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

Vatican Workshop

Expand Messages
  • Luis Gutierrez
    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
    Message 1 of 20 , 7 Nov, 2017
      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/accademia/en/events/2017/health/declaration.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 "clean" energy alternatives being incapable of sustaining the load, the future is grim even if most people experience "ecological conversion."

      What do you think?

      Luis
    • Steve Kurtz
      Luis, You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists. Steve ... ————————————— Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
      Message 2 of 20 , 7 Nov, 2017
        Luis,

        You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

        Steve


        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/accademia/en/events/2017/health/declaration.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?

        Luis


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

      • Luis Gutierrez
        I know, but posted this because there are so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy. Some of the solutions seem naive to me, but apparently are
        Message 3 of 20 , 8 Nov, 2017
          I know, but posted this because there are so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy.  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? 

          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?



          Luis

          On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
           

          Luis,


          You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

          Steve


          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/ accademia/en/events/2017/ health/declaration.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?

          Luis


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


        • Steve Kurtz
          ... Yes IMHO. You’ve surely seen this quote: Upton Sinclair Quotes
          Message 4 of 20 , 8 Nov, 2017
            L.G.:

            Are they just being doctrinaire? 

            Yes IMHO. You’ve surely seen this quote:

            Upton Sinclair > Quotes > Quotable Quote

            Upton Sinclair

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”











            On Nov 8, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


            I know, but posted this because there are so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy.  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?  

            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?



            Luis

            On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
             

            Luis,


            You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

            Steve


            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/ accademia/en/events/2017/ health/declaration.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?

            Luis


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

          • JACK ALPERT
            Luis, I looked through the documents I could not find the minority consensus. Can you point me to it. JACK Jack Alpert PhD Director: Stanford
            Message 5 of 20 , 8 Nov, 2017
              Luis, 


              I looked through the documents   I could not find the minority consensus.

              Can you point me to it. 

              JACK



              Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
              Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
              (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
              13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216





              On Nov 8, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Alexander Carpenter alexander@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              And our optimists seem like pessimists to the usual HOT crowd. As our local sheriffs say,"It is what it is." Resistance is futile...

              And we can all rest assured that every prediction with any specificity will be wrong, especially the most doomish and the most Pollyanna. Reasonableness either way is not conducive to accuracy, since the world is not organized around reason, if only because that whore reason will sleep with any pretty face. 

              On 7/11/17 11:17 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] wrote:
               

              Luis,


              You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

              Steve

              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/accademia/en/events/2017/health/declaration.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?

              Luis

              -- 

              ______________________________________

              Alexander Carpenter

              305 Sovereign Lane

              Santa Rosa  95401

              California, USA

              cell 707-527-2732 

               

                    Man is the missing link between apes and human beings.

               

                                          Konrad Lorenz

               


            • Don Chisholm
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 20 , 9 Nov, 2017
                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!:-)

                Don



                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?



                Luis

                On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                 

                Luis,


                You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                Steve


                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/ accademia/en/events/2017/ health/declaration.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?

                Luis


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



                -- 
                
                
                
              • Luis Gutierrez
                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
                Message 7 of 20 , 9 Nov, 2017
                  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.

                  Luis

                  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!:-)

                  Don



                  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?



                  Luis

                  On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com> wrote:
                   

                  Luis,


                  You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                  Steve


                  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/ declaration.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?

                  Luis


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



                  -- 
                  
                  
                  


                • Steve Kurtz
                  Luis, 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
                  Message 8 of 20 , 9 Nov, 2017
                    Luis,

                    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?


                    Steve



                    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.

                    Luis

                    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!:-)

                    Don 



                    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?



                    Luis

                    On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com> wrote:
                     

                    Luis,


                    You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                    Steve


                    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/ declaration.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?

                    Luis


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



                    -- 
                    
                    
                    




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

                  • Don Chisholm
                    Well Luis, I guess our views on sex are different.  I can think of no reason for consenting adults to not have sex just for the pure pleasure of sex.  Yes,
                    Message 9 of 20 , 9 Nov, 2017
                      Well Luis, I guess our views on sex are different.  I can think of no reason for consenting adults to not have sex just for the pure pleasure of sex.  Yes, we are animals, but rational?  We seem to be on the cusp of self-extinction from not preventing more and more of us wanting a slice of the shirking pie.  Inflexible religions play a significant role in preventing responsible sex - i.e.: using birth control. 

