# Environment - Overpopulation



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

There are a lot of good heads on this forum and I'm wondering if there are any members who have an opinion on what I believe is the major contributor to the planet's problems - too many people.

I'm working on a presentation to be given in March. My thesis is pretty simple, unless we drastically reduce human population we are headed for complete disaster in the next 100 to 200 years.

The story line is simple - 2010 population is 6.9 Billion and by 2050 we will hit 9 Billion. To accommodate this growth we will need to feed and shelter more people. We already have around 2 billion people that live in impoverished conditions and things are worsening. We will continue to destroy natural habitat that is needed by other species to live. We have already destroyed thousands of species so there are more to come.

Our governments recognize carbon is a major issue but nowhere do we hear population control being addressed (with the exception of China's one child policy).

What do you think?

Cheers!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Absolutely correct!!! Brave too! I have been pondering this issue for some time and raising it in the courses that I teach at 2 major universities.

Underlying every single issue - water, food, disease transmission, resources, pollution, etc., etc., _ad nauseum_ is the fact that the planet is already overpopulated. However publicly discussing this situation is extremely difficult and awkward. 

One stands to be accused of supporting eugenics among other things.

When I have raised this issue in my lectures the discussion generally turns ugly fairly quickly.

At the heart of the matter is addressing what I call the 'entitlement to breed' which pervades all human cultures.

To be blunt, it is not going to matter one phat rat's phart if we solve, for example, climate change (and carbon is merely the poster-boy issue in climate change) if as a species we continue to breed ourselves into extinction.

Let the flaming begin....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Couldn't agree more rgray. 'Tis the root of all our issues.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

As always it's great to see sane and quick responses. To add a little fuel take a look at this site and the population debate slides, they're devastating.

Reg Morrison - A fresh perspective on life

Also take a look at this piece - A Manifesto for the Earth

A Manifesto for Earth


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Or perhaps it's that the population is to dense in many areas...


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

There are enough resourcces on the planet for all for shelter and food except they have been co opted by greedy corps and dictators
Murdering the unborn is the worst so caled solution and according to my Bible brings a curse on the land
Only God can streighten out the mess we are in but Christ did give us a hint:
Love your neighbour as yourself
JJ


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

JerusalemJim said:


> There are enough resourcces on the planet for all for shelter and food except they have been co opted by greedy corps and dictators
> Murdering the unborn is the worst so caled solution and according to my Bible brings a curse on the land
> Only God can streighten out the mess we are in but Christ did give us a hint:
> Love your neighbour as yourself
> JJ


Sorry but habitat depletion and the eradication of species is going on at an accelerating rate and we have hit a point where LIFE and the ecosystem are in decay. Didn't St. Francis of Assisi preach harmony with nature? Most of us try to love our neighbours but out of control human breeding is the primary cause of the problem. If you have a direct line to God and any one of its disciples (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.) please ask for intervention and soon.
If I see any immediate change, I will be the first to thank you.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JerusalemJim said:


> *There are enough resourcces on the planet for all for shelter and food* except they have been co opted by greedy corps and dictators
> Murdering the unborn is the worst so caled solution and according to my Bible brings a curse on the land
> Only God can streighten out the mess we are in but Christ did give us a hint:
> Love your neighbour as yourself
> JJ


Virtually every major study of this problem, namely the proposition quoted in red above, suggests that this is not true. It is a certainty that it will not be true in 50 years unless significant action is taken.

With respect, waiting for god is part of the problem not the solution. In my reading of the bible, god exhorts us to be stewards of the 'garden'. By my understanding of the word 'steward', it does not include overrunning the place with our spawn. Being a 'steward' means taking action when action is required. Aside from your own reference, no-one in this thread has even remotely suggested that that action should be "murdering the unborn".


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

^^^
Well said.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

rgray said:


> By my understanding of the word 'steward', it does not include overrunning the place with our spawn.


Of course this reminds me of the Monty Python skit in "The Meaning of Life" where an overgrown Catholic family breaks into song - Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good, if a sperm gets wasted, God get quite irate.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I think that it has been fairly clearly established that the CO2/GlobalWarming link is a scam.

However fear not; This scam is being vigorously pursued by the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet.

Currently the population has been programmed to accept almost any indignity, the excuse being protection from terrorism. Homeland Security is a blatant attempt to clone the Gestapo. Then of course there is the Bush "Rat out a Neighbour" program, an admirable substitute for the Hitler Youth.

Inevitably the current cooling trend will reverse itself and the planet will resume the natural warming that has been under way for more than 500 years. When that happpens all the tools are in place. The elite shout Global Warming and the populace meekly marches to the designated spot, grabs a shovel, digs their own grave and meekly stands by as the HS guy shoots them in the back of the head. The next sucker will of course shove the last into the grave then dig his own as well.beejacon

Beyond that over population is a huge issue. Personally I believe the Israeli solution of stealing your neighbours land and water then slaughtering him should he dare to protest, could be adapted world wide. 

Another solution would releasing deadly viruses worldwide with only the select few being protected by vaccines. Of course the virus could mutate resulting in the death of the exalted ones as well.

Nuclear holocaust is always a viable option. As the current method of spreading war and bloodshed throughout the planet is proving to be terribley slow and cruel. 

Of course a real contribution would be a method that does not involve slaughter, euthanasia or state controlled sterilization. If you come up with that you may well win a Nobel Peace Prize. 
Just kidding, that one is reserved for the warmongers.beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I imagne the world could sustain a lot more people than we imagine it can, but I don't think I would much like that world. The best control on population appears to be a healthy economy, since those countries with developed economies tend to demonstrate stable or declining population.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yet in western countries (including Canada) there is a concern with negative birth rate, spawning immigration to offset the trent. Canada's immigration policies reflect that and AFAIR(ecall), Quebec actually pays French Canadians to have children. Increase or at least maintain that tax base, eh? Canada does not allow immigrants into this country out of the goodness of its heart.

We pay farmers not to grow crops, we destroy huge quantities of food or control its production, sale and distribution. Wheat marketing boards, milk marketing boards...you name it.

I don't think we have reached critical mass and even with 10b this world should still be sustainable. With China and India, the two most overpopulated countries, industrializing at a rapid rate and catching up to the west, they may experience their own negative birthrate as a result. At least let's hope so.

Africa is where the rest of the world needs to exhort much needed assistance.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Thanks,

Strongly disagree that global warming is not an issue but I respect the right to have an opinion.

Good point that healthy economies lead to declining birth rates. This goes hand in hand with education levels. Highly educated populations produce smaller families.

The comment about French Canadian birth incentives is not accurate because the incentives apply to all Quebecers. Nonetheless, Quebec's francophone population is in decline.

What I find striking is that there is little to no regard for life outside of the human population. I believe that there are strong symbiotic relationships that govern life between all species. An example of this is the disastrous decline in Bee's which affects pollination which affects a whole chain of events down the line.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> What I find striking is that there is little to no regard for life outside of the human population. I believe that there are strong symbiotic relationships that govern life between all species. An example of this is the disastrous decline in Bee's which affects pollination which affects a whole chain of events down the line.


Sure, but we haven't determined yet what has dinked the bees. Largely a bee parasite from Europe, it appears--but then again, North America imported the current bee species anyway. I'm not sure this classifies as symbiotic.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Sure, but we haven't determined yet what has dinked the bees. Largely a bee parasite from Europe, it appears--but then again, North America imported the current bee species anyway. I'm not sure this classifies as symbiotic.


I beg to differ. The honey Bee was an import but there are literally thousands of bee species native to the Americas and they pollinate. It is an example of interrelated nature.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I've long thought that the earth could potentially sustain many more people than it currently does. The problem is our penchant for fanatical nationalism, political and religious partisanship and other divisive tendencies help ensure that meaningful and effective cooperation among the world's peoples will continue to be a pipe dream. We prefer the sexy/nasty business of competition, empire and war. I wish we could evolve past these norms but I suspect we're hard-wired for it.

Ergo, there's too many of us. We'll either happen to kill ourselves off in sufficient numbers to allow our survival (there's that war thing again, although human-engineered famine and contagion would also do the trick if done on a massive enough scale), or the planetary ecosystem itself will stage certain measures to curtail our species "success."


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

kps said:


> Yet in western countries (including Canada) there is a concern with negative birth rate, spawning immigration to offset the trent. Canada's immigration policies reflect that and AFAIR(ecall), Quebec actually pays French Canadians to have children. Increase or at least maintain that tax base, eh? Canada does not allow immigrants into this country out of the goodness of its heart.


No, Quebec does NOT pay French Canadians to have children. They USED to pay Quebec residents to have children (a one-time Baby "bonus") but that has been long stopped.


