Buffett Foundation hires architect of CA’s nonphysician abortion law
The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation has quietly hired Tracy Weitz, PhD, MPA, to head its domestic operation.
STBF is the charitable giving outlet for 83-yr-old Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, with a net worth of $63.4 billion.
Originally the Buffett Foundation, STBF was renamed by the billionaire in honor of his wife after she died in 2004.
STBF is currently ranked #14 in the Top 100 U.S. Foundations by Total Giving. STBF’s focus is population control. According to Buffett biographer Roger Lowenstein, Buffett has a “Malthusian dread that overpopulation [will] aggravate problems in all other areas – such as food, housing, even human survival.”
That dread has transcended into aggression against procreation. As of December 31, 2012, STBF had given away $367 million to “support[] the most radical aspects of the population control movement,” says Population Research Institute, with ready examples:
- $2 million… to fund clinical trials of Mifepristone (RU-486)
- $2 million… for the distribution of quinacrine hydrochloride, a chemical with [sic] sterilizes a woman by burning her fallopian tubes… illegal in the U.S., but is used, often coercively, in Vietnam, India, and other nations
- $20 million grant to International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS) which manufactures and distributes manual vacuum aspirators, used for performing abortions in the Third World
Of course, another STBF benefactor is Planned Parenthood. In fact, STBF is among the abortion giant’s “top contributors,” according to Wikipedia, which reports PP received $3.8 million from STBF in 1999 alone. Access Philanthropy reported in 2006 that ”[m]ore than 100 PP affiliates received grants [from STBF] ranging from $5,000 to $500,000 during the last three years.”
Weitz is a a good fit to further enable STBF to push population control in the U.S. via abortion.
According to Catholic.com, ”Weitz [was] the woman at the Bixby Global Reproductive Health Center, University of California San Francisco who orchestrated the medical research project which ended in legalizing non-physician abortions.”
The project overseen by Weitz was Health Workforce Pilot Project, known as HWPP #171. Beginning in 2007, HWPP #171 launched a study that had nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants from Planned Parenthood and Kaiser Permanente commit abortions and then compare complications to abortions committed by doctors.
As Life Legal Defense Foundation reported, the project was shady to begin with, and the results were not good:
The project reported in December 2011 an 80% increase in complications when Non-physicians performed surgical abortions. No explanation was given as to why complications increased.
Nevertheless HWPP #171 was used to propel legislation in California, allowing nonphysicians to commit 1st trimester aspiration abortions, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in October 2013. (The state had already made it legal for nonphysicians to commit medical abortions in 2003.)
It was hoped that these steps in California to surmount the problem of scarcity of abortionists would spread, as Laura Jimenez, executive director of California Latinas for Reproductive Justice made clear when Brown signed AB 154:
We are proud that California is the only state in the nation right now that is passing proactive legislation to improve access to abortion, and we hope that this law can further efforts to expand access to women throughout the country.
With Weitz now in charge of STBF’s domestic purse strings, that expansion attempt is game on.
As Weitz’s bio states, her “current research focuses on innovative strategies to expand abortion provision in the U.S.”
Buffett provides a huge chunk of PPFA’s money, as well as a raft of other anti-baby groups. His charitable philosophy seems to be basically Margaret Sanger’s “Pivot of Civilization.”
6 likes
How sad that sterilization and abortion, especially for “Third World” countries, is considered “philanthropy.”
13 likes
The capacity for evil in the human heart never ceases to amaze me.
Imagine making it your life’s work to devise and scheme to develop the most effective strategies and techniques to promote the genocide of innocent children. She has worked very hard at all levels, to help harden the public’s conscience toward the ghastly and horrific practice of child dismemberment and to promote child killing by people other than doctors.
How ironic is it that her last name reminds us of the victims of the Holocaust and the gruesome and heinous methods of Hitler’s SS.
She would have been a great assistant to Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death.
She is one of satan’s best.
4 likes
How sad that sterilization and abortion, especially for “Third World” countries, is considered “philanthropy.”
I was listening to this depressing report about child trafficking in developing countries and some parents are afraid of sending their kids (boys as well as girls) to school because they are afraid of them being kidnapped and sold into slavery. I am talking about kids as young as eight here. What about education, food, and clean drinking water? All this emphasis on killing is pretty depressing.
11 likes
“According to Buffett biographer Roger Lowenstein, Buffett has a “Malthusian dread that overpopulation [will] aggravate problems in all other areas – such as food, housing, even human survival.”
It’s obvious that the number of people affect food and housing – the more people, the greater the demand for them, and for things necessary to provide them. Do you want to pay 50¢ or $1 for a gallon of milk, or $3 or $4? Or $8?
As for human survival, what is any greater threat to it than our own sheer numbers? War itself is usually a function of population pressure.
The earth does not have unlimited capacity for us.
11 likes
Joanna – there are non-coercive ways of managing population, such as educating people about the benefits of smaller families. As I have said before, increasing educational and social opportunities for women often means a lower birth rate.
As for human survival, what is any greater threat to it than our own sheer numbers?
“Our” numbers? The U.S. birthrate has slowed and Europe and much of the developed world is actually undergoing a “birth dearth.” So who are we talking about here? Must be those pesky, black, brown and yellow folks . . .
11 likes
Oh yes…overpopulation, overpopulation, overpopulation. Because elderly people never die, everyone lives forever, you know. P.S. China is re-thinking their heinous “one child” policy because -guess what ?- they’re starting to realize that their elderly/aging population is out-numbering the younger generation that would be there to help take care of them. Fewer people, fewer wage earners/ tax payers (DUH !)
6 likes
Rich elitists have always had a visceral fear of hordes of poor people.
6 likes
Pamela says:
March 18, 2014 at 6:36 pm
“Oh yes…overpopulation, overpopulation, overpopulation. Because elderly people never die, everyone lives forever, you know. ”
– – –
Well, no – if elderly people never died, then we would not even be discussing this. Population pressure would have become so great already that it would be quite “a different world,” and measures would have been taken that are much stronger than what we’re talking about now.
China has 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 unemployed people right now. They’re not earning wages or paying taxes. Plugging in a bunch more people would not make that better, it would make it worse.
8 likes
I always appreciate hypocritical fat cats like Warren Buffoon, who are more than willing to kill other peoples babies…..while they continue to enjoy the good things with their the fat cat lifestyle.
