A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives — things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.Want to do the most you can to save the planet? Stop having kids. That's the message.
Of course, that's been the message all along, hasn't it? What causes extinction among animal species? Humans. What is causing this whole global warming problem? Humans. What is tearing up the planet for resources? Humans.
Look, this is really, really simple. Can it be any clearer? Eliminate humans and the planet is saved. Why are we lollygagging about? Let's get this extermination of the human race going, eh? I mean ... you do want to save the planet, don't you?
35 comments:
Have you been here:
http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
Our entire system of a social "safety net" is built/being vastly expanded on the concept of a growing population. Who is going to pay for that? Is little Johnny Yettobe going to be expected to take care of himself, his family, and 4 codgers? Last one out turn off the lights. Wouldn't want to be you!
No, Von, never seen it, but I will.
Dan, it looks bleak, I know. Nice to know we know how it comes out ... and the "down with humans" side doesn't win.
If you knew that the earth could not physically support 9 billion people (a number we're expected to hit sometime in the next 50 years) without mass starvation, would you think it wise to advocate for slowing down our population growth?
If you knew there really were unicorns would you want one for a pet?
Or, here, a more appropriate question. If you knew that 6 billion people on the planet would start causing mass starvation would you advocate shooting the extras?
Am I actually looking for answers? Not at all. The "if" questions are so far out there sometimes that I have no means of even considering them. I have no reason to believe that we'll hit 9 billion in the next 50 years. I have no reason to believe the planet couldn't support them. I am never in favor of telling people, "No kids for you!" And all of this rests on my solid belief that God is sovereign. :)
Stan said...
The "if" questions are so far out there sometimes that I have no means of even considering them. I have no reason to believe that we'll hit 9 billion in the next 50 years. I have no reason to believe the planet couldn't support them. I am never in favor of telling people, "No kids for you!"
You think studies projecting a population of 9 billion are "out there"? Based on what?
Are you familiar with the history and study of population over the last 50 years? Even just a little bit (I'm not expecting you to be well-versed in that history, I'm sure not)?
Did you know that the world population in 1800 was just under 1 billion, in 1900 was ~1.65 billion and that today it is ~6.64 billion? We've increased by 5 B-B-Billion in the last 100 years.
Based on what evidence would you doubt that we would not keep growing at the rates we're growing?
IF the population grows as it has been growing, then at some point, there will be mass starvation and that will take care of the problem.
Do you see how your position seems anti-science, anti-reason and slightly amoral (that is, not caring IF the science is right that there will likely be mass starvation)? Why would you not care about what the studies and history show?
Do you see how that strikes some of us as a bit unusual? What would be the reason for your position?
By the way, no one I know has advocated seriously forced contraception. It seems that the studies are just pointing to what seems like a legitimate area of concern and we, as a people, ought to consider that and what we might do about it. Not forced abortions or contraception, but neither ought we stick our heads in the sand, it seems to me.
And all of this rests on my solid belief that God is sovereign. :)
Yes, God is sovereign, but that doesn't mean a Stalin or a Hitler won't come along and try killing millions of people. Sometimes, we need to act to save ourselves, don't you think?
You're familiar with the story of the guy in a flood stuck on his roof who was approached by a boat who offered to save him and a helicopter who offered to save him and each time he said, "No thanks, I'm trusting God, who's sovereign..." Then he drowned and went to heaven.
The fella asked God, "why did you let me drown?" And God responded, "I sent you a boat and a helicopter, what more do you want??"
God is sovereign and God is asking God's followers to use our heads, hearts, hands and feet to take action. And those who ignore God's desire WILL suffer God's wrath.
And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth... ~Rev 11
Sigh. If you want to argue about what the world will look like in 50 years and how many mouths our planet can support and whether or not it's a good idea to start decreasing the surplus population (sorry ... borrowing from The Christmas Carol), by all means go ahead. Just not here. I know that there have been "doomsday" prophets practically forever, but especially in the last 50 years who have been warning of this very thing. We were told when I was in high school that if something wasn't done and soon, we'd all starve to death by the end of the century. Well ... we're past the end of the century ... where's my starvation?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008), America will have a population of 439 million by the year 2050, an increase of just over 100 million. Given the vast farmland available and the amount of unused land (for price controls) available, I don't think 100 million will be a problem. According to this source, at the current productivity, the planet could support 100 B-B-billion people (minimum). So shall we compare "what ifs"?
