Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova, Marc Morano – Climate philosopher Travis Rieder has been touring the country, trying to persuade university students not to have kids – and promoting ideas for restricting childbirth, including tax penalties against people who decide to have a child.
Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?
Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.
He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”
Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.
…
Rieder and his Georgetown collaborators have a proposal, and the first thing they stress is that it’s not like China’s abusive one-child policy. It aims to persuade people to choose fewer children with a strategy that boils down to carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich.
Ethically, Rieder says poor nations get some slack because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids. He suggests things like paying poor women to refill their birth control and — something that’s had proven success — widespread media campaigns.
In the 1970s and ’80s, a wave of educational soap operas in Latin America, Asia and Africa wove family planning into their plot lines. Some countries did this when they faced economic crisis. The shows are credited with actually changing people’s opinions about family size.
For the sticks part of the plan, Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child.
Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids. He knows that sounds crazy.
…
Read more: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change
There is no evidence the world faces a climate apocalypse. All such claims are based on broken climate models which have never demonstrated predictive skill.
But people who act on Rieder’s well meaning but in my opinion scientifically unsound advice may be opening themselves to a lifetime of misery.
The West is full of unhappy couples who waited too long to have a family, thanks to the financial and social pressures of modern life. An entire industry has arisen to try to help desperate couples have a child, many of whom need medical assistance because they are too old to conceive naturally. Adding to the financial and social pressures prospective parents face will exacerbate this tragedy.
When his prophesied doomsday passes uneventfully, Rieder may have the integrity to do what James Lovelock did, and apologise for being wrong. But by then, for most people who listened to and acted upon Rieder’s advice not to have children, it will be too late to undo the harm.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Should we not also end immigratation to the USA from low carbon footprint economies??
You bring up a great point, and honestly, those countries should promote the restriction of child births more so than the first world nations. Especially considering that those countries are essentially being supported by the first world nations almost exclusively.
It’s been a while since I have looked into it, but the US feeds like half of the planet right now, and a great percentage of that is food that is literally given away for free. The same people pushing climate change have set this monstrosity up. They are never held accountable for obvious reasons.
No we don’t feed “like half of the planet” we do what we can. We can look it up together.
Nope, we aren’t feeding half the planet. Probably not even 5% after accounting for imports. We are a net exporter of grains but because of ethanol, far less than we should. And we import higher value fruits and veggies
Half, why didn’t you just look it up and enlighten us. Your post is contrarian and contributes nothing.
According to a study by McGill and the U of MN the U.S. produces enough food to feed 10 Billion people. That is more than the world population you can look that up. We provide food to many countries. countries with starving populations due to poverty typically brought on by social collectivist thinking like Travis Rieder’s who believe the solution to hunger is the same as his second (actually umptheenth?) coming of Climate Change, just reduce the number of people.
What a great planet this would be if to live on if only we could eliminate the living. Rieder is a world class fool.
In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage
Paul
Exactly my thoughts, the Administration wants us to reduce our carbon footprint (while his the the largest of anyone in the world with frivolous travel), meanwhile they are importing huge amounts of people with low carbon footprints and subsidizing the increase of their footprint. Of course while they multiply and other groups are constrained the goal of fundamentally changing the country is achieved (that means voting for Democrats)
Since carbon footprints are measured on a per person basis, shouldn’t we have more kids to justify our carbon footprint?
I prefer a HEAVY tax on “Climate Philosophers”
People like this nutter should not be given additional ink or pixels, by us or ANYONE. Let their rants die an immediate natural death before their nihilistic worldview infects anyone else.
Can’t say regarding a climate philosopher but Mel Brooks was a stand-up philosopher
Just what the hell IS a ” Climate Philosopher ” ??
It’s not something observable or capable of being experimented with, so it isn’t science.
So I suppose you can say anything you want, about anything at all, and Call it “philosophy.
Mental mastication.
Does it pass the “put up or shut up test” ?
Another George Mason wizard with a pulpit to propagandize a bunch of impressionable students, who have yet to experience much of life.
His story seems to be more one of eugenics if you ask me (don’t ask me).
Disguising it as “climate philosophy ” seems as good a subterfuge as any.
