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

Re: Digest Number 814

Expand Messages
  • Les U. Knight
    We already have population control: hundreds of millions of couples are denied their freedom to not create more offspring when they don t want to. 75 to 80
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      We already have population control: hundreds of millions of couples
      are denied their freedom to not create more offspring when they don't
      want to. 75 to 80 million unwanted pregnancies afflict women each
      year. I think this is far worse than China's coercive one-child
      policy because it results in so much suffering by children born into
      families which aren't able to provide basic needs. Coerced
      conceptions and mandatory motherhood do great harm to people and to
      societies as a whole.

      We need less enforced population control and more reproductive
      freedom to reduce birth rates. That alone wouldn't begin to improve
      our population density, but it's an important first step. It doesn't
      make sense to advocate involuntary means when voluntary means are
      still being denied.

      Most governments are encouraging breeding, some paying outrageous
      bounties and subsidizing parents in their irresponsible breeding
      hobby. Again, to advocate involuntary means while encouraging other
      couples to breed makes no sense.

      Encouraging and rewarding couples who choose to stop breeding would
      be another voluntary method which could improve birth rates. Although
      there are too few examples, wherever voluntary campaigns to reduce
      the number of offspring couples create have been tried, they have
      been successful.

      Involuntary methods could become necessary if voluntary methods
      continue to be denied.

      Les
    • Les U. Knight
      This goes along with my last posting about reproductive freedom. Les Basu: Not playing at a theater near you REKHA BASU REGISTER COLUMNIST April 23, 2006
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        This goes along with my last posting about reproductive freedom. Les

        Basu: Not playing at a theater near you
        REKHA BASU
        REGISTER COLUMNIST

        April 23, 2006

        Something very strange is happening nearly 90 years after Margaret
        Sanger began her crusade for public acceptance of birth control. It's
        being forced underground again.

        The latest example comes from Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa,
        which says two movie-theater chains have refused to air ads promoting
        a free, government-sponsored pregnancy-prevention program because
        they contain the words "birth control."

        "They said their audience would be offended," said Planned Parenthood
        President Jill June.

        Full story:
        http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060423/OPINION01/60422008
      • Aldo Carpanelli
        ... Voluntary methods have been ineffective for so long that the time when involuntary methods could be necessary is here and now. Indeed, I think those
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@...> wrote:
          >
          > Involuntary methods could become necessary if voluntary methods
          > continue to be denied.

          Voluntary methods have been ineffective for so long that the time when "involuntary
          methods could be necessary" is here and now. Indeed, I think those methods ARE
          necessary. We should stop focusing on the future. We should stop using the future tense
          in our speech either! We should indeed focus on past and present time, watch what we
          (indeed, THEY -- we are childfree people) have ALREADY done, and act consistently.
          Population reduction is needed since long ago (**at least** a couple of centuries; much
          more, according to me). We humans have had 200+ years since Malthus to promote and
          implement voluntary methods. We simply didn't. Our experiment, extended for such an
          amount of time, is more than sufficient to say that "voluntary methods are not a viable
          solution". We should stop dreaming.

          Of course, I have not the strength needed to enforce anything, but I find it annoying to be
          assaulted for my mere desires and hopes.

          Les, I state again what I already stated some time ago on the VHEMT discussion board: I
          think that the "V" in VHEMT should be referred to Voluntary human **extinction**. I'm not
          talking of enforcing human extinction (I wouldn't dare, nor I desire to). I'm talking of
          enforcing a reduction of human population numbers as fast as possible, provided that we
          avoid useless violence on those who are already alive.

          I know that someone here will raise his/her hand and say that preventing one from
          breeding is a form of violence. Well, I can say that I am inflicted many "forms of violence"
          in my daily life, mainly due to an overcrowding I'm not responsible for. Why should the
          right of those who desire(d) to breed more and more override my right to live in a less
          overcrowded environment? I'm trampled on by the crowd on a daily basis (I'm part of that
          crowd, I know -- blame my parents! I didn't ask to be born), but I can't even say that there
          are people trampling me and that they shouldn't do it! This really piss me off!!!

          I was forgetting to say that Hal Friedman forgot to attack my idea that we should enforce
          migration control too.

          I regret that I'm writing in a foreign language and that my ability to express the concepts I
          have in my mind is not as good as needed. It will be easy for many to defeat me due to
          such a linguistic handicap. Could I write in Italian, I would be much more effective.

