Author Topic: Herod is smiling  (Read 8780 times)

MMH

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #60 on: November 26, 2007, 09:04:21 PM »
The difficulty in discussing environmental issues in the Church is the same difficulty in society: the paucity of accurate scientific knowledge.

Like the stem cell issue, we have a great deal of misrepresentation and misunderstanding when it comes to climate matters.  Are we talking about global warming or anthropogenic global warming?  There is evidence that the former is occuring.  The evidence for the latter, not so much.

And I am troubled that those wonderful folks at the UN and its satellite NGOs who are now saying a collective "my bad" with regards to AIDS diagnoses being inflated by several million are the same ones screaming that "the sky is warming the sky is warming."  Having deprived us of several liberties and some economic opportunities in the next several decades, will they then offer up a similar mea culpa?

So let us define our terms, and let us learn.  And let us beware of groups that substitute ideological agendas for science.  As an historian of science, I would point out that Lysenkoism came from the Left.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #61 on: November 26, 2007, 11:59:33 PM »
I did some surfing and came across the following collection of quotes. They were gathered by a group charmingly named Negative Population Growth, so this is not a bunch of quotes put together by some social conservative to make environmentalists look bad. Rather, these quotes were assembled to make environmental groups look good precisely because they believe in the group's goal of negative population growth. They also come only from official statements of those groups-- published position papers or public advertising. I think it pretty well establishes my thesis that the idea that human population must be sacrificed to the environment is pretty mainstream within the environmental movement. Again, I'm not saying that every environmentalist believes this, but I am saying only what I've said all along-- this is a mainstream view within the environmental movement. These are not fringe groups, but things like the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, and so forth. I've only reprinted portions of the list, mostly because some of the groups had no position or else focused more on immigration, or else were groups devoted first and foremost to population control rather than the environment, or else looked like fringe groups I'd never heard of.

The over-arching theme is that mankind must be altered to suit the environment rather than vice-versa. I think a Christian position would be that the number of people is the fact of the situation, and how they can live in the environment the problem to be overcome. Instead, these groups think that the need to preserve the environment is the first fact, and the number of people in the world is the problem to be solved. They stop short of a final solution, but they come close. I've put the names of the groups in bold and tried to focus on the parts of the statements that directly link human population with pollution and solve the problem by reducing the human population.

"Recognizing the direct link between the rapid growth of human population and the decline in the world's wildlife and the habitat on which it depends, the Board of Directors of Defenders of Wildlife adopted the following statement of policy:
Among the most important issues affecting the world's future is the rapid growth of human population. Together, the increase in human population and in resource consumption are basic causes of human suffering and environmental degradation and must become major priorities for national and international action.
Because of its pervasive and detrimental impact on global ecological systems, population growth threatens to overwhelm any possible gains made in improving human conditions. Failure to curb the rate of world population growth will magnify the deterioration of the Earth's environment and natural resources and undermine economic and social progress. A humane, sustainable future depends on recognizing the common ground between population and the environment.
Current national and international efforts to address the world's rapidly expanding population are not sufficient. A new commitment to population programs which enhance human rights and conditions is urgently needed. The United States and all nations of the world must make an effective response to the issue of population growth a leading priority for this decade."

Environmental Defense Fund"To resolve the world's major environmental challenges will require stabilizing the worlds' population, at the lowest possible level, along with using natural and human-made resources sustainably, alleviating poverty, promoting non-polluting technologies and implementing efficient and equitable economic development policies.
A successful strategy for stabilizing population requires a comprehensive approach to addressing the array of economic, health and educational issues confronted by families everywhere.
Women must be provided with educational opportunities, increased financial security and improved status if population, development, and environmental programs are to succeed."

League of Conservation Voters
"Rapid global population growth is one of the most serious threats to a healthy and sustainable environment, leading to depletion of natural resources and contributing to pollution."

"National Audubon Society focuses on supporting U.S. family planning assistance programs in order to reduce fertility in developing nations and in the U.S. In addition, we support state and local initiatives to limit the impact of local growth on bird and wildlife habitat.
National Audubon Society actions reflect an understanding of the relationships between human population growth, individual family decisions and habitat and wildlife trends."

National Wildlife Federation
"NWF has adopted formal positions regarding global population growth, U.S. population growth and U.S. immigration and reaffirmed these positions numerous times.
Population is important for both environmental reasons, and because ćhumans deserve pleasant and productive lives spent in healthful and stimulating environments rather than merely struggling for survival.'
NWF encourages the President of the United States to initiate action, both in this country and abroad, which will result in the development of plans and/or programs to curtail the present expansion of human populations.

