Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15430Re: [TGC] Re: [gaiapc] Vatican Workshop

Expand Messages
  • howe@megalink.net
    10 Nov, 2017
      Good discussion!
      Remember Howe's theory: "Intelligence is a regressive gene.  Intelligent species (if there are any?) intelligently  don't out- reproduce their carrying capacity and quite possibly, decline in population.: conversely, non-intelligence species  overpopulate thus leading to species collapse."
      Are humans smarter than yeast?  In the delicate balance throughout the natural world,, many species are food for others, thus a dog-eat dog world of Darwinian survival.  See the "selfish Gene" by Dawkins and Ch6 in my book.

      From: "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...>
      Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 6:17 AM
      To: "gaiapc@..." <gaiapc@...>
      Subject: Re: [TGC] Re: [gaiapc] Vatican Workshop


      Does that logic apply to all pleasures in your belief system? I doubt that character is built by denying oneself enjoyment from the beauty of nature, art, cinema, varied foods and beverages, architecture, etc. 
      The taboo of sexual activities for pleasure is an anthropogenic creation which is, IMHO, endemic to many fundamentalist and orthodox religions. The philosophy of expanding the (tithing) flock reinforces competitive breeding (unprotected sex) just as missionaries attempt to convert non-members. Rape of women of other sects is another sick method of ‘polluting’ the gene pool of outsiders.
      On Nov 9, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
      Steve, as we have discussed before, I am concerned that "pleasure without risk" is a double edge sword.  It sounds good, but does not build character.  Self-discipline builds character.  That said, I want to reiterate that I fully respect other opinions and freedom of conscience.  
      On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


      Re: Don, I never said that people should not have sex.  What I said is that people should have sex responsibly,
      But what about *protected* sex? Is that not responsible? Pleasure without risk of pain to any parties?
      On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
      Don, I never said that people should not have sex.  What I said is that people should have sex responsibly, meaning that both the man and the woman assume responsibility for the children they bring to the world.  We are rational animals, not just animals.  I know, it is a controversial subject.  The world would be much better if people understand that there is no free lunch in life, and this includes sexual relations.  This is my personal opinion, which I don't push on anyone, as I believe in freedom of conscience.  Hope no one is offended by me saying what I believe.
      On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@... > wrote:
      On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:
      I know, but posted this because there are .  Some of the "solutions" seem naive to me, but apparently are reasonable to them.  This is a group of highly talented and awesomely learned people.  Could it be that we are missing something?  

      DC:  Luis, you pose an interesting question.  I think that what is being missed here is the deep and penetrating imprint of growing up in a religions environment for the, perhaps 80% of those who largely accept the doctrines - whichever brand, Catholic, Hindu or Muslim.   You are an example of a kind and intelligent person who goes to a great deal of effort to make this world a better place, but ......  you still oppose abortion.  In an email a few days ago you said:  
       While we must respect freedom of conscience, my take is that the solution is to foster responsible parenthood, not to foster irresponsible sexual relations by the illusion that pills and abortion can get us off the hook.  Both the boys and the girls must be held accountable.  The main problem is that, in most regions of the world, the boys can do it free of charge. >> 

      For me, that is like asking horny young people to not have sex is like asking rivers not to flow - or something contrary to biological nature.   

      So for me it's not much of a stretch to (think) that I understand why <<
      so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy>> skip over a few of the issues that are obvious to many other.   

      I suppose we all have blind spots.  Like most others, I don't know what mine are, but I don't deny they're there likely there!:-)


      These people cannot possibly be so misinformed as to think that population growth and energy density are irrelevant factors.  Are they just being doctrinaire?  Perhaps they think that we just have to keep struggling with the issues, doing what can be done without recurring to fixes that are not "good for people" based on their understanding of human nature?
      On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [ thegreatchange] <thegreatchang e@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


      You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.
      On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
      FYI, this is the latest "green" wisdom coming from the Vatican:

      Declaration of Workshop on 
      Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility ~ 
      Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health

      Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican City, 2-4 November 2017
      http://www.pas.va/content/acca demia/en/events/2017/health/de claration.html

      Predictably, politically incorrect issues such as population growth and energy return on investment are not mentioned, so it is hard to understand how any of the "Proposed Solutions" can be feasible; but this is a good summary of the majority "optimistic consensus" endorsed by Pope Francis and many highly capable people.

      The minority "pessimistic consensus" is that, with world population still growing, and "clea n" energy alternatives being incapable of sustaining the load, the future is grim even if most people experience "ecological conversion."

      What do you think?
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)


      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)


    • Show all 20 messages in this topic