          Oh, of course this is a reply to all the other posts I just read, too.

          Enjoy
          Aldo
          (from that nasty overcrowded, overpolluted mess called Northern Italy, each day a more
          and more overcrowded and overpolluted due to the sum of economic growth and
          migrations from abroad)
        • Aldo Carpanelli
          Of course, Les, it s not you who is assaulting me. You were just disagreeing with part of what I stated, which is ok. My complain was addressed to those who
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Of course, Les, it's not you who is "assaulting" me. You were just disagreeing with part of
            what I stated, which is ok. My complain was addressed to those who raise their tone as soon
            as one talks of "population control" and/or of "migration control". I'm entering in a nasty sort
            of a "defensive mode" that resembles the feeling of Sanso in his last day of life.

            Bye again
            Aldo
            (frome that etc. etc.)
          • Les U. Knight
            If no one who has ever co-created a new human is allowed to promote not breeding, then many who are VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters will be silenced. People
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              If no one who has ever co-created a new human is allowed to promote
              not breeding, then many who are VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters will
              be silenced. People who know what it means to be a parent might be in
              better positions to advise against others doing the same.

              I used to hunt animals and now I'm opposed to sport hunting. I can't
              bring those animals back to life and those who have bred can't use
              retro-active birth control. We can learn from our mistakes, stop
              doing what we now know is wrong, and help others become more aware.

              It's like there's a catch-22: you can't advise people not to breed if
              you've done it yourself, and if you haven't done it yourself then you
              don't know what breeding is all about and can't advise anyone on it.

              It does seem like even the best spokespeople pander to human-centered
              attitudes by adding, ". . . for our children's and their children's
              sake." But then, the vast majority IS human-centered. Sometimes I use
              cars in analogies to explain what we're doing, because it's a way
              people in over-industrialized regions might understand. I'm sure not
              promoting cars.

              If I remember correctly, Attenborough was criticized for saying the
              UK should reduce its population by half. He also said, "Maybe it is
              time that instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of
              the population, we should control the population to ensure the
              survival of the environment."

              Les

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Miller
              ... Then that changes my opinion completely about the guy. Thanks for bringing this up. Jim
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Les U. Knight wrote:

                > If I remember correctly, Attenborough was criticized for
                > saying the UK should reduce its population by half. He also
                > said, "Maybe it is time that instead of controlling the
                > environment for the benefit of the population, we should
                > control the population to ensure the survival of the environment."


                Then that changes my opinion completely about the guy. Thanks for bringing this up.

                Jim
              • Hal Friedman
                I didn t attack migration control because every nation has the right under international law as a sovereign state to control who enters its territory. However,
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I didn't attack migration control because every nation has the right under international law as a sovereign state to control who enters its territory. However, no state has the right to expel people without some sort of due process.

                  The key is human rights. No state has the right to compel reproduction and those that do are in violation of a number of international treaties. Practically speaking, this doesn't make much difference to the many who live under tyrannies but it is important to maintain high standards of government behavior, even if, for now, they're only theoretical ideals. By the same measure, no state has the right to compel sterilization or any other coercive means of birth control. No one will benefit if human rights are ignored. If they are, there is almost no chance that the needs of other species will ever be considered. It is thus essential that the "V" part of VHEMT not be disregarded.

                  I've heard about the American Christian Right's new attempt to link anti-contraception to their long-standing opposition to abortion of which the incident of the movie theatre in Des Moines is an example. It's all part of a religious fanaticism that wants to repeal the Enlightenment, or, in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, prevent the spread of the Enlightenment and is a grave threat to reason, science, and human rights. When I heard of this, I did doubt my oft-repeated objection to VHEMT on the basis of superior human intelligence. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon those who do claim to be socially conscious to base their efforts to change things on an appeal to reason and not emotion and threats of compulsion.

                  From Hal who says that the world doesn't need another movement pushing for the erosion of human rights.

                  ________________________________

                  From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Aldo Carpanelli
                  Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 11:38 AM
                  To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Why VHEMT? Re: Digest Number 814



                  --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Involuntary methods could become necessary if voluntary methods
                  > continue to be denied.