Ahh, the earthly rewards of wealth…….and hypocrisy.
4 likes
Del: Rich elitists have always had a visceral fear of hordes of poor people.
What’s really true is that poor people should have a fear of hordes of rich people.
: P
The US, with 4.4% of world population, uses 19% of all energy produced. If all people on our planet lived that way, we’d need 5 earths to satisfy the demand, to say nothing of future population increases.
Phillymiss: “Our” numbers?
Yep – all of us on earth.
The U.S. birthrate has slowed and Europe and much of the developed world is actually undergoing a “birth dearth.” So who are we talking about here? Must be those pesky, black, brown and yellow folks . . .
Indeed – it’s Africa, southern Asia, and southeastern Asia that have the highest rates of population increase.
Let’s say it wasn’t that way. What if it was the developed world, the “first world”? Then the problems we are facing – shortages and fast-increasing costs – would be far worse, due to an even greater demand.
Joanna: Do you want to pay 50¢ or $1 for a gallon of milk, or $3 or $4? Or $8?
When I go to a grocery store, I can’t believe it… My wife and I have no kids, and still, it’s amazing how much you spend sometimes, and don’t really get all that much. I don’t see how people with kids do it. I remember how much my brothers and I ate.
Milk – farmers are now getting about twice what they did in 2009 for milk. If farm subsidies (which cost us taxpayers money in the first place) were discontinued, it’d go up more.
Overseas, increased demand for milk is playing a part. In China, alone, the increased demand for milk last year equaled the increased milk production in all of the US, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
The US exports roughly 15% of milk production, and we send 5 times as much overseas as 20 years ago. This is not going to stop – foreign demand is going nowhere but up. Overseas, people are eating more cheese and butter, and we are too, here at home, and this drives up demand for milk as well.
Now, milk is just one thing, and if it gets too expensive, then some people are gonna buy less or none at all – and this is already happening in the US. It’s symptomatic, however, of food as a whole, and even of all consumed items, grown, mined, and manufactured.
9 likes
It is not population control. It is the means of population control.
3 likes
Ok, newsflash!
This earth we live on just so happens to be sitting in a universe FULL of resources. We have the technology today, right this minute, to begin colonization of planets and moons. For example, Saturn’s rings: more ice chunks than you could use in centuries! Killing ourselves off in this era is going to look that much more abominable to future generations who strive foward rather than collapse inward.
For cryin’ out loud, an amoeba has more sense to stretch out its pseudopod than to curl up and wait for itself to die. Get your durn heads out of your keesters, abortion advocates!
1 likes
How much will you charge for a glass of water from the ice rings of Saturn?
‘logistics’, interesting word ‘logistics’.
You think concern about population growth is exclusively a pro-choice thing?
4 likes
Ninek: For cryin’ out loud, an amoeba has more sense to stretch out its pseudopod than to curl up and wait for itself to die. Get your durn heads out of your keesters, abortion advocates!
: ) There are plans to try and mine near-earth asteroids, though they tend to be in the minds of rich, Silicon Valley-types who are mostly pro-choice.
This is not going to “bring more resources to us.” If successful, it will make fuel and components for satellites and other things in orbit. Getting stuff out of orbit and back down on earth is incredibly expensive (just as is shooting stuff up into orbit). It typically costs $4500 to $11,000 dollars per pound of weight, to launch.
Saturn – it averages 886 million miles from the earth. Some pretty wicked shipping costs there too.
SpaceX is coming out with it’s “Falcon Heavy Booster” that will supposedly bring prices down to around $1000 per pound. We will see….
“SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.”
A worthy goal, but does anybody think that we’ll be able to offload a significant portion of the earth’s population?
6 likes
Tell ya what, Reality, I’ll brew you a cup with some tea and charge $5 for a vente!
1 likes
Well if you’re prepared to invest what it takes to go get the water from there then I’ll happily pay you $5 for a cup of Saturn ice ring water with a teabag in it. Good luck!
3 likes
Glad I know about this as a fellow Nebraskan, we’re led to believe that Buffett is a great person. Now, about this population control thing that all the “richies” are so concerned with…think about this: THE EARTH HAD A POPULATION OF DINOSAURS on the land, in the air and in the water roaming everywhere. The earth was able to handle ALL those monstrous beasts for thousands of years. I think the earth can handle a bunch of humans, mkay?
2 likes
How many dinosaurs were there NUB? Their density in various locations? Average daily intake? The climate at the time? How much vegetation or edible animals were available? What were the water holding volumes per tract of land?
5 likes
If current trends continue, the population is set to begin declining at or before 2050. Buffett really doesn’t have to kill any more brown babies.
3 likes
Christine,
You are not allowed to come to this prolife blog and solicit funds for proabortion causes. You are only here to incite and type inflammatory comments to stir it up.
You will be tolerated for a time.
And then you will be banned.
3 likes
Joanna – as we have gotten more people on planet earth, we have gotten wildly more efficient at providing milk, and a zillion other things, at wildly affordable prices.
As population grows, we are going in the exact opposite direction of what you say.
Your argument that more people leads to more demand leads to higher prices makes some sense.
But it is incomplete.
As demand rises, it becomes more lucrative for others to figure out how to meet that demand. More providers enter the market, AND people figure out ways to be more efficient – such as monitoring milk cows for estrus and then artificially inseminating them, breeding milk cows for greater yield, milking machines, healthcare including antibiotics to keep the milk cows healthier (of course, with some problems there), better transportation of milk, better distribution, such as walmart having massive negotiation power and allocative efficiency, etc., etc.
A hundred years ago, few could have a safe serving of fresh milk any day of the week. Now, most anyone in the U.S. can, for quite a decent price.
Along with that, we have radically improved efficiency for MANY things. There is hardly anything that is more difficult to get hold of.
**This “overpopulation” story has been promoted, seriously, by educated elitists, for over 100 years.
It has been debunked. It is a scare tactic. It is simply classism: we want fewer of those low-class people ruining the good thing we have going on.
It is also usually racist: those poor, low-class people are in Asia and Africa, and have dark skin.
Read the opening couple of pages of Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 “Population Bomb.” Pure racism regarding the crowded streets of urban India – where vast expanses of un-farmed but farmable land are sparsely populated today.