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

ok. after reading all of this I feel kind of sick. Yes i agree that our planet is becoming more and more overpopulated. but to say decrease it? you mean kill the innocent? and as MazterCBlazter said . capped at under a billion? are you serious? how empty would this planet be with the worlds population under a billion. i also hate the idea of man-made viruses. cmon be serious. you think they will design something that will only attack a certain group of people? if that ever were to happen.... all of us would be effected.. but someone else also mentioned that the "important people" will be spared with an immunity vaccine. who will decide whos important and whos not? there are current world leaders that are wealthy upon our imagination and that is power. they have say. and if they were to say people like us will not benefit the world. what can we do? i can go on and on about morals and ethics. the proper solution is let nature takes it course. we may realize we have a crisis. but thats only us.. until what we feel can be projected to others. there isnt much we can do that is "ethical".. if Jesus can feed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes. i think we can manage.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Vanish - I think a few people are pulling legs here and there will never be a sanctioned extermination program, but then look at all the genocidal murdering that has been committed in the name of various ideologies and shear racism.

All you have to do is follow the lines of human history and we all know that the exponential growth of humans is out of sync with the ecosystem.

We need policies that limit and contain human expansion. These policies must come from government which need to be supported by a consensus formed by humans. We need to educate and inform.

Again, if Jesus can intervene, please get in touch and relay the news that things are not going too well.


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

in that case in completely understand. and you may not be a believer or agnostic. but Jesus doesnt do these things over night.. he does it in a way that everyone can see. and no one can comprehend how this is done. thats why we just have to live our lives, wait and see. we can act upon what we feel is right, but support is always a big issue.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

While my remarks were somewhat tongue in cheek, nevertheless the danger posed to the general populace by those that must impose a solution is quite real. As I said, the tools are in place and ready to be used.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Well, I can guarantee you that the overpopulation problem will be solved.

The only question is wether it will be solved the "traditional" way (war), the natural way (famine and disease), or wether we will solve it by controlling and reducing our population before we trigger these well-known and time-tested population control mechanisms.

As has already been noted, education, wealth and secularism all correlate very strongly with reduced fecundity. It therefore follows that efforts to mitigate the influence of organized religion, develop sustainable economies, and provide higher education will all contribute to slowing, and eventually reversing population growth.

Unfortunately, combating poverty, irrational superstition, and ignorance is both a thankless and often dangerous task. I wish you well.

Cheers


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> I think that it has been fairly clearly established that the CO2/GlobalWarming link is a scam.


Then your thinking is wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> We need policies that limit and contain human expansion. These policies must come from government which need to be supported by a consensus formed by humans. We need to educate and inform.


No. We need to eliminate policies that encourage people to have children as if though there is some sort of societal benefit to it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No. We need to eliminate policies that encourage people to have children as if though there is some sort of societal benefit to it.


But do you really think that will even begin to 'solve' the problem globally, given the growth rate?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Why would anything have to be done? At some point all species have a population collapse. Why would it not be prudent to wait until such an event.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Why would anything have to be done? At some point all species have a population collapse. Why would it not be prudent to wait until such an event.


Makes perfect sense to anyone not suffering from God Syndrome. Unfortunately the GS types have the wealth and weapons to over ride common sense.beejacon


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Makes perfect sense to anyone not suffering from God Syndrome. Unfortunately the GS types have the wealth and weapons to over ride common sense.beejacon


Which God?


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

jimbotelecom said:


> Sorry but habitat depletion and the eradication of species is going on at an accelerating rate and we have hit a point where LIFE and the ecosystem are in decay. Didn't St. Francis of Assisi preach harmony with nature? Most of us try to love our neighbours but out of control human breeding is the primary cause of the problem. If you have a direct line to God and any one of its disciples (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.) please ask for intervention and soon.
> If I see any immediate change, I will be the first to thank you.


 Out of control Sin is the problem Jimbo 
Thanks to us and Adam its a fallen world and God has given us the keys to the car- when we finally hit the ditch He will step in as the book of Revelation reveals..
Christ intervened and died that You might have the direct and only line to the father and incidentally, Christ is not a disciple- He is God who came down to rectify our sin problem through the blood payment on the cross to all who wish to accept it.
Read the Book of John- quite obvious that God loves this world that we screwed up and there is hope in Him
God's truth. 
We are called to be in harmony with Christs work for our redemption- that's all it takes to be a Saint- good works wont cut it
jj


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

trusting God isnt just a religion, its a relationship with the heavenly father. If you took the time to actually try im sure you wouldnt just push away the idea. Faith is what is needed around here.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The problem is out of control religion.


 No , the problem is religion without Christ


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

JerusalemJim said:


> No , the problem is religion without Christ


well said my friend


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

Vanish said:


> well said my friend


 Thnx Vanish!
Some day the earth will be peaceful and full of joy- every man under his vine and fig tree is the promise
Sad conditions now though
God says love your neighbour 
...and the arms dealers say hate and fear your neighbour with more and bigger weapons
such a gulf
But its still God's show and the Devil will be bound and thrown in the lake of fire one day

when all else fails read the manual eh


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

but the world we live in now is the devils playground, he is the prince of lies, and the king of this world. but he has little time left.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

wtf?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Indeed.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Vanish said:


> trusting God isnt just a religion, its a relationship with the heavenly father. If you took the time to actually try im sure you wouldnt just push away the idea. Faith is what is needed around here.


In general, people who talk to invisible people are generally children, or certified lunatics. Given that there is no proof of a God, no known link to a God, and certainly no embodiment of a God, you're having a relationship with an invisible person. So, you're either a child or insane.

I'm sure I'll get bashed for it, but religion has no place whatsoever in government or policy. If people want to wager their hopes and dreams on a fallacy, they're welcome to it. Just don't impose it on everyone else - or preach it to those that don't want to hear it. If people need to rely on religion to give their life some sense of meaning or purpose, I strongly suggest they sit back, reevaluate, and question why they can't create their own purpose. When it comes to it (and it will), population control must be done with an atheistic approach that is fair to all, and based upon potential contribution to the world. Eugenics has a negative assocation now, but I certainly see it having a prominent place in our future.

Yes, the world is over-populated. The answer isn't to pick a country and exterminate, but limits do need to be put in place. Countries need to control their own populations, making sure they have the abilities to house, feed, and otherwise take care of all their citizens. 

Sooner or later, there will be wars over water, and other basic things. Some say within the next 50 years, others within the next 100-200 years. Either way, it's coming. The developing countries have far fewer resources, like fresh water, than we do here in North America.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I think some of you guys need to jump in a car or an airplane and venture out beyond the row house communities you live in. Theres a lot more room out there beyond the cities edge, honest. I drove 14 hours north in Ontario this fall and that only landed me halfway across the province and 99% of that time you were looking at forests and vacant land. thats just one province. The rest of this nation would be the same and many other countries are the same.

As for the often sited reasoning for population control of fixing world poverty, I assure you we'd still have the poor and hungry with us if you wiped out 90% of the global population. They're not poor because theres no room for them. They're poor and starving because of human selfishness greed, tyrannical governments and a lack of education. Culling the herd won't change that.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

John Clay said:


> In general, people who talk to invisible people are generally children, or certified lunatics. Given that there is no proof of a God, no known link to a God, and certainly no embodiment of a God, you're having a relationship with an invisible person. So, you're either a child or insane.''snip
> 
> 
> There is immense proof of intelligent design in this world and beyond - who are you kidding? if its evident to a child where does that leave you?
> ...


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Must resist vomiting, I mean commenting..... XX)


kick below - suck above again Maz


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Proof of intelligent design? Seriously? This thread is exact evidence to the contrary. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, has proof everywhere. Look at plants and animals. They've evolved of millennia to adapt to their surroundings, from amoeba to mammalia. They weren't placed there, ready to go - they evolved.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

meh. i tried.. but anyways... back to the point.... this is a big dilemma were dealing with, where can one possibly start? what.. like are we going to start penalizing people for having too many kids now? no one on this planet has the right to say.. "sorry there is no more room on this planet for another human being". Reproducing is inevitable, its going to happen. restricting it defeats the morals of life. Its a cycle, yea theres new babies born everyday, but theyre millions dying everyday. Yes i know the main reason of this debate is to save our earth by prolonging our natrual resources as much as possible. Honestly, i dont think there is a way to do this. i mean, war... its all greed, this will go on and on until the end of the world. its all about wanting something that we cant have. thats why wanting to keep the world population under control is dangerous..because one nation will want whats best for their people, and same goes for all other nations..you see? greed. wanting something for yourself only but you cant have it...... we are human... we dont have the right to speak for all humans.... no one can decide who gets in to this world and who doesnt... thats why God comes in to play... and if you dont choose to believe thats entirely up to you.. but at least let others have their right of religion...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Christian religion (and most of the rest of them), the mental illness and fanaticism they produce is a huge source of damage to this world.


You've often expressed your endorsement for the occult. I've read my fair share of horror stories as a result of practicing the occult. Its effects are worst.


----------



## Vanish (Jan 9, 2010)

one more thing. i believe God is the architect of our life.. if you believe we evolved from apes i think you need some brain checking.. what if there is evidence... its only of dna... if we evolved from apes... why arent we still evolving? we couldve become some super human now.. evolution is an ongoing process no? there has to be a creator.. to think our planet was a "coincidence" from two rocks colliding.... cmon man... doesnt that sound a little insane? everything down the the intricate details like chromosomes.. do you think it just kind of evolved out of nothing?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Well we know we're in trouble when proof of evolution contained in the fossil record is disregarded or someone posits that voodoo has the power to create the fossils as a bluff to confuse us. Sorry but science can't explain everything but it works at trying to and there is a methodology to test proof. That methodology allows humans to advance knowledge and of course we are still evolving. To me it is completely irrational to say that the unexplained is the work of voodoo.