                  Voluntary methods have been ineffective for so long that the time when "involuntary
                  methods could be necessary" is here and now. Indeed, I think those methods ARE
                  necessary. We should stop focusing on the future. We should stop using the future tense
                  in our speech either! We should indeed focus on past and present time, watch what we
                  (indeed, THEY -- we are childfree people) have ALREADY done, and act consistently.
                  Population reduction is needed since long ago (**at least** a couple of centuries; much
                  more, according to me). We humans have had 200+ years since Malthus to promote and
                  implement voluntary methods. We simply didn't. Our experiment, extended for such an
                  amount of time, is more than sufficient to say that "voluntary methods are not a viable
                  solution". We should stop dreaming.

                  Of course, I have not the strength needed to enforce anything, but I find it annoying to be
                  assaulted for my mere desires and hopes.

                  Les, I state again what I already stated some time ago on the VHEMT discussion board: I
                  think that the "V" in VHEMT should be referred to Voluntary human **extinction**. I'm not
                  talking of enforcing human extinction (I wouldn't dare, nor I desire to). I'm talking of
                  enforcing a reduction of human population numbers as fast as possible, provided that we
                  avoid useless violence on those who are already alive.

                  I know that someone here will raise his/her hand and say that preventing one from
                  breeding is a form of violence. Well, I can say that I am inflicted many "forms of violence"
                  in my daily life, mainly due to an overcrowding I'm not responsible for. Why should the
                  right of those who desire(d) to breed more and more override my right to live in a less
                  overcrowded environment? I'm trampled on by the crowd on a daily basis (I'm part of that
                  crowd, I know -- blame my parents! I didn't ask to be born), but I can't even say that there
                  are people trampling me and that they shouldn't do it! This really piss me off!!!

                  I was forgetting to say that Hal Friedman forgot to attack my idea that we should enforce
                  migration control too.

                  I regret that I'm writing in a foreign language and that my ability to express the concepts I
                  have in my mind is not as good as needed. It will be easy for many to defeat me due to
                  such a linguistic handicap. Could I write in Italian, I would be much more effective.

                  Oh, of course this is a reply to all the other posts I just read, too.

                  Enjoy
                  Aldo
                  (from that nasty overcrowded, overpolluted mess called Northern Italy, each day a more
                  and more overcrowded and overpolluted due to the sum of economic growth and
                  migrations from abroad)






                  VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction
                  Yahoo! Groups Links











                  ______________________________________________________________________
                  This e-mail transmission contains confidential information that is the property of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any retention, disclosure, reproduction or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission, or the taking of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto, is strictly prohibited. No warranty is given by NYSIF that this e-mail is free of viruses, interception or interference. NYSIF disclaims liability for any unauthorized opinion, representation, statement, offer or contract made by the sender on behalf of NYSIF. NYSIF's delegation of authorities, setting out who may make representations or contract on behalf of NYSIF, is available by contacting NYSIF at mailadm@.... Jurisdiction for all actions arising out of dealings with NYSIF shall lie only in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York.
                • motorbikefeddayeen
                  ... This makes no sense at all. If you haven t jumped off a bridge, you re in no position to advise someone not to do it. Actually, I tend to be very skeptical
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > It's like there's a catch-22: you can't advise people not to breed if
                    > you've done it yourself, and if you haven't done it yourself then you
                    > don't know what breeding is all about and can't advise anyone on it.

                    This makes no sense at all. If you haven't jumped off a bridge, you're
                    in no position to advise someone not to do it. Actually, I tend to be
                    very skeptical of parents and generally don't trust people who pop em
                    out all the time. Almost any elementary or middle school teacher will
                    tell you that parents are often irrational creatures. Maybe I'd
                    trust a parent who had one child and formed a strong and convinced
                    verdict that it was definitely a bad idea, and vowed never to have a
                    child again again. I wouldn't really trust one with multiple children
                    (unless twins) because that would probably mean they knew it might be
                    wrong, yet they wrecklessly did it again.
                  • robbie crabtree
                    I had my first child when I was 18 and stupid. I vowed never to have another, although I loved and took care of my daughter to the best of my ability.
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I had my first child when I was 18 and stupid. I vowed never to have
                      another, although I loved and took care of my daughter to the best of my
                      ability. 8years later, my wife wanted another and I did not. She took a
                      needle to the condoms without telling me and conceived my son. She refused
                      to get an abortion. I went that week and got a vasectomy and a divorce. My
                      daughter is now an adult, and I take good care of my son, but try to teach
                      both of them the errors of my life and that breeding is wrong.