The “over-population” scare is usually thrown out there in the form of a laundry list of future disasters.
I or anyone else with a bit of thought could debunk them one-by-one. Eventually, you either get to the place where you hold faith in the “over-population” scare despite contrary evidence, or you simply figure out that it is thinly veiled classism, with MANY dooms-day predictions of catastrophe with NONE materializing.
As noted above, my opinion is that one threatened resource is potable water. However, consider this:
1 we spill it all over the place. How limited can it be if it is close to free, and I and my neighbors leave a hose on in the yard letting it fly in the air everywhere willy-nilly?
2 For aesthetic preferences, most of us have no problem paying far more per gallon for bottled water than for tap – bottled water costs more than a similar volume bottle of beer or soda that includes – you got it – bottled water PLUS whatever it takes to make it beer or soda.
3 where the political will exists, de-salination plants can be on-line in a relatively short span of time. In Australia, they bought into global-warming fears of drought, and boosted de-salination capacity greatly. As mother nature is wont to do, she re-filled their aquifers, and those de-salination plants are sitting idle now. This illustrates the capacity to ramp up potable-water capacity.
4 Gas is 3-4 dollars per gallon in the U.S. Consider what must be done to get a gallon of gasoline – pipelines, trucking, distribution, refining. Producers such as OPEC decide how much to make available in order to keep the price per gallon high. Technologically, it is much easier to produce a gallon of water from whatever source than it is to make a gallon of gas. Where do the space shuttle astronauts get their potable water? If they needed a gallon of gasoline a day, would it be that easy to produce? No way.
So, everyone - relax. “Overpopulation” is not a good reason for killing hordes of children, identified by population-control policies based on social class (poor) or racial class (not-white skinned).
If anyone wants to throw out their pet “overpopulation” scare reason, go ahead. I or others can fill in the picture. But this will simply be more whack-a-mole running-in-circles since true believers in this over-population cult will simply ignore reason and data, and move on to the next scare tactic.
1 likes
Overpopulation?
Have any of y’all ever driven diagonally through Wyoming?
1 likes
That’s a legit question. This is what I found :”GSP once estimated the T. rex population in western North America: at any one time was in the low hundreds of thousands. Say 300,000. Assuming the prey was 10–20 times more numerous, and add the smaller dinosaurs and rex, there were maybe 8 million dinosaurs in the western half of our continent. Eastern American dinosaurs were less diverse but probably as numerous, so that makes 16 million for America. Asia was bigger but drier so its population may have been roughly comparable. Same for both South America and Africa. Add the same for Europe, India and Australia/NZ combined and the grand total was perhaps 80 million.” Figure 709 humans to 1 ultrasaurus, 70-75 humans to 1 t-rex or utahraptor, then to be fair gotta include the little ones so perhaps 30 humans to a smaller dinosaur. You can do the rest of the math. Allow God determine the population of the earth. To worry about over-populating would be implying that God is stupid and couldn’t see this coming so why didn’t he make a bigger earth. Really? Dumb God, ya should’ve known, right? What were you thinking. You made everything else, but skimped on the earth. Bummer.
0 likes
I always appreciate hypocritical fat cats like Warren Buffoon, who are more than willing to kill other peoples babies…..while they continue to enjoy the good things with their the fat cat lifestyle.
With their private jets, multiple homes, multitudes of cars, etc., Warren and Co. leave a bigger carbon footprint in a week than all of us here do in a month!
As for milk, I don’t drink it, I don’t think it’s that healthy, and there are substitutes (almond milk and soy milk) that are nutritious and much easier on the environment.
You think concern about population growth is exclusively a pro-choice thing?
No, but harrassing and coercing poor women into using questionable birth control methods is. I had ONE child — I wanted another one, but it wasn’t in the cards. And I do recycle.
3 likes
Phillymiss: With their private jets, multiple homes, multitudes of cars, etc., Warren and Co. leave a bigger carbon footprint in a week than all of us here do in a month! As for milk, I don’t drink it, I don’t think it’s that healthy, and there are substitutes (almond milk and soy milk) that are nutritious and much easier on the environment.
For a mega-billionaire, Warren actually doesn’t do the “fatcat” thing much at all – he lives in quite a restrained manner, for that, overall. He lives in just one house, the one he bought in Omaha in 1958 for $31,500. He’s got one car, a 2006 Cadillac DTS.
He used to be very critical of private jets, in fact. When he bought a Bombardier Challenger 600, he named it “The Indefensible” due his prior position on company jets.
Later, he saw that it was really a necessary business tool for him, and he changed the name to “The Indispensable.” He is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and as such has to do a lot of traveling. If anybody has a good reason for having a private jet, it’s him.
I agree about milk – cow’s milk is for baby cows.
4 likes
Nebraska UnBuffet: THE EARTH HAD A POPULATION OF DINOSAURS on the land, in the air and in the water roaming everywhere .
That is true, but the average dinosaur country did not produce anywhere near as much crude oil as we do now. I have heard it said that they were busy teaching each other karate, but this is yet to be fully confirmed.
One thing is for sure – the dinosaurs were heavy smokers, and they eventually all died.
4 likes
Courtnay: Overpopulation? Have any of y’all ever driven diagonally through Wyoming?
Wyoming’s land is in use. Mining, tourism, farming, cattle and sheep ranching. What do you want to do, dump a million people out there and claim some sort of victory? ; )
4 likes
Nebraska, God told Abraham that his descendants would be as many as the stars: Thus shall your descendants be. He gave us an awesome planet, but it seems obvious to me that our destiny is beyond earth and God knows and wills it. Just like you said, He wouldn’t have skimped on our home. The entire physical universe is our home. Observe for example the close proximity of Mars, its supply of water, and its similarity to earth in terms of rotation and solar orbit: ripe for colonial practice. Too bad abortion fans are so small minded and devoid of hope and optimism.
2 likes
Uh, Ninek, I’d beware the Waters of Mars if I were you….. ;)
3 likes
TheLastDemocrat: Joanna – as we have gotten more people on planet earth, we have gotten wildly more efficient at providing milk, and a zillion other things, at wildly affordable prices. As population grows, we are going in the exact opposite direction of what you say.
I think Joanna has a point, and that things are happening that prove it, despite what you say.
