Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on June 23, 2015, 07:39:01 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here are the 10 commandments of Pope Francis in connection with climate change.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-10-commandments-climate-change/index.html
*************************************************************************
Pope Francis released a sweeping statement about the environment on Thursday, calling for "cultural revolution" to change our lifestyles -- from our addiction to technology to our treatment of the poor.
....here are 10 quick commandments the Pope says everybody can follow to stop the "disturbing warming" of our planet.
1. Think of future generations.
2. Embrace alternative energy sources.
3. Consider pollution's effect on the poor.
4. Take the bus!
5. Be humble.
6. Don't become a slave to your phone.
7. Don't trade online relationships for real ones.
8. Turn off the lights, recycle and don't waste food.
9. Educate yourself.
10. Believe you can make a difference.
**************************************************************************
Not bad.......though I personally believe we can't do much at this stage to reverse climate change or the mass extinctions.
What do you think?
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Here are the 10 commandments of Pope Francis in connection with climate change.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-10-commandments-climate-change/index.html
*************************************************************************
Pope Francis released a sweeping statement about the environment on Thursday, calling for "cultural revolution" to change our lifestyles -- from our addiction to technology to our treatment of the poor.
....here are 10 quick commandments the Pope says everybody can follow to stop the "disturbing warming" of our planet.
1. Think of future generations.
2. Embrace alternative energy sources.
3. Consider pollution's effect on the poor.
4. Take the bus!
5. Be humble.
6. Don't become a slave to your phone.
7. Don't trade online relationships for real ones.
8. Turn off the lights, recycle and don't waste food.
9. Educate yourself.
10. Believe you can make a difference.
**************************************************************************
Not bad.......though I personally believe we can't do much at this stage to reverse climate change or the mass extinctions.
What do you think?
Sriram
Strangely he seems to have forgotten perhaps the most important if we are to combat man made climate change, namely;
Don't have so many children that it results in population growth.
The Pope bangs on about poverty (and now climate change) yet completely ignores that fact that both are inextricably linked to the number of people on the planet. He is completely silent no taking action to restrict population growth, and indeed acts to frustrate action being taken to give people the ability to control their own birth rate.
Until he recognises the link and changes the attitude of the RCC on this key issue his warm, wooly words are about as helpful as a chocolate teapot in the sahara.
-
Hi everyone,
Here are the 10 commandments of Pope Francis in connection with climate change.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-10-commandments-climate-change/index.html
*************************************************************************
Pope Francis released a sweeping statement about the environment on Thursday, calling for "cultural revolution" to change our lifestyles -- from our addiction to technology to our treatment of the poor.
....here are 10 quick commandments the Pope says everybody can follow to stop the "disturbing warming" of our planet.
1. Think of future generations.
2. Embrace alternative energy sources.
3. Consider pollution's effect on the poor.
4. Take the bus!
5. Be humble.
6. Don't become a slave to your phone.
7. Don't trade online relationships for real ones.
8. Turn off the lights, recycle and don't waste food.
9. Educate yourself.
10. Believe you can make a difference.
**************************************************************************
Not bad.......though I personally believe we can't do much at this stage to reverse climate change or the mass extinctions.
What do you think?
Sriram
Strangely he seems to have forgotten perhaps the most important if we are to combat man made climate change, namely;
Don't have so many children that it results in population growth.
The Pope bangs on about poverty (and now climate change) yet completely ignores that fact that both are inextricably linked to the number of people on the planet. He is completely silent no taking action to restrict population growth, and indeed acts to frustrate action being taken to give people the ability to control their own birth rate.
Until he recognises the link and changes the attitude of the RCC on this key issue his warm, wooly words are about as helpful as a chocolate teapot in the sahara.
Agreed.
-
I think continually upgrading gadgets such as smartphones is bad for the environment. But surely using social media and Skype both for work and to keep in touch with people is better than driving or flying to see them.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway - would his security folk allow it? Compare his situation with that of, say, POTUS - the President of the USA.
-
I think that the importantant thing here is simply that the Pope has said this and enshrined it in an encyclical.
As long as the right wing Republicans in America continue to rubbish the possibility of climate change deniers will be out in force. If Francis can make Catholic Republicans consider that there is a potential problem then, perhaps, some progress can be made.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
-
Strangely he seems to have forgotten perhaps the most important if we are to combat man made climate change, namely;
Don't have so many children that it results in population growth.