                      Luis, it's been an interesting exchange, but I don't think either of us will alter our views.  To agree to disagree sometimes leaves room for mutual cooperation on other matters. 
                      And we have a lot of those to deal with!

                      Best,
                      Don


                      On 2017-11-09 8:00 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [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.

                      Luis

                      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!:-)

                      Don



                      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?



                      Luis

                      On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com> wrote:
                       

                      Luis,


                      You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                      Steve


                      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/ declaration.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?

                      Luis


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



                      -- 
                      
                      
                      


                      -- 
                      
                      
                      
                    • Luis Gutierrez
                      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.
                      Message 10 of 20 , 9 Nov, 2017
                        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. 

                        Luis

                        On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         

                        Luis,


                        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?


                        Steve



                        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.

                        Luis

                        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!:-)

                        Don 



                        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?



                        Luis

                        On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [ thegreatchange] <thegreatchang e@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                         

                        Luis,


                        You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                        Steve


                        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?

                        Luis


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



                        -- 
                        
                        
                        




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


                      • Steve Kurtz
                        Luis, 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,
                        Message 11 of 20 , 10 Nov, 2017
                          Luis,

                          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.

                          Steve

                          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.  

                          Luis

                          On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                           

                          Luis,


                          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?


                          Steve



                          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.

                          Luis

                          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!:-)

                          Don 



                          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?



                          Luis

                          On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [ thegreatchange] <thegreatchang e@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                           

                          Luis,


                          You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                          Steve


                          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?

                          Luis


                          —————————————
                          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)

                        • howe@megalink.net
                          Good discussion! Remember Howe s theory: Intelligence is a regressive gene. Intelligent species (if there are any?) intelligently don t out- reproduce their
                          Message 12 of 20 , 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.
                             
                            John
                             
                             
                             

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

                            Luis,

                             
                            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.
                             
                            Steve
                             
                            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.  
                             
                             
                            Luis
                             
                            On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                             

                            Luis,

                             
                            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?
                             
                             
                            Steve
                             
                             
                             
                            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.
                             
                            Luis
                             
                            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!:-)


                            Don 


                             
                             
                            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?
                             
                             
                             
                            Luis
                             
                            On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [ thegreatchange] <thegreatchang e@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                             

                            Luis,

                             
                            You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.
                             
                            Steve
                             
                             
                            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?
                             
                            Luis
                             
                             
                            —————————————
                            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)

                             

                          • Luis Gutierrez
                            Steve It is not about denying oneself enjoyment. It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation. Adequate nutrition is good. Too much food is bad.
                            Message 13 of 20 , 10 Nov, 2017
                              Steve

                              It is not about denying oneself enjoyment.  It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation.  Adequate nutrition is good.  Too much food is bad. 

                              Self-discipline has nothing to do with sexual taboos and other fundamentalist/patriarchal  aberrations.  It has to do with healthy sexual relations and the intrinsic value of human bodies.

                              This issue is not unrelated to "the great change."  IMHO, moving toward gender balance and inclusion in all dimensions of human life, both secular and religious, is crucial at this point in human history.  It is a "sign of the times." 

                              I know this is a sensitive and controversial topic.  The Vatican is learning that they cannot pontificate about these matters in patriarchal terms.  It is a new frontier for biology, psychology, anthropology, ecology and, of course, theology. 

                              The only sure principle is to support freedom of conscience for people to make decisions, and act accordingly, as long as actions are within the law of the land.

                              Luis

                              On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                               

                              Luis,


                              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.

                              Steve

                              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.  

                              Luis

                              On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                               

                              Luis,


                              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?


                              Steve



                              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.

                              Luis

                              On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gai apc] <gaiapc@...> w rote:
                               

                              On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] 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!:-)

                              Don 



                              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?



                              Luis

                              On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatc hange] <thegreatchange@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                               

                              Luis,


                              You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                              Steve


                              On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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?

