Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

[Torsten]

hagakure - you made me think about the whole immigration thing a bit more. I agree that it is a problem if the smatter countries stop breeding and the rest don't. Underpopulated countries become attractive targets for annexation by overpopulated countries - either by peaceful immigration or by force.

But ultimate each country has to be responsible for itself. So, while most african countries have policies of high population growth or at least laws and social pressures for 'lots of kids' they should really have to deal with the result of these policies themselves. But how do you justify that while countries like the US are driven by anti-contraception moralists and even australia has a policy of population growth?

I think as long as developed countries are not openly promoting negative population growth within their own borders there is little we can expect from developing countries in that regard. I think any country that has a zero growth policy also has the right to restrict influx from outside [ie immigration should be proportional to population growth]

[gamma.goblin]

Tongue in cheek only really works when you know what youre talking about.

riiiiight, coz you have so great an understanding that you are unable to even relate what you have read.

Torsten, restricting immigration can be written into law, but its much harder to police. We are very remote here in Australia, and while our borders are vast and people can sneak in easily, it has to be by boat or plane, which reduce the numbers to a trickle when you compare to somewhere like Europe, which is basically at the mercy of large population flows. How do you stop the migration of literally millions of people who can walk across borders?

[Jesus On Peyote]

How do you stop the migration of literally millions of people who can walk across borders?

Machine gunners, and lots of em.

Population control is good, but it has to be proportionate to the country,oz for example has around 20 million people, the US hit somthing like 300 million this year or last year,china has 1.6 billion people n india is around 1.1 billion.

[nothinghead]

gamma.goblin - It's not that i can't summerise it for you, it's just that the point is to be doing things for yourself.

Immigration is a terribly difficult thing to police - just look at Australia, what do we have, like 21 million illegal immigrants?

By the way, there is a lot of info out there about the good/bad genes thing, it's called eugenics.

[gamma.goblin]

And as I said, worked brilliantly for you so far. Its not about summarising, its about being able to use the info in a usefull way. I present you with a first example of a simple problem and rather than giving an answer, you launch into this bollocks. Great knowledge you have attained there for sure Anyone can present a problem and attack people, but can you come up with an answer? Apparently not from the evidence so far. Generally, most people tend to think of individuals like that as whingers.

I dont think the aboriginees had anti immigration laws dude, youre being precious. Plus, they travelled here anyway according to the historians.

Edited August 22, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[nothinghead]

Honestly, how thick are you? My solution is fairly simple and is very easy to find if you read back over the posts. Ironic that you should be on about using information in a useful way when you find it impossible to get a few short paragraphs of text into your head.

[nothinghead]

Again with the stupidity. When they travelled here there was no-one else here! How can you talk about the legal descriptor "immigration" when there are no people, let alone no laws?

When Europeans travelled here their settlement was in contravention of terra nullius. That's what I was referring to, and it's not suprising it went over your head.

At least you loosely disguised your discrimination this time.

[gamma.goblin]

lol my discrimination

When the first of them arrived there was no-one here.

"Modern applications of the term terra nullius stem from 16th and 17th century doctrines describing land that was unclaimed by a sovereign state recognized by European powers."

You are talking legality, so try to stick to it.

Edited August 23, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[nothinghead]

Nice try, but it's fairly obvious that that is not from a legal source - it's from Wikipedia. Congratulations on doing some reading, unfortunately you didn't do enough. That selection does not describe the law at the time of settlement. There is a lot more to the debate on terra nullius than one line from a biased online encyclopedia.

Aren't your hands getting tired from all those straws?

[gamma.goblin]

Maybe coz wiki is right? Every other source I see says the same stuff, and once again, you dont have anything alternative to offer. My straws? Youre a fucking idiot dude. I give up. You win.

[nothinghead]

The doctrine of terra nullius does not appear to have been in use at the time of the European settlement of Australia, it was legally specified later following its long informal application as a means of justifying colonisation. Because Australian soil was taken without plausible legal justification the foundation of the argument for "illegal immigrants" when referring to refugees, asylum seekers and so forth, collapses. I was making an ironic statement about the banter over who is and who isn't illegal, a reminder that things aren't so straightforward when talking about immigration in a colonial or postcolonial setting. Wikipedia does not have a sufficient coverage of the debate, and, is a known as a source to be at best a tool for getting the gist of something to anyone who thinks critically. It is certainly not one to be used in any rigorous sense. You musn't have looked very far into other sources if this was all you could find.