The Pope bangs on about poverty (and now climate change) yet completely ignores that fact that both are inextricably linked to the number of people on the planet. He is completely silent no taking action to restrict population growth, and indeed acts to frustrate action being taken to give people the ability to control their own birth rate.
Until he recognises the link and changes the attitude of the RCC on this key issue his warm, wooly words are about as helpful as a chocolate teapot in the sahara.
Bugger. Beat me to it.
The elephant in the room (or in the Vatican as the case may be) is the uncontrolled growth of the human population. Until the brakes are put on that, any action with regard to climate change and environmental degradation generally, no matter how well-intentioned, is going to be like bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
What on earth has that got to do with anything.
You really are obsessed with Dawkins - it is rather unhealthy.
-
I think that the importantant thing here is simply that the Pope has said this and enshrined it in an encyclical.
As long as the right wing Republicans in America continue to rubbish the possibility of climate change deniers will be out in force. If Francis can make Catholic Republicans consider that there is a potential problem then, perhaps, some progress can be made.
I disagree.
The problem here is that the Pope has merely used the issue of climate change to promulgate his usual agenda. He has 'fitted' the issue to previous views on matters and conveniently ignored that areas (notably population growth) which inconveniently don't fit with his agenda.
It is rather like the American republicans talking about climate change and concluding that the answer is greater capitalism, and carbon reductions for other people and population growth restrictions. But failing to mention the inconvenient truth that their actions as a nation of gas guzzlers they need to get their own house in order.
So the Pope talks about online relationships (yet as is pointed out these may actually reduce carbon emissions) and is irrelevant. Apparently elsewhere in the encyclical he has a go at transgender, as if that has any bearing on climate change. Yet completely ignores the biggest elephant in the room for both climate change, habitat loss and poverty - namely over population and population growth.
And he can hardly argue that he isn't really committed to population growth merely against artificial contraception. Why, because in his recent 'survey' that went out to all catholics he specifically asked this question:
'How can an increase in births be promoted?'
Yup, that's right - not even an acknowledgement that there may be a debate as to whether increasing birth rate was the right thing (it is of course absolutely the wrong thing to so) a clear acceptance that the official catholic line is to increase birth rate with the only question asked of catholics being how to achieve it.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
I'm not entirely sure that the faithful will feel the same about receiving a papal blessing via Skype.
-
I think that the importantant thing here is simply that the Pope has said this and enshrined it in an encyclical.
As long as the right wing Republicans in America continue to rubbish the possibility of climate change deniers will be out in force. If Francis can make Catholic Republicans consider that there is a potential problem then, perhaps, some progress can be made.
I disagree.
The problem here is that the Pope has merely used the issue of climate change to promulgate his usual agenda. He has 'fitted' the issue to previous views on matters and conveniently ignored that areas (notably population growth) which inconveniently don't fit with his agenda.
It is rather like the American republicans talking about climate change and concluding that the answer is greater capitalism, and carbon reductions for other people and population growth restrictions. But failing to mention the inconvenient truth that their actions as a nation of gas guzzlers they need to get their own house in order.
So the Pope talks about online relationships (yet as is pointed out these may actually reduce carbon emissions) and is irrelevant. Apparently elsewhere in the encyclical he has a go at transgender, as if that has any bearing on climate change. Yet completely ignores the biggest elephant in the room for both climate change, habitat loss and poverty - namely over population and population growth.
And he can hardly argue that he isn't really committed to population growth merely against artificial contraception. Why, because in his recent 'survey' that went out to all catholics he specifically asked this question:
'How can an increase in births be promoted?'
Yup, that's right - not even an acknowledgement that there may be a debate as to whether increasing birth rate was the right thing (it is of course absolutely the wrong thing to so) a clear acceptance that the official catholic line is to increase birth rate with the only question asked of catholics being how to achieve it.
Professor Davey
Thank you for your disagreement. Do you know what? I agree with just about all you have to say here. A point about contraception had already been made so I saw little benefit in repeating it.
I was merely suggesting that - as an appropriate authority figure (for some) - his encyclical might cause some of the right-wing Republican climate change deniers to think a little more about the subject.
Anyway, I'm sure you enjoyed you enjoyed producing your little outburst. If nothing else it gave your tendons some well-needed exercise. You didn't need to produce a diatribe.