                              Luis


                              —————————————
                              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)


                            • Steve Kurtz
                              ... Protected sex is responsible. (vs unprotected) Fewer unwanted children result. Fewer abortions result. ... Apples and oranges. Sex in the animal world is
                              Message 14 of 20 , 10 Nov, 2017


                                On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                Steve

                                It is not about denying oneself enjoyment.  It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation. 

                                Protected sex is responsible. (vs unprotected) Fewer unwanted children result. Fewer abortions result. 
                                Adequate nutrition is good.  Too much food is bad. 

                                Apples and oranges. Sex in the animal world is not subject to mental gymnastics and rationalizations. Indeed most human sex fits that paradigm.

                                Self-discipline has nothing to do with sexual taboos and other fundamentalist/patriarchal  aberrations. 

                                Please show references from science that support your claim. It is utter gogmatic hogwash.
                                 
                                It has to do with healthy sexual relations

                                Show scientific source for your claim, please. Animals do what nature intended, and the history of supposed celibate priests supports my position that it is abnormal and can lead to perversions, rapes, child molestations, etc.

                                and the intrinsic value of human bodies.

                                No different than any other life form!! If you claim otherwise, please give scientific references. Anthropocentrism and the Anthropic Principle are similar.



                                This issue is not unrelated to "the great change."  IMHO, moving toward gender balance and inclusion in all dimensions of human life, both secular and religious, is crucial at this point in human history.  It is a "sign of the times." 

                                I know this is a sensitive and controversial topic.  The Vatican is learning that they cannot pontificate about these matters in patriarchal terms.  It is a new frontier for biology, psychology, anthropology, ecology and, of course, theology. 

                                The only sure principle is to support freedom of conscience for people to make decisions, and act accordingly, as long as actions are within the law of the land.



                                Nothing is sure except death. Laws are tribal, and they vary all over the planet. Note the honor killings and gang rapes of victims in some cultures. Religions are a sickness that are the Achilles Heel of homo-superstitious IMHO.

                                Steve

                                Luis

                                On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Luis,


                                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.

                                Steve

                                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.  

                                Luis

                                On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Luis,


                                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?


                                Steve



                                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.

                                Luis

                                On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gai apc] <gaiapc@...> w rote:
                                 

                                On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] 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!:-)

                                Don 



                                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?



                                Luis

                                On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatc hange] <thegreatchange@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                 

                                Luis,


                                You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                                Steve


                                On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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?

                                Luis


                                —————————————
                                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)





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

                              • Luis Gutierrez
                                Steve, it is not just about biophysical protection. There are psychological and social dimensions, as well as ethical dimensions that transcend scientific
                                Message 15 of 20 , 10 Nov, 2017
                                  Steve, it is not just about biophysical protection.  There are psychological and social dimensions, as well as ethical dimensions that transcend scientific verification.  We could go around and around, and never converge.  Let's just agree to disagree, as we have fundamentally different presuppositions and intuitions about this issue.  One way or another, if the human species is to survive, population must stabilize and probably decrease to a sustainable level, that's for sure.

                                  Luis

                                  On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   



                                  On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Steve

                                  It is not about denying oneself enjoyment.  It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation. 

                                  Protected sex is responsible. (vs unprotected) Fewer unwanted children result. Fewer abortions result. 
                                  Adequate nutrition is good.  Too much food is bad. 

                                  Apples and oranges. Sex in the animal world is not subject to mental gymnastics and rationalizations. Indeed most human sex fits that paradigm.

                                  Self-discipline has nothing to do with sexual taboos and other fundamentalist/patriarchal  aberrations. 

                                  Please show references from science that support your claim. It is utter gogmatic hogwash.
                                   
                                  It has to do with healthy sexual relations

                                  Show scientific source for your claim, please. Animals do what nature intended, and the history of supposed celibate priests supports my position that it is abnormal and can lead to perversions, rapes, child molestations, etc.

                                  and the intrinsic value of human bodies.

                                  No different than any other life form!! If you claim otherwise, please give scientific references. Anthropocentrism and the Anthropic Principle are similar.



                                  This issue is not unrelated to "the great change."  IMHO, moving toward gender balance and inclusion in all dimensions of human life, both secular and religious, is crucial at this point in human history.  It is a "sign of the times." 

