At one child per couple the population would gradually decrease.

Many religions frown on limiting the number of children a couple have.

Many countries (including our own) try to limit a woman's access to
contraception.

Some third world countries think it is a western plot to reduce their
population,

Etc, etc, etc.

and the beat goes on--until it will eventually stop.

And we are supposed to be the species with the big brain.

Dave

William C. Garthright wrote:
>
>
> > *A prediction:*
> > *I believe in this century that water supplies throughout the world
> > will have an ingredient added in a similar method they use
> > in fluoridating water that will keep the population sterile and
> > citizens in these areas will be able to first get a permit to have an
> > offspring which would allow them to take an antidote that would allow
> > pregnancy. To get the permit you'd have to prove you could be
> > responsible parents. This would be a far superior method of
> > controlling population than hoping for an Ebola outbreak.*
>
> Not a chance, not without a complete disaster first. I mean something
> REALLY shocking. And a dictatorial government with a very firm grip on
> power. (I doubt if even China could get away with something like this,
> since it would be seen as an attack on every man's virility.) It would
> take a complete catastrophe to get something like this accepted, and
> even then it would be doubtful.
>
> More to the point, our economies are built on growth. Sure, there are
> isolated poor countries where high population growth is widely seen as a
> problem, but in most cases, population growth is seen as a profound
> benefit. Environmentalists worry about population levels, but economists
> worry about lack of growth. A stabilized population - which means a lot
> of old people and not nearly enough young to support them - is generally
> considered a huge problem for a country.
>
> I'm not saying this is right, but it's the general perception among
> economists, political and religious leaders, and governments of the
> world. To accept a stabilized population level would require huge
> changes in our economies. Personally, I'd like to see a stabilized, or
> even decreasing, world population, coupled with robotic workers and a
> worldwide increase in wealth, but we're just not geared for that sort of
> scenario.
>
> And that doesn't even consider the widespread, instinctive desire for
> children, for someone to carry on your genes and your culture. As people
> get wealthier, they tend to want fewer children, and sometimes none at
> all, but too many people aren't getting wealthy fast enough to seriously
> slow population growth.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. -
> Richard Dawkins
>
>

 

> *A prediction:*
> *I believe in this century that water supplies throughout the world
> will have an ingredient added in a similar method they use
> in fluoridating water that will keep the population sterile and
> citizens in these areas will be able to first get a permit to have an
> offspring which would allow them to take an antidote that would allow
> pregnancy. To get the permit you'd have to prove you could be
> responsible parents. This would be a far superior method of
> controlling population than hoping for an Ebola outbreak.*

Not a chance, not without a complete disaster first. I mean something
REALLY shocking. And a dictatorial government with a very firm grip on
power. (I doubt if even China could get away with something like this,
since it would be seen as an attack on every man's virility.) It would
take a complete catastrophe to get something like this accepted, and
even then it would be doubtful.

More to the point, our economies are built on growth. Sure, there are
isolated poor countries where high population growth is widely seen as a
problem, but in most cases, population growth is seen as a profound
benefit. Environmentalists worry about population levels, but economists
worry about lack of growth. A stabilized population - which means a lot
of old people and not nearly enough young to support them - is generally
considered a huge problem for a country.

I'm not saying this is right, but it's the general perception among
economists, political and religious leaders, and governments of the
world. To accept a stabilized population level would require huge
changes in our economies. Personally, I'd like to see a stabilized, or
even decreasing, world population, coupled with robotic workers and a
worldwide increase in wealth, but we're just not geared for that sort of
scenario.

And that doesn't even consider the widespread, instinctive desire for
children, for someone to carry on your genes and your culture. As people
get wealthier, they tend to want fewer children, and sometimes none at
all, but too many people aren't getting wealthy fast enough to seriously
slow population growth.

Bill

--
Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. -
Richard Dawkins

Let's assume there are 2 classes: smarter / powerful people and the common people.  The smarter people will always be in power.  To retain their power they will have to appear like they do not control the common people.