The truth is you don't know. No one does. You don't know how many people will be alive in 50 years. You don't know how many people we can feed in 50 years. And you don't know what God will do about it all in that time. Frankly, with the radical drop in birthrates among the advanced nations, it will likely be a problem for third-world nations to face. Me? I'm not willing to execute people to save the planet. Nor am I willing to prevent people from bearing children to save the planet. Therefore, my post stands.
Based on what evidence would you doubt that we would not keep growing at the rates we're growing?
One might try watching the link I posted, and one would see that it is depopulation, and not overpopulation, which is the problem right now.
For those of us who found our lives on Scripture, it is quite clear that we are called to have children:
Psa 127:1 A Song of Ascents, for Solomon. If Jehovah does not build the house, they who build it labor in vain; if Jehovah does not keep the city, the one keeping it stays awake in vain.
Psa 127:2 It is in vain for you to rise early, sit up late, to eat the bread of toils; for so He gives His beloved sleep.
Psa 127:3 Behold! Children are an inheritance of Jehovah; the fruit of the womb is His reward.
Psa 127:4 As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the sons of the young.
Psa 127:5 Blessed is the man who has filled his quiver with them; they shall not be ashamed, for they shall speak with their enemies in the gate.
Von, could you sum up the video or point to something one could read? I don't have the ability right now to view that.
If it's like other stuff that I HAVE read, it's probably talking not about actual depopulation being a problem, but the more xenophobic "there's too many black and muslim kids being born and not enough good white, american/european types," but you tell me.
The thing is, whatever your guesses about the problems with the science in a given study (or all studies?), the fact is that this is a finite world and we can not support an infinite number of people.
It's a movie, so I'm not at all sure what it is claiming. However, in looking briefly into population growth, the charts show that population growth rates have plummeted over the last 40 years. In the mid '60's, the growth rate was at about 2% (according to the U.N. figures). Currently it's at about 1.2%. The U.N. projects that by 2050 the world population growth rate will be less than 0.5%. There are countries, in fact, that have a negative population growth. Countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, and Russia all have negative numbers.
So, no, Dan, it's not about "not enough good white, american/european types". The richer countries have a declining birth rate.
Tom Clancy wrote a story (Rainbow Six) about a group of people that thought mankind was the problem with the world, and if they could eliminate most of the population, the earth would heal itself. They wouldn't kill all of humanity, only the ones that are a burden to nature, which was anyone not in their small organization. Of course, Clancy writes fiction, but a lot of his facts come awfully close to the truth. I'm sure there are people out there that would love to see the human race brought down to a few hundred thousand, rather than billions, and if they were able to get organized and funded, they would probably even try. The problem with the idea that the earth is going to get overpopulated is that God commanded multiplying. If God thought the earth couldn't handle all the people that would live on it, He probably would have laid out some limitations, but the only limitation is His control of nature. If God thinks the planet is overpopulated, He can always bring another bubonic plague, or....SWINE FLU!!!!! God has inserted His own checks and balances to population control, and there's no reason we need to interfere.
it's not about "not enough good white, american/european types". The richer countries have a declining birth rate.
I'm not sure how that is a bad thing.
I've seen some info about either this or some similar film (perhaps from the same people) and it was just an exercise in fearmongering. I'm relatively sure this is the same thing.
Here's what I've read about it thus far, from a rightwing site:
Mathew Connelly of Columbia University and the author of Fatal Misconception: The Struggle To Control World Population, reveals how organizations, institutions, governments and the United Nations manipulated and coerced families, evaded political accountability and violated basic human rights to achieve their population-reduction agenda.
Any time someone starts with the scare tactics about conspiracies and agendas, red flags ought to be raised. "Coerced families"? Who has been coerced? Violated human rights? Who has violated human rights.
I'd be willing to be it's third rate schlock based on probably bad science (if any science at all) meant to scare conservatives into spending more money and living in fear of the boogymen living in darker countries.
More of a documentary/advocacy film than a 'movie', if you see what I mean.
The statistics show that countries world wide are stopping having children.
The statistics are worse for the 'modern democracies' than they seem as the figures are being artificially inflated by immigrants and sub-groups (such as my own) which are still having children.
The 'modern liberal' which has bought into modern values is literally de-breeding themselves out of existence.
Stan said...