                                  I know this is a sensitive and controversial topic.  The Vatican is learning that they cannot pontificate about these matters in patriarchal terms.  It is a new frontier for biology, psychology, anthropology, ecology and, of course, theology. 

                                  The only sure principle is to support freedom of conscience for people to make decisions, and act accordingly, as long as actions are within the law of the land.



                                  Nothing is sure except death. Laws are tribal, and they vary all over the planet. Note the honor killings and gang rapes of victims in some cultures. Religions are a sickness that are the Achilles Heel of homo-superstitious IMHO.

                                  Steve

                                  Luis

                                  On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Luis,


                                  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.

                                  Steve

                                  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.  

                                  Luis

                                  On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Luis,


                                  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?


                                  Steve



                                  On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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.

                                  Luis

                                  On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gai apc] <gaiapc@...> w rote:
                                   

                                  On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] 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!:-)

                                  Don 



                                  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?



                                  Luis

                                  On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatc hange] <thegreatchange@yahoogr oups.com> wrote:
                                   

                                  Luis,


                                  You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                                  Steve


                                  On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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?

                                  Luis


                                  —————————————
                                  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)





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


                                • Steve Kurtz
                                  Luis, If there is any non-physical/energetic anything, please provide shareable evidence for it. Steve Sent from my iPhone ... Luis, If there is any
                                  Message 16 of 20 , 10 Nov, 2017

                                    Luis,

                                    If there is any non-physical/energetic anything, please provide shareable evidence for it.

                                    Steve

                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                    On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    Steve, it is not just about biophysical protection.  There are psychological and social dimensions, as well as ethical dimensions that transcend scientific verification.  We could go around and around, and never converge.  Let's just agree to disagree, as we have fundamentally different presuppositions and intuitions about this issue.  One way or another, if the human species is to survive, population must stabilize and probably decrease to a sustainable level, that's for sure.

                                    Luis

                                    On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     



                                    On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    Steve

                                    It is not about denying oneself enjoyment.  It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation. 

                                    Protected sex is responsible. (vs unprotected) Fewer unwanted children result. Fewer abortions result. 
                                    Adequate nutrition is good.  Too much food is bad. 

                                    Apples and oranges. Sex in the animal world is not subject to mental gymnastics and rationalizations. Indeed most human sex fits that paradigm.

                                    Self-discipline has nothing to do with sexual taboos and other fundamentalist/patriarchal  aberrations. 

                                    Please show references from science that support your claim. It is utter gogmatic hogwash.
                                     
                                    It has to do with healthy sexual relations

                                    Show scientific source for your claim, please. Animals do what nature intended, and the history of supposed celibate priests supports my position that it is abnormal and can lead to perversions, rapes, child molestations, etc.

                                    and the intrinsic value of human bodies.

                                    No different than any other life form!! If you claim otherwise, please give scientific references. Anthropocentrism and the Anthropic Principle are similar.



                                    This issue is not unrelated to "the great change."  IMHO, moving toward gender balance and inclusion in all dimensions of human life, both secular and religious, is crucial at this point in human history.  It is a "sign of the times." 

                                    I know this is a sensitive and controversial topic.  The Vatican is learning that they cannot pontificate about these matters in patriarchal terms.  It is a new frontier for biology, psychology, anthropology, ecology and, of course, theology. 

                                    The only sure principle is to support freedom of conscience for people to make decisions, and act accordingly, as long as actions are within the law of the land.



                                    Nothing is sure except death. Laws are tribal, and they vary all over the planet. Note the honor killings and gang rapes of victims in some cultures. Religions are a sickness that are the Achilles Heel of homo-superstitious IMHO.

                                    Steve

                                    Luis

                                    On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Luis,


                                    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.

                                    Steve

                                    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.  

                                    Luis

                                    On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Luis,


                                    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?


                                    Steve



                                    On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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.

                                    Luis

                                    On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gai apc] <gaiapc@...> w rote:
                                     

                                    On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] 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!:-)

                                    Don 



                                    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?