If there is overpopulation, the people in control will continue to allow circumstances and conflicts that kill off the common people, as they do today.  There is no need to control variations in population, and if they took explicit actions exert control, then soon they would no longer be in control.

 Oh hello, my name is Roland.  I've been lurking around the list for a couple of weeks (in Escondido).  I found it after reading Sam Harris, Dawkins, and then Hitchens.  So my interest has grown in this direction, sampling www.skeptic.com, www.skepdic.com and similar information sources.  I couldn't help but throw out a comment on this one.  Hope to meet some folks at one of the monthly meeting some day.

----- Original Message -----

From: Roland

To: SDARI@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:57 PM

Subject: Re: [SDARI] Population control

Let's assume there are 2 classes: smarter / powerful people and the common people.  The smarter people will always be in power.  To retain their power they will have to appear like they do not control the common people.

If there is overpopulation, the people in control will continue to allow circumstances and conflicts that kill off the common people, as they do today.  There is no need to control variations in population, and if they took explicit actions exert control, then soon they would no longer be in control.

 Oh hello, my name is Roland.  I've been lurking around the list for a couple of weeks (in Escondido).  I found it after reading Sam Harris, Dawkins, and then Hitchens.  So my interest has grown in this direction, sampling www.skeptic.com, www.skepdic.com and similar information sources.  I couldn't help but throw out a comment on this one.  Hope to meet some folks at one of the monthly meeting some day.

On Dec 11, 2007 12:47 PM, Joe Martin <joe-martin@cox.net> wrote:

A prediction:

I believe in this century that water supplies throughout the world will have an ingredient added in a similar method they use in fluoridating water that will keep the population sterile and citizens in these areas will be able to first get a permit to have an offspring which would allow them to take an antidote that would allow pregnancy. To get the permit you'd have to prove you could be responsible parents. This would be a far superior method of controlling population than hoping for an Ebola outbreak.

Joe Martin

> Let's assume there are 2 classes: smarter / powerful people and the
> common people.  The smarter people will always be in power.
>


I agree with Joe here. The smarter people are rarely in power. If they
were, we'd be a LOT better off. And many people who are smart about some
things are dumb about others. Like the rest of us, they tend to believe
what they want to believe.


> To retain their power they will have to appear like they do not
> control the common people.
>


You are giving them far too much credit. And to the extent that they
'control the common people,' it's only because the common people want to
have someone telling them what to do.


> If there is overpopulation, the people in control will continue to
> allow circumstances and conflicts that kill off the common people, as
> they do today.
>


Well, they're doing a pretty poor job of it, then, because the current
conflicts aren't putting a dent in population increases. Nor have they
ever, as far as I know. It was probably only disease that did that very
well (admittedly, often disease helped along by war).


> Hope to meet some folks at one of the monthly meeting some day.
>


Well, not me, unfortunately, since I live in Nebraska. But they let me
hang out here, anyway.  :-)

Welcome to the group.

Bill

--
I don't measure America by its achievement but by its potential. -
Shirley Chisholm

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SDARI] Population control
From: Roland <syncronicity7@...>
Date: Tue, December 11, 2007 9:03 pm
To: SDARI@yahoogroups.com

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification and in part I agree; I have no qualms declaring the Bush gang as a lesser administration and seriously misguided.  However I wouldn't change my words, since I intentionally didn't use the word intelligent.  After all, aren't those who are the most powerful in perhaps also the smartest?

Roland

On Dec 11, 2007 7:51 PM, Joe Martin <joe-martin@cox.net> wrote:

 

The smarter people will always be in power.

Roland

During the last half century the powerful people have been in control not the smarter people. Bush and his cronies have made many in the nation painfully aware of this and hopefully common people will start supporting intelligence over power. After that anything is possible.

Joe Martin 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Roland

To: SDARI@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:57 PM

Subject: Re: [SDARI] Population control

 

Let's assume there are 2 classes: smarter / powerful people and the common people.  The smarter people will always be in power.  To retain their power they will have to appear like they do not control the common people.