                      Yes, I wish I had gotten a vasectomy when I was born instead of a
                      circumcision... it would have made much more sense... but we must all live
                      with our mistakes, and try not to repeat them.

                      Would you not trust an alcoholic who has been in AA and clean for 10 years
                      when they tell you the evils of alcoholism? who knows better than them?
                      (except maybe the survivors of their abuse, like myself)

                      Would you not trust a veteran of war who preaches the ugliness and
                      inhumanity of war? Who would know more about it than he? (I am this)

                      We must all live with our mistakes and our pasts... but we don't have to
                      continue down the destructive roads we once walked.

                      -robbie


                      On 6/2/06, motorbikefeddayeen <bl@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > This makes no sense at all. If you haven't jumped off a bridge, you're
                      > in no position to advise someone not to do it. Actually, I tend to be
                      > very skeptical of parents and generally don't trust people who pop em
                      > out all the time. Almost any elementary or middle school teacher will
                      > tell you that parents are often irrational creatures. Maybe I'd
                      > trust a parent who had one child and formed a strong and convinced
                      > verdict that it was definitely a bad idea, and vowed never to have a
                      > child again again. I wouldn't really trust one with multiple children
                      > (unless twins) because that would probably mean they knew it might be
                      > wrong, yet they wrecklessly did it again.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jim Miller
                      ... I don t agree that state-mandated population abatement, in the form of sterilization, interferes with human rights as the other examples you cite do, and I
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hal Friedman wrote:

                        > However, no state has the
                        > right to expel people without some sort of due process....

                        > The key is human rights. No state has the right to compel
                        > reproduction and those that do are in violation of a number
                        > of international treaties....

                        > By the same measure, no state has the right to compel
                        > sterilization or any other coercive means of birth control.
                        > No one will benefit if human rights are ignored. If they are,
                        > there is almost no chance that the needs of other species
                        > will ever be considered.



                        I don't agree that state-mandated population abatement, in the form of sterilization, interferes with human rights as the other
                        examples you cite do, and I think lumping them all together without examination muddies the issue. Enforced sterilization is not
                        torture, imprisonment, relocation, segregation, or discrimination. On the surface, it may sound Bad because it involves an
                        alteration to one's body, and what's more sacrosanct than that? But in many countries, for example, the public is already required
                        to undergo injection of drugs into their bodies, in the form of immunizations, for the greater good. Circumcision, though
                        increasingly controversial, has been accepted by large parts of the public for many years in some countries. We can't do just
                        whatever action we want with our bodies, even if we want to view it as "natural".

                        Expulsion forces economic hardship on people and breaks their connections with loved ones and community. It imposes pain and
                        difficulty in many and objectively measurable ways.

                        Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term has obvious health and financial effects. It means forcing a woman to endure subjective
                        and objectively measurable physical pain, through pregnancy and childbirth. It means forcing her to financially and emotionally
                        care for a child she does not want, for many years. And if the woman refuses, she suffers legal and cultural consequences, and
                        society and taxpayers pay the price for the child being brought into the world.

                        But sterilization? It's a minor, short procedure, with minimal pain and with high, proven effectiveness and safety. Compared to
                        child raising, it's very cheap, and could surely be funded by the state easily with the funds otherwise spent on just foster care (I
                        learned on a news program on TV this week that foster care can cost the state $40,000 annually per child). Psychologically, it
                        deprives a person or a couple from expressing their emotional bond - in that one, very specific way. As the VHEMT movement strives
                        to impress upon people, there are a world of alternatives to conception and childbirth as ways for partners to express love and
                        commitment to each other.

                        Nations often put sensical restrictions on people in times of emergency, in response to background conditions. In wartime for
                        example, the foods you consume or how much you drive can be limited (I'm not suggesting war itself is in any way sensical). People
                        often have to endure privation and limitations as a result of natural disasters. If the public would properly begin to understand
                        overpopulation as a man-made health disaster, enforced sterilization, or at least government incentives for it, might be understood
                        as a sensible and necessary response to it. But the first problem is that overpopulation is rarely presented to the public as a
                        crisis - millions of years of social evolution make the public unwilling to hear it, and make the issue deadly to politicians.