It's a relief you've finally given up, the amusement was beginning to wear thin.

[gamma.goblin]

Ah, some actual info, wow! Now I feel like talking.

Ok, so taking your word, it wasnt in place at the time, and was instilled later. So how many of your 21 million do you think immigrated in this short period? A lot of us were born here too, so we are not immigrants. Law is law, a flawed law is still law. You accuse me of dropping strawmen, buts thats all your little '21 million illegal immigrants' was. Nothing stemming from Mabo retrospectively makes me an illegal immigrant by law. Yes I should have realised you were being a dick, but Im human, sometimes I bite.

[nothinghead]

Just one clarification:

I was making an ironic statement about the banter over who is and who isn't illegal, a reminder that things aren't so straightforward when talking about immigration

I thought it would be fairly obvious my provocation should not be taken literally. I was hoping it would get some thinking happening about the nature of immigration and belonging in a longer historical sense than the fairly current events being discussed here.

Call me a romantic, but I don't think forcibly stopping immigration is any kind of an answer. Whoever began the talk about having less children was much, much closer to a solution. Of course, in practice this is at least as difficult as stopping immigration, especially when Australian government thinks its a great idea to encourage population growth and "have one for the nation".

[nothinghead]

Just to qualify that statement on immigration - I agree with Torsten that if the country has a zero growth policy then stopping immigration is defensible, I should have said I was referring to immigration in Australia.

[gamma.goblin]

Just one clarification:

I thought it would be fairly obvious my provocation should not be taken literally. I was hoping it would get some thinking happening about the nature of immigration and belonging in a longer historical sense than the fairly current events being discussed here.

Fairly obvious yeah, maybe if I hadnt had 4 hours sleep to be woken up by continuous hammering 2 meters outside my window I might have been on the ball, as I said, Im human. But still, you aknowledge you intentionally dropped a strawman, so why accuse me of it?

*Oh I realise now you were taking glee in me picking apart your straw, sorry for the mistake, its just that Ive only ever seen people derided for using strawmen in discussions, I didnt think someone would be proud of it unless they are 'trolling'.

Oh, I missed a post as well:

Honestly, how thick are you? My solution is fairly simple and is very easy to find if you read back over the posts. Ironic that you should be on about using information in a useful way when you find it impossible to get a few short paragraphs of text into your head.

I read your posts, I didnt see any kind of solution for public toilets other than 'everyone looks after themselves'. When presented with situtations in which people cant/wont look after themselves, you have given "figure out the answer youself'. Not exactly what I would call a solution. Paying someone to clean the toilets is a solution. Hey, I just thought of it myself! Edited August 23, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[gamma.goblin]

In spite of being well aware of the old 'arguing on the internet...' adage, I have nothing better to do, so Ill respond to some of the things I decided were not worth my time earleir. What an honour, my first participated thread destined for the bitches and gripes forum with me at the helm

I really wish you would take one piece of advice I have given you over, and over in these last few posts: read! Almost your entire reply is either mindless conjecture, putting words into my mouth, or totally missing the point! Really, I don't know if you are playing stupid to avoid the topic of argument, or whether you are just incapable of slowing down your reading so you can understand before you begin to reply.

Ive read and read, Ive still not come across an alternative to our current system of maintaining public amenities. You gotta realise, I dont share your agenda, if I ask a question, and dont get a reasonable answer, Im hardly going to care much about all the other stuff designed to shift focus from the fact you dont have one. Its still not answering my question, the one I actually care about.

Point in case: You say that going to school isn't the only way to learn. That's a given. However, if you read my post, you will see that I was speaking about professions where school-based education is necessary for employment, such as nursing. If you cannot get a degree, you cannot be a registered nurse.

Yes, I said that to illustrate I was referring to attitude. Some people, even given all the opportunity in the world wont try to better themselves. They will never be a highly trained professional because they dont want to do it.

Point in case: I never proposed anything like paying shoe shiners the same as CEO's? You seem to again have completely missed the point. I think Torsten's ethic of paying an employee a wage based on the level of discomfort with doing the task is an excellent proposal. You are still taking a completely individualistic approach in your thinking, you have obviously not bothered to even browse any of the material I suggested, so you have continued to look the fool in this argument.