-
I think you make a very valid point, HH. It is significant that the Pope has acknowledged the reality of man-made climate change and the need for humanity to act, not just for the right-wing Catholics in the States but in the emerging economies too.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
If he delivered his homilies by phone or online he would immediately be accused of being "the yuppie pope" who neglects his impoverished flock.
-
I like it, "the Yuppie Pope"
A new trendy image perhaps
Like the "buddy Jesus"😉🌹
You must remember Spitting a Image getting there first.
http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/image/0,8543,-10705154830,00.html?redirection=guardian
On the 'buddy Jesus', I once was on retreat and read through the entries left in a journal; one was from a teenage girl who said that because of the desertion by her father she couldn't relate to a loving father God, but that in Jesus she found someone she could relate to as a friend.
-
I think you make a very valid point, HH. It is significant that the Pope has acknowledged the reality of man-made climate change and the need for humanity to act, not just for the right-wing Catholics in the States but in the emerging economies too.
But this is hardly new.
This isn't a U-turn from the Pope/RCC, as if the RCC and the Pope have been climate change deniers for years and suddenly became converts.
The previous Pope was making similar statements years ago:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/2421247/Pope-Benedict-XVI-urges-pilgrims-to-fight-climate-change-and-reject-consumerism.html
So the current Pope is merely repealing a pre-existing mantra, but still failing to take the really bold step of leadership, that would be to acknowledge that climate change is such a significant problem that is it sufficient to cause the Pope and RCC to change their long standing teaching to support action that will mitigate climate change. And for the RCC that would be to reject their goal of increasing birth rate, and accept that dealing with population growth is a key element to tackling climate change and that can only be address through supporting the use of the full range of effective methods of contraception.
So there is frankly nothing new in the current Pope's message, indeed it is pretty well identical to the message of the previous Pope in 2008 (and no doubt earlier).
-
I'm not entirely sure that the faithful will feel the same about receiving a papal blessing via Skype.
Is it any worse than being in a crowd of 100,000?
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
I'm not entirely sure that the faithful will feel the same about receiving a papal blessing via Skype.
People are ok with receiving antitheist doctrine from Matt Dillahunty via the back of his trousers......
.......Why not a papal blessing via Skype?
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
What on earth has that got to do with anything.
You really are obsessed with Dawkins - it is rather unhealthy.
You think that's obsessive? What about people who have spent years posting here to deny something they don't think even exists? That is true obsession; and if you think interest in Dawkins, who is, after all, a person frequently in the public eye, is unhealthy, then what is this anti-theist stuff then?
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
What on earth has that got to do with anything.
You really are obsessed with Dawkins - it is rather unhealthy.
You think that's obsessive? What about people who have spent years posting here to deny something they don't think even exists? That is true obsession; and if you think interest in Dawkins, who is, after all, a person frequently in the public eye, is unhealthy, then what is this anti-theist stuff then?
How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the issue is about something that really does exist, I.e religion? I mean I have certainly seen it done to you twenty or so times, is it really so hard for you to understand tha you have to keep making the same point as if you haven't noticed what is being said to you?
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
What on earth has that got to do with anything.
You really are obsessed with Dawkins - it is rather unhealthy.
You think that's obsessive? What about people who have spent years posting here to deny something they don't think even exists? That is true obsession; and if you think interest in Dawkins, who is, after all, a person frequently in the public eye, is unhealthy, then what is this anti-theist stuff then?
How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the issue is about something that really does exist, I.e religion? I mean I have certainly seen it done to you twenty or so times, is it really so hard for you to understand tha you have to keep making the same point as if you haven't noticed what is being said to you?
We are talking here about years of repetition of the same arguments, often made in a derisory manner. And surely once a point is made. that is it. Even if others disagree, so what? What is achieved by the constant re-gurgitating of the same? It is at least over-kill, or as I said, obsession. If your aim is to establish that you are anti-religion, why go on and on once your point is made. I realise who are the anti-religionists on here, and I wonder why they feel the need to re-inforce their views, over a period of years.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
What on earth has that got to do with anything.
You really are obsessed with Dawkins - it is rather unhealthy.
You think that's obsessive? What about people who have spent years posting here to deny something they don't think even exists? That is true obsession; and if you think interest in Dawkins, who is, after all, a person frequently in the public eye, is unhealthy, then what is this anti-theist stuff then?
How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the issue is about something that really does exist, I.e religion? I mean I have certainly seen it done to you twenty or so times, is it really so hard for you to understand tha you have to keep making the same point as if you haven't noticed what is being said to you?