                        I of course prefer voluntary choice. And there's many potential problems with the state getting involved in population abatement -
                        racial, money, power, etc. But if the public doesn't figure things out and take action itself, the alternative is much worse.

                        Jim
                      • Hal Friedman
                        The difference between us on this issue is one of political philosophy. I believe the best obstacle to tyranny, one that has been proven by history, is a rigid
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The difference between us on this issue is one of political philosophy. I believe the best obstacle to tyranny, one that has been proven by history, is a rigid adherence to the principle of individual rights, one of the most important of which is the right to control what happens to one's body. For this reason, I oppose both compulsory abortion/sterilization and the ending of reproductive choice through anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive state edicts. History has proven that once you start down that slippery slope of curtailing rights in the name of security or protection from danger, you get very quickly to situations where state power becomes much more intrusive and painful than was originally intended.

                          You point out correctly that there are times and situations that call for the abridgement of individual rights but such situations should be extremely rare, only where danger is imminent, only if a there is an overwhelming majority in favor, and only if strict time limits are placed on the abridgement.

                          A rough analogy would be the doctrine of pre-emptive war. This type of war is acceptable under international law if the attacking nation has irrefutable proof that an attack on it from enemies is imminent. The classic example is Israel's actions in the 1967 Six Day War, where it was surrounded by hostile armies that were in attack position and where offensive acts such as blockading Israeli ports was already happening. But as we are seeing in Iraq, this doctrine can be abused.

                          Violating individual bodily integrity in the name of population control can just as easily be abused by a power-seeking state. When would the need for compulsory sterilization end? If such intrusive measures are required for population control, why stop with sterilization? Compulsory abortion could just as easily be justified and that procedure is not quick and painless. Why stop there? What about religions that command its followers to be fruitful and multiply? Should those religions be banned? Should the state now imprison that religion's clergy and believers and ban religious books? It's like the famous ads for potato chips: Bet you can't stop abridging just one right! Before you know it, you've got a Gulag and there will be no way out. But at least there will be fewer children, except of course for the rulers and their families and their favored racial groups.

                          I understand that you prefer a purely voluntary approach to population control. I do, too, except I go further and believe compulsory population control to not be a viable alternative and should not be considered by rational people who have a deep knowledge of history and who know how fragile freedom is.

                          From Hal who would rather live in a crowded free space than in an empty prison.


                          ________________________________

                          From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jim Miller
                          Sent: Sat 6/3/2006 1:13 PM
                          To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Digest Number 814



                          Hal Friedman wrote:

                          > However, no state has the
                          > right to expel people without some sort of due process....

                          > The key is human rights. No state has the right to compel
                          > reproduction and those that do are in violation of a number
                          > of international treaties....

                          > By the same measure, no state has the right to compel
                          > sterilization or any other coercive means of birth control.
                          > No one will benefit if human rights are ignored. If they are,
                          > there is almost no chance that the needs of other species
                          > will ever be considered.



                          I don't agree that state-mandated population abatement, in the form of sterilization, interferes with human rights as the other
                          examples you cite do, and I think lumping them all together without examination muddies the issue. Enforced sterilization is not
                          torture, imprisonment, relocation, segregation, or discrimination. On the surface, it may sound Bad because it involves an
                          alteration to one's body, and what's more sacrosanct than that? But in many countries, for example, the public is already required
                          to undergo injection of drugs into their bodies, in the form of immunizations, for the greater good. Circumcision, though
                          increasingly controversial, has been accepted by large parts of the public for many years in some countries. We can't do just
                          whatever action we want with our bodies, even if we want to view it as "natural".

                          Expulsion forces economic hardship on people and breaks their connections with loved ones and community. It imposes pain and
                          difficulty in many and objectively measurable ways.

                          Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term has obvious health and financial effects. It means forcing a woman to endure subjective
                          and objectively measurable physical pain, through pregnancy and childbirth. It means forcing her to financially and emotionally
                          care for a child she does not want, for many years. And if the woman refuses, she suffers legal and cultural consequences, and
                          society and taxpayers pay the price for the child being brought into the world.

                          But sterilization? It's a minor, short procedure, with minimal pain and with high, proven effectiveness and safety. Compared to
                          child raising, it's very cheap, and could surely be funded by the state easily with the funds otherwise spent on just foster care (I
                          learned on a news program on TV this week that foster care can cost the state $40,000 annually per child). Psychologically, it
                          deprives a person or a couple from expressing their emotional bond - in that one, very specific way. As the VHEMT movement strives
                          to impress upon people, there are a world of alternatives to conception and childbirth as ways for partners to express love and
                          commitment to each other.