Some of the anthropocentric comments are interesting. Things like we're trying to save "our natural resources". They are not our's - they belong to Earth and the ecosystem. Nature is life period. One large issue is that **** sapiens can manipulate nature for good and bad to a much stronger degree than all other species.

I'm a bit surprised that there has been no outright criticism of capitalism as a source of much of the problem. Capitalism requires growth and does not recognize limits. The alternative governing methods of communism and socialism also encourage growth and do not recognize finite ecological borders.

All said there are some good comments here and some that are just outright wacky, but that is expected in a forum that is a social reflection of reality.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> I think some of you guys need to jump in a car or an airplane and venture out beyond the row house communities you live in. Theres a lot more room out there beyond the cities edge, honest. I drove 14 hours north in Ontario this fall and that only landed me halfway across the province and 99% of that time you were looking at forests and vacant land. thats just one province. The rest of this nation would be the same and many other countries are the same.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Interesting that you should bring this up. If you ever have the opportunity to get into a small plane or helicopter and take a look at what goes on in the hinterland beyond the buffer of trees surrounding the trans canada you would be utterly shocked. Clear cutting is standard practice these days and nothing is left after a clear cut. Some clear cuts are replanted with monoculture tree species like fast growing pine. It's called habitat destruction for countless species that require a diverse, natural forest in order to maintain their being.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

John Clay said:


> Sooner or later, there will be wars over water, and other basic things. Some say within the next 50 years, others within the next 100-200 years. Either way, it's coming. The developing countries have far fewer resources, like fresh water, than we do here in North America.


I'm pretty sure a lot of the wars in Africa which our western media portray as tribal or religious wars are really fights over natural resources. It's a sad sight to see that the continent that **** sapiens evolved from is in such turmoil in so many places. 

The Somalia story where our media constantly report on pirates hijacking ships is a good example. A lot of the so called "pirates" were fishermen on the coast who had their livelihood destroyed because foreign ships dumped their toxic waste on the Somali coast wiping out the fish stocks in the region and poisoning tens of thousands of people. Of course the war lords have stepped in as protectors, some in the name of voodoo or Allah, and we have close to outright anarchy in the country. This information is accessible, just do a google search, but it's rarely reported. When there is an incident in Somalia reported we just here about "pirates" with no context. The recipients of the media's message are therefore duped.

So these wars are already taking place. We just don't like to talk about it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Vanish said:


> one more thing. i believe God is the architect of our life.. if you believe we evolved from apes i think you need some brain checking.. what if there is evidence... its only of dna... if we evolved from apes... why arent we still evolving? we couldve become some super human now.. evolution is an ongoing process no? there has to be a creator.. to think our planet was a "coincidence" from two rocks colliding.... cmon man... doesnt that sound a little insane? everything down the the intricate details like chromosomes.. do you think it just kind of evolved out of nothing?


Praise the Lord and pass the condoms. Please!


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> Time has come, actually it's long overdue, to take away the tax breaks and any special privileges that religious organizations and people have. Are Sikh's allowed to carry a ceremonial dagger and have their hair a certain way in employment situations and riding motorcycles where others can't? Do Rastafarian's have certain rights relating to possessing and smoking non medicinal marijuana? Do churches have tax exemptions on property and profitable businesses they own?
> 
> ...


 Boy , you sure are desperate to smear me and a lot of God fearing Christians arent you?
I think all those steroids have gone to your head maz.
You will find abuse everywhere . I have participated in 2 or 3 religous mainline christian churches and and they all were non profit with no tax free buildings and as you extraneously posted.
Mind you they were not cults who do abuse the system but most of the populous such as yourself dont know the difference between a real Chritians fellowship and a psuedo organization. 
We put our kids through a christian school because I got tired of the public school system that endorses the silly evolution theory and like yourself sneers at God .
We did it with a lot of sacrifices and had to pray for food at times- there was no government handouts believe me.
And to imply my interests that are outside the box as crazy is really a weak juvenile tactic that confirms to me the old biblical saw: a dog goes back to its vomit


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> Interesting that you should bring this up. If you ever have the opportunity to get into a small plane or helicopter and take a look at what goes on in the hinterland beyond the buffer of trees surrounding the trans canada you would be utterly shocked. Clear cutting is standard practice these days and nothing is left after a clear cut. Some clear cuts are replanted with monoculture tree species like fast growing pine. It's called habitat destruction for countless species that require a diverse, natural forest in order to maintain their being.


No need for a helicopter, I've seen it first hand. As ugly as a clear cut looks, visit one again in 40 or 50 years and that same area is filled with native trees and animals again. Not just plantation pines either. The native vegetation comes back as well. As for the animals, some actually benefit from clear cutting. I'm thinking of woodland moose. They actual hang out at slashes feeding on fallen tree twigs. If its a bush with hardwoods, the cleared area will quickly start sprouting young tender maples and poplar in huge numbers. If you go in these areas you'll see that moose use them to graze because of the easy access to tender twigs coming up. I've walked woodlands that were cut 50 years ago or more and they are as diverse as any area where native animals thrive. The earth is more resilient than we give it credit for.
I do realize the damage clear cutting can do. There are other forestry methods that should be used having a lower impact on the wilderness. I'm just giving an account of what I've seen in new and old clear cut forests.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Be fruitful and multiply, I think that religious statement is rooted in capitalism and right wing thought. Both capitalism and communism have proven to be unsustainable. Capitalism will fall soon enough. People are starting to believe in it less and less, which brought about the end of communism. What will replace it?


 Nothing wrong with capitalism- your loans program is a good example of that.
But capitalism allied with greed is dangerous and not endorsed by God- it leads to fascism which is what we have now I think with a scrubby patina of democracy.
The clear cuts are a good example of that- I have protested against them and with others we have succeeded to save two large areas of local watersheds that are now untouched habitat for our community but the powers to be used very low tatics to discourage us both through the rcmp and local slander pr.
hre is an attempt once again to open them up for devvelopment by european capitalist ski mogols who could care less about locals 
gotta go feed the mutt


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> No need for a helicopter, I've seen it first hand. As ugly as a clear cut looks, visit one again in 40 or 50 years and that same area is filled with native trees and animals again. Not just plantation pines either. The native vegetation comes back as well. As for the animals, some actually benefit from clear cutting. I'm thinking of woodland moose. They actual hang out at slashes feeding on fallen tree twigs. If its a bush with hardwoods, the cleared area will quickly start sprouting young tender maples and poplar in huge numbers. If you go in these areas you'll see that moose use them to graze because of the easy access to tender twigs coming up. I've walked woodlands that were cut 50 years ago or more and they are as diverse as any area where native animals thrive. The earth is more resilient than we give it credit for.
> I do realize the damage clear cutting can do. There are other forestry methods that should be used having a lower impact on the wilderness. I'm just giving an account of what I've seen in new and old clear cut forests.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I know what you're saying about Moose, and the same is true of bears if there are any fruit sources that rise from the disaster. What you're saying about 50 year old cuts is true but that was prior to the introduction of heavy machinery and clear cutting techniques that were first introduced in the 80's. It's now common practice to clear cut and monoculture plant. It's very rare that selective logging practices are used even in some provincial parks. Regardless the forest industry is in very tough times these days, which if the depression continues, is probably a good thing.

Also the level of biodiversity is extremely reduced compared to a natural forest, but given time when left alone, eventually things do rejuvenate. 

I agree with you that I'd like to see the old methods reintroduced. Furthermore I would like to see what old growth we have left protected and left alone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> No, Quebec does NOT pay French Canadians to have children. They USED to pay Quebec residents to have children (a one-time Baby "bonus") but that has been long stopped.


You are out of touch Manny, Quebec does pay a Child Assistance Payment and you need not even apply for it when your child is born. It isn't the same as it used to be but they still effectively pay you to have kids or at least make it easier for you to afford the cost of having them.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

I have worked in he logging industry and there are a lot of abuses - one area I know of that was clear cut killed off local caribou.
Selective logging would help but good steward ship and not profit should be the motive
The government is guilty in that dept
I planted a lot of trees too.
Mother nature wiith her fires do a lot of good but we have suppressed her too much and now the bush is full of fuel round here with alot of dead and dying bug trees- we will have a massive fire here some day
j


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> You are out of touch Manny, Quebec does pay a Child Assistance Payment and you need not even apply for it when your child is born. It isn't the same as it used to be but they still effectively pay you to have kids or at least make it easier for you to afford the cost of having them.


Not to mention the $100 per head that the Harper feds gives families as a contribution to raising younguns. Quebec also has heavily subsidized daycare that help out young families.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Should the child subsidies should eventually be stopped and then given to those that choose not to have children instead?


Yes--but only half of it so it could be seen as a tax saving measure as well.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Step 1) is worldwide access to sex education and birth control. Make condoms and the pill available free to all humans on Earth. Abortions should be safe, discreet, easy, and rare.


