I agree, last year when I watched the TED talk I was so infuriated by his lack of scientific thoroughness that I wrote him a two-page correspondence. He did have the decency to respond to me.
The largest mistake made by a great many people discussing population is comparing modern procreation trends to historical ones... but completely missing the point of the definition of historical. Typically, people talk about reduced breeding effort in terms of the 1950s. The surrounding years saw the largest ever breeding effort by any women anywhere on the planet. When doing statistical analyses, we must not compare the present to the very worst period in history, that is an extremely poor strategy. We must use a reasonable baseline. The challenge is therefore to evaluate the breeding success of females through the centuries, hopefully going back at least a couple of thousand years.
Can you imagine a society where the idea of pro-life is a thinly-veiled scheme to keep enlistment in the christian army at high levels so that they can dominate everyone and everything else and win the ultimate battle of good and evil with all the other heathens?
I can. Wait, that's not my imagination, that's our reality.
cute pets :)
Funny about the healthcare thing, I have a this funny opinion that people in healthcare are the most marriageable people around, since they are the most empathetic, the most compassionate, and the most driven to save lives at all costs. Of course I don't really associate with those qualities, and I am happily bachelor... :)
A vast majority of people on this site have only let go of supernatural in the last few years, some here STILL have not let go of all supernatural. Everything that is modern human is learned. It is the reason our society is so dysfunctional. The very people, such as yourself, who's life purpose is to ensure the earth has the most humans possible, through eschewing death as often and long as possible, are the very source of our dysfunctional humans... sorry, I don't mean this personally, but to all people in healthcare. In a regular biologically driven species, unfit individuals would not survive to procreate. We have skewed this, ensuring that all individuals get their "chance" to breed. You could compare it to salmon farming. Salmon farming is the death of the wild population of salmon, because of all the defective babies that grow to adulthood, spreading disease throughout the wild populations, breeding defective genetic makeups into the general population. This is what pharmaceutical companies are banking on, the more defective genes get to procreate, the more clients the pharmaceutical industry has. It's a wonderful business plan, more sick people, more income, and so on and so on.
It is the ultimate demonstration of the Law of Unintended consequences... good intentions creating bad results. "Good" is often not "good". It's why I dislike concepts of good and bad, they're entirely subjective, to the person who stands to benefit from it.
I share many of the views of George Carlin's, specially when talking about the sanctity of life. You said that "life is a beautiful and precious thing," I warrant you that it isn't for those children dying of hunger. Life is Life, whether it's beautiful or not is all about where you are standing.
Consider this, when it comes to abortion we only care about OUR own species. We don't think twice about the chicken eggs we eat (those are fertilize eggs too).
Women should have the right to carry an early abortion for any reason. Yet, I do not endorse abortions as substitutes for birth control. Abortions should be performed at any point of the pregnancy if the life of the mother is endangered. Abortions should be performed if a woman gets pregnant because of a rape. Abortions should be performed if the child is not likely to have a normal life, and if the parent(s) choose to do so.
Try thinking of life and abortion in objective ways, without adding any emotional baggage. After we all get that down, lets get down to care for the people who's already here, instead of those who don't exist and might never do so.
I agree with all you say; however, it misses the REAL point of the "pro-life" agenda. It is NOT about reverence for life; if it were, these people would oppose the death penalty and wars, but they don't; in fact, they tend to embrace both wholeheartedly. At its core, it is about the male domination many insecure men (and their obedient wives) see as being endorsed in the Bible. As I said, I agree with you, but it's a moot point, because it should not be MY decision, it should be YOURS and that of all women who face the agonizing choice.
You know one day, it would be really gratifying to walk into a "pro-life" abortion-banning, contraception-banning meeting, and announce:-
"You know what? You're right! Women can't interfere with the fertilised zygote! At any stage! Absolutely right..... So obviously, we must insist that all men have vasectomies!"
Now that we have artificial insemination sorted, we really don't need pregnancy from sex. Just have a bit of sperm frozen with your name on it, and line up here for the little snip.
Yes, I can't write my name legibly that small.
No miniature calligraphy skills? Oh dear, we won't be needing your genes in the pool!
That's alright. I was planning on having robots instead of babies anyway.
Excellent idea, I've been promoting that one for a couple of years. Most importantly, no teen pregnancies, no unwanted pregnancies, AT ALL, now that would be major progress.
On top of that, imagine how much more well loved all the children of the world would be if they were all planned for, dear me, I dare say the academic performance of youth would surely double.