If there is overpopulation, the people in control will continue to allow circumstances and conflicts that kill off the common people, as they do today.  There is no need to control variations in population, and if they took explicit actions exert control, then soon they would no longer be in control.

 Oh hello, my name is Roland.  I've been lurking around the list for a couple of weeks (in Escondido).  I found it after reading Sam Harris, Dawkins, and then Hitchens.  So my interest has grown in this direction, sampling www.skeptic.com, www.skepdic.com and similar information sources.  I couldn't help but throw out a comment on this one.  Hope to meet some folks at one of the monthly meeting some day.

On Dec 11, 2007 12:47 PM, Joe Martin <joe-martin@cox.net> wrote:

 

A prediction:

I believe in this century that water supplies throughout the world will have an ingredient added in a similar method they use in fluoridating water that will keep the population sterile and citizens in these areas will be able to first get a permit to have an offspring which would allow them to take an antidote that would allow pregnancy. To get the permit you'd have to prove you could be responsible parents. This would be a far superior method of controlling population than hoping for an Ebola outbreak.

Joe Martin

 

Interesting!

I read the Wikpedia entry and what I find interesting is that the stated
tenets of the Church of Scientology are all sweetness and light.

But, from further reading you find out that anything is allowed in the
protection and promotion of Scientology.

Hmm--what other religion does this remind me of?

Dave

James Winkler wrote:
>
> Here is someone who you might know about:  H Keith Henson.  Jailed for
> "Interfering With a Religion".  Guess which 'religion'?
>
> Wiki Entry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Francis

To: SDARI@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:13 PM

Subject: Re: [SDARI] Authority and power

Mikhail Bakunin points out that there are two kinds of authority - authority based on expertise, which you may well decide to trust, and authority based on tradition, which should be challenged.

Power is different. In American constitutionalism, the state has neither authority nor rights but powers which are assigned to it REVOCABLY by We the People. I think the root of this is expressed in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man."

The Humanist Fellowship of San Diego asserts, as Article 1 in its bylaws, that the source of rights is the individual human being. Do you agree?

A recent book by Alan Dershowitz is his attempt to clarify the subject of what "rights" are. After reading it I concluded that he fails to do so, although he does debunk some fallacies such as "natural rights" and "divine rights".

Question: What are "animal rights"? "Women's rights"? "Gay rights"? Does Robinson Crusoe, alone on an island, have "rights"?  Do "rights" exist in the absence of society? Do "rights" exist until society creates them? What is a "right to life"?


 

On Dec 11, 2007 10:39 PM, James Winkler <jamesleairdwinkler@yahoo.com> wrote:

In my opinion, the smarter people want nothing to do with power.  The people who really want power are in power.  

Power is often used interchangeably with authority.   Power is the ability to do something, if you have authority, you can legitimately do something although you may not have the power.  Bush has the power to do warrantless wiretaps, and he is arguing that he has the authority to do so.  Congress may authorize him to do so, but the constitution may not give congress the authority to authorize Bush.  There are many different types of authority.

Jim

--
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is
than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring.
                                              -- Carl Sagan

Another good book is "Why Civilizations Choose to Fail"  by Jared Diamond.

And for those of you who like to read about Pre-Columbian
America--"1491"  can't remember the author.

How much longer will we have huge cities in Arizona and Nevada?  Those
aren't "readily habitable" by any means.

Dave

judithlh@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:33:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> billg@... writes:
>
>     To accept a stabilized population level would require huge
>     changes in our economies.
>
> And it is time, now, as the planet has become "full" in all its
> readily habitable areas and we have radically shifted our climate in
> ways that threaten our existing global social stability, even possibly
> our civilizations as we have known them, that we begin to figure out
> how, exactly, to make that exact shift in our economies happen.  I
> recommend as the start to any discussion the new book by Riane Eisler,
> "The Real Wealth of Nations."  Eisler depicts a clear picture of what
> kind of economic system we need to embrace.  It's a starting point for
> discussion.  It would be an economics that includes financial value or
> caring and care-giving in all its forms.
>
> Judith Hand
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See AOL's top rated recipes
> <http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004> and
> easy ways to stay in shape
> <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>
> for winter.
>

" Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones."--Psalm 137:9


I am so glad that I didn't listen to this advice!