BALANCE successfully mobilizes its 10,000 members into action in support of policies designed to achieve U.S. population stabilization and immigration reduction while educating environmentalists, policy makers and others about the link between population growth and environmental degradation.

Sierra Club
"The ‘population explosion' has severely disturbed the ecological relationships between human beings and the environment. It has caused an increasing scarcity of wilderness and wildlife and has impaired the beauty of whole regions, as well as reducing the standards and the quality of living. In recognition of the growing magnitude of this conservation issue, the Sierra Club supports a greatly increased program of education on the need for population control.The Sierra Club believes that we must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies, attitudes, social standards, and actions that will, by voluntary and humane means consistent with human rights and individual conscience, bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world; that pursuant to this goal, families should not have more than two natural children and adoption should be encouraged; that state and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and to discourage large families; that laws, policies, and attitudes that foster population growth or big families, or that restrict abortion and contraception, or that attempt to constrict the roles of men and women, should be abandoned; that comprehensive and realistic birth-control programs should be available to every member of our society; that environmental, population, and sex education should be readily available; that there should be increased research into the sociology of population stabilization and into the improvement of contraceptive technology; that private and governmental departments, commissions, and committees should be created to deal effectively with the population problem; and that the foreign policy of the United States should reflect the urgent realities of the population-environment crisis.
The Sierra Club feels that an intensive and broad-based educational program should be instituted, directed at persons in all countries, regardless of economic or educational level, designed to increase their awareness of the direct relationship between large family size and the adverse consequences of excessive population growth, and the material advantages to existing and future world populations of restraint on growth.
The Sierra Club makes the following specific recommendations for action:
(1) The United Nations Conference on Population should urge that all national programs that provide incentives to large families (tax relief, financial assistance, etc.) be replaced with programs encouraging small families.
(2) Each nation should be urged to create a national population commission to formulate policy on population-growth restraint and implement any programs that may be developed.
(3) The United Nations or another appropriate international agency should expand and create a continuing program for the effective collection and dissemination of data on population-growth trends and densities, as well as the relation of such data to problems of resource allocation and conservation.
(4) Those countries with the available resources should be urged to contribute funds to defray the cost of population growth restraint programs initiated by less affluent nations and by international agencies.
(5) Achievement of these ends should be made a top priority for United Nations action at all levels, including formulation of concrete programs for national implementation and funding. If the above goals are immediately pursued on an international level, we believe that population reduction may be achieved by voluntary controls on reproduction."


Wilderness Society
"As a priority, population policy should protect and sustain ecological systems for future generations. We will support policies that have a goal of reaching population stability, at the earliest practicable date, through means respectful of human rights and individual conscience. The Wilderness Society will publicize analyses of the threats to our lands from U.S. population growth.
Government agencies should include population growth projections in their cost-benefit analyses of programs and projects.
To bring population levels to ecologically sustainable levels, both birth rates and immigration rates needs to be reduced."



David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #62 on: November 27, 2007, 12:01:56 AM »

And let us beware of groups that substitute ideological agendas for science. 


Well, at least we never have to worry that the current administration might susbtitute its ideological agenda for science or intelligence!   :D

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #63 on: November 27, 2007, 12:03:23 AM »
I think the Sierra Club says it best. The N.I.C.E. itself couldn't have said it better.

David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #64 on: November 27, 2007, 12:09:31 AM »
I know that the Catholic church is opposed to birth controll of any kind.  Is the same true for the LCMS? 

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #65 on: November 27, 2007, 12:19:44 AM »
I know that the Catholic church is opposed to birth controll of any kind.  Is the same true for the LCMS? 
The LCMS has no formal position on birth control that I know of. But where birth control is used, it would not be because more people in general are a bad thing in general, which is the clear and explicit position of those advocating for birth control (and dreaming of everyone being as progressive as China on this) for environmental reasons in the quotations above. Again, I think it is both anti-human and mainstream within the enviromental movement.

David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #66 on: November 27, 2007, 12:56:08 AM »
Why do people use birth controll, if not to limit births?  By definition, that is what birth controll is.  Why is it moral for a couple to limit births for their own interests any more than it is moral to use it for "the common good." 