                          Nations often put sensical restrictions on people in times of emergency, in response to background conditions. In wartime for
                          example, the foods you consume or how much you drive can be limited (I'm not suggesting war itself is in any way sensical). People
                          often have to endure privation and limitations as a result of natural disasters. If the public would properly begin to understand
                          overpopulation as a man-made health disaster, enforced sterilization, or at least government incentives for it, might be understood
                          as a sensible and necessary response to it. But the first problem is that overpopulation is rarely presented to the public as a
                          crisis - millions of years of social evolution make the public unwilling to hear it, and make the issue deadly to politicians.

                          I of course prefer voluntary choice. And there's many potential problems with the state getting involved in population abatement -
                          racial, money, power, etc. But if the public doesn't figure things out and take action itself, the alternative is much worse.

                          Jim




                          VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction
                          Yahoo! Groups Links











                          ______________________________________________________________________
                          This e-mail transmission contains confidential information that is the property of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any retention, disclosure, reproduction or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission, or the taking of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto, is strictly prohibited. No warranty is given by NYSIF that this e-mail is free of viruses, interception or interference. NYSIF disclaims liability for any unauthorized opinion, representation, statement, offer or contract made by the sender on behalf of NYSIF. NYSIF's delegation of authorities, setting out who may make representations or contract on behalf of NYSIF, is available by contacting NYSIF at mailadm@.... Jurisdiction for all actions arising out of dealings with NYSIF shall lie only in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York.
                        • Suzy Davies
                          Hal Friedman wrote: You point out correctly that there are times and situations that call for the abridgement of individual rights but such
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 5, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hal Friedman <hfrie@...> wrote:
                            You point out correctly that there are times and situations that call for the abridgement of individual rights but such situations should be extremely rare, only where danger is imminent, only if a there is an overwhelming majority in favor, and only if strict time limits are placed on the abridgement.

                            A rough analogy would be the doctrine of pre-emptive war. This type of war is acceptable under international law if the attacking nation has irrefutable proof that an attack on it from enemies is imminent.................... But as we are seeing in Iraq, this doctrine can be abused.


                            I can`t disagree with what you have written Hal, but we do neuter domestic dogs and cats. It really isn`t the end of the world to be sterile. It is as well that we don`t campaign for the reproductive rights of pets or we`d all be knee deep in half-starved dogs and cats (to say nothing of the denuded wildlife).

                            I agree that abridgement of individual rights should be extremely rare. In the case of a pre-emptive military strike a nation takes drastic action to preserve itself, in the case of enforced sterilisation for say 2 generations a nation would also be taking action to preserve itself in the face of irrefutable proof of imminent ecological disaster,so what`s the difference?

                            How to ensure such a proposal wouldn`t become a long-term norm imposed by an extreme dictatorship though, hmm, well, that`s the tricky bit!

                            Personally, I`d favour incentives for childfree people as a matter of urgency, but have to say that all the world`s governments should be encouraged to react similarly otherwise the measure will doubtless be ineffectual.

                            Suzy Davies

                            Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • motorbikefeddayeen
                            I apologize. That s an interesting story. In your case you really didn t have a fair chance to choose, and I really wasn t expecting out of the ordinary cases
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 5, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I apologize. That's an interesting story. In your case you really
                              didn't have a fair chance to choose, and I really wasn't expecting out
                              of the ordinary cases such as yours.

                              Regarding your family, I also don't think this is the worst thing in
                              the world; you didn't really contribute to population growth; remember
                              that one child families represent fast exponentially decaying
                              populations and two child families contribute to stable non-growth
                              populations, so you didn't really growth by this accident.