Dave

It took decades to get flouride in the water in San Diego

Dave

Richard collins wrote:
>
> Margaret Mead was advocating reversible sterility a very long time
> ago. It never got any lift and if you think about it you will see why.
> At the outset such a program would have to be voluntary. To mess with
> the water supply is simply not going to fly. Any kind of forced
> program would create revolution.
>
>
>
> My prediction is your prediction is not going anywhere unless the
> entire world is ruled by totalitarians.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* SDARI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SDARI@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Joe Martin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:48 PM
> *To:* SDARI@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [SDARI] Population control
>
>
>
> **A prediction:**
>
> **I believe in this century that water supplies throughout the world
> will have an ingredient added in a similar method they use
> in fluoridating water that will keep the population sterile and
> citizens in these areas will be able to first get a permit to have an
> offspring which would allow them to take an antidote that would allow
> pregnancy. To get the permit you'd have to prove you could be
> responsible parents. This would be a far superior method of
> controlling population than hoping for an Ebola outbreak.**
>
> **Joe Martin**
>
>

Another good book is "Why Civilizations Choose to Fail"  by Jared Diamond.

And for those of you who like to read about Pre-Columbian
America--"1491"  can't remember the author.

How much longer will we have huge cities in Arizona and Nevada?  Those
aren't "readily habitable" by any means.

Dave

judithlh@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:33:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> billg@... writes:
>
>     To accept a stabilized population level would require huge
>     changes in our economies.
>
> And it is time, now, as the planet has become "full" in all its
> readily habitable areas and we have radically shifted our climate in
> ways that threaten our existing global social stability, even possibly
> our civilizations as we have known them, that we begin to figure out
> how, exactly, to make that exact shift in our economies happen.  I
> recommend as the start to any discussion the new book by Riane Eisler,
> "The Real Wealth of Nations."  Eisler depicts a clear picture of what
> kind of economic system we need to embrace.  It's a starting point for
> discussion.  It would be an economics that includes financial value or
> caring and care-giving in all its forms.
> 
> Judith Hand
> 
> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See AOL's top rated recipes
> < http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004> and
> easy ways to stay in shape
> < http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003 >
> for winter.
> 


<*> Our web site is:  http://sdari.org - We apply the scientific method and open rational inquiry to all types of extraordinary claims.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDARI/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDARI/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:SDARI-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:SDARI-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SDARI-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Thanks Harry!

Jared Diamond has had a few programs on TV--places like Discovery
Channel, etc.

Unfortunately, the great unwashed masses either ignore these messages or
never hear them.

Dave



Harry wrote:
>
> The first book mentioned below if available to borrow from me.  See:
>
>   http://sdari.org/library.html
>
> <http://sdari.org/library.html>It's listing is:  Collapse - How
> Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
>
<http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?endeca=1&isbn=06700\
33375&itm=1>,
> 2005, Diamond, Jared
>
> -Harry
>
> At 12:18 PM 12/12/2007, Dave Smith wrote...
>
>> Another good book is "Why Civilizations Choose to Fail"  by Jared
>> Diamond.
>>
>> And for those of you who like to read about Pre-Columbian
>> America--"1491"  can't remember the author.
>>
>> How much longer will we have huge cities in Arizona and Nevada?  Those
>> aren't "readily habitable" by any means.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> judithlh@... wrote:
>> >
>> > In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:33:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> > billg@... writes:
>> >
>> >     To accept a stabilized population level would require huge
>> >     changes in our economies.
>> >
>> > And it is time, now, as the planet has become "full" in all its
>> > readily habitable areas and we have radically shifted our climate in
>> > ways that threaten our existing global social stability, even possibly
>> > our civilizations as we have known them, that we begin to figure out
>> > how, exactly, to make that exact shift in our economies happen.  I
>> > recommend as the start to any discussion the new book by Riane Eisler,
>> > "The Real Wealth of Nations."  Eisler depicts a clear picture of what
>> > kind of economic system we need to embrace.  It's a starting point for
>> > discussion.  It would be an economics that includes financial value or
>> > caring and care-giving in all its forms.
>> >
>> > Judith Hand
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > See AOL's top rated recipes
>> > < http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004
>> <http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004>> and
>> > easy ways to stay in shape
>> > <
>> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003
>> <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>
>> >
>> > for winter.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>     (Yahoo! ID required)
>>
>>     mailto:SDARI-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:SDARI-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
>>
>