I asked 'what do you propose?' From what you are saying, thats the only example I could think of. Youre right Ive missed the point, I cant get a straight answer out of you for a simple question! Youre correct Im not bothered to browse the material, you havent yet convinced me it would be worth my while, in fact you have repeatedly demonstrated and admitted that it hasnt helped you come up with any alternatives. If you cant relate the concepts in a constructive manner(and youve baulked at the first simple problem), youre not exactly giving me much reason or motivation to bother looking into it for myself. I set conditions for my acceptance to your proposal that I read up on your pet political love, so far you havent convinced me they have been met.

You have no knowledge of theories of anarchism, so stop arguing about it, and PLEASE stop with the conjecture that "everyone else thinks anarchists are fools" this is your personal, uninformed opinion, not the opinion of EVERYONE. I think its rather pathetic that the only thing between you shooting someone who comes near your stuff or whose hair you don't like is a punitive law. If you can't take some personal responsibility maybe I can start to understand why you're so into having others clean up after you.

Very little yes. And untill one of its supporters can tell me a solution for cleaning public toilets that is realistic and makes sense to your average layperson Ill continue to be clueless about them. It would be rather pathetic if it was true that I want to shoot people for petty reasons, but I dont, so its all ok, you can relax. See, Im not the only one who can bite on something obviously not meant to be taken literally.

Bees do not "delegate" tasks in the way humans do. Read a journal article or philosophy piece on the matter, there's plenty around. Wittgenstein says bees are "hired wired" into doing their tasks, this is not a form of delegation. Simply mentioning a TV show doesn't prove your argument either. I asked for an example, not a show to watch.

Thats right, coz they are bees! Theres gonna be some difference. So their delegation is genetic, its still social delegation. You asked for some examples, I hoped you might have been familiar with a very well know and long running 'documentary'. I take it Im ok on the lion comment then? Cool, I gave a few of the most popular examples in the hope one might ring a bell.

If you wish to sit back and say "well, war is just a symptom of being human, so be it" that's your own problem, another one tied in with a refusal to take some responsibility for yourself. Grow up.

No, I dont just want to sit back, I want to accept and plan for eventualities that occur such as this. Burying ones head in the sand to the nature of the darker side of humainty is self defeating, and a 'refusal of responsibility'.

No matter how you justify your comments on Aborigines being unevolved they were racist. That is unavoidable. Equally stupid was your comment that enslavement was an evolutionary goal.

Ok, definition of racist:

 

 

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Adressing them in order:

1) I never said, nor do I have any evidence that would make me believe that their race determines cultural or individual acheivement, same goes for racially based superiority. I believe the develpoment of culture is dependant on the enviroment in which people live. If they had no need for keeping slaves, why would they start? Keeping slaves has problems, starting with the fact that most people dont really like being slaves. Slavery isnt an evolutionary goal in terms of genetics, its a cultural goal that was concieved, executed, and persists right to this day in many cultures. I dont see culture as racially dependant. Strangly enough though, your deduction despite my protestations that I must be wealthy because I come from a white demographic fits with the first half of the definition: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement..."

2) Well, I dont have the views mentioned in (1), so that eliminates (2)

3) I dont hate people based on race, I hate them based on individual attitude and actions.

Now, I never said they were 'unevolved', just that the culture and technology hadnt evolved to the same point as some of the worlds other peoples. Nessescity is the mother of invention. Technological advances occur more rapidly in some places than others, its hardly racist to make the observation.

Really, if you are going to ask for some sources to read, at least take a look through them if you are capable, which is looking less and less likely.

You so far havent convinced me theres anything realistic or directly applicable in there worth reading. As a rule, I only tend to bother looking something up if Ive been given an indication that its going to be interesting to me, otherwise I fall asleep. As I said, youve got to do a lot better at enticing me, not exactly the best sales pitch dude, or maybe the product is just faulty and its another marketing scam Either way, Im not losing sleep over it - just over zealous home handymen making lots of noise in the morning.

Edited August 23, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[nothinghead]

I can't be bothered to deaden my brain anymore reading through all of this since it seems from the first part that you are merely restating your own opinions with no real argument.