G
Pol Pot is Pol Pot by any other name…”climate philosopher” It’s similar to the “political philosophy” of Paul Ehrlich and Joe Stalin “to make an omelette you’ve got to break a few eggs”
He is actually a Johns Hopkins wizard, his research interests tend to center on issues in procreative ethics and climate change ethics, with a particular focus on the intersection of the two – that is, on the question of responsible procreation in the era of climate change. He seems as qualified as anybody else in this new field – of course, he invented the field; it no longer called eugenics.
What is a “climate philosopher,” you ask? Mel Brooks had an opinion to offer regarding philosophers:
[from “History of the World: Part I]
Dole Office Clerk [Bea Arthur]: Occupation?
Comicus [Mel Brooks]: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullsh#t* artist!
Comicus: *Grumble*…
Dole Office Clerk: Did you bullshi# last week?
Comicus: No.
Dole Office Clerk: Did you *try* to bullshi# last week?
Comicus: Yes!
The difference being, of course, a CLIMATE philosopher NEVER stops bullshi#ing.
Now how in the heck did I get George Mason out of James Madison. My short term memory is getting shorter apparently.
My apologies to anyone who was offended, and also to those who did not feel offended by my misteak.
But I still believe I spelled eugenics correctly.
G
I think a climate philosopher is someone who sets about to prove the adage that talk is cheap.
george e. smith,
I think you mean, Mental onanation. >:)
mental mastication.
I was thinking of a different m word, that has nothing to do with chewing.
“Climate philosopher”. Finally, a name for “climate scientists” that more closely approximates their skill set. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a nutbar, but it is at least a more honest self-identification.
How about a tax on ‘climate philosophers’. All the carpet-baggers that jump onto the easy grants for no actual intellectual effort bandwagon should be made to ‘eat their own dog food’.
Starting with this guy at about 90% at least.
How about a tax on these twatty little chin-beards. There is a robust correlation between the number of these beards and global warming.
There is also a high correlation with stupid pseudo-scientific claims made by people with twatty chin-beards.
Absolutely. By their beards shall ye know them.
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/Beards.png
What could happen is, the message is heard and followed by most of the next generation and birth rates plummet. The baby boomer generation begins to decline in numbers but die off because of a lack of affordable health support. As the next generation ages, social security is eliminated because there are no more younger workers to continue funding. Everyone continues working until the day they die and the only populated county that remains is North Korea
Sounds like Italy today.
Sounds like every white nation these days.
So he talks to collages and other forums for intelligent folks about restricting THEIR reproduction. Wonder how that will work out in the long run?
Italy is there today. More people draw from the state than contribute in taxes. Most other white European countries are not far behind. Can see similar happening in Australia in about 30 years. I am glad I will be gone!
This is the very reason that China removed their one child policy earlier this year. They are headed towards a population crash in less than 20 years, and it is already too late to reverse it.
Unbelievable! There is already a falling birthrate in Western countries. Ever watched news documentaries from Asian and African countries? Notice the children? And those two areas hold almost a third of the world population. Try telling them to cut down.
There is an easy way to lower their birthrate: give them cheap fossil fuel generated electricity or cheap nuclear generated electricity. But that is even more abhorrent to the greens. And, besides, they are too poor so there is no money to be had shaming them and they have to work too hard just to survive to the next day so they won’t listen to this claptrap.
Good luck with that
Eugenics in another guise.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
I note Holdren has two children and five grandchildren. Which means that someone in his family has already violated Holdren’s own maximum of two children per family. But in truth such restrictions are always for other people; Holdren, as part of the self-anointed intellectual elite who have the deity-given responsibility to save the world from us incapable, irresponsible morons, is of course exempt from his own prescriptions. If he really believed all that malthusian nonsense he would have removed himself the planet long ago. Too bad for all of us that he didn’t have the courage of his convictions.
I don’t think “eugenics” is the right word describing this suicidal policy. It is rather its reverse ‘malgenics’, that is the poor in development countries are allowed to multiply, while his own ethinicity should diminish. A racially loaded tone on we can be heard. ‘We’ means white Americans or white Westerners, under the disguise of “rich people”.
