Food Price Riots Popping Up Around The World

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doug50 said:
You know what I ment. Do you believe it is immoral for a couple to limit their family’s size?
Click to expand...
Let me be as unoffensive as possible.

I don’t know what you meant. I think your posts clearly showed government involvement in population growth.

Couples have some licit techniques by which they can space their children – but it is immoral to put pressure on any couple to limit the number of children they have.

Therefore, the issue is not debatable – if couples wish to use licit means to space their children, they may. But it is immoral for you and I or the government to pressure them.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Therefore, the issue is not debatable – if couples wish to use licit means to space their children, they may. But it is immoral for you and I or the government to pressure them.
Click to expand...
Starvation of children will do the trick. I guess you think that’s what a Catholic has to accept. I don’t agree.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Let me be as unoffensive as possible.

I don’t know what you meant. I think your posts clearly showed government involvement in population growth.

Couples have some licit techniques by which they can space their children – but it is immoral to put pressure on any couple to limit the number of children they have.

Therefore, the issue is not debatable – if couples wish to use licit means to space their children, they may. But it is immoral for you and I or the government to pressure them.
Click to expand...
Really!!! Ok if you think my posts “clearly showed” I favored government involvement they you can go find it.

And if you belive I’m advocating “pressure” you can try and find that too.

I see nothing wrong with the Vatican/pope/bishops asking couples to limit their family sizes using Catholic approved licit techniques.

If you can’t find those then I think you owe me an apology
 
drpmjhess said:
Starvation of children will do the trick. I guess you think that’s what a Catholic has to accept. I don’t agree.
Click to expand...
and the reason the Church approves licit techniques is because they are natural…Natural Family Planning.

Starvation is a natural act too but that is immoral for Catholics to not help others to avoild facing such a reality.
 
vern_humphrey said:
By means of:
  • Artificial birth control
  • Government-issued condoms
  • Taxpayer-supported abortion
  • Laws to limit family size
  • Laws allowing “defective” children to be put to death
  • Euthanasia.
Click to expand...
Vern, Vern, Vern:

Looks like you may join me in the so called “tin foil” hat group if you ain’t careful. Relativists like to vilify people who are not in lockstep with their perverted and immoral agenda. They deny both their agenda and tactics with their illogical rhetoric.

BTW: We can include Pope Benedict in our group too when it comes to relativists. One of my entries on my blog on Relativists:What is the Greatest Threat to Today’s Society?
 
drpmjhess said:
Starvation of children will do the trick. I guess you think that’s what a Catholic has to accept. I don’t agree.
Click to expand...
No, you think it’s what a Catholic has to accept. I know we can feed everyone, and that the cause of hunger in the world is not lack of food, but the inability to get food to those who need it, due to brutal dictators and tibal warfare.
 
Doug50 said:
Really!!! Ok if you think my posts “clearly showed” I favored government involvement they you can go find it.

And if you belive I’m advocating “pressure” you can try and find that too.
Click to expand...
Are you not on a public forum beating the drum for population reduction?
Doug50 said:
I see nothing wrong with the Vatican/pope/bishops asking couples to limit their family sizes using Catholic approved licit techniques.
Click to expand...
In other words, pressure from “the Vatican/pope/bishops.”
Doug50 said:
If you can’t find those then I think you owe me an apology
Click to expand...
I found two instances in this one post.
 
vern_humphrey said:
I

State sponsored population limitation almost always includes:
  • Artificial birth control
  • Government-issued condoms
  • Taxpayer-supported abortion
  • Laws to limit family size
  • Laws allowing “defective” children to be put to death
  • Euthanasia
Click to expand...
Rather have the former four instead of famine, pestilance and resource wars. I do not know about you.
 
ribozyme said:
I thought it would take about 400 million deaths for the world to come to its senses and reject the taboos against conscientious population management. Gigadeaths involve too much death.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t count on it. Socialism cost over 100 million deaths in just two countries and it hasn’t cured the world of Socialim.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I wouldn’t count on it. Socialism cost over 100 million deaths in just two countries and it hasn’t cured the world of Socialim.
Click to expand...
It is communism you are talking about, not socialism. And Sweden isn’t even considered by some people socialist because it respects private property.
 