Are you suggesting that using birth controll is legitimate if it is used for recreational sex.  If so, you are seperating sex from procreation, using a gift of God for selfish pleasure, rather than for the purpose God intended.  Then you are in the same boat as homosexuals.   

I respect the Catholic church's stance because it is consistent.  Yours is not. 

David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #67 on: November 27, 2007, 01:09:31 AM »
I'm still waiting for you to denounce your political party because support for torture and wholesale slaughter is "mainstream."  If you don't believe me, go to a certain "mainstream" conservative website and do a search for "torture" and "nuclear option."


MMH

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2007, 08:21:12 AM »
I know that the Catholic church is opposed to birth controll of any kind.  Is the same true for the LCMS? 

Peter, you so totally rock!  I was wondering if I was the only one who sees the National Institute for Coordinated Experimentation at work here.  One wonders what the Head is up to these days.


MMH

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2007, 08:41:19 AM »
I know that the Catholic church is opposed to birth controll of any kind.  Is the same true for the LCMS? 

David-

Please remember Moynihan's Law- Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

The Catholic Church does not oppose all forms of birth control

1) NEWS FLASH- Abstinence is a form of birth control

2) Natural Family Planning is seen as a perfectly fine practice for devout Catholic families

You may want to debate efficacy, which is fine.  But do not misrepresent people.

BTW- Which party is it that defends torture?  I am assuming you mean the Republicans, since the Democrats are too busy defending the right of individuals to commit murder in wholesale numbers (47G and climbing as we speak in this nation alone) to be pro-torture.  Why bother hurting people when you can just kill 'em?

So- please show me the plank in the RNC platform that is pro-torture.  Talk to Sens. McCain and Warner and see ther reaction to your statement.  If you want to condemn this current administration, by all means.

Well, befire I go off for my one meal of soylent green for the day, I recommend people check out http://www.catholiceducation.org/directory/Current_Issues/Population_Control/

for some articles that debunk the population bomb.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2007, 08:57:28 AM »
Why do people use birth controll, if not to limit births?  By definition, that is what birth controll is.  Why is it moral for a couple to limit births for their own interests any more than it is moral to use it for "the common good." 

Are you suggesting that using birth controll is legitimate if it is used for recreational sex.  If so, you are seperating sex from procreation, using a gift of God for selfish pleasure, rather than for the purpose God intended.  Then you are in the same boat as homosexuals.   

I respect the Catholic church's stance because it is consistent.  Yours is not. 
I don't separate sex from procreation. But regardless of my personal views on artificial birth control, which are indeed a bit Romisch for most Lutherans, I do recognize that not everyone who uses birth control is doing so because more births in general are a bad thing. Perhaps a wife couldn't survive a pregnancy during certain health treatments or something. The point is that approving birth control in any particular instance because of special circumstances is not at all the same thing as approving birth control as a general policy because fewer people are better for the planet. People might fast without advocating famine. As Charles noted way upstream, there may be valid reasons for any particular person to choose not to have children (though I'm sceptical of some I've heard) but saving the planet isn't one of them.

My support for Republicans is entirely provisional. I have, I believe, a duty to vote because I live in a country in which my vote counts. Where there are only two viable options, I do my best to vote my conscience, which means voting for Republicans. If the GOP put forth a candidate who supports wholesale slaughter to the degree that pro-choice candidates do, I won't vote for him, though I'm not sure what I would do in that case. The point is, I vote because I think I have that duty. Nobody has a duty to belong to any advocacy group, so the threshhold of what we ought to demand from those assoiciations, it seems to me, is much higher. Furthermore, if by wholesale slaughter you're referring to the Iraq War, it seems to me that support and lack of support for that enterprise are both fairly mainstream positions in both parties. But even so, nobody I know of supports wholesale slaughter because fewer people are better than more people. They may be wrong about the morality and usefulness of war, but they are not necessarily wrong about the nature and value of humanity.

Maybe we're getting nowhere with this. People didn't want anecdotes so I provided official statements. People didn't want sterotypes so I got as broad sample of environmental groups. People didn't want an attack angle, so I gathered the info from a source "on the other side" of the issue, to let them describe themselves rather than being described by me. The fact remains (though it is tough to pick just one example) that the Sierra Club says, "(2) Each nation should be urged to create a national population commission to formulate policy on population-growth restraint and implement any programs that may be developed." I'm not sure what to make of anyone who doesn't find that proposal chilling.

revjagow

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Proverbs 9:8-9
    • View Profile
    • Article 7
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2007, 09:57:51 AM »
"Man has got to take charge of Man.  That means, remember, that some men have got to take charge of the rest - which is another reason for cashing in on it as soon as one can.  You and I want to be the people who do the taking charge, not the ones who are taken charge of.  Quite."