Two issues are often combined: willingness to reduce birth rate (among whites) in Western countries, and willingness to increase net immigration from poor non-Western countries based on, among other reasons, the low fertility rate in West which is causing some risk of population decline.
Seldom people think how immigration increases consumption just like overall fertility rate, and how Western fertility would drop if there wasn’t immigration to keep it up. So do we want fertility rate to drop OR do we want immigration? Some people want immigration to PREVENT fertility rate from dropping much below 2.
“In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement was 2.33 children per woman in 2003.”
He is taking a lot of responsibility on his shoulders!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
So, only rich people in the West allowed to have children !!!
Is this not a prime example of Hate Speech?
No, because he wasn’t ideologically emphasizing poor should not have children.
It is a prime example of self hate.
Only if you are trapped in a quicksand bog, with nothing credible to get a hold of.
g
Since only the rich will have access to abundant energy in his brave new world, I guess it makes sense to restrict having children to them as well.
You have to think about the children, after all.
As Hans Rosling has shown, the hest way to reduce family size is to promote normal economic growth and development:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w
This is not achieved by sabotaging a country’s electricity supply and economy based on superstitious fantasies about angry sky gods.
Rieder is on the wrong side, against human advancement and on the side of regressive and harmful prejudice. That is, he’s a typical climate elitist.
While I agree with the gist of Rosling’s presentation, I object to his using of nonlinear graphs in order to fit linear curves to try and demonstrate his point. His graph around 6:00 is a log-scale at the bottom yet uses curves with areas below to mislead visually. His graphs around 11:00 also uses a log scale at the bottom and a blatantly adjusted y-axis to give a highly manipulated linear trend. Although it doesn’t affect his conclusions, this type of graph manipulation is the same used by warmists to visually confound people who don’t know how to read graphs and to manipulate their opinions. For this reason alone, I can’t recommend or share this video with others.
The message of the video is an important antedote to lazy racist thinking that is very persistent. A surprisingly high proportion of even professional people in Europe and the US see the world as an island of western civilisation and wealth surrounded by a sea of impoverished grass-skirted savages. It’s a reassuring myth but that world is gone.
The government’s of the west are moving people enmass . They aren’t assimilating and all the problems of where ever they come from are coming with them. In some cases they have no intention whatsoever of assimilating. They are intent on transforming our culture, values, and way of life into the hell hole from which they came. That’s what I object to.
And that is the primary difference that the current western government’s are missing. The value that they place highest value on are in direct opposition to the ones in the west. Saving the soul in their mantra is more important than the well being of human life. While the US can turn the lights on, provide infrastructure, and do other things, in the eyes of the religious whacks that’s evil. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies only to a select few. Much like the people in climate change. The rest are blades of grass to cushion their feet upon which they stand. The philosophy of ” if it’s good, me first”, ” if it’s bad, you first”.
Rieder could be a closet islamic supremacist. The consequence of falling birth rate in the native white population in Britain is that, in that country the most popular name for a baby boy is now Mohammed.
Actually, ptolemy, that’s a bit of a crock. There are a lot of Muslims over here, but the real reason why Mohammed is the most popular name is that it’s the name of virtually every firstborn son of a Muslim family.
It’s a bit like the oft-quoted fact that most of the alcoholics in Glasgow have names that begin with M…
And over 50% of deaths occur in hospitals, so close the hospitals we’ll all live longer!
But, are you not proving the point?
Well the ONLY useful metric is which population faction is growing at the fastest percentage rate. Doesn’t matter whether the name is Singh or Jones.
g
there’s nothing wrong with Ptolemy2’s logic – he could have concluded with “the consequence is a higher ratio of muslims” – but he substituted a symptom instead – “more boys named Mohammed” – he could use a single name to represent the growth of the Muslim population due to the prevalence of that name among Muslims (your point) – you didn’t manage contradict him – instead you provided support
in the US – the increased hispanic population couldn’t be represented by a single name like that – so efforts to be clever required something else – such as the number of spanish-speakers
Well actually jeyon, I was responding to Uncle Gus.
I never gave a thought to ptolemy2’s post.
I think you will find my post under Uncle Gus; not ptolemy2.
g
Geo E Smith,
LOL!!! So was I.
