Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

3,156 profile views

Analytics's Achievements


Veteran (13/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Free education for all children is also Marxist thinking. Abolition of children from factory labor is also Marxist thinking.
  2. That is besides the point. If you believe "right" and "wrong", are real, objective things, then it is theoretically possible for a parent to raise their kids the wrong way. So which right is stronger? The right of a parent to raise their kids any darn way they want to, or the right of children to be raised the right way?
  3. If a parent is teaching their children to be intolerant and unfair, should the broader community try to subvert the parent in those teachings?
  4. So have I. Other references include: "Gov. Gary Herbert evoked the Beehive State’s pioneer history Wednesday, saying Utah continues to “blossom like a rose” by luring new residents with good jobs, good schools and a good quality of life." (Gov. Gary Herbert’s final budget asks for investment in education and green transportation (sltrib.com)) "Visitors [of the St. George Temple] will also notice lush landscaping. “This idea that St. George will blossom like a rose is a very important part of this community,” Emily Utt, historic sites curator for the Church History Department, said in the release. “This town is very proud of its landscape, of its trees, of its plantings.” (This week in Mormon Land: Giving Machines give way to COVID; update on new hymnbooks; an Oz-like message to Trump (sltrib.com) "This is a desert, people. Yes, the early Mormon pioneers made it "blossom like the rose," but that was back when there was enough water to go around. Several million people later, we're lucky to make the desert blossom like crabgrass." (Kirby: The grass is always greener on my neighbor's side of the fence - The Salt Lake Tribune (sltrib.com)"
  5. As a reality check, we aren't in a downward spiral, much less an unending one. The worldwide population is now 7.8 billion. Our best forecasts say it will continue growing for at least another 40 years. In case you didn't read the NYT article to the end, it says: And if the goal is revival, a few green shoots can be found. After expanding access to affordable child care and paid parental leave, Germany’s fertility rate recently increased to 1.54, up from 1.3 in 2006. Leipzig, which once was shrinking, is now growing again after reducing its housing stock and making itself more attractive with its smaller scale. “Growth is a challenge, as is decline,” said Mr. Swiaczny, who is now a senior research fellow at the Federal Institute for Population Research in Germany. Demographers warn against seeing population decline as simply a cause for alarm. Many women are having fewer children because that’s what they want. Smaller populations could lead to higher wages, more equal societies, lower carbon emissions and a higher quality of life for the smaller numbers of children who are born. Extinction? You do understand that the global population is still growing, right? If the current demographical trends in Japan were to remain constant, it will take 350 years to get down to a million people. If there were a million people in Japan, would that be the end of Japanese culture? Maybe, but such a world might also be a renaissance in Japanese culture. For example, it might give the oceans a chance to regenerate their fish populations, and the people would be able to eat as much fresh sushi out of clean oceans as they want. In such a scenario, there is every reason to believe that housing in Tokyo would be affordable and there would be a huge demand for labor. Working-aged people would earn a good living and be able to afford to have children. Further, they would have every reason to believe that their children would have bright futures, too. Seriously. If the world was clean, housing was affordable, jobs were plentiful, and the future for children was bright, why wouldn't the fertility rate increase? I presume you didn't add Hitler to the list because you are trying to avoid being called out on Godwin's law? Since you brought up Marx after I quoted him as agreeing with you about Malthusianism, I wonder what you are alluding to here? If Marx was here, he'd likely say that it's obvious why people are choosing not to have kids--it's because people can't afford to have them. That is not because we live in a poor society. Rather, the billionaires who control the media and politicians have structured society so that the people who have most of the wealth pay almost nothing in taxes, while the working class has dismal job opportunities and is drowning in debt. If we were to spread the wealth around so that the people who are actually producing society's goods and services got their fair share of the pie, then they'd be able to better afford kids. That's what I think Marx would say, at least. What do you think the Malthusian aspects of the policies formulated by Marx are?
  6. That is your definition of a culture that is "extinguishing itself"? If somebody's net worth was projected to decrease from 125 million dollars to 59 million dollars over the course of a lifetime, would you say he is going bankrupt? Whatever happens, these countries will not become "extinguished." On the surface, it's an interesting model. But in the brave new world of supercomputers, robots, and self-driving cars, it's hard to imagine that a population shrinking towards a sustainable level would lead to a lower per-capita GDP. And even if it did, that doesn't mean that this post-growth world would be worse than a population that continued growing exponentially on a quest to, to what? Nope. Wanting a prosperous human society that lives in harmony with the ecosystem is not misanthropic. Neutering and spaying cats is what societies do that love cats. Voluntarily limiting growth is what societies do that love people. Because whether we like it or not growth will be limited, and letting other things limit it will be worse. To put your belief that humankind is now "extinguishing" itself into perspective, consider the following:
  7. Fair point. Most people who are choosing fewer kids aren't doing so out of a concern of humanity, although some are. From one perspective, the current fertility bust can be seen as a "Malthusian crisis." The fact that it is driven by people freely choosing to have fewer children rather than by starvation, pestilence or war is a best-case scenario.