"What sort of thing have you in mind?"

"Quite simple and obvious things, at first - sterilization of the unfit, liquidation of backward races (we don't want any dead weights), selective breeding.  Then real education, including pre-natal education, by read education I mean one that has no "take-it-or-leave-it" nonsense.  A real education makes the patient what it wants infallibly: whatever he or his parents try to do about it.  Of course, it'll have to be mainly psychological at first.  But, we'll get on to biochemical conditioning in the end and direct manipulation of the brain..."

"But this is stupendous, Feverstone."

"It's the real thing at last.  A new type of man: and its people like you who've got to begin to make him."

Where's Merlin when you need him?
Soli Deo Gloria!

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2007, 09:59:25 AM »
"(2) Each nation should be urged to create a national population commission to formulate policy on population-growth restraint and implement any programs that may be developed." I'm not sure what to make of anyone who doesn't find that proposal chilling.
 
 
I too find the Sierra Club statement chilling.

Marie Meyer

David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #73 on: November 27, 2007, 10:10:19 AM »
I know that the Catholic church is opposed to birth controll of any kind.  Is the same true for the LCMS? 

David-

Please remember Moynihan's Law- Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

The Catholic Church does not oppose all forms of birth control

1) NEWS FLASH- Abstinence is a form of birth control

2) Natural Family Planning is seen as a perfectly fine practice for devout Catholic families

You may want to debate efficacy, which is fine.  But do not misrepresent people.

BTW- Which party is it that defends torture?  I am assuming you mean the Republicans, since the Democrats are too busy defending the right of individuals to commit murder in wholesale numbers (47G and climbing as we speak in this nation alone) to be pro-torture.  Why bother hurting people when you can just kill 'em?

So- please show me the plank in the RNC platform that is pro-torture.  Talk to Sens. McCain and Warner and see ther reaction to your statement.  If you want to condemn this current administration, by all means.

Well, befire I go off for my one meal of soylent green for the day, I recommend people check out http://www.catholiceducation.org/directory/Current_Issues/Population_Control/

for some articles that debunk the population bomb.


Matt,

Yes, I should have said "contraception."  I had no intention to misrepresent the Catholic church, as evidenced by my praise for their consistency.  This whole argument began because some here wanted to misrepresent me, and many others like me. 

I don't believe that the Republican party supports torture as a whole.  I was simply demonstrating that Peter's logic could be turned against him.  His argument was that if you could demonstrate that a belief was "mainstream" then it was perfectly fine to accuse the movement as a whole of supporting it.  You and I both know that there is quite a bit of support for torture in the conservative blogshpere.  That many id the Republican party were slow to condemn torture is also true.  That was my point and I think it was obvious what I was doing. 

You objection to my line of argument proves my point.  If it is a poor line of argument for me, so it is when others use it.

David Charlton

« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 12:07:03 PM by David Charlton »

revjagow

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Proverbs 9:8-9
    • View Profile
    • Article 7
Re: Herod is smiling
« Reply #74 on: November 27, 2007, 10:30:23 AM »
The thing is, one can be an environmentalist or a conservationist and be in either political party.  It goes beyond Republican and Democrat.  I tend to see things more on the local level and I try to be an advocate for preserving our great wetlands, and curbing development that is not properly planned for.

BTW- in light of the copious evidence presented by Peter, I completely back away from my earlier statement that the "babies = pollution" view was not mainstream.  I was obviously not that well informed.  Good research, Peter.  Well done.

A good debate here is how far to push the "scorched earth" policy of disengaging groups like the Sierra Club.  There are a lot of good organizations that fight for the same local causes that I would fight for, but who are completely misguided on population growth (again, pointing out the irony of people who fight for nature who are opposed to living the most natural way).  Further, there are good candidates that may push for one or more of the environmental concerns that you also have - but that person may be endorsed by an organization like the Sierra Club.  I would still vote for the person and not assume that he is an agent of N.I.C.E. looking to push forward a sterilization and re-education agenda in our government. 

Maybe I've just accepted that the political world is messy and it is never a morally simple environment for a theologian to wade into. 
Soli Deo Gloria!