If you want to argue about what the world will look like in 50 years and how many mouths our planet can support and whether or not it's a good idea to start decreasing the surplus population (sorry ... borrowing from The Christmas Carol), by all means go ahead.
Do I want to "argue" about it? No. But you brought up the topic and I just had a question (IF you knew that population growth would cause hunger, would you be concerned?). You rejected the question as "so far out there sometimes that I have no means of even considering them."
You have belittled those who are concerned based on legitimate studies and reasonable conclusions (ie, we can't support an infinite number of people - at some point, there CAN be too many people), suggesting that we want to "kill the surplus people."
So, no, I don't want to argue. On the other hand, I don't want you to malign those who are concerned. We don't want to shoot the surplus, nor do we want to criminalize babies or eat them or slaughter them for their damnable evil. Nothing like that.
Rather, we look at studies (that are bound to be flawed and are open to discussion) and see reason to be legitimately concerned.
Do YOU want to argue? Because it seems like it. If you merely disagree with the science, then why don't you raise logical, scientific reasons instead of demonizing others by suggesting they're out to kill the surplus?
Von said...
The 'modern liberal' which has bought into modern values is literally de-breeding themselves out of existence.
Funny. Living responsibly and within our means used to be conservative values. I guess the 'modern conservative' has bought into selfish and irresponsible values as old as humanity that place "Me, me, me" above such notions of living within our means.
...Is that how we wish to have conversations, or would it be more Christian, adult and reasonable to speak about the legitimate pros and cons of a given topic?
Von, I simply meant that the website wasn't about presenting information, but about a film.
Dan T, the question I brought up is whether or not it is right to stop having children to prevent global warming. You have already said that you wouldn't favor forced contraception or forced abortion. Still you argue a peripheral point. You argue that I'm sticking my head in the sand and sounding anti-science. I offered science that says that the growth rates are dropping and the world can support more than is required and still you want to argue the point.
So, without arguing, since you are quite sure that the science behind my assertions us unreliable, what do you recommend. Let's just go with your "facts" as facts. The world will be overpopulated by 2050. We can't feed the populace. We're looking at mass starvation. So ... take it, Dan. What do you recommend? I recommended exterminating the human race. What's your recommendation?
Funny. Living responsibly and within our means used to be conservative values. I guess the 'modern conservative' has bought into selfish and irresponsible values as old as humanity that place "Me, me, me" above such notions of living within our means.
He who does not know his history...
is bound to write some strange posts.
Historically conservatives have believed in large, father led families. Families which, through force of character, training, obedience, and sheer force of numbers carry their values down into the next generation.
And it is the liberals who are into 'me, me, me'. Children restrict ones lifestyle, letting their parents buy and do less stuff for 'me, me, me'.
Liberals frantic to have the Democratic Party recapture the Congress in November are casting their nets far and wide to haul in a new catch of young voters for future elections.
If fertility statistics are considered, that catch has to be a disappointment for liberals because there are fewer and fewer young liberal voters in the electoral sea.
The reason? According to Arthur C. Brooks, writing in Tuesday’s Opinion Journal, it’s the "fertility gap" — the dramatically falling birth rate in this country.
Liberals, he writes, "have a big baby problem. They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result.”
Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs and the author of the forthcoming book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," cites the 2004 General Social Survey as proof that liberals are vanishing. The survey reveals if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If, on the other hand, you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids — a "fertility gap" of a whopping 41 percent.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/22/125841.shtml
Von, I simply meant that the website wasn't about presenting information, but about a film.
I know. Just wanted to clarify.
Von noted...
The statistics are worse for the 'modern democracies' than they seem as the figures are being artificially inflated by immigrants
Worse, in what sense? I, for one, think immigration is a fine, fine thing.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Not only is welcoming the immigrant a great tradition of our great nation, it is a great tradition of our Judeo-Christian heritage.
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not ill-treat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt."
And consider Jesus' high praise for that hated foreigner - the Samaritan, who has famously served as perhaps THE model for righteous living for 2000 years now. How shall we live our lives? Why, as the Good Samaritan, of course!
And giving immigrants the chance to do work, IF indeed or labor sources are dwindling and we need more - which seems to be what Von is suggesting - then it is a win/win situation. So, if we're slowing down our own population growth AND providing jobs and welcoming, open arms to our neighbors, super!