Your argument that more people leads to more demand leads to higher prices makes some sense. But it is incomplete. As demand rises, it becomes more lucrative for others to figure out how to meet that demand. More providers enter the market, AND people figure out ways to be more efficient – such as monitoring milk cows for estrus and then artificially inseminating them, breeding milk cows for greater yield, milking machines, healthcare including antibiotics to keep the milk cows healthier (of course, with some problems there), better transportation of milk, better distribution, such as walmart having massive negotiation power and allocative efficiency, etc., etc.
Very true, and you mentioned a lot of things that do apply. However, those are already in the system. We had some drastic improvements in efficiency, most of them coming in the first half of the 20th century for the US. Since then, things have slowed down, and there are years where net production doesn’t even rise. Example: even with soaring demand, US milk production only rose 0.3% in 2013.
Most or all of the easy, big jumps in production are behind us. Yeah, it’s made a heck of a difference, but now those effects are already accounted for, and we’re not just facing an expanding population – we’re dealing with over half the earth’s present population only now developing a middle class and starting to consume much more.
You’re definitely correct about water – this is an absolutely enormous deal, going forward in time.
I am not saying that “people are bad,” nor even that “more population is bad.” I am saying that the increasing population most definitely brings some consequences with it, as does the increasing resource usage by people on earth, on a per-capita basis.
In the end, it is going to be a falling standard of living, and that’s pretty hard for people to take when they’re used to things “getting better and better.”
In the US, I think we face a double-whammy on that count, rising costs and for most of us, a declining ability to pay, thanks to our government for the past many decades, running the country into the ground.
4 likes
Courtnay: Overpopulation? Have any of y’all ever driven diagonally through Wyoming?
“Wyoming’s land is in use. Mining, tourism, farming, cattle and sheep ranching. What do you want to do, dump a million people out there and claim some sort of victory? ; ) ”
-When I began to suspect that this over-population scare was just another elitist totalitarian power-grab scare, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, using the interwebs for data.
The U.S. annual corn production, alone, would provide one-third of a daily 2,000 calorie diet for 8 billion people for that year.
There is plenty of food, and feeding everyone does not take that much geography.
There is plenty of space. We are not over-crowded.
Everyone, relax. It is only elitist, classist totalitarians trying to scare us to get more control over us.
2 likes
Ninek: Too bad abortion fans are so small minded and devoid of hope and optimism.
Realism and pragmatism aren’t being small-minded or devoid of hope. Either things can be done or not. Either they make economic sense or they do not, and that latter deal is the main point here – by the time it makes sense to go to other planets, things will be different enough here that people will have been cryin’ the blues long and loud, and the way we look at ‘population’ itself will be much different, pie-in-the-sky statements notwithstanding.
4 likes
TheLastDemocrat: The U.S. annual corn production, alone, would provide one-third of a daily 2,000 calorie diet for 8 billion people for that year.
So what? Why do you think that matters? That is not a realistic view of things. People don’t want to eat that much corn. They want to eat meat from critters that eat that corn, and as far as I know that’s already cutting down the ‘corn deal’ by 20 to 1.
We’re also using corn for other things than food.
If there comes a day when we really are just using corn for subsistence-feeding, as you portray it, then again – it will be a much-different world with untold misery and dissastisfaction behind us and all around us, and likely a much-reduced population.
4 likes
LOL!! I rest my case!
Except I am a little afraid of John Carter ; >) .
1 likes
So NUB, a whole lot less dinosaurs then than humans now. Having a way lot less impact on the planet than humans.
Allow God determine the population of the earth – and don’t the exploiters and climate denialists just love folk like you. Ignoring the obvious flaw in your statement, we have wars, droughts, pandemics, earthquakes etc. and you think we won’t be allowed to get ourselves into problems wrought by overpopulating?
3 likes
Ninek: God told Abraham that his descendants would be as many as the stars: Thus shall your descendants be.
But remember – this was back when they thought there were about 4500 stars, total.
5 likes
;)
2 likes
Doug says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Ninek: God told Abraham that his descendants would be as many as the stars: Thus shall your descendants be.
But remember – this was back when they thought there were about 4500 stars, total.”
Doug – ease up. This is close to one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen on this blog, across more than 8 years, from someone who seems to be a reasonable person.
I am from the suburbs. I do occasionally get out of the range of the city lights.
Out in the wilderness, if the moon or clouds are not obscuring, I am aware of how many stars can be seen with the nekkid eye. To Abram, seeing far more than 5,000 would not even be shocking. to me, yes, although I might literally pass 5,000 streetlights and headlights on a 30 minute trip to the mall.
Abram and cohorts believed there were only 4,500 stars? And that 4,500 might far outstrip the number of descendants a successful shepherd might have? Pull up, man; pull up.
1 likes
Doug says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:30 pm
TheLastDemocrat: The U.S. annual corn production, alone, would provide one-third of a daily 2,000 calorie diet for 8 billion people for that year.
So what? Why do you think that matters? That is not a realistic view of things. People don’t want to eat that much corn. They want to eat meat from critters that eat that corn, and as far as I know that’s already cutting down the ‘corn deal’ by 20 to 1.
We’re also using corn for other things than food.
If there comes a day when we really are just using corn for subsistence-feeding, as you portray it, then again – it will be a much-different world with untold misery and dissastisfaction behind us and all around us, and likely a much-reduced population.
—-Doug: my post had this point: if just U.S. corn production could nearly meet the caloric requirements of the planet’s human population, then surely we are nowhere near carrying capacity.
Like I said earlier: there are a zillion hypothetical scenarios to be thrown out there to justify us killing off all “unwanted” or “excessive” humans before (or after) they are born, or forcefully sterilizing women, or requiring ALL people to APPLY to the govt for permission to bear a child or children, or the govt putting birth control in the water supply, or injecting ALL females of reproductive age with a birth-prevention something-or-other, then removing it when we decide she is OK to bear children.
In other words, there are many disaster scenarios to support “population control” by govt as a necessity.
As I said, as far as I can reckon, NONE are anywhere close to being justified.
Often, “poverty” and “starvation” are thrown out there are reasons to justify poor-and-non-white-people population control — with us liberals trotting out pictures of starving (dark-skinned) children to persuade everyone (although we liberals do not allow fetus pictures).