:clap:


> Step 2) is having a child credit system similar to carbon credits. limit all people to no more than 2 children per couple those that want less children can sell child credits, to those that want more. So long as we aren't producing more than 2 children per couple, the population will gradually decrease over time through accidental deaths.


:clap:
And, once our population is down to a sustainable level, we can increase the availability of birthrights. This system was proposed back in the 1970's by one of my favourite SF authors (Larry Niven). The problem is that it requires a global government to enforce it. Still, I think it's a great idea in principle, and I hope to see something like it implemented in my lifetime.



> Give people incentives not to have children. If they give up their reproductive privileges, this could also become a transfer of wealth to poor and overpopulated areas of the world.


:clap:
I think the Gate's foundation (or any other benevolent billionaire) could do more good for the world than everything else they're even thinking about by simply offering everyone in the world $1000 to undergo sterilization. Millions of people would jump at this, and it would simultaneously give these people a much-needed cash influx (which, in many contexts, would be all that would be necessary for them to start a business, or otherwise lift themselves out of poverty), stimulating the economy of many poor areas, and solve the population problem.



> Step 3) Give people things to think about and do other than having sex. Greatly decrease or eliminate sexuality in media and advertising. The lower people are on the economic scale, the more they are likely to have accidental pregnancies. If people are busy with other pursuits and interests that bring satisfaction, the outcome is likely to be better and have a more productive society.


:clap:
See point two above... with some prospect of personal development and satisfaction in life coming from one's own activities, the importance of having children is diminished.

Excellent post, MCB!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Why would anything have to be done? At some point all species have a population collapse. Why would it not be prudent to wait until such an event.


Prudent if you're a fan of genocide, egregious suffering, environmental collapse and every other conceivable horror.

On the other hand, any rational agent with a shred of morality would do everything in their power to prevent such a calamity.

Unfortunately, these events are already happening (and have been throughout human history), and we're doing very little to reduce their frequency or severity. That is the topic of this thread.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

John Clay said:


> In general, people who talk to invisible people are generally children, or certified lunatics.


I hope you have your asbestos underwear on... 'cause that little tidbit, despite being obviously true, is bound to get you a lot of flames.



> Given that there is no proof of a God


Proof?!? There isn't a shred of evidence for, or even a logically consistent definition of God, much less proof.



> religion has no place whatsoever in government or policy.


:clap:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Proof?!? There isn't a shred of evidence for, or even a logically consistent definition of God, much less proof.
> 
> 
> :clap:


Excellent! Had to be said. Basing policy, or anything else for that matter, on imaginary friends is at best problematic.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Proof?!? There isn't a shred of evidence for, or even a logically consistent definition of God, much less proof.


We've been down this road before so I won't waist my breath. I've seen more than my fair share of evidence that God exists. You've just chosen not to look.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The only way to reduce population in anything less than 50 years is wholesale slaughter. I do not advocate it nor do I want to be either a victim or the one choosing the victims. 

Similarly the only way to markedly reduce manmade CO2 emissions is again wholesale slaughter.

The Bush Admin further aided and abetted by the BO crowd have clearly demonstrated that idiotic ideas will eventually be carried to their logical and extreme conclusions.

Sadly at some point the CO2=GW believers will eventually walk hand in hand with the PC crowd and the result will indeed be wholesale slaughter. The only questions revolve around the mechanics. 

The CO2 crowd favours giving northern latitude populace the choice of starvation or freezing to death. The likely method to be employed in the Middle East is nuclear holocaust. This leaves epidemics as the weapon of choice in India and China. 

The USA will of course be somewhat exempt although a total ban on clothing will eventually be enforced and all ghettos will be razed with no warning given to the residents.beejacon

While longer term solutions are possible they cannot happen until some alternative to growth based economics displaces the current systems.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JerusalemJim said:


> There is immense proof of intelligent design in this world and beyond


Strange that during a lifetime of studying I've never encountered any of it. Care to provide an example?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Should the child subsidies should eventually be stopped and then given to those that choose not to have children instead?


No subsidies required, selfishness is doing a fine job. The majority of people having none, 1 or 2 kids are not on a noble quest to save the planet but a quest for self indulgence. Raising children is a lot of work and self sacrifice. The more you have the more self sacrifice required. A single child, or more than two threaten the annual trip to Mexico, the garage full of toys and the fancy home and weekends at the ski resort. One or two serve as nice insurance though to carry on your legacy and to assure you may have someone who gives a crap about you when you're old.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vanish said:


> where can one possibly start? what.. like are we going to start penalizing people for having too many kids now?


Um, yeah. Why not?



> no one on this planet has the right to say.. "sorry there is no more room on this planet for another human being".


Why not?



> Reproducing is inevitable


No it's not... and reproduction is not a right.



> restricting it defeats the morals of life.


I was not aware that life has morals. From what I can see Nature is amoral.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Millions of people would jump at this, and it would simultaneously give these people a much-needed cash influx (which, in many contexts, would be all that would be necessary for them to start a business, or otherwise lift themselves out of poverty), stimulating the economy of many poor areas, and solve the population problem.


Don't forget to lend through Kiva. Business development also leads to lower populations.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vanish said:


> if you believe we evolved from apes i think you need some brain checking.


Brain?... check!

No one is claiming we evolved from the apes that currently exist. Evolution provides ample evidence that modern apes and modern humans shared a common ancestor. That is to say ape and humans both evolved from the same ancestral species.



> if we evolved from apes... why arent we still evolving?


Who says we aren't?



> we couldve become some super human now.


Says who? What defines super-human? What would be the developmental mechanisms that would yield these traits? What mutations would have to occur to give rise to those mechanisms? What selective regimes would have to pertain in order to make those mutations advantageous?

Evolution dosen't have a goal. It's just a logically necessary consequence of variation and selection.



> evolution is an ongoing process no?


Yes.


> there has to be a creator.


No.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> ...[children]...serve as nice insurance though to carry on your legacy and to assure you may have someone who gives a crap about you when you're old.


My point exactly. Having children is about the most purely selfish thing one can do.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Folks, there's a big difference between *scientific evidence* and *personal revelation*. Please don't mix the two up. If the revelation of God is not reproducible, then it isn't evidence. If it's just a feeling about the sunset and children laughing, that isn't evidence either.

MacGuiver: Having children or not having them is neither selfish nor unselfish. It's merely a choice. If you have children I would expect you to be unselfish, to a degree, to see that they're looked after and nurtured. However, there's nothing inherently superior about the choice. Nobody is counting on you to have those kids. On the basis of "they will give a crap about you when you're older," the decision is a selfish one.

bryanc: I'm halfway with you on some of this. I don't want to see people penalized for having children, but I want them to pay the full cost of having them, and not see them rewarded for the decision. It's not as if though this is the the Middle Ages and we need more kids as future canon fodder for the King.

Most of our social programs are based on a Ponzi scheme requiring greater population to shore up the current group of seniors. That really needs to stop.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> We've been down this road before so I won't waist my breath. I've seen more than my fair share of evidence that God exists. You've just chosen not to look.


I won't waste my breath either, and please understand that while I consider your interpretation of what you consider evidence completely wrong and philosophically bankrupt, I don't object to you're right to your delusions, nor does my disdain for your religion extend to you as a person. Many of my best friends are religious, and many of the people I admire are religious. 

Just like I might respect a handicapped athlete, and it may even be the case that they were partially motivated to achieve what they have accomplished as a result of their disability, I don't have to consider their handicap a 'good thing' to respect them as an individual.

I understand and appreciate that those of you who are religious find these beliefs important, valuable and even 'core' elements of your personality, and therefore my challenging the validity of these fundamental beliefs is perceived as a personal attack, but my attack is directed towards the beliefs, not the person.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> My point exactly. Having children is about the most purely selfish thing one can do.



LOL!!
You only need one for the insurance policy. Anything beyond that is just extra work and sacrifice. I'm glad you've been selfish enough to get your insurance policy though.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Most of our social programs are based on a Ponzi scheme requiring greater population to shore up the current group of seniors. That really needs to stop.


Sadly, most of our global economy is based on this principle.

There's a great Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon that makes this point well, but I can't find it just now.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> No need to make your own children, plenty of orphans need to be adopted. This is a noble thing to do.


I agree adopting children is noble. The reason there are so many orphans is often a lack of noble individuals to raise them or adopt them. As with having your own children, same rule applies. Raising them is a selfless act requiring great sacrifice that the majority of folks would rather not take on. The more you adopt, the more self sacrifice required of you. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I agree adopting children is noble. The reason there are so many is a lack of noble individuals to raise them or adopt them. As with having your own children, same rule applies. Raising them is a selfless act requiring great sacrifice that the majority of folks would rather not take on. The more you adopt, the more self sacrifice required of you.


Raising them is not selfless, especially if you have a goal in mind--they will take care of you when you are old. Nobody is benefiting from your choice to reproduce, except yourself, therefore it isn't selfless. Who else are you doing it for?

The way you're talking, it sounds like the person who has 25 kids is pretty grand in the scheme of things.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> The way you're talking, it sounds like the person who has 25 kids is pretty grand in the scheme of things.


YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

bryanc said:


> Strange that during a lifetime of studying I've never encountered any of it. Care to provide an example?


hey bryanc- what have you been studying?
there's none so blind as those who say they see
look around you

ever seen the matrix?
good analogy of this fallen world ruled by lies

gd lk


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Prudent if you're a fan of genocide, egregious suffering, environmental collapse and every other conceivable horror.
> 
> On the other hand, any rational agent with a shred of morality would do everything in their power to prevent such a calamity.
> 
> Unfortunately, these events are already happening (and have been throughout human history), and we're doing very little to reduce their frequency or severity. That is the topic of this thread.


But isn't it Darwinian to have the survival of the fittest rather than an artificial construct?


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Raising them is not selfless, especially if you have a goal in mind--they will take care of you when you are old. Nobody is benefiting from your choice to reproduce, except yourself, therefore it isn't selfless. Who else are you doing it for?
> 
> The way you're talking, it sounds like the person who has 25 kids is pretty grand in the scheme of things.


hunh?
I didnt adopt native kids so I could be looked after when I was old- kinda a selfish goal I'd say maybe from India?
Though it would be nice if they came home now and again and did some real work ha ha
Abortion promotion from ottawa down opened the door to selfish people to abandon their partners and abort or abandon their children- and we all lose. The pro gay endorsement does nothing for us either. They cant have children but they can recruit them- what abysmal logic they use to endorse a dangerous lifestyle.
There are plenty of resources for the people if only the corporate interests could be pried loose. They are strangling communities built on families- look at agri bus in the prairies
.02
jj


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

I think all we can do is keep hoping your church attendee numbers keep dwindling. Your intolerance, blind faith and pride is vomit-inducing.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I agree adopting children is noble. The reason there are so many orphans is often a lack of noble individuals to raise them or adopt them. As with having your own children, same rule applies. Raising them is a selfless act requiring great sacrifice that the majority of folks would rather not take on. The more you adopt, the more self sacrifice required of you.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Anyone that has seen firsthand how bush league Alberta Child Protection Services has become would clearly understand why no sane individual would be willing to try to work with them!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

darkscot said:


> i think all we can do is keep hoping your church attendee numbers keep dwindling. Your intolerance, blind faith and pride is vomit-inducing.


+2


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

darkscot said:


> i think all we can do is keep hoping your church attendee numbers keep dwindling. Your intolerance, blind faith and pride is vomit-inducing.


+3


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

darkscot said:


> I think all we can do is keep hoping your church attendee numbers keep dwindling. Your intolerance, blind faith and pride is vomit-inducing.


Well said, and absolutely true.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

darkscot said:


> I think all we can do is keep hoping your church attendee numbers keep dwindling. Your intolerance, blind faith and pride is vomit-inducing.


This isn't about church... this is about the ignorance and bigotry of a particular individual. Do not make the mistake of following down the same path... blame the individual not the group.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

darkscot said:


> I think all we can do is keep hoping your church attendee numbers keep dwindling. Your intolerance, blind faith and pride is vomit-inducing.


 you havent been hanging out with Maz have you?
he tends to drag out the vomit word too when he cant handle the topic


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Intolerance towards homosexual people? Ask your God why he made them that way?
> 
> 
> Those that do not believe in abortion have no business shoving their beliefs down the throats of those that do not share those beliefs. They have no right to use politics to remove this right to choose from all people.


 ha ha 
as if God made aberrants
you really should study the BibleMaz before you make such crazy assumptions of His creation


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JerusalemJim said:


> ha ha
> as if God made aberrants
> you really should study the BibleMaz before you make such crazy assumptions of His creation


So now you are calling gay people aberrant??? What right do you have to make such an unacceptable statement? That kind of statement is usually not acceptable on ehMac. 

EDIT:Your post has been reported.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

rgray said:


> So now you are calling gay people aberrant??? What right do you have to make such an unacceptable statement?


No kidding. Absolutely unacceptable.

Oh dear, does that make me a sheeple?

Ugh.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JerusalemJim said:


> ha ha
> as if God made aberrants
> you really should study the BibleMaz before you make such crazy assumptions of His creation





rgray said:


> So now you are calling gay people aberrant??? What right do you have to make such an unacceptable statement? That kind of statement is usually not acceptable on ehMac.
> 
> EDIT:Your post has been reported.





MazterCBlazter said:


> Maybe he is someone that really hates the Christian religion and is trying to drive people away from it in droves?
> 
> If so he sure is doing a good job of that.





mrjimmy said:


> No kidding. Absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> Oh dear, does that make me a sheeple?
> 
> Ugh.


Please note the edit to my post. * I have reported the post. I expect some action to be taken or I am going to have to reconsider my application for lifetime membership here.*

It is unacceptable anywhere in Canada and most of the civilised world to refer to gay people as 'aberrant'. What gets me about these knee-jerk fundies is that their god is omnipotent when it suits them and not when it doesn't.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

rgray said:


> Please note the edit to my post. * I have reported the post. I expect some action to be taken or I am going to have to reconsider my application for lifetime membership here.*
> 
> It is unacceptable anywhere in Canada and most of the civilised world to refer to gay people as 'aberrant'. What gets me about these knee-jerk fundies is that their god is omnipotent when it suits them and not when it doesn't.


Again, I agree 100%.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Wow, just saw this thread today and skimmed through it from the beginning. It sure went sideways fast!

Back to the original topic, I think that overpopulation is definitely the mother of all our environmental issues. If there were only a billion people around we could all drive around in stretch limousines and leave our pollution wherever we want and the ecosystem would be able to deal with it. Of course when there were a billion people on the planet a small group of the powerful kept most everyone else in serfdom.

I don't think anyone has any viable ideas about what we can do about this. bryanc's idea about some rich foundations offering $1000 for the poor to undergo sterilization would probably be made illegal in many countries if it were ever to come about. Would Bangladesh allow foreigners to come in and take away the basis for their huge sweatshop industries making clothes for the first world? It would also probably require many trillions of dollars (at $1000/head) to be somewhat effective in reversing the trend.

Ultimately the world's capitalist economy isn't setup to deal with a situation where the population decreases. It's based on year-over-year growth and access to pools of labour that can underbid each other. I don't think anyone really knows how the economy could be adjusted either, although I'm sure there are people out there who have ideas. Capitalism is the system that runs things, either the mostly unrestricted variety as seen in the US or somewhat regulated variety as seen in the European "socialist" states and no other economic system that has been tried seems to be workable either.

But the main problem is that the world's governments are led by people who are never looking out for the future. They focus on short term issues exclusively and focus on national advantage over the good of the whole world.

I'm wearing my pessimism hat today, but I don't think the human race is collectively smart enough to figure this one out.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

ab⋅er⋅rant
  /əˈbɛrənt, ˈæbər-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-ber-uhnt, ab-er-] Show IPA
Use aberrant in a Sentence
See web results for aberrant
See images of aberrant
–adjective
1. departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2. deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type; exceptional; abnormal.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

you gays sorry, guys sure got your shorts in a knot


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JerusalemJim said:


> you gays sorry, guys sure got your shorts in a knot


Hey JerusalemJim -- you are a bigot and a homophobe. You're not giving your fellow Christians a good name either. Fortunately they're not all like you.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

hey maz
you are just pissed because you cant hide under your self righteous rock anymore when it comes to Jesus
Bible: the fool in his heart says there is no God
you and others should look at your reaction instead of of ' vomitting ' on others opinions instead of responding with reasonable debate


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

a lot of theophobic x spurts in here
The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
bullet	"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)


Would ant you concur that aberrant would be the correct word?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JerusalemJim said:


> ab⋅er⋅rant
> /əˈbɛrənt, ˈæbər-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-ber-uhnt, ab-er-] Show IPA
> Use aberrant in a Sentence
> See web results for aberrant
> ...





JerusalemJim said:


> you gays sorry, guys sure got your shorts in a knot


I am not gay, but that is not the point. I resent and reject your attempt to blame me for being upset by your statement. You, sir, are an intolerant bigot. Your definition of aberrant above serves to illustrate the depths of that bigotry. I notice you make no attempt to withdraw your scurrilous remarks.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JerusalemJim said:


> you gays sorry, guys sure got your shorts in a knot


Nor I am. I am simply reacting to your sickening bigotry.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

your dispute is with God- not me 
I just agree with Him thats all
- not like the politically correct 'christians' you hold up as an example who dont ruffle your feathers at all


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JerusalemJim said:


> your dispute is with God- not me
> I just agree with Him thats all
> - not like the politically correct 'christians' you hold up as an example who dont ruffle your feathers at all


I'm an atheist, but it's clear that your interpretation of what your god is saying differs from what other Christians and religious people think. The arrogance of you to think you can speak on behalf of a supposedly all-powerful being is quite breathtaking though.

