From: clearlypellucid

2010-01-30 01:35 pm (UTC)

do, however, see a flaw in your premises, so I felt obliged to point it out, specifically relating to the Duggars.



What I find odd about that section is that you've presented an argument entirely grounded in logic for why their lifestyle is perfectly acceptable, then turned around and presented an argument entirely grounded in emotion-driven moralism as to why it's objectionable. You don't actually get to a logical argument until the next paragraph, and you never present an emotional argument in favor of the Duggars, such as that it would be morally incorrect to deny them their reproductive freedoms or their right to raise their children free of indoctrination by the state. This may be why you felt obligated to later touch on the "why did you choose to attack the Duggars" section; you didn't attack them, no, but you presented an extremely limp-wristed case in their defense, and created an extremely emotionally loaded case in criticism of them. It's not an attack, but to someone who sympathizes with them it definitely feels like one due to the lack of balance.



In writing this response I actually ultimately went back and read most of this, now that I think about it, haha. I think the other thing you're failing to consider is that there's more to the unlimited resources argument than you're really exploring, and that's the idea of efficiency. You do touch on it when you mention that the world is supporting a greater population now, but never fully present the argument for it. The theoretical limit for land and resource efficiency is extremely high; look at how much energy we can produce by splitting a single atom as an example. Cold fusion has been looking increasingly plausible in the last five years as well with the new laser reactor in California. (



As I said, I don't really have an opinion on the matter, although I do tend to side with the Duggars in the microcosm of their lifestyle choices vs the state's desire to mainstream them. I think anyone who accuses you of being a eugenicist is being absurd, since you're not advocating killing people. I have to admit I stopped reading about halfway through this. It's very long and I've heard many of the arguments before. I personally do not have an opinion on the matter, as I'm still not certain about a number of items each side accepts as facts. I, however, see a flaw in your premises, so I felt obliged to point it out, specifically relating to the Duggars.What I find odd about that section is that you've presented an argument entirely grounded in logic for why their lifestyle is perfectly acceptable, then turned around and presented an argument entirely grounded in emotion-driven moralism as to why it's objectionable. You don't actually get to a logical argument until the next paragraph, and you never present an emotional argument in favor of the Duggars, such as that it would be morally incorrect to deny them their reproductive freedoms or their right to raise their children free of indoctrination by the state. This may be why you felt obligated to later touch on the "why did you choose to attack the Duggars" section; you didn't attack them, no, but you presented an extremely limp-wristed case in their defense, and created an extremely emotionally loaded case in criticism of them. It's not an attack, but to someone who sympathizes with them it definitely feels like one due to the lack of balance.In writing this response I actually ultimately went back and read most of this, now that I think about it, haha. I think the other thing you're failing to consider is that there's more to the unlimited resources argument than you're really exploring, and that's the idea of efficiency. You do touch on it when you mention that the world is supporting a greater population now, but never fully present the argument for it. The theoretical limit for land and resource efficiency is extremely high; look at how much energy we can produce by splitting a single atom as an example. Cold fusion has been looking increasingly plausible in the last five years as well with the new laser reactor in California. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522857,00.html ) So whereas your argument in regards to limited resources makes perfect sense if you assume that we're close to the efficiency limit, it falls apart entirely if you assume that we're not.As I said, I don't really have an opinion on the matter, although I do tend to side with the Duggars in the microcosm of their lifestyle choices vs the state's desire to mainstream them. I think anyone who accuses you of being a eugenicist is being absurd, since you're not advocating killing people. From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-03 07:07 am (UTC)

Thank you for the long and detailed reply, and for (eventually) reading the entire entry. It's always nice to get meaningful feedback from someone who holds a differing position. However, I disagree with some of the statements you've made.



You say that I presented an emotionally loaded argument against the Duggars. If this is true, I fail to see how my argument in their defense was any less emotional. I haven't met them and I've never watched their reality show, so all the arguments I made in favor of them are grounded in my own readings or the opinions of those who are more familiar with them. All of the statements in the paragraph that follows, however, are factual. If anything, I would say I made an emotional argument in their defense and a logical argument against them. True, I could have argued that they're free to raise their children without the state intervening, but it would be entirely too easy to turn it around and ask why they've chosen to religiously indoctrinate their children - an argument with which I'm much more inclined to agree. I could have devoted an entire blog entry to a fair and balanced analysis of the Duggars' lifestyle, but I only wanted to use them to support my central point about overpopulation. Perhaps it would have been better to choose a family about whom I didn't have such strong feelings, but as far as reader recognition is concerned, the Duggars were the best choice.



Moving on...your point about efficiency and use of resources is admittedly a strong one. Given how much progress has been made in finding or utilizing clean and efficient energy sources, I'm not terribly worried about energy production not keeping up with the world's needs. The money or technology needed to introduce clean and efficient energy sources to less-developed countries may be difficult to find, but these are not insurmountable obstacles. The same holds true for many of our other natural resources.