We are talking here about years of repetition of the same arguments, often made in a derisory manner. And surely once a point is made. that is it. Even if others disagree, so what? What is achieved by the constant re-gurgitating of the same? It is at least over-kill, or as I said, obsession. If your aim is to establish that you are anti-religion, why go on and on once your point is made. I realise who are the anti-religionists on here, and I wonder why they feel the need to re-inforce their views, over a period of years.
Because it continually needs to be made? Because there are nutters outside my house every other week parading in the name of their history and religion 'justifying' their marching because of religion (though why they need to be pished at 10 in the morning to celebrate it, is baffling). Because nutters fly themselves into buildings. Because I see hatred being taught in schools and paid for by my taxes. Because I have visited people in hospital beaten up cos God hates fags. Because there are people desperately trying to shout down science as their God is too small to deal in facts. Because it's just another vacuous reason that is used to hate.
-
They are all things for "other people" to do, not the Pope, somehow I can't see the Pope catching a bus into Rome.
Rose, its worth bearing in mind that he quickly vacated (if he ever lived there in the first place) the palatial Vatican apartments that have been the traditional home of popes over the years.
How does that help with climate change?
As for catching a bus into Rome; do you think he has a great deal of choice? In view of the various attempts on the lives of recent Popes - combined with the fact that he actually lives in Rome anyway
Instead of visiting foreign countries, he could deliver his homilies by phone or online. That would be a win in the fight against climate change.
Yes and Richard Dawkins could stop jetting across the atlantic etc.etc.
What on earth has that got to do with anything.
You really are obsessed with Dawkins - it is rather unhealthy.
You think that's obsessive? What about people who have spent years posting here to deny something they don't think even exists? That is true obsession; and if you think interest in Dawkins, who is, after all, a person frequently in the public eye, is unhealthy, then what is this anti-theist stuff then?
How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the issue is about something that really does exist, I.e religion? I mean I have certainly seen it done to you twenty or so times, is it really so hard for you to understand tha you have to keep making the same point as if you haven't noticed what is being said to you?
We are talking here about years of repetition of the same arguments, often made in a derisory manner. And surely once a point is made. that is it. Even if others disagree, so what? What is achieved by the constant re-gurgitating of the same? It is at least over-kill, or as I said, obsession. If your aim is to establish that you are anti-religion, why go on and on once your point is made. I realise who are the anti-religionists on here, and I wonder why they feel the need to re-inforce their views, over a period of years.
Because it continually needs to be made? Because there are nutters outside my house every other week parading in the name of their history and religion 'justifying' their marching because of religion (though why they need to be pushed at 10 in the morning to celebrate it, is baffling). Because nutters fly themselves into buildings. Because I see hatred being taught in schools and paid for by my taxes. Because I have visited people in hospital beaten up cos God hates fags. Because there are people desperately trying to shout down science as their God is too small to deal in facts. Because it's just another vacuous reason that is used to hate.
I take all that on board, but I don't think it applies to the posters here. So maybe you ought to be out on the street making your points; or looking for a gathering where you can make your points to those they apply to.
-
But it's people like you that say, oh, don't complain about our privileges because we are loving and those are the horrible people, and nothing to do with us, even if you get them as a job lot with us. Just ignore the fact that you grow up in a sectarian society because two sets of us who have some incredibly inconsequential disagreement about works or acts, we aren't really sure ourselves, but we think it is fine to bomb things for. Forget about the whole two towers thing, as that is just the lunatics and we aren't really providing them with justification in telling you not to mention them or argue against religion because we find it a bit tedious. After all there are lots of horrible things going on, and if some of them are being justified by religion and generally asking for a pass on the logic thing, it's nothing to do with me, those are chartered religion people not certified like me, I'm the good kind and so you shouldn't worry if some of us get special seats in your legislature to tout a bit of unreasoning discrimination against gay people because you lot just want to stop us having the freedom to act as if we have some God given right to do that.
-
But it's people like you that say, oh, don't complain about our privileges because we are loving and those are the horrible people, and nothing to do with us, even if you get them as a job lot with us. Just ignore the fact that you grow up in a sectarian society because two sets of us who have some incredibly inconsequential disagreement about works or acts, we aren't really sure ourselves, but we think it is fine to bomb things for. Forget about the whole two towers thing, as that is just the lunatics and we aren't really providing them with justification in telling you not to mention them or argue against religion because we find it a bit tedious. After all there are lots of horrible things going on, and if some of them are being justified by religion and generally asking for a pass on the logic thing, it's nothing to do with me, those are chartered religion people not certified like me, I'm the good kind and so you shouldn't worry if some of us get special seats in your legislature to tout a bit of unreasoning discrimination against gay people because you lot just want to stop us having the freedom to act as if we have some God given right to do that.