MazterCBlazter: no need to go overboard with the Hitler pics, this guy's just a garden-variety bigot, pretty common actually.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

I dont think the Mayor will sucumb to your rabble rousing against me Maz for challenging you and some of the club members - but if he does you may preen yourself OK?
jj
ps you are right Hitler did hide under psuedo christianity and the whole nation bought it to their destructuion- the muslim jihadists are ging down the same path I think


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm an atheist, but it's clear that your interpretation of what your god is saying differs from what other Christians and religious people think. The arrogance of you to think you can speak on behalf of a supposedly all-powerful being is quite breathtaking though.
> 
> 
> MazterCBlazter: no need to go overboard with the Hitler pics, this guy's just a garden-variety bigot, pretty common actually.


 you have no idea tartar sauce- read the book
jj


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

JerusalemJim said:


> your dispute is with God- not me
> I just agree with Him thats all


:lmao:

"A big boy made me do it."

:lmao:


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Sorry folks, I was away this afternoon. 

JerusalemJim is no longer a member of ehMac.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> What if God is a She?




Indeed. There would be lots of corrigenda flying all over the place for all those Bibles.

"Our Mother, who art in Heaven ..." etc.

Big business opportunity for someone.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Well on that note a bit of historical fact - Hitler was a Catholic and he was never ex-communicated from the Catholic Church. Juxtapose that against what they did to Galileo.

So can we now get back to addressing the population question?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

From the time I saw JJ's first post, I had a feeling he wasn't a fit for ehMac. The only sad part is that now GA and mrjimmy will have to go back to accusing me of being homophobic or bigoted as their prime target is gonzo.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> From the time I saw JJ's first post, I had a feeling he wasn't a fit for ehMac. The only sad part is that now GA and mrjimmy will have to go back to accusing me of being homophobic or bigoted as their prime target is gonzo.


*SINC*, my dear, compared to *JJ* you are a flaming  liberal.... :clap:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Thank You Thank you Thank You
> 
> Please don't let him back.


Don't worry, its a 










But like a horror movie, I wouldn't count out another surprise last gasp visit. Please set your "reported post buttons" to maximum. 

I do apologize for that folks, I was at a meeting regarding renovations for my basement. To be clear, bigotry of any kind has absolutely no place on ehMac and will always be dealt with.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Wow this thread has really gone sideways with the expulsion of JerusalemJim from ehMac. While I most certainly do not condone his anti gay homophobic comments I must say I am a little surprised to see him expelled altogether. I may be flamed for this but here is why.

Growing up in my youth and being associated with a particular group of people I too was homophobic. I didn't know any better as I was merely adopting the attitudes of those around me. When I graduated from High School and went to University and started to be introduced to a much wider array of peple with opinions different from my own and those that had shaped my opinions, things began to change. The most notable of which was, one day I was in one of the University pubs and sitting down with a group of people, some of which I knew and some of which I didn't, I started talking to this fellow by the name of Danl. 

We talked for quite some time over many issues and I thought, "What a nice fellow". He was turned at an angle to me all during this time and then he changed his position and I could see that he was wearing a button that said, "Out of the Closet and into the Streets." I immediately knew that I was speaking to a gay person with whom I had made an instant connection. This threw all my previously held prejudices not only into question but out the window. I immediately realized that it isn't about what you believe (out of ignorance) about a group, but what you know about an individual that matters. Therein lies the difference between prejudice and bigotry.

I believe it is normal and natural to have prejudice. It comes from the jungle and is about self preservation. If an animal has an experience with an individual that is different form them self and that experience is bad they will be wary (prejudiced) of any individual that is like that one which they had the bad experience with. Makes sense. However if they then have an experience with an individual that they see as being like the other (bad) individual and it is not bad they should hopefully learn from that that not all individuals that look like that are bad. Therein is the difference between prejudice and bigotry. 

If despite the positive experience that they just had with the "different" other they continue to act as as though all of that group are the same they are a bigot as they have ignored their own personal experience to the contrary and continue to act on their prejudice.

I see it within my dogs. Bailey has had "run-ins" with White Labs and Huskies consequently he is prejudiced with White Labs and Huskies and acts aggressively towards them as he is "protecting himself". He sees them initially as being all the same; he is prejudiced. However, if he continues to meet that individual White Lab and Husky and they are not aggressive towards him, over time he loses his prejudice and reacts to them as individuals and he is fine with them. He loses his prejudice and is not a bigot.

This why I am somewhat disappointed that JerusalemJim was expelled altogether from ehMac. Without any point of reference other than his own and those of his immediate influence he will not be presented with an alternative viewpoint that he would receive here on ehMac. It doesn't necessarily mean that he would "change his ways" and lose his prejudice, but it would seem to me that being presented with the viewpoints of others that do not agree with his and so long as there are expressed respectfully there may be a chance of it. Now that chance is gone.

I definitely think a "vacation" was in order so that he understood that such sentiments are not appreciated here, but to be expelled completely seems counter productive until he shows himself to be beyond reform. Just my opinion and probably not popular, but I felt I had to express it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MazterCBlazter said:


> If I were a Christian I would be so embarrassed by (must restrain myself from calling him something bad)'s ranting raving lunacy.


Interesting you should mention that. I consider myself to be a Christian, not just by name. I am always at complete odds and dismay in that I find the majority of "religious right" Christian thinking to be at complete odds with what I believe Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ to be about. I am extremely embarrassed at much of the behaviour of other believers with bigoted views to the point I am almost embarrassed to use the same term "Christian" to label myself. 

Based on Jesus' teachings, I would think Christians should be on the forefront of social issues, yet I find many are often the biggest detriment. 

Based on Jesus' teachings, I would think Christians should be on the forefront of promoting peace, yet I find many are the biggest war mongers. 

There are a lot of good Christians out there but alas, there are many with bigoted ideas. At any rate, anyone is welcome here, but bigoted viewpoints are not.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> If those professing to be Christians actually followed the teachings as you describe above Christians would be held in high regard and the world would be a much better place for all. So many professing Christianity to get peoples trust aren't even honest or trustworthy.


If someone qualifies a statement with "I'm a good Christian" It is a good idea to assume they are lying.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ehMax said:


> Interesting you should mention that. I consider myself to be a Christian, not just by name. I am always at complete odds and dismay in that I find the majority of "religious right" Christian thinking to be at complete odds with what I believe Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ to be about. I am extremely embarrassed at much of the behaviour of other believers with bigoted views to the point I am almost embarrassed to use the same term "Christian" to label myself.
> 
> Based on Jesus' teachings, I would think Christians should be on the forefront of social issues, yet I find many are often the biggest detriment.
> 
> ...


I consider myself an atheist, but I have no problems with Christians living according to their beliefs. I know many Christians that I respect. I think many good things can come from following _some_ of the interpretations of Biblical ideas. And other interpretations, made by those who hate, are downright poisonous, such as the ones espoused by the former ehMac member. 

There are religious people, even ministers, who are gay and who welcome gay people into their churches. There are religious people who do good work in the community and selflessly volunteer to help the poor and disenfranchised. This is all good as far as I"m concerned.

I was involved with a Buddhist group when I was younger and although Buddhism is essentially a non-theistic religion, this group still had many traits that I eventually came to see as not different than standard religions and I left. Although I don't call myself a Buddhist I see much value in the many of the interpretations of Buddhist teachings and I also can see value in many Christian teachings.

Teachings such as Matthew 7:12 "Do unto others ..." is good advice for anyone, theist or atheist. Another passage from the same chapter, about looking out for false prophets would be good advice for those who are following the religious path. "By their fruit you will recognize them." Unfortunately religion is open to much abuse from those who have hateful agendas.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> From the time I saw JJ's first post, I had a feeling he wasn't a fit for ehMac. The only sad part is that now GA and mrjimmy will have to go back to accusing me of being homophobic or bigoted as their prime target is gonzo.


For the record, I don't believe I was accusing you in a recent thread of being homophobic. In your explanation you stated that you did not hold homophobic views, you were only warning us that others you knew held those views and that public figures and entertainers should beware of this and I accept that at face value. I was disagreeing with the idea that we should ever consider what bigots thought and wondering why you felt it was important to make that warning.

I may be rather touchy on this issue, because I have some close friends who are gay men and women and who are wonderful people. I don't appreciate anyone denigrating their right to be full citizens of the country or in any way or attempting to discriminate against them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> For the record, I don't believe I was accusing you in a recent thread of being homophobic. In your explanation you stated that you did not hold homophobic views, you were only warning us that others you knew held those views and that public figures and entertainers should beware of this and I accept that at face value. I was disagreeing with the idea that we should ever consider what bigots thought and wondering why you felt it was important to make that warning.
> 
> I may be rather touchy on this issue, because I have some close friends who are gay men and women and who are wonderful people. I don't appreciate anyone denigrating their right to be full citizens of the country or in any way or attempting to discriminate against them.


Many thanks for that GA. That clears a lot of misconceptions I may heave held about your opinion.

For the record, back in Fort McMurray in the early 1980s. I became good friends with a local lawyer who was chairman of the Legal Aid Appeals Committee. He asked me to serve on that committee as a result of our friendship and I accepted. I learned much about the legal process and the plight of the poor accused of a crime, rightly or wrongly and am a better person for serving in that capacity.

One day in a local bar, another friend took me aside and told me I had better stop associating with ****. I said, pardon me, but who would that be? The end result was that my lawyer friend was gay and I didn't even know it. I told my other friend if he could not take my associating in a worthwhile thing like legal aid with a gay guy, to take a hike.