The problem arises when the efficiency argument is applied to food production and the ramifications are considered. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that a new technology was found that allowed all the world's farms to produce twice as much food. If you agree with my assertion that population growth is a function of food availability, then this would allow our population to grow much larger. Even if we had enough natural resources to support the people's needs as the population grew, we'd be faced with the problem of finding housing for all of them. If the population grows to that point, people will have to change their lifestyles to accomodate it.



South Korea, for example, is so densely populated that only the very wealthy or those who live in undeveloped areas can afford to own their own houses. Everyone else lives in apartments. This might be perfectly acceptable in a collectivistic society with a high population, but I can't imagine it gaining widespread acceptance in a country as individualistic as the United States. I'm hoping that we as both a nation and a species can curtail our population growth before it forces us to change our way of living.



I realize that there are many different facets to this issue, and that trying to choose a side and present a definitive argument is like trying to eat a whale in one bite. Nonetheless, I appreciate you sharing your ideas and would be happy to discuss them further if you wish. From: clearlypellucid

2010-02-03 04:25 pm (UTC)

It's odd that you see your points for and against the Duggars in the opposite way I see mine. I see all of these points as purely emotional with no foundation of logic (other than the first point, which is semi-logical):



The opposing side, however, can make plenty of arguments against the Duggars and their lifestyle choices. The family could be criticized for declaring their home a church to avoid paying taxes, for publicly stating that they have no intention of sending their daughters to college, for clinging to outdated and misogynistic views that relegate women to the role of breeding stock, for isolating their children from social interaction and objectionable secular ideas, or for using the media attention they receive to glorify their lifestyle and encourage other couples to follow in their footsteps.



Beliefs about female equality and that secular indoctrination is preferable to religious indoctrination have no basis in logic; you can't truly make a logical argument that women "should" be the equals of men, you can only point out that it's cruel and unfair to relegate them to inferior roles, which is an emotional argument. Any argument from a standpoint of human rights is an emotional argument; there's no proof that humans should have rights, it's just cruel and unfair not to allow them. In fact, one could make a very sound logical argument that humans shouldn't have rights; that society would run much more efficiently and many problems in the world could be eliminated overnight if people weren't allowed to make their own decisions.



On the other hand, arguing that the Duggars can support themselves and their lifestyle and appear to be happy and well-adjusted is a purely logical argument: their lifestyle appears to function admirably, and is therefore acceptable.



As to the second section, energy and food are the same thing. The only theoretical upward limit on the resources of this planet is its own material turnover. Theoretically, the planet could be streamlined to the point that every plant and animal in it is edible and grown under controlled conditions using a minimum of space and energy. Hydroponics and the concept of the arcology could easily mean that our planet may be capable of supporting a hundred times the population we have now. Whether or not we'd like to live in such a world, I think, is the only real limitation. I'd prefer not to. From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-04 07:36 am (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I still don't agree. My way of thinking is that any argument that can be backed up with objective evidence is logical, whereas an argument that is backed up with thoughts or feelings is emotional. Is my way of thinking flawed, or are you using a different definition of logic than I am? I'm not a machine, so my stances on different issues and the arguments I use to support them are always going to be influenced by my ideas and emotions. If I can support my arguments with evidence that can be seen, read, or otherwise observed by people who can't read my mind or feelings, does that not make them logical? Please set me straight if I'm misunderstanding.



In regards to your next point, any argument about human rights assumes that we have or deserve to have rights. Our society operates under the assumption that we have rights; if we did not, there would be nothing for governing bodies to uphold and we'd be reduced to a mass of individuals scrambling for survival in a state of nature. However logical it may be to argue that humans should not have any rights, it works only from a purely utilitarian standpoint, and I don't believe that it will ever be possible to implement such an idea without society as we know it ceasing to exist.



Without delving too deeply into particle physics, it's true that food and energy are very closely interrelated. However, they are not fully interchangeable. We can't consume raw energy, nor can we convert it into consumables in a 1:1 ratio. Even if future technology makes this possible, the end result would not be a world that I would want to live in, either...but if the belief that constant growth of the human population is an unqualified good remains unchallenged, I can see this happening. Just because we're capable of accomplishing something doesn't mean that it's good or desirable.



