Is there a God, and if so, who is it?

[amicus]

Sorry Pure...not a disappearing act when the flack gets heavy, I write for a newspaper and I am working on 3 novels and everytime I get wrapped up in a forum issue, it tends to gobble time.....

On ethics and morality...as with most things involving humanity, we can only 'know' them, if we study them, categorize them and try to comprehend them.

Few would insist that, 'nothing' is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to consider that acts that tend to benefit or 'continue' life, can be viewed as 'good' things. Such as potable water, nourishing food, breathable air....and from these, 'physical' things..try to extend the concept to more abstract things that can be, 'good, bad, or of no consequence' as they apply to human life.

So, I restate, or paraphrase what I offered before, namely that, there is a path to a 'rational, non contradictory ethical and moral code for man to discover.'

Is it subject to debate? Surely...but to know, that one can pursue an understanding of 'all' acts committed by humans, and to 'objectively judge' by rational and natural means, the 'rightness or wrongness' of each act, to know that one can indeed search for truth and find it...is an important step.

"Contraception..." The issue I think you put forth....

Let me approach this from several different directions...

I was brought up in a society that regarded 'chastity' as a value.

I was brought up in a society that looked down upon 'unwedded mothers' and bastard children without fathers or known paternity.

There is a bit of jealousy in a young man, in that it is a 'value' to his psyche, to view the 'gift' of the 'first time' by a woman.

There are dozens more...societal and colloquial 'mores' that all of us have been brought up with...all over the world, feel free to add your own.

Nature and evolution gave us the means to reproduce by means of sexual intercourse...male/female and even made it pleasureable so as to elicit the species to be fruitful.

In most of the history of man, it was a 'benefit' a good thing, to bear as many children as possible. You know all the reasons.

Even then, there were those who could not reproduce, and even those who did not wish to reproduce. And society again, made a judgement by the use of words such as 'spinster' and 'barren'.

In view of 'nature's' imperative to reproduce and considering all the temptations involved in the process, one might view any form of, 'contraception' as being in opposition to the innate 'drive' to procreate.

But the future is upon us..and has been for some time now. But the innate urge...to procreate...still drives many...society still views the 'fertile' female and the 'vital' male, as a desired goal.

There is another area of Hedonism, living only for pleasure, that ties into casual sex, that might be worth a discussion, but his has gone overlong.

I look forward to your comments.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Maybe, I'm a little detached from the world in my cesspit and fresh brimstone, but what is the problem with birth control from a pragmatic approach? We are quickly reaching our cap as a population. The more we can do to limit procreation, the longer we as a spieces can live comfortably. Look at China or India for a taste of what can happen if a population gets to crowded. Since people can't be convinced to go cold turkey from sex, having sex with no real exchange of fluids makes sense. Besides, with STDs being as prevalent as they are, it is a good method for slowing down the spread and delaying a huge population dive as is happening in Africa. Pragmatically speaking, birth control saves our population from suicide.

EDITED to add: Good luck on your three novels, amicus. (see, I can be nice if i want to )

 

[amicus]

Lucifer Carroll.....

For over a generation..well over a generation the common 'oatmeal' belief system that the world is 'over populated' has been promulgated and taught in all forms by pointy headed intellectuals who scratch their pancakes and pour syrup down their backs.

In Japan, plans are going forward for a 'sky city' to add additional space for a society that lacks space to expand.

On the other hand, China butchers girl babies to limit that poplulation.

Although it may seem Heresy to you, the world is NOT overpoplulated, we are NOT straining the resources.

Any government that acts to 'limit population' is an immoral and illegal government, as it violates the basic 'human rights' of a person to procreate by choice.

And any human being that voluntarily chooses not to reproduce because he/she is so brainwashed by the 'overpopulation propoganda' as to give up a basic human value for a 'social' one,
is so unthinking that the species will benefit it they do not reproduce.

It is psychologically destructive for adults of child bearing age, to deny the fulfillment of that most basic, innate desire of mankind as an altruistic sacrifice to a social agenda.

But, then again, the gene pool will benefit from their absence.

A thousand years from now, my genes will be carried by those who set forth and terraformed Mars and by those who will explore the stars.

Amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Whoa. That's pretty hardcore, man.

If you had said, man's ingenuity will save it from a population cap or we'll terraform Mars before it becomes a big problem, then I might be able to say in all probability it's likelier than not. This response though, is a bit...extreme.

With the exception of China and India, no one is forcing women and men of the world to use contraception. And regardless of what you might say, the evidence points to an effect in our population growth similar to that of populations before they cap. Does this mean we are doomed right now? No, human ingenuity will probably sustain us a good couple of generations over our expected animal cap. It will not however sustain us forever.

Also a choice not to have a baby is one we all make multiple times every day. If a couple chooses not to have children, it will not destroy our growth. There are still plenty of 12 person families. I've seen them, they do exist. A person should have as much of a choice to not contribute to the gene pool as not contribute to it. As Dawkins said, "Just because our genes are selfish, doesn't mean that mankind must follow them."

I also applaud your sexual prowess that your massive sexual campaign has brooded so much fruit and that you are proud of a quantity campaign. Perhaps others like a more quality campaign instead.