I will give you a proposal on public amenities, one I have suggested and suggested over. Since you seem to have a particular problem understanding anything about an anarchistic system, here is what a solution to cleaning dirty toilets that the whole community uses might look like.

Solution one: After using the toilets you clean up after yourself, as if the public were the private. If this does not work (ie: people aren't cleaning up after themselves, which is unlikely in a society of anarchists who believe in doing things for themselves) make a table where people can tick when they use/clean the toilet. If you've ever lived out of home (which is doesn't sound like you have, with all your talk about getting your mum to clean up after you) you will see that this works fairly well in share houses with decent people in them. If you don't have time once or twice, no big deal, as long as you are honest about cleaning with others and yourself. If someone is surreptitiously taking a shit without cleaning up after themselves the community will realise "hey *whoever* has been using the toilet, yet his name isn't ticked" or similar. Then the problem can be dealt with.

Solution two: The community draws up a rotating roster where 2-3 people clean the toilets according to a schedule which over the course of however many weeks, means that every one takes a turn doing it. Contrary to your assertion that some people are just too damn busy to do this, I don't think its too much to ask for a few hours every few weeks.

Now, wasn't that simple? Was this idea not implied many times? Clean up after yourself?

Take note that I am not proposing that this would work in the current system. That has been made clear by myself, and been made evident in your refusal to take responsibility in your arguments, and in your several-times-mentioned reliance on your mum to clean for you. Now that I have baby-talked you through a couple of possibilities, please don't ask anymore obvious questions that I have already answered. Do some thinking or research for yourself.

Now before you spurt more drivel, seriously, dude, put some clothes on those ideas, your ignorance is showing.

[gamma.goblin]

Sorry bub, my mum died when I was a toddler, I have an estranged father and I moved out of home as a teenager. Im the one in my share house who does most of the cleaning, because I keep the least busy schedual. I dont have to do it, but I like to help people(that I like) and I dont enjoy pathogens.

But fuck me though I must be blind coz thats the first time Ive seen your oh so simple everybodys personal responsibility roster. Guess what, I already clean up after myself, I think most people do. Unfortuantely, some people dont. If someone doesnt you automatically assume its a lack of personal responsibility, but thats not always the case. Someone who is struck down with a violent illness and hurls all over the floor can hardly be expected to clean it up. Unless of course the throwing up cures the violent illness. As well as the impaired, whether it be self inflicted(drunk etc) or the result of a physical condition(parapalegic, fused spine, arthritis etc). If you expect them all to do it themselves, I think your vision is of a more cruel society than that which we have today. Oh thats right, the next responsible citizen would do it, provided of course they hadnt weighed up their options and decided that they really needed to be somewhere else right now rather than scooping crap up off the floor and washing everything down. Good luck convincing the broader community that possible public health hazards should be left up to your honour system(can I use the term now?). Pathogens dont care whos turn it is. How efficient it would be to retrofit all bathrooms with cabinets full of cleaning equipment, much better than having dedicated cleaners who can manage many toilets with one set.

At least you are aknowledging that it would have no chance at all, no wonder you were so reluctant to share. Im curious what kind of 'enviroment' you think this could possibly work in. Very small communities of hand selected individuals is about all I can see. The rest of us though will continue with the working system untill something thats actually better comes along. Thanks for confirming that it would be pointless to read your anarchist material, coz if thats the best you can do Im now thoroughly convinced I wont be finding what Im looking for, which is political and social practices based in reality. While it was nice to finally meet an anarchist, I cant say the experience was enlightening.

[nothinghead]

I think the problem here is that you are (understandably) upset that your opinions have really taken a beating in this argument, now you just want to win some kind of abstract point. I allowed for the fact that everyone can't always clean up after themselves, did you not read the part about being honest if you can't clean up and it not being a problem? Unless of course everyone is violently ill for weeks, in which case I can't see why anyone would be out of their homes using public toilets anyway. If you had have bothered to do any research of your own between your last blunder and this one, you would see that "what to do about people who can't care for themselves" is a fairly commonly raised issue in questions of non-capitalist societies. The answer is simple, the community looks after them. You have again missed the point, it is not an "honour" system, it is a system of personal responsibility.