Doug50 said:
a ranch pasture will only support so much cattleQUOTE]

How many is that? Are you saying the U.S. is producing the maximum possible number of cattle?

Reasonably decent pasture below the “fescue/bermuda line”. How many cow/calf units? Are we over that limit or under it?
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner said:
Doug50;3715123:
a ranch pasture will only support so much cattleQUOTE]

How many is that? Are you saying the U.S. is producing the maximum possible number of cattle?

Reasonably decent pasture below the “fescue/bermuda line”. How many cow/calf units? Are we over that limit or under it?
Click to expand...
No I’m not saying that. I’m using cattle per pasture capacity as an analogy for the planet.

I can feed more cattle in a feedlot than on pasture…if I bring in the feed. Oil based fertalizers and pesticides, and cheap fuel transportation, has allowed for the greater crop yields to feed a denser population. Unless you can figure out how to grow food on another planet to bring to earth, at some point you will reach max capacity for the earth to meet human needs. You know that the carrying capacity of your pasture will only support so many cattle without overgrazing.

And it isn’t simply about running out of oil. At what point do you stop the feed lot when the feed gets too expensive to earn a profit? As oil for fuel and oilbased ag products get more and more expensive at what point do you stop using it on crops, settling for a lower yield but greater profit margin?
Click to expand...
 
Doug50 said:
Ridgerunner;3716223:
No I’m not saying that. I’m using cattle per pasture capacity as an analogy for the planet.

I can feed more cattle in a feedlot than on pasture…if I bring in the feed. Oil based fertalizers and pesticides, and cheap fuel transportation, has allowed for the greater crop yields to feed a denser population. Unless you can figure out how to grow food on another planet to bring to earth, at some point you will reach max capacity for the earth to meet human needs. You know that the carrying capacity of your pasture will only support so many cattle without overgrazing.

And it isn’t simply about running out of oil. At what point do you stop the feed lot when the feed gets too expensive to earn a profit? As oil for fuel and oilbased ag products get more and more expensive at what point do you stop using it on crops, settling for a lower yield but greater profit margin?
Click to expand...
I realize there is a theoretical limit out there somewhere on the number of cattle a given amount of land will support. But since the assumptions about that are proved wrong with some frequency, and since many do not follow the best practices even if they know what they are, I’m puzzled as to why we should assume a particular number of cattle is the maximum. That’s particularly true if we assume the present number is the maximum, because it very clearly isn’t.

I realize we’re really not talking about cattle, exactly. But I am also puzzled as to why we should assume a given number of people on the earth is the maximum, particularly when we well know a great deal, and perhaps most, of the nutritional problems people face in the world are not caused by a lack of the earth’s carrying capacity, but by other things.
Click to expand...
 
Doug50 said:
You are dreaming.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you did not use this media to introduce the idea that couples should have fewer children?

And that you did not suggest the Pope should tell Catholics to have fewer children?

Or are you saying that widespread support for small families will not result in people with large families being discriminated against in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways? And that a Papal pronouncement such as you suggest would put Catholics under pressure?
 
Ridgerunner said:
And are two children the maximum these families can afford?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for other families, but with two in Catholic school ($11,000 tuition fees) and eldercare for my mother-in-law we are running pretty close to the financial margin.
 
ribozyme said:
Rather have the former four instead of famine, pestilance and resource wars. I do not know about you.
Click to expand...
Ribozyme, if we put our minds to it we can reduce population through education and voluntary family size limitation (Thailand did it). Laws might be coercive, such as taxing a third child at a higher rate. Dropping tax incentives for having more than two children might be a good idea.
 
drpmjhess said:
Ribozyme, if we put our minds to it we can reduce population through education and voluntary family size limitation (Thailand did it). Laws might be coercive, such as taxing a third child at a higher rate. Dropping tax incentives for having more than two children might be a good idea.
Click to expand...
In other words, despite your denial, you do favor making population reduction a government issue and employing coercive measures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top