                              --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "robbie crabtree" <styxtrip@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I had my first child when I was 18 and stupid. I vowed never to have
                              > another, although I loved and took care of my daughter to the best of my
                              > ability. 8years later, my wife wanted another and I did not. She
                              took a
                              > needle to the condoms without telling me and conceived my son. She
                              refused
                              > to get an abortion. I went that week and got a vasectomy and a
                              divorce. My
                              > daughter is now an adult, and I take good care of my son, but try to
                              teach
                              > both of them the errors of my life and that breeding is wrong.
                              >
                              > Yes, I wish I had gotten a vasectomy when I was born instead of a
                              > circumcision... it would have made much more sense... but we must
                              all live
                              > with our mistakes, and try not to repeat them.
                              >
                              > Would you not trust an alcoholic who has been in AA and clean for 10
                              years
                              > when they tell you the evils of alcoholism? who knows better than them?
                              > (except maybe the survivors of their abuse, like myself)
                              >
                              > Would you not trust a veteran of war who preaches the ugliness and
                              > inhumanity of war? Who would know more about it than he? (I am this)
                              >
                              > We must all live with our mistakes and our pasts... but we don't have to
                              > continue down the destructive roads we once walked.
                              >
                              > -robbie
                              >
                              >
                              > On 6/2/06, motorbikefeddayeen <bl@...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > This makes no sense at all. If you haven't jumped off a bridge,
                              you're
                              > > in no position to advise someone not to do it. Actually, I tend to be
                              > > very skeptical of parents and generally don't trust people who pop em
                              > > out all the time. Almost any elementary or middle school teacher will
                              > > tell you that parents are often irrational creatures. Maybe I'd
                              > > trust a parent who had one child and formed a strong and convinced
                              > > verdict that it was definitely a bad idea, and vowed never to have a
                              > > child again again. I wouldn't really trust one with multiple children
                              > > (unless twins) because that would probably mean they knew it might be
                              > > wrong, yet they wrecklessly did it again.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Les U. Knight
                              Aldo, I agree that the time has long passed for the need to improve population density. In fact, limiting people s freedom to breed is likely to prove more
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jun 12, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Aldo, I agree that the time has long passed for the need to improve
                                population density. In fact, limiting people's freedom to breed is
                                likely to prove more humane than continuing to allow any couple to
                                produce as many as they can. A strong case may be made for limiting
                                couples' breeding for the good of all.

                                However, I don't think voluntary methods have been given enough of a chance.

                                We may feel that no one in our regions are coerced into breeding,
                                that they have access to contraception and abortion. But millions of
                                young people don't realize they don't have to breed. A choice doesn't
                                do much good if you don't know you have it.

                                In the US, we are losing ground due to a federal administration which
                                tramples reproductive rights and pays schools to limit their sexual
                                education to abstinence only.

                                For the sake of discussion, let's say we favor restricting human
                                breeding to say, one per
                                person -- any person. That avoids accusations of racism, classism,
                                sexism and so on. How do we get there from here?

                                Presently, unlimited breeding is fiercely defended regardless of a
                                couple's abilities and resources. Irresponsible breeding is even
                                rewarded monetarily by many governments, including the US. Societies
                                are not ready to consider restrictions on breeding. We will have
                                achieved a great step forward when societies accept that there are
                                too many of us, and begin to think about not promoting breeding.

                                When a majority realizes that creating more of us is detrimental
                                rather than beneficial, a system of rewards for not breeding combined
                                with the freedom to not breed could be implemented over the protests
                                of the minority. Because this doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms,
                                those opposed would have little reason to protest.

                                The next step, involuntary restrictions, is more than just a slippery
                                slope toward fascism: it would require serious abridgements of civil
                                rights to implement. In China, restrictions have been accepted by the
                                people in the past, but pro-democracy movements are gaining ground.
                                (No thanks to yahoo).

                                It's true that serious abridgements of civil rights result from our
                                increase in density, so philosophically speaking, restrictions could
                                be justified. Also, in many regions, human suffering due to excessive
                                breeding is far worse than any mere abridgement of civil rights. In
                                these regions, a full range of reproductive health services,
                                promotion of small families and childfree acceptance, and economic
                                incentives for sterilization would go a long way to improving birth
                                rates without risking the backlash that involuntary methods often
                                cause. Just getting condoms distributed in Africa is hard enough
                                these days, thanks to the Vatican, the Bush administration, and
                                fundamentalist Muslims.

                                Aldo, I agree the situation for both planet and people is serious
                                enough to warrant restrictions on breeding. However, I'm opposed to
                                doing so because it's both impractical and unethical.

                                I think it's important to discuss this issue and I'm glad you brought
                                it up. It doesn't seem to me people were attacking you personally,
                                just the concept of involuntary methods of achieving better
                                population density.

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