P.S. the gene pool is already screwed. to quote a forgotten nineties band, "the morons are breeding and feeding and I don't even own a tv." The gene pool has been favoring morons for quite a long time, which is why every generation seems so much dumber than the last one.

 

[Guest]

It is psychologically destructive for adults of child bearing age, to deny the fulfillment of that most basic, innate desire of mankind as an altruistic sacrifice to a social agenda.

But, then again, the gene pool will benefit from their absence.

A thousand years from now, my genes will be carried by those who set forth and terraformed Mars and by those who will explore the stars.

Amicus

Oh, Good Christ.

What an ego.

Breeding is not a physical or psychological necessity. (Sex, of course, is vital - LOL.) But humans are the only animal species capable of consciously controlling the number of their offspring.

In the "good old days," it was necessary for a couple to produce many children because so many died from childhood diseases (something that progress has helped improve, by the way). A typical husband of the era could go through two or three wives as well, because women would also die because of poor health conditions following multiple childbirths.

There are plenty of humans around; I have no figures to back this up but I hardly think people in the United States are limiting the size of their families because of political propaganda. I think finances may play a major role. (We only have two children because we feel we cannot afford three!)

Birth control was freedom. Husbands couldn't keep their wives pregnant against her wishes, couples were no longer at the mercy of the ridiculous cycle counting rhythm method, unmarried women could experiment with sex (as men had been doing for years) - it was freedom. And a good thing.

Have fun on Mars.

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,

Glad to see you around. Keep us posted with those novels.

you said in part,
Any government that acts to 'limit population' is an immoral and illegal government, as it violates the basic 'human rights' of a person to procreate by choice.

And any human being that voluntarily chooses not to reproduce because he/she is so brainwashed by the 'overpopulation propoganda' as to give up a basic human value for a 'social' one,
is so unthinking that the species will benefit it they do not reproduce.

It is psychologically destructive for adults of child bearing age, to deny the fulfillment of that most basic, innate desire of mankind as an altruistic sacrifice to a social agenda.

But, then again, the gene pool will benefit from their absence.

I understand you're talking about a Chinese type situation, where gov't measures, including persuasion, pressure, and abortion are used to limit family size.

But I'm interested in the situation SweetSS describes; a couple decides to stop at, let's say, two, because (they say) of economic reasons. Indeed we know that happens in many developed countries; families limit themselves, on average, to less than two
(e.g., Italy, Japan). It's not quite economic _necessity_, I don't think, but it's partly a desire to spend intensively on the one or two--you know, ballet lessons, month long summer camp, etc., maybe a private school or university. I wouldn't quite choose the word 'lifestyle' since it sounds flighty, but the manner of living of the often two working spouses limits availability (of the parents) of tending for, say, 5 kids. (Not doubt this is partly caused by changes in women's working outside the home, but as you know the 50s stay-at-home mom is a kind of historical anomaly, except among the rather well to do.)

Perhaps you wonder where I'm going with this. OK, I think there's nothing wrong with 'good of humanity' as an ethical standard. But 'amount' of good is tricky to measure. For example, above. Let's assume, arbirtrarily that each family has two parents (it's immaterial, so long as the number of parents is constant in the three cases). So we say for the sake of argument that (Case 1) Italy has 5 million one child families, living at a very high standard. (Case 2) IF those 5 million families each were to have a extra kid, youd have 5 million more souls, but probably each child (and even the parents) would have only a *somewhat high standard.

Do you see my point? In case 1, 15 million people with a high standard, and let's suppose quite happy; In case two, 20 million people with a less high standard, and *maybe not quite so happy.

In fact we can reasonably hypothesize (Case 3) that *maybe two more children could be added to each, and the family would just get by. That would be 30 million people 'just getting by.'

So how are we to judge?

In simple terms, lots of benefit for a few, vs. medium benefit for a reasonable number, or subsistence benefits for lots and lots. Which is better according to the 'good for human life' standard??

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So how are we to judge?

With a big powdered wig? Sorry, I really needed to inject some joviality into one of these discussions before my head exploded.

 

[amicus]

Hello again..pure...thank you....

Your math is good, a finite amount of resources, divided by an increasingly larger number, means less for all.

However, it is the same mistake Malthus made, centuries ago when he forecasted world starvation as population increased geometrically and the food supply only on a linear base.

He was wrong.

It seems the industrial revolution was instrumental in reducing family size, along with mechanical devices in agriculture so that more of the work could be done by machines.

The size of the family, the number of children..if any..should depend only on those involved. I personally liked a lot of kids around and had 8, including two step children.

Of course people should choose the size of their families, the recent news event of a woman, in Florida I think, giving birth to her 15th child..is almost obscene.

But, again...unless she depends on others, (the state) to support them, she has every right.

regards...amicus...

 

[fifty5]

However, it is the same mistake Malthus made, centuries ago when he forecasted world starvation as population increased geometrically and the food supply only on a linear base.

He was wrong.

Oops, no he wasn't - at least, only in countries where wealth and contraception is the norm.  Read or listen to the news about the 'third world' and you'll find that Malthus rules - OK or not!

In Europe and the US (and other lucky cultures) technology (including contraception) works to make lifestyle a matter of choice, but that isn't global!

f5