Email exchanges are often inadequate in getting a point across. I understand now when you say you were not necessarily advocating with holding organs and medical care.
I have often had the same problem with my posts. I think it is inevitable, due to the nature of an email exchange, that there will be misunderstandings from time to time. I agree that population control should be a high priority. I imagine the human population much like a bacterial one growing within the Petri dish. We're in a log phase of growth currently, but eventually the food will run out, and we will die of starvation while we wallow in our own filth. That is, assuming the asteroid or super volcano doesn't take us out first. Liz -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ornamentalmind Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:37 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: A Good Idea Abandoned "...Now, I don't see why I can't have legal organ donation and population control. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me." - Liz Of course Liz, you do know that that already exists today and has existed for decades in all parts of the USA to one extent or another don't you? I fully support it as a law. I only question the long term result, that is all. "...Organ donations are often referred to as "anatomical gifts." All fifty states have passed some version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. This act allows a person to make a gift of organs and tissues during his or her lifetime with the gift to take effect upon death. ..." http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/qfl03.htm And, since you were quite tired, I'll cut you some slack about saying you don’t care about how your emotions may influence humanity. Oh, and in no way did I ever imply that I wish organ transplants to be withheld let alone that such an action would be “the best” solution. I asked questions and showed the result of actions. Cause and Effect. Nothing more. Clearly no one so far has been able to see that. On Nov 29, 9:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “…But your solution of withholding medical treatment is a silly one….” > – T > > Of course it is in no way ‘my’ solution. Nor have I advocated for it. > IF one rereads my posts, I have been asking questions. It is how I > learn. And, of course the suggestion itself is in no way objectively > ‘silly’. …nor is it just ‘silly’, your analogy and memory of a > theological holiday myth aside. > > The question I originally asked clog** was to evoke thoughtful > discussion and exploration. So far, I get pap. > > So, other than quoting an irrelevant set of statistics, as is shown by > my original link (http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm), do any of the so > called ‘free thinkers’ here have any thoughts about overpopulation? > Or, is the actual heart of a free thinker one that sticks it’s head in > the sand, ignoring what appears to anyone who has eyes to see as being > inevitable? > > Perhaps you wish to just accept fate? Sort of like those who bowed to > the pantheon of our ancient forefathers of Rome? Of course, they too > approved of slavery, keeping the woman out of politics and even put to > death one of thier own who taught by asking questions. His crime was > listed as corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods. > Perhaps I should take the myth of Scrooge to heart or stop asking > questions of the youth here….. > > Overpopulation is one of the greatest if not the greatest problem for > mankind today and is only getting worse by the second. I wonder why > free thinkers would let their feathers get ruffled by looking at all > or at least some of the possibilities without consciously and > rationally engaging in a dialogue about it. Perhaps there is less > freedom here than I thought. So far all I see is blind and emotional > responses that would be quite familiar and all too common on any site > where theological views were professed. Surely you can do better? > > ** <<So Clog, you think that we need to assure that more people will > populate the planet?>> > > On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > <<Perhaps the topic produces too much of an emotional reaction within > > members here to be able to rationally look at let alone discuss it.>> > > > Hardly. But your solution of withholding medical treatment is a silly > > one. Reminds me of the line from A Christmas Carol: ==== > > "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and > > decrease the surplus population. === > > > While Scrooge's statement sounds coldly logical, the audience knows > > the view is the result of a soured view towards life, rather than a > > rationally derived worldview. > > > Advanced nations have a naturally fertility birth rate. For instance, > > naturally born Americans already have an average of 2 children per set > > of parents, which is less than the replacement rate. Many, many > > countries have a fertility rate less than the replacement rate, > > leading long-term to a declining population. Here's a list: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fer...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