By the way, if you've not yet read Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, I recommend doing so. It explores a lot of the themes we've discussed here, and I think you'd enjoy it quite a bit. From: clearlypellucid

2010-02-04 03:54 pm (UTC)

When I use the term "logic," I mean logic in its purest sense. Totally atheistic, utilitarian, scientific proofs. There are a lot of good arguments out there that I'd call "illogical" since I'm working with such a strict definition; I'm not saying your arguments are bad by any stretch, just that some of them are not based on pure, objective, physically observable and unquestionable facts. From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-06 02:02 am (UTC)

I can agree with that, though it leads me to wonder if it's possible to make a logically sound argument either in favor of or against the population issue. From: clearlypellucid

2010-02-06 03:58 am (UTC)

Only if you take it as a premise that the logical purpose of a species is to persist as long as possible, in which case you end up with very good arguments both ways. From: lamguin

2010-01-30 08:32 pm (UTC)

I wonder if you've ever read Ringworld. In it, there's a one child per person law, with extra children available under a few circumstances: buying a child pass for a one-time fee of $1000000 (under the theory that money making ability is at least partially genetic), being an accomplished athlete, scientist, author, etc (encouraging certain traits), and a lottery making up the balance between deaths and births. A person who had no children yet could enter a gladiatorial death match for their opponent's birthright. The point of this in the book was to breed an extremely lucky strain of human, via the lottery. Good book. You might like it. From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-03 07:08 am (UTC)

Sounds like a really interesting premise. I'll have to give it a read someday. (Deleted comment) From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-03 07:20 am (UTC)

I think the point about the Duggars representing anti-intellectualism is very astute. I suspect that the majority of homeschooling families educate their children at home because they fear or disagree with the ideas that their children would encounter in a public school. I also have doubts about how well-prepared the children of such families will be to interact with diverse groups of people, but I haven't found much evidence to support the claim that they aren't.



I think Bill and Melinda Gates have a good thing going, even if they have problems implementing their ideas. It's proof that billionaires who spend their money wisely can have a profoundly positive impact on the world. (Deleted comment) From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-03 12:55 pm (UTC)

For some reason, knowing that devoutly religious homeschooling families have minimal interaction with people who don't belong to devoutly religious homeschooling families doesn't lead me to believe that they can have meaningful interactions with diverse groups of people. I wonder if they suspect that there's a life outside of their religious subculture.



What really got my dander up was reading the Duggars' old family website. One of the blurbs on it talked about protecting children from the potentially dangerous influence of books, games, television, and the Internet.



Don't think about it too much, or your brain cells will start dying en masse. (Deleted comment) From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-03 07:29 am (UTC)

I agree that it's unfair to give the older children the responsibility for raising the younger ones. Kids need time to be kids, and they lose that opportunity when their parents have too many children to raise without help.



I find the church business outrageous, as well. It smacks of an attempt to apply their credo of "owe no man anything but love" to their dealings with the federal government and the IRS. Wonderful as that idea might sound, it'd lead to the breakdown of society if everyone lived that way. From: spacepixie

2010-02-01 05:03 pm (UTC)

These are actually a lot of the same thoughts I've had about such things.



People usually think I'm going to be pro-let-the-population-get-as-big-as-it-c an when I tell them that I'm a Christian, but though the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply, it also implies that man has a responsibility for stewardship that overrides that. The main point of that, IMO, was to ensure that there were enough humans in the world to survive and thrive, and possibly to ensure that the Word of God was carried to every nation.



Check, check, and check.



At this point, I would think that the Duggars (and the entire Quiverfull movement) risk bringing hatred upon their religion. Look at the exponential growth of the Duggars alone. In fewer than ten generations, assuming all of them have the same convictions and fertility possibilities, there will be more Duggars than THERE CURRENTLY ARE PEOPLE ON THE EARTH (I actually sat down and did the math on this once, for fun. It's pretty scary.) Which means that the force that pushes us into starvation and scarcity will most likely be wearing a cross around its neck. What kind of PR is that?



If you're an effective enough witness (and if you are walking the walk, chances are you will be) there's no need to crap out vast numbers of children just to ensure that someone will agree with you. There are enough people in the world. The more time you spend having children and growing your family, the less time you're spending helping and spreading the Word to the people that already exist.



That's why I don't agree with the Duggars' lifestyle choices.



Then again, I don't claim to speak for all Christians. In fact, given my radical views on...most things, I probably speak for exactly one of us. From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-03 12:47 pm (UTC)

I applaud your insight into the problems with Christianity and the lifestyle choices of the people who follow it. Either you've been reading Ishmael or you're just about as liberal as I am. ;)



I think you're exactly right about the problems with the Duggars' way of life and how it reflects on their religion. Unfortunately, they and too many other Christians have an extremely limited narrow scope of awareness and an even narrower interpretation of the Bible. They see the passages "be fruitful and multiply" or "how blessed is the man whose quiver is full of [children]" and obey them unquestioningly without regard for the long-term effects. Rather than reaching out to the people already in the world, they contribute to the population problem and brainwash their children to further their religious agenda. If they so strongly believe that their ideas are good and right, why not focus on sharing them with the rest of the world instead of cramming them down their children's throats? An alluring idea will survive long after the person who shared it passes away.



Of course, I don't expect the Duggars or their ilk to know anything about memetics, so I'm not surprised that they think the way they do. From: spacepixie

2010-02-03 07:42 pm (UTC)

I may not be the first to observe this, but you can't spell "overproliferation" without Pro Lifer. From: mythrilwyrm

2010-02-04 04:34 am (UTC)

Too true!