Dan Trabue: "I guess the 'modern conservative' has bought into selfish and irresponsible values as old as humanity that place "Me, me, me" above such notions of living within our means."
Dan, you are so concerned about others misrepresenting you and "bearing false witness" and here you are trotting out ... slander. A person who believes that the Bible is not foolish when it says that children are a blessing is not acting in a "selfish and irresponsible" manner. It's not about "me".
And then you take something Von said as anti-immigration??? He said, "The statistics are worse for the 'modern democracies' than they seem as the figures are being artificially inflated by immigrants." What statistics? The statistics of population growth. By "worse" he means "Their declining more than the statistics suggest because the statistics are being artificially inflated due to immigration." None of that suggests anywhere at all that immigration is bad. But I suspect you read it that way simply because you don't like the guy.
Pot, meet kettle.
And which am I :)
The statistics are worse for the 'modern democracies' than they seem as the figures are being artificially inflated by immigrants
Worse, in what sense? I, for one, think immigration is a fine, fine thing.
I fully approve of immigration. I would remove all of the stops.
Stan is quite right.
Suppose the average liberal has 1.2 children per woman.
Suppose the average conservative has 2.2
Suppose your full quiver types like me, orthodox jews, orthodox muslims and FLDS have 6
Suppose that immigration runs at .2 children per woman equivalent.
In a population with 49% liberals, 49% conservatives, and 2% fullquivers:
49 * 1.2 = 58.8
49 * 2.2 = 107.8
2 * 6 = 12
100 * .2 = 20
198.6
This society will look like it is growing at a rate of 1.98 children per woman. The liberal contingent, however, is only growing at 1.2 (which is to say it is shrinking).
In the next generation the liberals will be 29% of the population. And the total population shrunk this generation (from 200 people to 198.6). It will rise again next generation, however, as the conservatives and full quivers will dominate.
Stan said/asked...
since you are quite sure that the science behind my assertions us unreliable, what do you recommend. Let's just go with your "facts" as facts. The world will be overpopulated by 2050. We can't feed the populace. We're looking at mass starvation. So ... take it, Dan. What do you recommend?
1. I have not said the science behind your assertions is unreliable.
2. I have not said that the science behind the studies about overpopulation is wholly reliable.
Understand thus far? I want to try to make sure you're hearing me correctly, because that does not seem to be the case.
3. I have said that...
a. Simple mathematical logic supports the notion that one can't have infinite growth in a finite world. At SOME point IF population rates keep going up, we WILL have too many people to feed.
Are we agreed?
b. Our global population rates ARE going up and at the rate they're going (that is, we're adding X number of people a day more than are dying and that number is a measurable rate - "In 2000, the United Nations estimated that the world's population was growing at the rate of 1.14%" ["source]), then by 2050, we will have 9 billion people.
Are we agreed?
c. Now we may or may not agree on the science behind how much food we grow. By your one source (and I know nothing about the fella, is he a farmer, an accountant, a scientist, a politician??), if we forced the whole world to grow and eat only corn, we could feed a whole lot more than 9 billion. IF his numbers are right and his figuring is right, which I rather doubt, but don't know for sure without looking into it some more. Do you have some reason for believing him? Other people have noted that we were able to have the so-called Green Revolution and increase our amount of food production in the 1940s-1970s by relying upon petrochemicals.
I believe Von is a little aware about farming (perhaps, he has links, anyway). You can ask him how sustainable it is to have monocrops that are able to maintain production only by extensive use of pesticides and water in a world where clean water shortages may rival and surpass oil shortages relatively soon.
"Green Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products."
d. Given all this, I think concerns about (not panic, not draconian, fascist measures) world population and water availability and food production are legitimate, especially for Christians who are to love the least of these (in a world with shortages and famine, it is inevitably the least of these who suffer the first and the most).
Now, do you understand my points? If so, I shall continue with your questions...
Stan said/asked...
since you are quite sure that the science behind my assertions us unreliable, what do you recommend. Let's just go with your "facts" as facts. The world will be overpopulated by 2050. We can't feed the populace. We're looking at mass starvation. So ... take it, Dan. What do you recommend?
Education. Wise policy changes. Continuing any wise trends/policies we currently have and encouraging and implementing ones we don't have.