                                    Luis

                                    On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatc hange] <thegreatchange@yahoogr oups.com> wrote:
                                     

                                    Luis,


                                    You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                                    Steve


                                    On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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?

                                    Luis


                                    —————————————
                                    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)





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


                                  • Luis Gutierrez
                                    Steve There is NONE. However, people like me choose to believe that there are spiritual realities. Luis Luis On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Steve Kurtz
                                    Message 17 of 20 , 10 Nov, 2017
                                      Steve

                                      There is NONE.  However, people like me choose to believe that there are spiritual realities.

                                      Luis

                                      Luis

                                      On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       


                                      Luis,

                                      If there is any non-physical/energetic anything, please provide shareable evidence for it.

                                      Steve

                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                      On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Steve, it is not just about biophysical protection.  There are psychological and social dimensions, as well as ethical dimensions that transcend scientific verification.  We could go around and around, and never converge.  Let's just agree to disagree, as we have fundamentally different presuppositions and intuitions about this issue.  One way or another, if the human species is to survive, population must stabilize and probably decrease to a sustainable level, that's for sure.

                                      Luis

                                      On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       



                                      On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Steve

                                      It is not about denying oneself enjoyment.  It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation. 

                                      Protected sex is responsible. (vs unprotected) Fewer unwanted children result. Fewer abortions result. 
                                      Adequate nutrition is good.  Too much food is bad. 

                                      Apples and oranges. Sex in the animal world is not subject to mental gymnastics and rationalizations. Indeed most human sex fits that paradigm.

                                      Self-discipline has nothing to do with sexual taboos and other fundamentalist/patriarchal  aberrations. 

                                      Please show references from science that support your claim. It is utter gogmatic hogwash.
                                       
                                      It has to do with healthy sexual relations

                                      Show scientific source for your claim, please. Animals do what nature intended, and the history of supposed celibate priests supports my position that it is abnormal and can lead to perversions, rapes, child molestations, etc.

                                      and the intrinsic value of human bodies.

                                      No different than any other life form!! If you claim otherwise, please give scientific references. Anthropocentrism and the Anthropic Principle are similar.



                                      This issue is not unrelated to "the great change."  IMHO, moving toward gender balance and inclusion in all dimensions of human life, both secular and religious, is crucial at this point in human history.  It is a "sign of the times." 

                                      I know this is a sensitive and controversial topic.  The Vatican is learning that they cannot pontificate about these matters in patriarchal terms.  It is a new frontier for biology, psychology, anthropology, ecology and, of course, theology. 

                                      The only sure principle is to support freedom of conscience for people to make decisions, and act accordingly, as long as actions are within the law of the land.



                                      Nothing is sure except death. Laws are tribal, and they vary all over the planet. Note the honor killings and gang rapes of victims in some cultures. Religions are a sickness that are the Achilles Heel of homo-superstitious IMHO.

                                      Steve

                                      Luis

                                      On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Luis,


                                      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.

                                      Steve

                                      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.  

                                      Luis

                                      On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Luis,


                                      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?


                                      Steve



                                      On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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.

                                      Luis

                                      On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gai apc] <gaiapc@...> w rote:
                                       

                                      On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] 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!:-)

                                      Don 



                                      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?



                                      Luis

                                      On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatc hange] <thegreatchange@yahoogr oups.com> wrote:
                                       

                                      Luis,


                                      You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                                      Steve


                                      On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <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?

                                      Luis


                                      —————————————
                                      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)





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



                                    • Don Chisholm
                                      Luis, today s Toronto Star had a small article indicating that Pope Francis is moving toward taking divorce off the total taboo list and to enable Catholics to
                                      Message 18 of 20 , 12 Nov, 2017
                                        Luis, today's Toronto Star had a small article indicating that Pope Francis is moving toward taking divorce off the total taboo list and to enable Catholics to re-marry.   But a group of hard core Cardinals are suggesting he is a heretic. 
                                        Anyhow Francis seems to be about the first ray of light on the church's horizon in a long time - but   changing the inertia slow and dangerous work!
                                        Don


                                        On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:
                                         
                                        I know, but posted this because there are so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy.  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? 

                                        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?



                                        Luis

                                        On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                         

                                        Luis,


                                        You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                                        Steve


                                        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/ accademia/en/events/2017/ health/declaration.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?