Why do you need cabinets full of cleaning equipment to clean? In all the places I've lived all that's needed is some disinfectent, a brush, a cloth and a bucket. I'm yet to succumb to all those pathogens you are phobic of.

I did not "acknowledge having no chance at all" I merely said it wouldn't work under the current system. You really are a stupid one. Now that you have a valid response to your question spelt out so simply a pre-pubescent child could read it, why aren't you satisfied? Really, your response that "people wouldn't do that" is just plain ignorant and lazy. Why doesn't that suprise me?

[gamma.goblin]

Well you see, sometimes things happens like the pipes getting blocked and backflow occurs, or the flush mechanism breaking. Good luck cleaning that with disinfectent, a brush, a cloth and a bucket. That would require someone with a little more skill and knowledge of how the system works. Time to call in the professional. Or should everyone also be a plumber? You havent succumbed to pathogens from everybodies excrement because we have a properly maintained(in most cases)public tax payer funded sewerage system. Remember I said I worked in nursing homes? Well you have to be pretty anal about invisible nasties in such an enviroment. You have a strong immune system, good for you. Maybe if one day it fails you might take a little more concern.

In regards to apparently being upset with my arguments being flattened, whatever floats your boat dude...Im not angry, Im baffled and bemused. The one thing that really frustrated me and got me hot under the collar was you continual insistance I must be rich coz Im white, an obviously racist deduction, though I didnt take it as racism, I took it as pig-headed determination to paint me into a box to suit whatever farcical view strokes your ego.

Its great you have such general solutions like 'the community looks after them'. But how? Another list? Beaurocrats will be pleased. So Im wondering when someone on the honour list doesnt do their part, what do you do then? Coerce them? Vote them off the island? Take punitive measures?

I am sorry for putting words into your mouth about you not thinking the plan has a chance, obviously you believe it can work, just not in the world(sorry 'system') we inhabit. The 'system' is made up of people, people have formed it, its people you have a problem with...thats fine, people suck, just remember the fact when you start up your utopian society.

Though "People wouldnt do that"? Im confused, what am I supposed to have said people wouldnt do? I thought Ive been illustrating things people would do, but there you go...

You are kidding yourself if you think jobs and class and people being left to fend for themselves are not part of non-capitalist societies. And what makes you think people in capitalist societies have no community concern? I guess all those public funded and voluntary social service and security systems dont exist...

Oh, and as to why I keep referring to it as an 'honour system', its because that what it relies on, the system fails if people dont keep to their 'personal responsibility'. I prefer the 'rewards system', where we pay someone to do the job, and if they dont do it, we reward someone else. Rewards work very well with most people and its much easier to rely on a few than rely on many. Of course this doesnt mean as a society we think its ok for people to shirk personal responsibility when using a public toilet, if a cop catches you pissing all over a wall instead of a urinal, you are in trouble.

Edited August 23, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[nothinghead]

Of course you get a plumber in if the toilets broken! This seems fairly logical to me. Any society that utilises technology needs skilled people to maintain that technology. I guess any anarchist would be too insane to learn plumbing skills though, right? It also seems logical that anyone with an immune system compromised enough that public toilets are a threat should not be using them.

I never said you were rich? I said you were not part of a demographic that includes immigrants with limited finances.

I'm not going to spell out the ins and outs of a society that doesn't require punishment or threats to make them do anything, you can have a think about that one for yourself. And whoever mentioned a utopian society? You have a pretty black and white view of things.

I will congratulate you on one thing - for being a good loser and not getting too upset when you are repeatedly proven wrong.

[gamma.goblin]

I guess plumbers must be somehow different to a cleaner, in that there is none of your percieved 'coercion' there. Or would you feel just as guilty? An anarchist can learn to be a plumber sure, but how is that different to any other job? Seems like delegation of specialised roles to me.

It might seem logical to you that a person with a compromised immune system wouldnt go into a public toilet, thing is, most people dont realise they are compromised untill they come down heavily with something. Fecal matter transfers all kinds of nasties through the air. Your logic to me appears short sighted.

You did say I was wealthy, Post #40:

You said you come from a wealthy white demographic, doesn't sound like you are in the category I was describing.

See thing is I never said I was wealthy, I said I was white and I come from a white demographic. You got the idea of me being wealthy all on your own. One could logically deduct that you foster a perception white people from white areas are rich, which is racist.