* Education:
The thing is, the population growth HAS slowed down. Global efforts to slow population have worked, partly. We are still growing, but at a slower rate, and perhaps it is levelling off. This is a good thing. Education works, especially when we're not out there mocking education or science or wise policies. Especially when we're not out there creating fearmongering videos and websites. "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
* Sustainable Food Production:
Look for and encourage more sustainable food production techniques. Quickly begin to wean ourselves of a petrol diet (ie, food production dependent upon much pesticides and petrochemicals), since petroleum won't last forever. We ought not create food policies and procedures based on wholly unsustainable methods.
* Reasonable immigration policies:
Wealthy nations HAVE been able to successfully slow our growth rates and that's a good thing. Since we have the most resources, it makes it easier for us to lead the way in slowing our rates. To the degree that we need more labor, we can open our immigration doors a bit wider, but do so in a responsible way. This helps them, it helps us.
* Reasonable foreign policies:
Water shortages are currently a real issue in much of the world. Food distribution is a real problem in much of the world. The more people are able to feed and sustain themselves, the more they are able to be concerned about global problems.
* Reasonable, responsible personal policies:
Everyone simply can't consume at the rate that the wealthy west does. We are hyperconsuming and selling this hyperconsumption as a good way of life, just watch the commercials, they'll tell you. We need to reject hyperconsumption as moral. Churches and faith traditions ought to lead the way. If Money is our god, and Stuff is our goddess, we need a new religion.
* Live in small circles.
For starters, that's what I would do. These are, of course, vague, general answers. This IS a huge issue and I can't provide whole answers in a few paragraphs. There are books out there, if you'd like me to recommend any. Von has what look like some very decent Sustainable Living Sites linked at his blog. We might begin there.
Dan Trabue: "if we forced the whole world to grow and eat only corn ..."
Actually, his initial scenario was "corn only". The scenarios that followed pointed out that growing corn would provide food and biomass that would increase the availability of other types of foods (like meat, fish, etc.) ... which would then increase the amount of people who could be fed.
But ... it appears that your idea of what should be done may not (I emphasize "may") be force abortion and contraception ... but you'd certainly favor abortion and contraception by choice.
And I do end up back at my original question. Is it your view that cutting out kids to decrease global warming would be a good idea? (Because my post was on global warming, not overpopulation and food consumption.)
Is it your view that cutting out kids to decrease global warming would be a good idea?
The article was pointing out research that points out that we in the US hyperconsume, leading to a larger carbon footprint, per person.
It is my view that reducing consumption below the Western/US norm is a good and responsible thing. Do you disagree?
IF you're going to insist on living in a hyperconsumptive manner but still are concerned about the Earth, then perhaps choosing not to have kids (and, in turn, not teaching THEM to hyperconsume) is a good thing.
Seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Do you disagree?
And, no, I don't "favor abortion by choice," I favor the medical procedure not being criminalized. Understand the difference?
I DO, on the other hand, support choosing contraception if you're not planning on having children and/or are not able to support children.
You don't?
As to your earlier source, Stan, what do you know about him/her/them/it? The source is
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/
and fatknowledge is, apparently, a blogger. I know nothing about his/her/their data or experience or knowledge. How wise do you think it is to trust "a blogger," (being the sum total we know about this man/woman/borg) to something as important as world population policies?
Seriously, is it your opinion that this is a serious source and that as long as we can find a blogger who sounds like perhaps he knows what he's talking about, then that's good enough for policy decisions, even if lives are in the balance? Could it be that you merely found some blogger out there who said something that sounded like it might support your position, and therefore you quoted him? Or do you actually object to the original story based on some other scientific basis which you just haven't offered yet?
Can you understand how this is not an especially credible source for at least some of us?
From your source, the conclusion:
At the current worldwide level of productivity, and taking all suitable land on Earth for farming and using it to grow corn, and if people needed no additional resources from nature (no meat, cotton, or wood products), then the Earth could support 50 billion people. This is based on Scenario 3, assuming additional land that is currently being used by nature can be repurposed for human use
I assume you do know that it would likely kill the planet if we produced a quite literal Monoculture? No trees, no grass, no flowers, no ferns, no pines, etc. God created the Earth, in God's wisdom, with much life, glorious and diverse. It's not merely created thus for the beauty, it's physically essential for life on earth and a monstrously obscene proposition (although I understand that this fella was just playing with numbers, not actually proposing Corn Planet).
Again, I suspect that even Von would agree with me on this point, if he has read any of the Sustainable Sites which he lists at his blog.