Our daughter, who is forty now and single, brought home a guy I thought might be a boy friend over twenty years ago now, but from the moment he spoke, I knew he was gay. They are friends to this day and he has attended many family gatherings and is welcome in our home at any time.

I am so far from being homophobic it isn't even funny, but to this day I will bring to the attention of all here that there are pockets of people who need to be re-educated for their views on gay folks.

It is as simple as that.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

screature said:


> This why I am somewhat disappointed that JerusalemJim was expelled altogether from ehMac. Without any point of reference other than his own and those of his immediate influence he will not be presented with an alternative viewpoint that he would receive here on ehMac. It doesn't necessarily mean that he would "change his ways" and lose his prejudice, but it would seem to me that being presented with the viewpoints of others that do not agree with his and so long as there *are expressed respectfully* there may be a chance of it. Now that chance is gone.
> 
> I definitely think a "vacation" was in order so that he understood that such sentiments are not appreciated here, but to be expelled completely seems counter productive until he shows himself to be beyond reform. Just my opinion and probably not popular, but I felt I had to express it.


([emphasis mine]
+1

I agree that jj needed a vacation to reinforce the ehMac rule of respecting fellow members, but disagree with the decision to make it a permanent one. 

I can't say I agreed with much at all of what jj was posting. I was irritated by his seemingly flippant lack of respect for very respectable members. What I did get from him was an eye opening reminder of what kind of extreme opinions are still out there. 

I think we do ourselves a disservice by shutting those extreme opinions out or down too early or permanently. I would rather keep an eye on them at all times than turn my back. Listening and being aware doesn't necessarily mean agreement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

KC4 said:


> ([emphasis mine]
> +1
> 
> I agree that jj needed a vacation to reinforce the ehMac rule of respecting fellow members, but disagree with the decision to make it a permanent one.
> ...


And then there are times when one has to step up and be counted:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I certainly don't share JJs protestant fundamentalist bible church theology or his shoot from the hip flavour of Christianity but I'm curious what scripture passage you feel condones homosexuality and gay marriage for that matter? I don't believe scripture does.



> Interesting you should mention that. I consider myself to be a Christian, not just by name. I am always at complete odds and dismay in that I find the majority of "religious right" Christian thinking to be at complete odds with what I believe Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ to be about. I am extremely embarrassed at much of the behaviour of other believers with bigoted views to the point I am almost embarrassed to use the same term "Christian" to label myself.


Jesus said the world will hate you if you follow him. If you're a follower of Christ, expect to be at odds with those that are not.



> Based on Jesus' teachings, I would think Christians should be on the forefront of social issues, yet I find many are often the biggest detriment.


They are. If it were not for faithful Christians, abortion would go unchallenged. This is the greatest slaughter of innocents in the history of humanity happening under our noses. They're also fighting for workers rights in third world countries and doing great work to fight for social justice. Feeding the poor and caring for the sick.



> Based on Jesus' teachings, I would think Christians should be on the forefront of promoting peace, yet I find many are the biggest war mongers.


I can agree in the case of SOME fundamentalist churches that have the endgames all mapped out like a movie script or ones held up in some remote compound with a twisted interpretation of scripture and closets filled with m16s. Problem is some of these type are very public so you hear them over the more soundly based voices of Christianity. But I still believe the majority of Christians aspire for peace. That said I also feel there are times we must fight and its justified. Christ himself had no qualms with someone being a soldier.



> There are a lot of good Christians out there but alas, there are many with bigoted ideas. At any rate, anyone is welcome here, but bigoted viewpoints are not.


I think you pulled the mat out on JJ way too fast. I read stuff equally offensive on here daily and nobody gets shown the door. Freedom of speech includes opinions you may not agree with. I didn't think JJ said anything overtly hateful about gays, he just stated his opinion that homosexuality isn't God's design although his delivery left something to be desired. I think there was more room on his leash but this is your show so you call the shots.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> And then there are times when one has to step up and be counted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think I was suggesting that JerusalemJim's comments should be tolerated. What I was expressing is that if you"ban" someone/isolate them there is no chance of influencing their behaviour/opinion. This is not to suggest that you should not "stand up and be counted". It is merely suggesting that if you ghettoize someone you stand no chance of having any influence on them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> I don't think I was suggesting that JerusalemJim's comments should be tolerated. What I was expressing is that if you"ban" someone/isolate them there is no chance of influencing their behaviour/opinion. This is not to suggest that you should not "stand up and be counted". It is merely suggesting that if you ghettoize someone you stand no chance of having any influence on them.


I can certainly understand that. If you consider my video example, sending someone to the back of the line with a rebuke is not prohibiting them from being in line.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> I can certainly understand that. If you consider my video example, sending someone to the back of the line with a rebuke is not prohibiting them from being in line.


'Tis true. I mistakenly thought your reference was in defence of the Mayor's actions.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

screature said:


> 'Tis true. I mistakenly thought your reference was in defence of the Mayor's actions.


The thing that makes these forums so addictive are divergent points of view expressed openly and candidly. If it were nothing more than a bunch of people nodding heads it would be a very boring place to visit.

Cheers 
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Likewise, I think JJ's comments were out of line, but I would have wanted him to be given another chance. I doubt it would have made a difference, but I think he should have been offered a chance to cool down.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I am usually sad to see someone go on vacation or receive a permanent ban or decide to leave this community. In this case I make an exception. An honest mistake or temporary lack of judgement is one thing but I see nothing positive from having that sort of insane endless drivel in what is otherwise a mostly very good community.
> 
> In any case, it is the decision for ehMax to make as this is his board. I am strongly opposed to the return of this sort of selfish rude obnoxious individual which can only set a negative tone for the board. All that can be expected of that guy is the same negative actions. He won't change or behave. His presence here will only scare good people away.


True "insanity" is a very hard thing to define. Historically many that were once thought insane were actually rather brilliant. The line between insanity and brilliance can be very vague and shifting at times.

Kudos to anybody who can see that line like a neon marker, but I'll admit I can't always see it clearly. 

I'm not saying jj was brilliant - I didn't get the chance to really tell either way. 

I agree he was disrespectful and rude and I would have agreed to permanently ban him if he continued to abuse members after a return from vacation. EhMac and it's members should not be subjected to continual unabated abuse.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful feedback. 

I have changed JerusalemJim's ban to a one week ban and will give him the opportunity to return if he so desires. Doesn't mean rules have changed at all when he returns and similar comments will result in a permanent ban.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> If a choice is made to have an abortion by someone who is does not believe this religious doctrine it is none of your business. THese rules should remain within the rules of the followers of the religion only.


I see it no differently than if someone decided to walk into a hospital and start hacking babies in the incubators. They're no less human in the months before they were born than they are the seconds after the leave the womb and are deserving of our protection. It doesn't require religion to see this reality, an ultrasound will do it. Its been said that you can judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable. We are clearly on a course where the most vulnerable are simply viewed as disposable.



> I suppose the inquisitions and crusades don't count and the many other political and religious slaughters like the holocaust.


I'm well aware of the Inquisition and the 700 year old Crusades.
You may want to be careful mentioning the holocaust since the Nazis were steeped in the occult which you yourself practice. They also espoused many of the solutions to societies ills that many here are espousing today.



> Show us what you find so offensive.


How about your tasteless posting claiming the leader of my faith is a boy lover simply because he's a Catholic clergy. I don't see what constructive point you were making or what evidence you may have that he is personally a boy lover but as a friend of so many fantastic Catholic clergy, your hateful comments do nothing but inflame hatred toward thousands of fine men that deplore the sexual depravity of a minority among them.



> So you expect to be at odds with all those that don't follow your brand of religion? How nice.


Not on every issue obviously but yes, Christ claimed the world would hate us if we followed him. The Abortion issue is a prime example.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> If someone qualifies a statement with "I'm a good Christian" It is a good idea to assume they are lying.


I agree. I have a friend thats a fundamentalist and he often throws that out when he's talking about doing business with individuals from his church. It gives me absolutely no reassurance of a persons character. Christians are as prone to sin as anyone else, myself included.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Which you blow off as less insidious than peoples rights to abortions outside your religion.


I'm not blowing off the inquisition but its hardly an issue in 2010. People throw that around like it happened yesterday. Abortion is here and now in our so called "enlightened age". For a little perspective, abortion takes more lives in a day in the US alone than the entire inquisition did in 300 years.



> What I did was a long time ago and had nothing to do with what the Nazis were up to. I no longer do this and never speak of it anymore and have nothing else to say on this matter.


I was not aware that you got out of it. Glad to hear that and I will not mention it again. 



> If that picture really bugs you so much, it shows a lack of sense of humor. Nevertheless I have removed it to reduce your complaining.


I just think the stereotyping of all catholic clergy as pedophiles is extremely damaging to 98% of clergy totally innocent of this hideous crime. Nothing could make someone more loathed in the public realm than being found guilty of abusing a child. 



> One thing I noticed about you looking back at older posts is jabs that you aimed at me, and not the other way around.