So, what is the point in discussion corn calories?
Once I finished that back-of-the-envelope calculation, I had done all I needed to know that the horror stories of mass starvation were NOT based on our dietary-caloric production capacity,
–but on the desire of elitist totalitarians to control the world.
If the U.S. corn production could almost satisfy EVERYONE on the planet, how much more Russia’s corn production? What about U.S. wheat? Rice? Soybeans? Oats?
Yes, we humans need protein. At wildly inefficient rates of caloric translation of grains to animal protein, and te wildly under-utilized real arable real estate in the U.S. alone, much less the entire globe, my U.S. corn analysis comforts me that we have plenty of capacity to provide far more than 7 billion, or 8 billion, or 20 billion, with a healthy diet of grains, veg, protein, and dairy.
Real estate, for living space or food production, is not a limiting factor by any stretch of the imagination to support us aborting humans.
If you simply don’t get this, I don’t know what to say.
Our planetary problem in carrying capacity, or quality of life is this: political oppression. Nothing else.
If anyone seriously tries to sell us on the “over-population” myth, they either have bought the false story from someone who is selling the story in order to oppress others, or they want to oppress others themselves.
0 likes
Ninek: I am a little afraid of John Carter ; >)
That dude did get around, and – you just couldn’t keep him down!
3 likes
”But remember – this was back when they thought there were about 4500 stars, total.”
TheLastDemocrat: Doug – ease up. This is close to one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen on this blog, across more than 8 years, from someone who seems to be a reasonable person.
Perhaps I should have been more wacky, then… ; )
We don’t hear voice inflection or perceive body language online – I was utterly and totally kidding. : )
“As many as the stars” is a metaphor, and I wouldn’t hold the writer to the number of visible stars, in the first place. Some Bible versions say “more numerous than the stars in the sky,” too.
A person with ideal viewing conditions and really good eyesight can see stars down to about six and a half magnitude, so 4000 to 6000 at one time? 8000 to 12000 total?
3 likes
Doug, good for Warren Buffett, but for every billionaire that doesn’t “do” the mega-rich lifestyle, there are probably ten that DO.
1 likes
After viewing the discussion last night, I WONDERED ABOUT THE OPPOSED VIEW or even if after all these decades can’t we come-up with a ‘solution’ to the inevitability of culling humans because we are over populating our planet. this inevitability facet has some very powerful problems with it – from not just a PC-perspective, but even more so from the PL view.
Malthuse proposed some pretty drastic consequences back in the 1700’s, and they were given little credence in the centuries to follow, because humans applied science to their modern world. {Yep, ‘modern’ is only one (of many) human perspectives … like: ‘civilized’.} We have this difficulty of assuming that the world we live in cannot possibly drastically different than it is, so we have a deep reluctance to change. If you think PL are conservative, folks like Doug and Reality often say the loudest ‘NO’ to the following ideas:
IDEA I: TRANSPORT – Nowadays, we humans ‘move’ things, like food and automobiles by trucks, rails, or ship; and only rarely by air. Often we are limited in size/design because of the limiting capacity of rail, trucks, and conventional-air cargo capacity. If instead we used a fleet of dirigibles, then a list of expensive methods would cease, and we would live in a much different world – no need for hiways nor railroads.
IDEA II: ELECTRIC POWER – Nowadays, we humans use all sorts of electric devices based mainly on the inventive genius of the man, Nicholas Tesla. Our whole society (and much of its present efficiencies) depend on the form of electric power called AC (alternating-current). There are other forms of electricity like static (like lightening bolts) and DC (direct-current) in batteries.
We seem stuck because static charges easily mingle with DC charging, but not with AC. [Our newest use of power is electronics like computers; and LED lighting. These would more-readily be seen as a form of DC. The possibility of transport over vast areas (from satellites) renders much of our reliance on AC mute!]. All forms of electricity vanish (are grounded easily) and so it is difficult for them to be transported very far. Except AC … when you have got huge dams making large amounts of AC and transporting this power to distribute it on a grid.
Switching to DC { there are several innovations this make this easy and inexpensively produced} from AC has many benefits besides substantial savings (costs of power loss)/no more expensive dams, no more towers/ no more heavy-duty wires. It will also localize control (to neighborhoods) as opposed to ‘the wealthy few’. [bio-mass generating is a ‘new’/thousands-of-years-old technology that can save a minimum 80% on power costs generation.}
Please explain to me why we must kill other humans through necessity?
0 likes
<em>TheLastDemocrat: my post had this point: if just U.S. corn production could nearly meet the caloric requirements of the planet’s human population, then surely we are nowhere near carrying capacity.</em>
On a theoretical basis, of course we’re not at or near carrying capacity – (it’s not like we can’t feed one more person). It’s also not the same thing to note that the carrying capacity is not unlimited, compared to saying “we are at or near the limit.”
Like I said earlier: there are a zillion hypothetical scenarios to be thrown out there to justify us killing off all “unwanted” or “excessive” humans before (or after) they are born, or forcefully sterilizing women, or requiring ALL people to APPLY to the govt for permission to bear a child or children, or the govt putting birth control in the water supply, or injecting ALL females of reproductive age with a birth-prevention something-or-other, then removing it when we decide she is OK to bear children. In other words, there are many disaster scenarios to support “population control” by govt as a necessity.</em>
I don’t think you see posts here that maintain that “we should kill off any certain group.” The things you describe above are not what pro-choicers advocate. I’m also not necessarily in favor of every single thing done or promoted by all the organizations that Warren Buffet supports. That said, I do think that Joanna (and Warren) have a point – the pie-in-the-sky stuff that boils down to basically saying, “We never need worry about population” – is not correct. We are already feeling population pressure now; more about it below.
<em>As I said, as far as I can reckon, NONE are anywhere close to being justified. Often, “poverty” and “starvation” are thrown out there are reasons to justify poor-and-non-white-people population control — with us liberals trotting out pictures of starving (dark-skinned) children to persuade everyone (although we liberals do not allow fetus pictures).</em>
Whether deliberate or not, it’s really a strawman argument to protest against “non-white population control.” Again, that’s not what pro-choicers are saying. Pro-choicers are for leaving it to the woman to make her best choice, regardless of what she looks like or where she’s from. As for the relatively few people that do insist that “we are at the brink,” as far as population, if they insist on non-voluntary measures being forced on people, then that is obviously not being pro-choice.