I favor the medical procedure not being criminalized.
De-criminalized murder.
"Woe to them who call evil good..."
I DO, on the other hand, support choosing contraception if you're not planning on having children and/or are not able to support children.
You don't?
I don't believe in marriage if one is not going to have children.
And I don't believe in sex outside of marriage.
Dan Trabue: "Or do you actually object to the original story based on some other scientific basis which you just haven't offered yet?"
On the listing next to the main articles from my blog is a section marked "Labels". If you clicked on "Global Warming", you would find all 19 articles I've written on the subject. You will find that I believe the entire thing to be a crock, faulty science fed by public opinion rather than genuine science and constantly contradicted by science itself. I've seen many studies that assure us that we're all going to die if we don't do something soon. I've seen other studies that assure us that ... it's too late. We're all going to die because we're past the tipping point. I've seen other studies that range from "Well, it's all hype" to "It's a good thing that the temperature is rising because it will make things better!" I have seen no studies (despite their best efforts) that can categorically link "Global Warming" with "man-made".
Dan Trabue: "Can you understand how this is not an especially credible source for at least some of us?"
Absolutely! Since no source I have ever offered from the Bible to scientific studies has ever been credible to you, why would this one?
Did I actually think that the study I referenced was genuinely in favor of eliminating the human race? If you actually thought so you will definitely need to quit reading my blog -- most blogs. There are all sorts of methods of expressing things. There is straightforward. There is hyperbole. There is tongue-in-cheek. There is satire. There is humor. There is sarcasm. If you can't learn to distinguish between these various forms, either you think I'm an idiot or you would be much better off reading elsewhere. (That may be a "both/and".)
Having said that, the study did recommend having one less child to save the planet. Now, the current Total Fertility Rate for American women is 2.05. That means that, on the average, each woman bears 2.05 children in her lifetime. The replacement rate -- the rate at which the population growth is zero -- is 2.1 children. (Experts suggest 2.3 to compensate for children who die before reaching adulthood.) So ... let's drop that number by one. Just one. No more.
Since the current rate is not quite the rate required to maintain replacement of the adults having them, dropping that number by one will virtually guarantee that within a few generations we will be no more.
Still, I laid my final hope on the Sovereignty of God. I am not a deist like so many others are today. They believe that God is kind of standing "outside". The world operates on its own laws (laws of physics, laws of gravity, laws of economics, all that good stuff). God kind of spun it all up and let it ride. He's really mostly watching Man and His Free Will, you know. (You will likely think I'm mocking you, but I'm not. I believe most people believe that.) I am not one of those people. I believe that God is intimately and always at work. He has His plans. He won't let us annihilate the human race because I know that's not in His plans. One thing I do know about God's plans. I've read the last chapter, and this planet doesn't make it. So I'm not laying my hope on your ability to convince people to stop consuming or to walk to work or to eat less beef. (No, no, you never said that. I was just thinking "hyper-consumptive".) Nor would I urge people to stop having kids. I believe that's from Satan. (Sorry. I know that sounds like "demonizing", but when I hear people recommend stopping the things that God commanded, I can only cite the source.) We could do with less consumption, but I don't control that in this world. Under no condition would I recommend legal abortion (AKA murder), and I believe that contraception is a violation of God's plan for marriage. So ... I'm back to laying my final hope on the sovereignty of God.
Stan suggests that some people obey Satan in not having children.
Demons obey Satan.
Ergo Stan is saying that some people are demons.
It's been a while, but I think that is the logical error of the undistributed middle.
(from the Wikipedia):
The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:
All Zs are Bs
Y is a B
Therefore, Y is a Z
This can be graphically represented as:
where the premises are in the green box and the conclusion is derived above them.
It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument. The fallacy is similar to affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent in that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise, then it would no longer be a fallacy.
Wow, Von, that was a real stretch.
No, I'm suggesting that God commanded humans to "be fruitful and multiply". I'm further suggesting that the idea of limiting population (either for environmental or other "practical" reasons) is from Satan. I don't mean that people are knowingly arguing for Satan. I mean that the suggestion to violate God's commands doesn't come from God.
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that Dan, in calling you a demonizer, committed a logical fallacy.
Perhaps I wrote too quick.
Okay, von, but I still didn't mean to suggest "that some people obey Satan in not having children." I was only referencing the source of the idea, not the people who do it.
Post a Comment