                                        Luis


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



                                        -- 
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                      • Luis Gutierrez
                                        Agree, he is a sign of hope, and is moving in the right direction, but the resistance to change is very intense. In matters of human ecology, he has already
                                        Message 19 of 20 , 12 Nov, 2017
                                          Agree, he is a sign of hope, and is moving in the right direction, but the resistance to change is very intense.  In matters of human ecology, he has already made a significant contribution with his encyclical Laudato Si', but still evades the overpopulation issue.

                                          In matters of human sexuality, however, he is still anchored in the patriarchal tradition, and the issue is whether or not Christianity is intrinsically patriarchal.  As long as this issue is not resolved, including the ordination of women, the reform will proceed at a glacial pace.

                                          There is a connection between human ecology and human sexuality.  The Gordian knot is how to reconcile social/demographic/ecological realities with the traditional Catholic understanding of the nuptial covenant in the sacrament of marriage.

                                          Luis

                                          On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Luis, today's Toronto Star had a small article indicating that Pope Francis is moving toward taking divorce off the total taboo list and to enable Catholics to re-marry.   But a group of hard core Cardinals are suggesting he is a heretic. 
                                          Anyhow Francis seems to be about the first ray of light on the church's horizon in a long time - but   changing the inertia slow and dangerous work!
                                          Don


                                          On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:
                                           
                                          I know, but posted this because there are so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy.  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? 

                                          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?



                                          Luis

                                          On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatchange] <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com> wrote:
                                           

                                          Luis,


                                          You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

                                          Steve


                                          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/ declaration.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?

                                          Luis


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



                                          -- 
                                          
                                          
                                          


                                        • Richard Balfour
                                          Immigration? Name one place that needs more people. Problem areas for the most part are due to overshoot, overpopulation, but labeled shortages of water, food,
                                          Message 20 of 20 , 13 Nov, 2017
                                            Immigration? 
                                            Name one place that needs more people.
                                            Problem areas for the most part are due to overshoot, overpopulation, but labeled shortages of water, food, oil, etc.
                                            Mass migration with current numbers on the planet means the trampling of the Edens these people flee to, starting with destabilization of the host country just from culture shock when it happens so fast, note the peaceful kingdoms of Northern Europe, ......
                                            Not to be heartless, just fix problems where they start. Of course many of those are not totally of their own making when they are pawns of bigger countries swiping their resources, starting with the MIddle East.
                                            I know this  is hypocrisy, says he living on an island, built in moat.
                                            That is why one moves to such places and notes the impact you as a refugee have on the placid place you move to,  finding young people even in the hinterland cannot afford to have a place of their own anymore as those with more resources push them out.
                                            All a factor of too many people; Hong Kong repatriation made Vancouver unaffordable for the kids who grew up there, in fact even adults have to move as the growth and gold plating of the city means you have to move. And then the dominos fall.
                                            Homelessness is a global norm now.  No title to land. No access to the commons. Agenda 21 of the UN says that is the plan.  A factor of too many people. Then before Davos, the off agenda discussion is how to cut population radically, then at Davos, the hand wringing.
                                            There is no solution here, that is the problem. But as others below say, accepting others mistakes does not make them change their ways.
                                            A sterility virus would be the most gentle solution, methinks as few are lining up for the surgeon.
                                            r

                                            On 2017-11-10, at 8:16 PM, Fred Kaluza fredkaluza@... [thegreatchange] wrote:

                                             

                                            Populate and perish.  I love it.  Keeping borders closed will serve as a disincentive.  Being continually accepting of everyone's mistakes is only leaving them with a way out.  It's the same nonsense that's happening right now.  If you build a bridge across a river but place a sign that says "do not use", you know that some will try it.



                                            On November 10, 2017, at 20:03, "Graeme Robin gmfrobin@... [thegreatchange]" <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                             

                                            It's not brain surgery Helmut!