Again I apologize, I was not aware of your sudden conversion of heart. If you've left that in the past, so will I. As for me, I'm perfectly comfortable defending what I've said in the past or apologizing for it if it was inappropriate.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I
> I just think the stereotyping of all catholic clergy as pedophiles is extremely damaging to 98% of clergy totally innocent of this hideous crime. Nothing could make someone more loathed in the public realm than being found guilty of abusing a child.


It's more the cover up of these heinous crimes that's damaging to the Catholic Church. The ones who lead by example have been breaking the Ten Commandments. Sort of throws the whole organization into question, doesn't it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

BigDL said:


> But isn't it Darwinian to have the survival of the fittest rather than an artificial construct?


Yes, that would be perfectly Darwinian. Which is why it should be avoided at all costs.

Nature, while wonderful and endlessly fascinating, is not ethical, moral or kind. Letting nature take its course by doing nothing about our burgeoning population, is to ignore everything we've learned about nature, and to accept the horror and suffering that a natural, Darwinian solution to overpopulation will inevitably bring.

Any even remotely intelligent agent with a shred of morality would agree that actions taken to avoid the catastrophic effects of overpopulation are preferable to the natural solution. What becomes ethically challenging is discerning the least unfair path to sustainable populations. For example, while it would certainly solve the problem, and I see it as a better solution than simply letting population expand indefinitely, I can not currently condone enforced sterilization programs. I would like to see some voluntary, and incentivized sterilization programs being promoted, but I don't think the situation is yet so dire that we need to start sterilizing unwilling people.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> It's more the cover up of these heinous crimes that's damaging to the Catholic Church. The ones who lead by example have been breaking the Ten Commandments. Sort of throws the whole organization into question, doesn't it?


Popes, bishops and priests are mere mortals like you and I and they've been breaking commandments right back to Christ's 12 apostles. To expect a flawless individual or organization is naive. Many in the church hierarchy chose to cover their backsides rather than do what was right. Its a shameful blight on the church indeed and the church is acknowledging the fact. 
Would you right off democracy simply because of the transgressions of some of its leaders? I don't and I see the church no differently.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Popes, bishops and priests are mere mortals like you and I and they've been breaking commandments right back to Christ's 12 apostles. To expect a flawless individual or organization is naive. Many in the church hierarchy chose to cover their backsides rather than do what was right. Its a shameful blight on the church indeed and the church is acknowledging the fact.
> Would you right off democracy simply because of the transgressions of some of its leaders? I don't and I see the church no differently.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I think the organizaion gets in the way of belief. Cut out the middle man. The Catholic Church is a good place to start.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> Would you right off democracy simply because of the transgressions of some of its leaders? I don't and I see the church no differently.


Mrjimmy has a point. I would put out there that the massive cover-up has done more to harm the church than the actual terrible acts committed by a tiny number of its officials. Witness the state of the Catholic church in Ireland since the release of reports detailing the cover-up. That more anything is what is causing its adherents to lose faith (quite literally in this case).



> The report concluded that when confronted with evidence of sex abuse, religious authorities responded by transferring offenders to another location, where in many instances they were free to abuse again.


'Endemic' rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> I think the organizaion gets in the way of belief. Cut out the middle man. The Catholic Church is a good place to start.


That to me makes about as much sense as a university cutting out the professors.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Can I make a friendly suggestion? Someone should start a thread on this subject and continue these discussions there as they have completely derailed the subject of this thread which is Environment - Overpopulation. It would be good to get the topic back on track as it is an interesting one...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

screature said:


> Can I make a friendly suggestion? Someone should start a thread on this subject and continue these discussions there as they have completely derailed the subject of this thread which is Environment - Overpopulation. It would be good to get the topic back on track as it is an interesting one...


Sorry Screature. Your absolutely right.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

*On topic: Overpopulation literature*

Hi everyone

In an attempt to rescue this thread from too many sermons I thought I would post a couple of books that I'll be digging into over the next few weeks.

William R. Catton, Jr.: Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, 1980
William R. Catton Jr.: Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse , 2009

They both arrived this morning having come recommended by a PhD Botanist as dealing with the core issue of overpopulation.

Does anyone know of any other recommended sources on the topic of overpopulation?

Cheers!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Can I make a friendly suggestion? Someone should start a thread on this subject and continue these discussions there as they have completely derailed the subject of this thread which is Environment - Overpopulation. It would be good to get the topic back on track as it is an interesting one...


Thank you screature!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Can I make a friendly suggestion? Someone should start a thread on this subject and continue these discussions there as they have completely derailed the subject of this thread which is Environment - Overpopulation. It would be good to get the topic back on track as it is an interesting one...


Right you are.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> There are a lot of good heads on this forum and I'm wondering if there are any members who have an opinion on what I believe is the major contributor to the planet's problems - too many people.
> 
> I'm working on a presentation to be given in March. My thesis is pretty simple, unless we drastically reduce human population we are headed for complete disaster in the next 100 to 200 years.
> 
> ...


Ok, my 2 cents.

The human population is where it is because of its advances in the natural, social and human sciences. In order for the population to decline is pretty simple but the impact would be potentially devastating to the survival of the human species not to mention the survival of the other species. There is no possible logical way that we can or will halt the advances in the sciences unless we are compelled back to the 'dark' ages either by a sudden devastating meteorological condition/change, a irreversible manmade/natural disease, a large asteroid or global nuclear war. However, if we can use the sciences to thwart these threats, then we should be able to 'manage' our population growth by 'science' but this is indeed a very slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.

Sure we can talk about how advanced education invariably reduces birth rate but the rate in developing countries will remain high. I don't think that the educational advances in these countries will be speedy enough to slow down the birth rate unless they undergo a drastic change socially and politically.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

sharonmac09 said:


> Ok, my 2 cents.
> 
> In order for the population to decline is pretty simple but the impact would be potentially devastating to the survival of the human species not to mention the survival of the other species.


Have to ask you why a reduction in humans would affect the survival of our species and I assume, from your statement, the decline of other species? 

My thinking would be that humans can survive and fewer humans would let other species thrive again as opposed to wiping them out at an accelerated rate. Can you please elaborate?


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> Have to ask you why a reduction in humans would affect the survival of our species and I assume, from your statement, the decline of other species?
> 
> My thinking would be that humans can survive and fewer humans would let other species thrive again as opposed to wiping them out at an accelerated rate. Can you please elaborate?


Yes all species can thrive if the human species somehow incorporate the advances in the sciences including sociology to sustain the current human population and to allow other species to cohabit with us and thrive once again. I think the answer is in the sciences and it is up to us to somehow corral all the knowledge that we have and use it to benefit us all. Currently we don't have a natural predator to keep our population down and so we will have to use our knowledge of the sciences to control our population growth.

Personally I don't think that we humans will or can corral our growth unless there is a natural or man made calamity to slow us down. Additionally it is not in our nature to stop evolving.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

It had taken me a few minutes of googling for the name of a movie that I vaguely remember watching back in the 80s. It's Logan's Run and it's also a novel. Do any of you remember watching or reading it? It's about a future society in which population levels and consumption of resources were strictly enforced and maintained. I seem to remember that fetuses were 'grown' in conception labs? I for one wouldn't want such a society! huh huh no way!

Here's the linky.Logan's Run - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Thanks I have never watched Logan's Run but its soundtrack is a cult classic amongst synth music aficionados. I'll take a look at it.

My favourite overpop movie is Soylent Green starring Charleton Heston of all people; Heston became a fierce right wing NRA president in his later life.
Soylent Green was the pill people needed to take for nourishment and the movie is about the quest to find out what soylent green was made of. It turned out that it was made of people - a "sophisticated" form of cannibalism. Highly recommended.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Now that this thread is (hopefully) back on track, I want to clarify my first post. 

Yes, I phrased a part of it incorrectly, all Quebecers got their "baby bonus" and thanks to MannyP, I now know they no longer issue said bonus.

As much as I detest the separatist government, I can actually empathize with what they tried to accomplish.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> Now that this thread is (hopefully) back on track, I want to clarify my first post.
> 
> Yes, I phrased a part of it incorrectly, all Quebecers got their "baby bonus" and thanks to MannyP, I now know they no longer issue said bonus.
> 
> As much as I detest the separatist government, I can actually empathize with what they tried to accomplish.


kps, as I pointed out earlier, MannyP is out of touch with what is going on in Quebec. Quebec does pay a Child Assistance Payment and you need not even apply for it when your child is born. It isn't the same as it used to be but they still effectively pay you to have kids or at least make it easier for you to afford the cost of having them.

Sympathize...? Maybe. But it was still a xenophobic act on their part. They wanted to try and grow their "indigenous" population as opposed to growing it through immigration, thereby keeping the Quebecois "pure".


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> What male given absolute power wouldn't want a harem full of beautiful women?
> 
> As a male, what do I want so much male competition for? One male can do lots of pregnating.
> 
> ...


Seems like a lot of horney dreams to me
In Judeao Christianity God's intention is one man - one woman and a loving family. 
Anything else is trouble and evident everywhere which proves we are all rebels at heart in this fallen world.
ie whirrld peas is possible
jj


----------