  8. Thanks for the clarification. A society or culture going through a period of low fertility rates is not the same thing as it "extinguishing" itself. Have you been to Tokyo or Seoul lately? The cover story in the New York Times yesterday is evidence that people are choosing to have much smaller families. Claiming Malthusian theory is inherently misanthropic is like saying that the reason people neuter and spay their cats is because they hate cats. Broadly, Malthusian theory simply states what you and I apparently agree on--that we have to live in harmony with the ecosystem and that depleting resources to support growth that is out of harmony will eventually lead to a day of reckoning. But by disagreeing with this you are in good company. According to Wikipedia:
  9. I wasn't predicting that exponential population growth would happen. I was saying that exponential population growth can NOT happen. Yes, and I consider that a good thing. In contrast, the Mormon values as depicted in Saturday's Warrior depict this as a bad thing: the heavens are filled with spirit babies waiting to come to earth, and we are all under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, which is interpreted as having as many kids as you can. In the words of Dallin H. Oaks, "“How many children should a couple have? All they can care for!" (See here) Or in the words of David O. McKay, "We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by." If everyone followed that advice, it would eventually result in calamity. Of course nobody is arguing that it is happening. I'm arguing that it can't happen--not indefinitely. However, the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth implies exponential growth that would only be checked by disease, starvation, or war. People acting "contrary to the teachings of the Church [per David O. McKay]" and artificially curtailing the birth of children is preventing death by disease, starvation, and war. That is a great thing. None of those things would enable us to grow the population exponentially forever. Were they fundamentally wrong, or was disaster avoided because people are heeding their warnings? That doesn't mean the earth's carrying capacity is infinite. The D&C states lots of things. That doesn't mean the population can grow exponentially forever. Of course. That is precisely why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending billions trying to eradicate Africa's extreme poverty. Some religious people, including many in Africa, disagree that getting population growth to slow down is a good thing. My point is simple: slowing growth down is a good thing. As yesterday's New York Times article points out, slowing population growth has its own pain. I'm not denying that. I'm just emphasizing that not slowing down growth would be infinitely worse.
  10. In the long run we can't fix any of those things with a population that is growing exponentially. Understanding this mathematical reality shouldn't be confused with misanthropy.
  11. Exactly. Until recently, an essential part of America's economic growth was the ability to exploit what had seemed like an unlimited supply of land, coal, minerals, and oil. It turns out that those things really aren't unlimited, and that exploiting them has externalities in the form of pollution, carbon emissions, soil erosion, etc. Now that the low-hanging fruit is gone, it is a different economic reality. While technology has produced new sources of wealth, it has also led to a world where that wealth is concentrated in very few hands. Through technology, we've been able to multiply our ability to produce food, but the food we mass produce isn't particularly conductive of health. Driven by the laws of mathematics, the population of any species will be controlled. There never has been nor ever will be an exception to this. Historically the forces that have controlled human population were disease, starvation, and war. We are now conquering those things, and instead are controlling the population through people choosing to have fewer kids. What could be more wonderful?
  12. It would seem that when Dehlin found God, decided to end the affair, and endeavored to save his marriage, he had the following options: Fire Rosebud Quit OSF Try to keep working with Rosebud professionally Option #2 would have resulted in the dissolvement of OSF, with Rosebud losing her job anyway. In all likelihood, option #3 would have resulted in the ending both of their marriages. So which option would have been best? Since Rosebud voluntarily entered into the affair to begin with, it is hard for me to label her the victim.
  13. (emphasis added) Joseph Smith "married" dozens of women, and denied it to the public, the membership of the church, and usually to his wife. He manipulated girls into "marrying" him saying it was her choice whether she "married" him, but that if she did so, it would guarantee her family's salvation and would prevent an angel with a flaming sword from killing him. But its her free will. No pressure.
  14. On the second point, Pope Francis is on record as stating: Francis interview: Excerpts on ecumenism, terrorism and gossip | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org) I think he is fundamentally right about that--I don't think you can congruously say non-Mormon Christians are your brothers in Christ and preach to them that in order to get right with God, they need to abandon their version of Christianity, get baptized in Mormonism, and do the Mormon version of Christianity. People find it offensive to be proselytized to. What Elder Jackson is referring to as a "medical mission" is not clear to me from this article. Are most LDS medical missionaries simply doctors around the world serving the medical needs of full-time Mormon missionaries? Or are they going to remotes villages in Uganda to provide life-altering services that the people there would not otherwise receive? Those are two different things.
  15. What’s the difference between a motion to dismiss and an answer where the defendant “prays that Mr. Huntsman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice?”
  • Create New...