                                            • Start paying people for NOT having children instead of rewarding child rearing.
                                            • Create the notion of "Populate AND Perish" rather than "Populate OR Perish".
                                            • Remove funding (and encouragement) to Science and medicine where it is aimed at prolonging life. Birth rates are already reducing but it is the longevity that is killing us. Get back to the 3 score years and 10.
                                            • Close country borders to immigration so that the heavy breeding countries are no longer able to export their excess. Sounds harsh but it will happen one day, so bring it on. The sooner the better.
                                            • Wealthy western countries assist in any way possible (other than by immigration)
                                            And there are a heap of better brains around the world that are better than mine. We could easily double or treble this list.

                                            WHO?
                                            I believe the only way - the only way - is to have a group of the world's most influential activists get together, plan and execute a program of persuasion. It would center on only the one message:
                                            THE WORLD IS FINITE AND POPULATION INCREASE MUST STOP.
                                            This message is confronting, undeniable, inarguable, compelling and above all, simple. It must stand alone and never be mixed in with environmental matters etc all of which are to some degree arguable and deniable. The type of person I foresee as being part of this forum would be David Attenborough (a most trusted world voice), Pope Francis (a vital cog in the population wheel) and others from all geographic areas BUT limited to a small number of people in the public eye and with access to the public forum.

                                            GROUNDSWELL?
                                            • Where were you Helmut when Britons voted against the advice of all the vested interests in their country and went Brexit! Who is brave enough to say that it was not a groundswell of feeling against population pressures in Britain.
                                            • Who is brave enough to deny that D.Trump was elected on the back of dissatisfaction with the status-quo.
                                            POPULATION DECLINE?
                                            All countries are dedicated to that word 'Growth" - and indeed perpetual growth. No one wants recession.
                                            But surely it is obvious that perpetual growth is not sustainable in a finite world!
                                            It's time for economists to strike a blow! Time for them to earn their keep.

                                            JACK.
                                            I can't argue with Jack even to the point that we will be eating each other sometime in the future. It looks pretty sure that he will be right. BUT. Surely it behoves us to at least have a go at making a change. ZPG would not be enough but by hell it would be a start!

                                            SWITZERLAND.
                                            Am I right in thinking that your birth rate is 1.54 per woman as compared with the world average of 2.6. And that your population growth rate is 0.78% - world average 1.15% (maybe these figures are a little out of date). I guess that the Swiss would be "givers" to the big breeders when we get around to closing the borders.

                                            Helmut, I am with Jack when he says we should stop gazing at our navel and get moving - or words to that effect......Graeme Robin





                                            Graeme,

                                            If you see "many many solutions", would you describe some?

                                            Who will "broadcast the awareness", if the owners of the media are deaf to the problem, and benefit from cheap (immigrant) labour?

                                            In Europe I see no "groundswell of unease in the community" about world population growth.

                                            I can't imagine how we, in the overdeveloped part of the world, could achieve population reduction in other, independent countries. Most European countries are afraid of their own population decline trends.

                                            In past posts Jack has presented caculations about the population size effects of one child per family, i.e. the number of years it would take to have a noticeable effect.

                                            In Switzerland, heavily overpopulated (local resources:population) all parties were against the 2015 immigration restriction intiative, "left, center, or right wing".

                                            HL ecoglobe.ch/requiem

                                            Le 10 nov. 2017 02:58, "Graeme Robin gmfrobin@... [thegreatchange]" <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com> a écrit :


                                            SPOT-ON JACK!

                                            There are many, many solutions to the population growth disaster heading our grandchildren's way but no one will seek the solutions until there is an awareness that we have a problem.

                                            So it is the awareness that has to be broadcast. The awareness that we cannot continue to add 9.000 people every hour onto our finite planet. It MUST and WILL stop sometime. Absolutely no doubt!

                                            If politics fail the military will be left to do the job.

                                            You know it would only take one major political party in any of our countries to add world population reduction to their party platform for the ball to start rolling. There is a groundswell of unease in the community and this unease can easily be converted into votes. That party, be it left, center, or right wing will garner these votes and achieve a mandate.

                                            But it would take a statesman to do it - and statesmen seem to be an endangered species these days...............Graeme Robin



                                            Richard Balfour  
                                            Strategic Planner
                                            • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                                            7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                                            Balfour Strategic Planning
                                            www.plancanada.com

                                            • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                                            balfourarch@...











                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.