The following was forwarded to me by a friend in New York City. I had never
heard of Appignani Legal Center, but will be watching for their progress as
time goes on. Another group that is new to me is:

www.freethoughtaction.org

Rich
From: Jane9ev@... [mailto:Jane9ev@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:04 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Sunday Brunch a Success
Dear Friends of New York City Atheists,

Our Sunday Brunch was a full house, standing room only, thanks to all of you
who responded to my email urging that we all show our respect and support
for our speaker, Mel Lipman, a longtime fighter for humanism and father of
Lori Lipman Brown, our lobbyist in Washington DC.

The fireplace-warmed room at Kennedy's Pub on 57th St. was so packed on
Sunday noon that four people had to eat their lunch sitting at the bar. We
estimate that some 40 people attended, the capacity of the room.

It was good to see old friends (Gloria, Harry, Maria, Rich, Ben, Jan) and
new friends (Elly, Arlene, Shirley, Joel, Shelley, Dan). Among the
illustrious secularists who attended was Beth Lamont, widow of Corliss
Lamont, and Warren Allen Smith, author of "Who's Who in Hell."

Speaker Mel Lipman reminded us of our primary, urgent purpose as members of
an Atheist group: to work on getting religion out of our public arenas and
out of the lives of those of us who are nonbelievers. He described cases
that the new Appignani Legal Center is currently working on, including the
new Newdow case in California (he's the guy who wants to get "Under god"
taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance and isn't giving up); the Utah highway
crosses (the Mormons put up crosses all along highways where someone has
been killed, no matter what their religion was) and the forced circumcision
case in Oregon (a Jewish father who recently got custody of his son is
insisting that the boy, age 13, be circumcised though the boy does not want
it done).

The Appignani Legal Center, supported by a Florida philanthropist,  is only
18 months old but already has 31 offices nationwide staffed with pro bono
lawyers who are helping us in our fight against the encroachment of religion
into so many aspects of our lives including, as you can see, forcing
children to submit to ancient religious customs. Mel invited all of us to
submit cases to the Center.

I feel our response to Mel was significant because it shows that we are
deeply, passionately interested in the cause of Secularism at a time when
Atheists are being maligned by the Vatican and the mood throughout most of
the country, especially the red states, is dominantly and aggressively
religious.

Salute to NYCA members who always come through!

Jane Everhart
NYCA Press




See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

We did not end slavery by appeasing slave holders.

Thanks for the suggested reading Judith, its on my Amazon list now.

Dave

judithlh@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:33:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> billg@... writes:
>
>     To accept a stabilized population level would require huge
>     changes in our economies.
>
> And it is time, now, as the planet has become "full" in all its
> readily habitable areas and we have radically shifted our climate in
> ways that threaten our existing global social stability, even possibly
> our civilizations as we have known them, that we begin to figure out
> how, exactly, to make that exact shift in our economies happen.  I
> recommend as the start to any discussion the new book by Riane Eisler,
> "The Real Wealth of Nations."  Eisler depicts a clear picture of what
> kind of economic system we need to embrace.  It's a starting point for
> discussion.  It would be an economics that includes financial value or
> caring and care-giving in all its forms.
>
> Judith Hand
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See AOL's top rated recipes
> <http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004> and
> easy ways to stay in shape
> <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>
> for winter.
>