That little rant in which you claim, "people like you," is totally alien to what I think. Please don't assume what I think without any justification whatsoever. Your comments are spurious.
-
But it's people like you that say, oh, don't complain about our privileges because we are loving and those are the horrible people, and nothing to do with us, even if you get them as a job lot with us. Just ignore the fact that you grow up in a sectarian society because two sets of us who have some incredibly inconsequential disagreement about works or acts, we aren't really sure ourselves, but we think it is fine to bomb things for. Forget about the whole two towers thing, as that is just the lunatics and we aren't really providing them with justification in telling you not to mention them or argue against religion because we find it a bit tedious. After all there are lots of horrible things going on, and if some of them are being justified by religion and generally asking for a pass on the logic thing, it's nothing to do with me, those are chartered religion people not certified like me, I'm the good kind and so you shouldn't worry if some of us get special seats in your legislature to tout a bit of unreasoning discrimination against gay people because you lot just want to stop us having the freedom to act as if we have some God given right to do that.
That little rant in which you claim, "people like you," is totally alien to what I think. Please don't assume what I think without any justification whatsoever. Your comments are spurious.
You've just done exactly that in the comment, so not only not spurious but justified by that.
And as for your use that my earlier rant doesn't apply to posters on here, what about those posters who support discriminating against gay people? What about those who have doubts about evolution? What about those who think that their god was right to drown children?
-
Where is old Bluehillside,
Anyway, on the subject of population growth, Blue gave us a link about this Norwegian bloke on Ted Talk who was upbeat about the state of the world.
His forte was using statistics to predict future outcomes, apparently the worlds population will level off at about 10 billion.
His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.
Although if I remember correctly the guy did hint at more wars over basics like water and land to grow crops.
Gonnagle.
-
Where is old Bluehillside,
Anyway, on the subject of population growth, Blue gave us a link about this Norwegian bloke on Ted Talk who was upbeat about the state of the world.
His forte was using statistics to predict future outcomes, apparently the worlds population will level off at about 10 billion.
His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.
Although if I remember correctly the guy did hint at more wars over basics like water and land to grow crops.
Gonnagle.
I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.
-
Where is old Bluehillside,
Anyway, on the subject of population growth, Blue gave us a link about this Norwegian bloke on Ted Talk who was upbeat about the state of the world.
His forte was using statistics to predict future outcomes, apparently the worlds population will level off at about 10 billion.
His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.
Although if I remember correctly the guy did hint at more wars over basics like water and land to grow crops.
Gonnagle.
I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.
But even if the global population were to stabilise at around 10 billion that would still represent an increase of over 35% on the current population.
-
His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.
But you need a shared consensus on what is desirable.
When you have got a major religion (that claims about 2 billion adherents) that in its recent encyclical totally dismissed population growth as being important in relation to climate change, and also is actively promoting increasing the birth rate rather than decreasing the birth rate, then you have a big problem.
-
Dear Prof,
A shared consensus, well I am not a big fan of the RCC but as far as I am aware they are a major player in combating the basics of what ails this world, poverty and hunger.
Instead of belittling Pope Francis attempts to help, maybe the world should have a think about how we can help him.
Of course that would mean kicking prejudices about religion into touch.
Gonnagle.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
-
...
I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.
But even if the global population were to stabilise at around 10 billion that would still represent an increase of over 35% on the current population.
I think the consensus is that we could handle that size of population (9-10b) given good management and distribution of resources, with careful control of emissions. Certainly we could not support such a population with a level of consumption and waste similar to what we currently have in the USA/Europe.
I agree that we should support birth control and limiting the population, but the effect of population on global warming is complicated and not really the primary issue.
-
...
I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.
But even if the global population were to stabilise at around 10 billion that would still represent an increase of over 35% on the current population.
I think the consensus is that we could handle that size of population (9-10b) given good management and distribution of resources, with careful control of emissions. Certainly we could not support such a population with a level of consumption and waste similar to what we currently have in the USA/Europe.
I agree that we should support birth control and limiting the population, but the effect of population on global warming is complicated and not really the primary issue.