<em>So, what is the point in discussion corn calories? Once I finished that back-of-the-envelope calculation, I had done all I needed to know that the horror stories of mass starvation were NOT based on our dietary-caloric production capacity, –but on the desire of elitist totalitarians to control the world. If the U.S. corn production could almost satisfy EVERYONE on the planet, how much more Russia’s corn production? What about U.S. wheat? Rice? Soybeans? Oats? Yes, we humans need protein. At wildly inefficient rates of caloric translation of grains to animal protein, and te wildly under-utilized real arable real estate in the U.S. alone, much less the entire globe, my U.S. corn analysis comforts me that we have plenty of capacity to provide far more than 7 billion, or 8 billion, or 20 billion, with a healthy diet of grains, veg, protein, and dairy. Real estate, for living space or food production, is not a limiting factor by any stretch of the imagination to support us aborting humans. If you simply don’t get this, I don’t know what to say. Our planetary problem in carrying capacity, or quality of life is this: political oppression. Nothing else. If anyone seriously tries to sell us on the “over-population” myth, they either have bought the false story from someone who is selling the story in order to oppress others, or they want to oppress others themselves.<em>
It’s not just “poitical oppression” that is the problem. It’s also the reality that there isn’t going to be any perfect distribution, production, etc. The world simply does not work that way. It doesn’t matter what is theoretically possible; there is the reality we have here and now. We already have “mass starvation” – more than a million kids starve to death every year, and many tens of millions of them are at risk, hundreds of millions of people, overall.
We already have rationing-by-price. Sure, we can produce more corn and food in general – but it does not pay to do it below a given price, and free societies, given human nature, are going to consume meat, “wildly inefficient caloric translation” or not, and we’re not going to be spread out over the whole world’s surface in any pipe-dream scheme of distribution.
There are really two separate discussions here. On one hand, I agree that it’s incorrect to say, “People in X country or Y continent (or anywhere, really) need to die because we’re out of food.” Granted that that’s not the case.
On the other hand, we are already feeling a lot of population pressure in a lot of ways, and affecting the earth – including some ways where we don’t know all the ramificiations or where we haven’t yet really gotten to the bad effects.
Quaity of life – costs have already been driven up by demand, and this is just the beginning, even without the future population increases that as of now are a sure thing. We have billions of people around the world just now starting to consume in ways more akin to the developed world, or “first world.” Corn is a good example: it was $1 or $2 a bushel for at least 50 years. Now we have China, India, Russia, Brasil, etc., rapidly increasing demand, as well as our own usage of corn becoming a lesser percentage of direct human consumption. Corn has risen in price over the last 8 years, and last year averaged $7 per bushel. Once again – I’m not saying “don’t expand the population” – nothing we can or will do about that anyway – but it’s affecting our quality of life and that of everybody on earth, and will continue to do so.
3 likes
Phillymiss: Doug, good for Warren Buffett, but for every billionaire that doesn’t “do” the mega-rich lifestyle, there are probably ten that DO.
Totally agreed, Phillymiss. I think it’s human nature that that’s the way it’s going to be. Regardless of the supposed economic system, i.e. capitalism, socialism, communism, et., wealth tends to concentrate in the hands of the few, not the many.
3 likes
I have some different problems, hopefully Doug can help me understand. A decision to abort is a pregnant Mom’s ‘best’. How so? How is ‘her best’. ‘the best’? Since, ‘her best’ trumps ‘the best”, and does it surpasses all rigorous scrutiny?
How can we all have human traits to … kill our offspring rather than protect life? Then life or death is simply an option, rather than being anti-human?
1 likes
John McD: We have this difficulty of assuming that the world we live in cannot possibly drastically different than it is, so we have a deep reluctance to change.
True, John, the “normalcy bias.” And it’s not always that we are reluctant to change – it’s usually that we don’t believe that things will change. This applies to change for the worse as well as for the better. Most of us are usually taken by surprise, whether it’s a godsend, a surprise, or a disaster for us.
___
If you think PL are conservative, folks like Doug and Reality often say the loudest ‘NO’ to the following ideas:
You’re going too far, there, boss. Not blindly groping toward theoreticals and pie-in-the-sky ideas is hardly just saying “no.” There are things that are workable, and there are things that are nothing more than utopian.
___
IDEA I: TRANSPORT – Nowadays, we humans ‘move’ things, like food and automobiles by trucks, rails, or ship; and only rarely by air. Often we are limited in size/design because of the limiting capacity of rail, trucks, and conventional-air cargo capacity. If instead we used a fleet of dirigibles, then a list of expensive methods would cease, and we would live in a much different world – no need for hiways nor railroads.
People are thinking about it:
http://rt.com/news/aeroscraft-revolutionary-airship-cargo-187/
Proposed 66 ton payload, perhaps as much as 500 tons someday…. In the US, freight trains can carry around 7000 tons, for double-stack container trains, to ~ 20,000 tons, for open-top hopper cars.
That’s a lot of dirigibles needed – from 14 to 300 (even including the 500 ton capacity dirigible) – just to replace one freight train.
Container and general cargo ships around the world – carry about 220 million tons. Doesn’t include tankers, this is just dry stuff. Would take about 440,000 to 3,333,000 dirigibles to replace them. Even if we knock some off for faster dirigible speed, some prodigious numbers.
Hey – if it makes economic sense to do it, it’ll be done.
___
IDEA II: ELECTRIC POWER
This is actually already in progress. Yeah, DC has some advantages, and it’s only recently that it’s technologically and economically feasible to have DC transmission systems. Some countries may go with DC as they are building out their infrastructure.
DC/DC transformers are still quite a bit more expensive than the ones for AC voltage, so that’s still holding it back, but eventually that should cease to be a factor, as well. For the developed world, the question is then if it pays to take on the enormous cost of replacing the existing grid.
____
Please explain to me why we must kill other humans through necessity?
Just who really is saying that, John? Pro-choicers are not. The world will have more people next year, and the year after that, and – all other things being equal, things will still be “fine,” at least as much as they are now.
People are starving, now, and people’s quality-of-life is being affected now, and those effects will continue and likely get worse as population pressure increases. For the world as a whole, however, things will be pretty much the same – we’ve already seen resource, food and energy costs go way up.
