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

Re: [existlist] Re: Lost posts by me on Sartre and Communism

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Jim, You are way ahead of yourself :-). In this thread, so far, I have observed that there is no universal right to breed willy nilly. And I have asserted
    Message 1 of 86 , May 1 4:25 AM
      Hi Jim,

      You are way ahead of yourself :-).

      In this thread, so far, I have observed that there is no universal right to
      breed willy nilly. And I have asserted that it IS my business what others
      do, reproductively. Given that there is a limit to what the earth can
      sustain, and how, I would say it is the assertion of a right to breed and
      damn everyone else, as well as the consequences, that is the problem here.

      As to the usage of the word fascist, I doubt it can be constructive anymore.
      I would add that any deliberate non-engagement with the problems of
      sustainable living are at best nihilistic, and at worst betraying of a
      violent thinking.

      Cheers

      Herman

      On 1 May 2011 20:35, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Herman,
      >
      > I agree with Wil that it is appropriate to describe your "solution" to
      > world population levels as "fascistic".
      >
      > Recall in your post 50838 of 7th February 2010 you wrote:
      >
      > << Given that evolution moves at tectonic speeds, the now maladaptive
      > sexual male dominance of woman will be here to stay until the world has
      > totally unsustainable population levels, and mass random death will make
      > vestigial behaviours earn their keep once again.
      >
      > The solution: like-minded people must act to reach such a critical mass,
      > that it will become possible to sterilise everyone at birth. This will allow
      > the reason of a world group to become the pre-eminent agent of selection, as
      > opposed to the ability of the individual to play genetic lotteries. >>
      >
      > Perhaps your best strategy is to agree with Wil that your proposal is
      > fascistic but then go on to argue that such a form of fascism is a necessary
      > evil in order to preserve some form of civilised human life on our planet.
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Hi Jim and Herman, I m glad to see your suggestions, Herman, are more moderate this time around. However, Jim, sensing these unnatural population curbs are not
      Message 86 of 86 , May 2 8:37 AM
        Hi Jim and Herman,

        I'm glad to see your suggestions, Herman, are more moderate this time around. However, Jim, sensing these unnatural population curbs are not quick enough for Bill's tastes either, I'm thinking three children per couple is too high and not compensatory enough for our over consumption. For the most part I agree with both of you, and apologize for blurting out statistics concerning birth defects, infertility, and autism out of context. Not able to find solid numbers on autism worldwide, I can only assume they're rising like the infertility and birth defect rates which are higher in developing countries because health care and pollution are worse. I'll not bother with my usual breast beating, because I love my children more than my own life.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Jim,
        >
        > On 1 May 2011 22:16, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hi Herman,
        > >
        > > I completely agree with you that we should all be engaging in the issue of
        > > sustainable living, given such facts as world population increase and
        > > climate change due to carbon emissions.
        > >
        > > Perhaps you are retreating from your radical position of your February 2010
        > > posts. If so, I should be pleased to hear of your modified position.
        > >
        >
        > If anything, I have become more resolved in my position. I am just doing
        > what I can to make the tide appear as though I command it :-)
        >
        >
        > Anyway I have been thinking of my own position, and I would favour the
        > > introduction of legislation in the UK along these lines:
        > >
        > > New Law: It is only permitted for women to give birth to three children,
        > > and it is only permitted for men to be the registered father to three
        > > children. If a child dies before the age of eighteen, another child is
        > > permitted to the parents concerned.
        > >
        > > No problems here from me. And probably far more implementable than anything
        > I can suggest.
        >
        > I think the problems with fertility and reproduction arise where women are
        > not in charge of that. The origin of that problem does remain with men, in
        > so far as women are for them fuck-things, and goods and chattel. I suggest
        > here that this has both cultural and genetic bases. We can do nothing in the
        > short term about the genetics, but plenty about the culture.
        >
        > There are plenty of -isms that trade in keeping women as fuck-things and
        > goods and chattel. While we are taught, and accept, that it is important to
        > be nice people, tolerance for institutions that would have half the
        > population of the world at the disposal of the other half has to be
        > undermined.
        >
        > We won't need to sterilise everyone, only some men. And if that proves too
        > difficult (just see how hard it was to catch Osama), identify and agitate
        > without reservation against those -isms that would preserve the natural
        > order. You have identified some already eg Catholics and Muslims, and more
        > than half of those are women, mind you. Like I said, the problem is complex
        > :-)
        >
        >
        >
        > Such a law would not be as strong as the legislation in China, but given the
        > > UK population is not rising very fast, I think a law along the lines I
        > > propose would result in a slight decline in the population here.
        > >
        > >
        > I think the UK population is not rising fast, because women in the UK have
        > more control over reproduction than in, say, Africa. And I think the
        > legislation does work in China and would not elsewhere, because we have
        > tolerance for religious institutions built into our legal framework, and
        > they don't.
        >
        >
        >
        > > I think it is most important that the developed countries (Europe, US,
        > > Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) introduce such a law, as we are the
        > > countries with the largest carbon footprint per person.
        > >
        > > No doubt the Catholics and the Muslims would object to such a law, but I
        > > agree with you that certain freedoms do need to be curtailed by law for the
        > > sake of the future of civilisation and the survival of the human species.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, we agree.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        >
        > Herman
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.