I agree global warming is a serious issue, which is ignored at our peril. However, as people will probably have to move in the future from areas of greatest risk, it is necessary to ensure the world's population doesn't get out of control.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
As I understand it, the RCC position on birth control comes from Thomas Aquinas' consideration of the Natural Law of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse in human beings is reproduction.
It may well be that while the primary biological purpose of sex is reproduction, sex has a more important survival role - that of strengthening the bond between couples. Since human offspring take a very long time to mature, a strong bond between the parents offers the possibility of continued protection during maturation. It could also be argued that reduced fertility (in the form of fewer children) also provides greater protection to existing children making it more likely that they will achieve maturity.
I think that by recognising that its view on birth control comes not from any biblical source but from ancient Greek philosophy, the RCC might find it relatively easy to change its stance. Most adherents in first world countries appear to ignore RCC teaching on this matter anyway.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
What about other religions? What about governments? Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
What about other religions? What about governments? Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.
Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
What about other religions? What about governments? Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.
Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.
Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success. What's the difference? The result is the same. Why doesn't the Indian Government, for example, do more to cut back what has been a population explosion in recent years: population up by almost 190 million in the last decade or so?
“The population of India is 1.21 billion showing an increase of 181.96 million persons during the decade 2001-2011. During the past decade, population of India grew by 17.7%."
-
Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.
That's an answer to somebody else's question perhaps, but not the one I asked.
-
Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.
That's an answer to somebody else's question perhaps, but not the one I asked.
No, but I was just highlighting the usual slant against Christianity, which is so blatantly biased. I am simply stating that extreme population growth, and I am not apologising for Catholic dogma, far from it, is down to other sources, in the main. Fair's fair.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
What about other religions? What about governments? Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.
Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.
Nor can I.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
What about other religions? What about governments? Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.
Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.
Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success. What's the difference? The result is the same. Why doesn't the Indian Government, for example, do more to cut back what has been a population explosion in recent years: population up by almost 190 million in the last decade or so?
“The population of India is 1.21 billion showing an increase of 181.96 million persons during the decade 2001-2011. During the past decade, population of India grew by 17.7%."
Give that the OP was about the Pope and climate change it isn't unreasonable that the focus is on the RCC.
That said you are right that other religions too actively encourage population growth and any body (religious or otherwise) which does this is being grossly irresponsible.
On India, you are pretty wide of the mark. Sure because India has a big population the increase in absolute numbers is high, but the percentage increase isn't remarkable in terms of relative growth rates. If you rank countries by growth rate India sits very middling, at around 100 out of about 200.
-
The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.
What about other religions? What about governments? Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.
Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.
Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success. What's the difference? The result is the same. Why doesn't the Indian Government, for example, do more to cut back what has been a population explosion in recent years: population up by almost 190 million in the last decade or so?
“The population of India is 1.21 billion showing an increase of 181.96 million persons during the decade 2001-2011. During the past decade, population of India grew by 17.7%."
About India population, its true that the population has grown enormously in the past six decades. But its not for want of trying by the Govt. to control the population.
The Family Planning Program was initiated in the 1960's urging people to have only one or two children. PM Indira Gandhi even attempted a compulsory sterilization program in the 1970's but was opposed and it didn't work. Condoms were distributed free in many villages.
The problem was that we are a democracy and could not force many people (unlike China) to undertake family planning measures. Due to the lack of education and poor economic conditions of the majority ....such programs were not very successful.
In South India the fertility rate (1.8 -2) has now fallen to less than the replacement rate (2.1). In North India it is still quite high (more than 3). It is however coming down rapidly as education spreads and people become more confident and secure.
-
...
The problem was that we are a democracy and could not force many people (unlike China) to undertake family planning measures. Due to the lack of education and poor economic conditions of the majority ....such programs were not very successful.
In South India the fertility rate (1.8 -2) has now fallen to less than the replacement rate (2.1). In North India it is still quite high (more than 3). It is however coming down rapidly as education spreads and people become more confident and secure.
ha! .. democracy was never the problem. The problems are the lack of education and poverty. Government after government have failed to deliver the education they committed to; Kerala is the only state to persist with their efforts over the decades. Poverty persists due to corruption.
Anyway, despite this there has been progress ... especially in the cities - ie due to social and economic progress (- rather than mass sterilizations). Unfortunately these smaller, richer, families aspire to consume at the level of US/European families: owning cars, AC, meat eating and so on ... not good re global warming.