3 likes
John McD: I have some different problems, hopefully Doug can help me understand. A decision to abort is a pregnant Mom’s ‘best’. How so?
It’s up to her, John. I didn’t say that having an abortion would necessarily be her best choice. It may not be.
Tying-in with what TheLastDemocrat said about political oppression – there are some places in the world that are just about literally “hell on earth” (so to speak). Places where there is incredible repression, starvation, misery, etc.
For a woman, there, not to want to have kids is all the more understandable, at least in my opinion. For a pregnant woman to want to have an abortion is too. If there is no rational hope for feeding one’s offspring, and the very real probability that the child will suffer to such an extent, then who, really, is going to want to have kids in the first place?
You and many other people – on religious grounds or whatever – may say it’s still wrong to have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances. I understand that. And I understand that the given woman, in those circumstances, may not want to have an abortion either. That is fine with me. It certainly may not be her best choice. Or, it may be, and then I think she should be allowed.
___
How is ‘her best’. ‘the best’?
Depends what you mean by ‘the best.’ She may agree with what you think, or she may not.
___
Since, ‘her best’ trumps ‘the best”, and does it surpasses all rigorous scrutiny?
You are positing an external ‘best,’ here. Obviously, it depends on one’s viewpoint – does one agree with the given woman, or not? Scrutinize away – it’s all going to depend on what position one begins from.
___
How can we all have human traits to … kill our offspring rather than protect life?
We are not all any certain way, here, John. For most of us, it’s circumstantial. There are huge numbers of pro-choicers who never have abortions, who have kids. Then there are some pro-choicers who do have abortions themselves. There are also people who have abortions who consider themselves “pro-life.” It’s certainly at a lesser rate than for pro-choicers, but roughly 14 to 20% of the abortions in the US each year are had by women who would previously have described themselves as “fundamentalist Christians” and as “pro-lifers.” (Link below that includes some pertinent statistics.) In general, they are opposed to abortion and think it “wrong,” but they find themselves in certain situations where they think it’s best for them to have an abortion. There are also (of course) pro-lifers who would not willingly have an abortion, pretty much period.
___
Then life or death is simply an option, rather than being anti-human?
Do you really think that all women who have abortions are really “anti-human,” as simple as that?
Before we get to all the considerations of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm, having an abortion is an option. I’m not saying it’s necessarily a simple choice for a given woman in a given situation, either. It may be a very hard choice. It may be one where she’s enormously conflicted, where on balance she may be having trouble picking between yes or no.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/40519-why-do-so-many-churchgoers-have-abortions
2 likes
You can write all the comments you want and pretend to youself, but the truth is that abortion murders human beings and solves zero problems. You can deny morality, but that’s on you. And if you death-mongering pessimists don’ t have any solutions, why don’t you just get out of the way yourselves? Population killers absolutely never want to snuff themselves, but don’t mind killing others. Of course, I don’t want anyone to off themselves ever, but it seems both cowardly and hypocritical to advocate for the murder of others.
Hypocrisy: it’s not just for Christians anymore.
1 likes
Hi 9ek,
totally agree, but of course this is but semantic rhetoric … nobody ACTUALLY does die, A decision to abort is a decision to kill … a kin … of yours. And Doug, we cannot stand aloof, believing death-is-just one option among many. It is like trying to hold your breath to force control over breathing. To be human means to breath-easy, not to chose to be dead …anti-human.
0 likes
BTW… thanks Doug for the responses to my posts. I do not think of the inerrancy of being forced into acceptance of change, as being a good thing … like being dictated as being ‘accepted by the market’.
Was delighted with your article about Christian women making-up 37% of women who do have abortions. I tend to agree with the author (of this thought provoking article) that these women have little idea about what Christianity means: discipleship vs membership.
1 likes
Doug, you have good comments and good responses to people here. I want to point out something I am aware of that many are not: the planetary push for dark-skinned people, third-world people, and low-SES people to have fewer babies, coming from us educated, White, developed-nation people, has been going on in a major way for a long time – in a serious manner for just about 100 years or so.
It used to be OK to frankly talk about eugenics and other population control efforts, encouraged and directed from the top-down: you can google “three generations of imbeciles are enough” and get caught up on some of that history.
After Hilter adopted the eugenic, better-society ideas from American eugenicists, it fell out of favor to publically be “for” eugenics, or for “population control.”
The problems and solutions remained the same, and the advocates remained the same: white, wealthy progressives in the developed world.
However, the rhetoric had to change.
There is still discussion of population control. But a great deal of this has been transmutated into “rights” talk. So, in the third world, instead of us trying to influence families in the third world to have fewer babies, we talk about “access to family planning services,” “access to reproductive health,” we study the health risks associated with shorter versus longer birth spacing, and so on.
Kissinger, in the 1970s, wrote the “NSSM 200,” which you can easily find on the web now that it has been de-classified. Here, he explains that the U.S. faces a major threat in international security of those third-world countries keep reproducing. He advocates population policies as the solution.
We do not intervene directly. Through United Nations Population Fund, and other “international” non-governmental organizations, we make it seem like we are merely helping various developing nations develop “health policy,” but what we do is tie economic support – free money and low-cost loans – to having a local population control apparatus: so all of these countries, as we begin providing “foreign aid,” all of a sudden happen to set up demography ministries, begin conducting surveys regarding perceptions of optimal family size, etc.
We sell these countries on the idea that “birth control” is a sure path to economic strength, and they adopt it.
South Korea is one example. They abort about half of pregnancies. This was ushered in by the west. There was no native pro-choice, pro-free-birth-control grass-roots movement in S. Korea. However, we made it appear as if it were home-grown.
Now, after having listened to us, they are realizing they are in b ad shape due to their population structure: they do not have enough young adults generating wealth, and tax dollars from that wealth, to support the elderly, who have few children and grandchildren to otherwise support them.
We are entering a major phase of history, and public policy, as the population-control movement hits generational reality. We have pushed population control for a good 70 years, and now those two generations of messing with mother nature are producing the eventual problems.