It would seem to me that a person who appears as passionate about this as you are would want to be a little more forthcoming with the info, after all, you did get very shirty when I asked if you live a "fairly western-developed-first-world lifestyle", replying:

Obviously, otherwise why would I be arguing about it? If there were a chance for a position outside the capitalist matrices I would have no need to argue about why it needs to be changed. This is self evident. THINK before you post, please.

Bit of a self defeatist arent you? On the one hand, you desire an overhaul of society and allude to knowledge of examples of better systems, on the other, you decide to keep the information close to your chest and are a self confessed slave to "capitalist matrices". Great strategy for achieving your success there. As a result all Ill be thinking about is the crazy hypocritical anarchist who makes no sense. But not for long hopefully ;)

Thanks for the congrats btw, do I get a prize? Thing is, I dont feel like a loser whos been repeatedly proven wrong, I feel like Ive been stuck in a revolving door while the villiage idiot on a metho binge hurls his poop at me...but hey, different people have different perceptions of situations.

Edited August 23, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[nothinghead]

That's right. Again, you've completely missed the point about personal responsibility. It means you do the tasks you are capable of doing yourself. It doesn't mean you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything that could affect your life and you take care of every facet of existence yourself. You are being unreasonable and childish.

Your point about sick people makes no difference whatsoever to what we are talking about. Stick to the point, I'm not going to indulge you with answers many more times.

I said you come from a wealthy white demographic. Not that you are wealthy and white. Get it right if you are going to quote me.

I didn't get shitty, I merely noted that it's fairly obvious I am part of the capitalist system, as I noted, there is no outside to this. However, now you are assuming that I am a slave to this system? On what basis? Really, your weak attempts to prove me wrong on any point in this argument are invalid, badly thought out, and boorish.

If you have interpreted anything that has been said here as rigorous and valid arguments on your part you really must have an enormous ego clouding your vision, protecting you from a realisation of your own pig-headed stupidity. Though you have proven one thing - You can't argue with an idiot.

[Jesus On Peyote]

you are both mixing your words to try and save face lol.

Public toilets are that, public and as public toilets there are people of who cares what demographic background that need the work as public or private cleaners. There is absolutely no cohersion forcing immigrants or the under educated into that work,there are many unskilled jobs avalible for people who need it and even then, anyone can go onto centrelink. noone is forced to do anything. its a noble job and a job that is needed thats been around since, all time?

[chilli]

Heehee, arguments are cool. We're not having kids largely for environmental reasons, and yes the idea of plebians breeding like rabbits while awesome folk like us cull our hypothetical progeny can be a bit disturbing (has anyone watched Idiocracy?) Hopefully the wife doesn't accidentally get pregnant though because we also are opposed to abortion on moral grounds (that's right, I said it)... needless to say, we take contraceptives very seriously.

Fostering and even adoption is a good solution IMMHOO, basically helping to shape the minds of kids whose parents or whatever have done their best to fuck them up. I think the studies that have been done of the nature/nurture question do seem to indicate that both genes and upbringing play an important role in the formation of a mind/body complex, although I personally put most weight in the nurture camp, as the brain's neuronal networks are actually built mostly in the first three years of life and are continually forming throughout development. For this reason, fostering can also be a very difficult experience as you basically take on some other family's problems.

Still, at a young enough age (ie. at least a couple of years before teens) attitude and behavior, values etc can still be largely influenced by environment. It has been our repeated experience that you can take a child from some fairly fucked up situations and see a turnaround in their behavior within a week, with long lasting impact after a couple of years... so yeah, all you greenies maybe don't use the gene pool as an excuse to breed, but please also don't feel guilty if you choose to have a kid or two either.

Torsten, interesting point about religious attitudes towards family being driven or influenced by growth of the institution. I know the vast majority of church growth comes from children who have been exposed to church at a young age, but had never really linked it to attitudes about population control etc. It is kind of creepy to think about it that way, as I have had extended discussion/arguments with churchies about the birth rate with regard to the environment, and it usually always comes back to doctrinal justification from Scripture. I wouldn't say anyone I have spoken to or read who has discussed this topic had this approach consciously, but then the motives we are aware of probably aren't really the most important ones anyway are they?

Edited August 24, 2007 by IllegalBrain