Which is the evil position? ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO DISCUSS IT?
1) Individuals being left to decide (whatever they choose) on a) having children, and b) as many as they may conceive, even if it appears (logically, from reason alone) that that would ultimately lead to an overcrowded, substance depleted, waste expanding, unlivable planet.
2) Managers must be permitted the power to govern all those individuals so as to manage the number of people inhabiting the planet; to keep the number within some consensus arrived at and agreed upon limits. These managers get to decide who gets to reproduce, and in what numbers, and to assess whether or not the progeny has attributes that are useful and thus may be permitted to continue to exist. These managers agree that they are not all knowing and all seeing and cannot possibly be held accountable if they made mistakes. But because they mean well, and the consequences of the old order's laissez faire attitude was leading to gigantic, unsustainable, overpopulation, it's better that they have been empowered to prevent the Malthusian eventuality. Whatever problems associated with the mistakes in planning are small in comparison to that eventuality. And besides, we've bought mankind the time needed to solve the problems created by centralized planning.
I have a number of observations about each position. Regular readers have read them coming from differing directions so many times it must be coming out of their ears. I need to hear others speak of this battle, and I really don't get too upset with people who take a differing position from mine. It simply seems to me to be dangerous never to speak of it -- because you can never be too sure how far the people in position number 2 will take it.
I've thought long about the consequences and of what appears to be good people on both sides. But the two camps are diametrically opposed. And so few people openly talk about them. For the most part, people who are in sync with the first position do not see how the people behind the second position could view them as evil. Social conservatives, for instance, are evil in the eyes of progressives.
In the words implied by one commenter, Wake Up, over at Crusader Rabbit -- yes, please do.
(And here is part 2 of this series.)
View My Stats
On the face of it, the second position would seem to be the "enlightened" way to go. After all. it is ostensibly to be done "for the good of all". And at some point in time, it may have to be addressed in just that fashion.
ReplyDeleteIf this was a one time measure, one taken with extreem reluctance, on both the part of the public at large (assuming they had some sort of voice/vote in the matter) and the reigning "management", perhaps it would be even more excusable.
BUT
This is the same mindset which has sought to gain control, and power, over the people, in order to meet their goals/agenda(s). Particularly over the last century, they have been progressing forward. Used to be closer to "2 steps forward, 1 step back". Within the last 20-30 years there have been no "steps back" to speak of, and within the last 5-10 years, it has been a full scale sprint.
For any number of reasons, people have been willing to sacrifice some part of their liberty, rights, freedom, to "management". There is never a good reason to do so. And there is every reason to believe, even if there was a clause stating ones specific right, freedom, or liberty would be returned, in full, after the crisis or event which was claimed to be the reason for the above being repealed, had ended. Save for the "return" of Habits Corpus" I can think of no other time.
"The Lord Giveth, and the Government taketh away!" (IF you let them!!)
As to "part 1"; It used to be you were expected to sire as many children as you could. (one assumed you did so "responsibly", in that you would have at least the minimum means of providing some sort of food, clothing, and shelter), but even escaping those perimeters, you had kids because there was a very good chance, not all of them would survive to adulthood. It was also assumed the individual was responsible for those he brought into the world.
After all, there were poor... extremely poor by any standard, not even close to what is considered poor in this country, during the time of Christ. It should be noted, he never said, "YOU PEOPEE!![/Rush] You have got to stop having so many kids!!! Do you not understand what you are doing to the local ecological balance. Do you not see what kind of a strain you are putting on the local government? Have you no compassion toward the children you are bringing into the world such as it is today?
There will aways be poor. There will always be those who are (far) less well off than you are. It is not up to the government to "force the rest of us" to be charitable to those unfortunates in such predicaments. IF we feel the need to be honestly compassionate, there are charities, and other avenues in which we can provide (as we are able) for these people.
And as far as the line about we are going to reach a point (usually in the next 5-25 years) where there will be no longer any way to be able to feed all the peoples of the world. Or enough land on which to house them, or enough resources to provide shelter/heating-cooling/basic necessities for all.
Remember the book "The Population Bomb"? According to that tome, we should all be bits and pieces of either Soylant Green, or out an out extinct as a species by at least a decade or two back. The earth, and the human race are perhaps a bit more resilient and resourceful, than the ivory tower crowd gives us credit for.
Thanks for the free wheeling thoughts Guy. Before Erhlich (who Obama's John Holdren is still enthralled with) there was Malthus himself who made a similar mistaken prediction. At least Malthus had the grace to admit he was wrong. The "progressive" Erhlich, as is typical of the rest of them, never retracts, never admits error. They "mean well" is all you hear. At some point common sense says to you that maybe it's best not to think of it as mistaken, but as driven by an evil that most people are afraid to face. Thank you very much for showing those timid souls how to begin to do it.
ReplyDeleteI'm a dinosaur. The arguments for and against position 2 are utterly irrelevant to me, because I believe firmly-nay, passionately, that what I do is none of the government's (or their bureaucrats) damned business. If we, the people decide we don't give a rat's ass and want to overpopulate the place, that's our choice. Either the people are sovereign or they're not. There's no middle way because the "middle way" always leads to tyranny.
ReplyDeleteAlways.
KG, If I gave the impression, I was for "the middle way", I apologize. You are quite correct in stating
ReplyDelete"what I do is none of the government's (or their bureaucrats) damned business..."
The minute we give in to the "Mrs. Gurndys of the world (or those agents of the state who are acting for her), is when we take one step closer to a totalitarian state. And we are very close to achieving that right here and now.
"We are sovereign as long as we allow ourselves to be...is not really true. We are always sovereign...it is the formal acknowledgement of that state, and official observance of same, from whatever government is in power that is the real issue.