While much of the current reproduction-control rhetoric is framed as “choice,” etc., the population impact issue is never far from the surface. If you read comments in news stories, you often see commenters saying things such as a person should need govt approval to get pregnant, some individuals should be sterilized, etc. Also, there is the idea that if we pro-lifers are successful, and get abortion banned, the population impact will be disastrous – in other words, we need abortion to keep ourselves from environmental collapse. These ideas are out there.
In China, the dictatorial rulers took the direct route to population control. Elsewhere, we have worked a more subtle approach. “The American Eugenic Society,” itself, morphed directly into “Planned Parenthood.”
0 likes
Doug sez: “Whether deliberate or not, it’s really a strawman argument to protest against ‘non-white population control.’ ”
Wikipedia covers NSSM 200 pretty well. Wik sez:
“National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974 by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger.
It was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.”
“The policy gives ‘paramount importance’ to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries. This is to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the ‘U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad’, and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States.
It recommends that US leadership ‘influence national leaders’ and that ‘improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID.’ ”
“Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.
The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures, stating for instance that ‘No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion’. “
0 likes
Doug sez: “On the other hand, we are already feeling a lot of population pressure in a lot of ways, and affecting the earth – including some ways where we don’t know all the ramifications or where we haven’t yet really gotten to the bad effects.”
Doug: this is the rhetoric used to get well-meaning people, like you, on board with the population-control efforts.
As I noted earlier: I can play whack-a-mole one-by-one wit the numerous examples of “population pressure in a lot of ways.”
Start naming them, and I will show that these are not as sure as they seem, and most are really weak, once you examine them.
The rhetorical approach is that if a laundry list is thrown at us, and someone says these are based on “research” by “scientists,” that “we” the general public ought to just then go along with whatever they say.
Another piece of rhetoric is to scare us with this idea of: we don’t know what the ramifications are of this or that. They are trying to scare us to go along with their agenda based on fear of the unknown.
I used to identify with the Democratic party since the D party seemed to be the one of the two major parties looking out for the environment. -I see this as a matter of a political party ensuring that the interests of the “little guy” are protected.
The elitist totalitarians are eager to take advantage of my political sentiment. They try to persuade me, based on my concerns for the environment, to believe we in the U.S. need to go over to Uganda and everywhere else, and tell each family there how many children they ought to have.
The elitist totalitarians also try to convince me that only if we carry out population control in those paces will their poverty issues be resolved.
Well, are they resolved? No. This is all just a front for getting my support.
I used to buy these arguments. Somewhere in the recent 20 years, “liberals” crossed a line, and became intolerant tyrants. I have seen it in friends and family. Having disagreements with colleagues, including me becoming pro-life, ten years before I became a Christian, I have been able to take a view from outside the echo-chamber pep rally.
I have read tons of stuff on this population control issue. I have followed the two paths of elitist, liberal classist rhetoric and policy from the 1300s to the present day. I now know what is going on. I know how my liberal colleagues have been bought over.
0 likes
Doug sez: “On the other hand, we are already feeling a lot of population pressure in a lot of ways, and affecting the earth – including some ways where we don’t know all the ramifications or where we haven’t yet really gotten to the bad effects.”
TheLastDemocrat: Doug, this is the rhetoric used to get well-meaning people, like you, on board with the population-control efforts.
I disagree, TLD. I’m not talking about hypotheticals, I’m talking about trends that are underway, and that are having bad effects on people’s quality of life. Costs of living, destruction of the environment, depletion of finite resources, etc.
There are also effects that population pressure is having where we don’t know what the end result will be. Some concerns are no doubt overblown here, and some may not even reflect just how “bad” things end up being. Overall, while not saying that “we must cut the population” or “the sky is falling,” I do think that population pressure generally brings bad effects, rather than good ones.
____
I used to identify with the Democratic party since the D party seemed to be the one of the two major parties looking out for the environment. -I see this as a matter of a political party ensuring that the interests of the “little guy” are protected. The elitist totalitarians are eager to take advantage of my political sentiment. They try to persuade me, based on my concerns for the environment, to believe we in the U.S. need to go over to Uganda and everywhere else, and tell each family there how many children they ought to have.
Pro-choicers are not saying, “People in Uganda should only have X number of kids.”
As far as Kissinger, Ford, and other people in gov’t wanting to “keep people down” in some areas of the world – no argument – the sentiment has existed and does exist. But this doesn’t fall under the scope of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. As for Warren Buffet – I don’t think he is saying, “Kill off these people over here.” I think he’s aware of what is happening in the world, and if he is concerned about food, housing, and (in the long run) human survival, then he has some fairly good reasons.
The Democratic party – I don’t disagree with much of what you say. We can talk about legal abortion or not, or discuss what happens as the population increases, but in my opinion these are absolutely swamped by the financial situation of the United States, and both major parties are massively at fault.
Long before any further significant changes will be wrought on the earth by human activity, I think that the majority of Americans will be very badly impacted by a true crisis in our financial system – worse than anything going back through the Depression of the 1930s.
I hope I’m wrong, or at least I hope – admittedly selfishly – that it’s not in my lifetime. I’m 55 and doubt it will wait that long.
6 likes
John McDonell: And Doug, we cannot stand aloof, believing death-is-just one option among many. It is like trying to hold your breath to force control over breathing. To be human means to breath-easy, not to chose to be dead …anti-human.
John, that is so general, though. When it comes to the situation of one woman with an unwanted pregnancy who has an abortion, or one woman who miscarries, I just don’t see it as overall bad as you do. Granted that it may be very sad for the woman who miscarries, if she wants to have kids, but you and I differ on how we’re affected as a race.
____
I do not think of the inerrancy of being forced into acceptance of change, as being a good thing … like being dictated as being ‘accepted by the market’.
Well, I have to think about this. Not totally sure what you mean, there.
….Okay – you don’t think it’s good that we are forced into acceptance of change; that it would be better if we embraced the change on our own – as we see that it’s for the best. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
To small extents, we do what you want – again, I’m pretty sure this is what you want – governments, agencies, universities, corporations, etc. will do things, try things, make things even when they’re not making a profit from them. We’ve all benefited from some such actions.
But for humanity as a whole to change, it does need to go to “the bottom line,” so to speak. If it’s not cheaper, faster, easier; if it doesn’t contribute to our quality of life – then we’re not going to generally take it on. We’ve got to want it, for compelling reasons.
7 likes