]

You don’t have to. Why should I trust yours?
You can use that brain to come to a different conclusion than me.

Because it not my opinion, but a logical conclusion based on believable axioms.

 

[Kelt]

Because it not my opinion, but a logical conclusion based on believable axioms.

Oh my goodness…it IS your opinion and you came to it by finding a logical (for you but not for everyone) conclusion based on believable (for YOU not for everyone) axioms. If it were incontrovertibly provable, there would BE ONLY ONE RELIGION. As all those people seeking God (and even those who weren’t) would be able to se the proof!
Think about it, it’s a pretty good assumption that by accident of birth, you are Christian. Had you been born and raised in another part of the world, what might you be? Give other religions some credit…

 

[davidv]

Oh my goodness…it IS your opinion and you came to it by finding a logical (for you but not for everyone) conclusion based on believable (for YOU not for everyone) axioms. If it were incontrovertibly provable, there would BE ONLY ONE RELIGION.

Since you have chosen to speak for me, I will return the favor. You forgot about that pesky thing call free will.

As all those people seeking God (and even those who weren’t) would be able to se the proof!

What proof? There is only evidence, reasoning and revelation from God.

Think about it,

What makes you think I haven’t?

it’s a pretty good assumption that by accident of birth, you are Christian. Had you been born and raised in another part of the world, what might you be? Give other religions some credit…

I will give credit where credit is due.