What is so interesting and extraordinary about this is the sense of ‘we’. Its common to almost all climatist thinking and preaching. It signals a denial or wilful ignorance of who is doing the thing that has to be limited.
You will find all over the place statements to the effect that ‘we’ – Holland, Britain, San Fransisco, Rhode Island, should reduce our carbon emissions to ‘tackle climate change’. What is always missing is any account of who is doing the emitting. Hint, its not Rhode Island. And yet you will find activists urging Britain or Holland to reduce their emissions with no acknowledgment of what role this can play in global emission reduction. Namely, none.
When you point this out, the reply is always along the lines of, we all have to do our bit. Or, everyone could say that and then nothing would be done.
Well no. Those who are emitting the most, and whose emissions are rising fastest, namely China and India and the developing world in general, they are the ones who should be targeted and demanded to reduce. Britain, for instance, which is being urged to reduce its emissions by 80% or so by activists, does under 2% of global emissions. Shut up and go to China, and stop off at India on the way.
That is, if you do really want to reduce global emissions.
Now, move on to population. ‘We’, which seems to mean the US, are being requested to reduce birth rates. Is US population growth from births a main cause of global population growth? Certainly not. Once again, if global population growth is the problem, the place to start restraining births is the developing world. Do all the restraining you like in the US, you are not going to make a dent in it because the US is too small a percentage of both the world population and the growth.
The prevalence of this mode of thinking leads one to a quite fundamental point. The real aim of activists is not to achieve what they propose. In fact, were the measures they propose to be enacted, they would be dismayed. The reason is that the use of the measures is solely to organise the movement and public opinion. For that reason it is best to choose something which cannot and will not be done.
So, when debating the UK Climate Change Act, the nearer and the more draconian the targets the better. If possible, make it a requirement for complete elimination of all emissions by some impossibly close date. In population, demand no second children. And so on.
None of these things will happen, and if they did they would have zero effect on the supposed global problem but this is much better than if one picked measures which could be implemented and which would have an effect. Far better to demand that all energy be generated from the sun and wind than to propose realistic schemes of any sort. Because you do not want the responsibility for implementing policy. You do not want to get things done and then have people say they are not working. What you want is to get people behind your party, so you can get power and office.
When you may or may not implement these or other measures.
This is how we get to an elected form of Pol Pot. Demand idiotic proposals which no-one has either idea or intention of executing, and which, if they did, would not affect the supposed problem. But which are great emotional standards we can carry down the street during elections and demonstrations.
+97, Michel
There are enough REAL problems on earth that need attention. Climate is NOT one of them. You don’t actually have to live in a place that is under water every summer, after the rain, or a place that has to dig itself out of snow drifts every winter. There are choices.
Frankly the amount of time and money and effort wasted on something so inconsequential as climate, is something we should all be embarrassed by.
And all the effort to move so-called “climate sensitivity” by +/- 0.1 is just laughably useless exercise.
G
Sounds like the wisdom one might expect to get from the south end of a northbound horse. The net effect of convincing college students to have fewer children that they would most likely send to college is that in about 30 years we have fewer college graduates.
@DanNCFla
Not so. The colleges will just lower their entrance and graduation requirements. The university from where I recently retired from teaching is currently reducing the academic requirements for an Engineering degree by 4.5 classes. And the reduction will mostly come out of science and technology courses.
You can draw your own conclusions about the quality of college graduates in that future.
Actually, come to think of it, maybe people who believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming really shouldn’t breed…for all our sakes.
I see this guy as Nature’s way of reducing the prevalence of stupidity in the population. Darwin in action!
Ironic isn’t it. CAGW say skeptics don’t believe in evolution.
CAGW wants to throw themselves and everybody else over the cliff, I’m not going with them. I see a very different future.
If only his parents had been as clever and considerate as him …..
well put 🙂
It’s so much warmed over Paul Ehrlich philosophy.
Which was warmed over Malthusian philosophy – and just as incorrect
Climate Change, the gift that keeps on taking
In 1985 Holdren predicted a billion deaths from climate-related famine by the end of this decade. Since then, famine has plummeted and billions have longer life expectancy thanks to fossil fuel-powered industrialization and agriculture.
So…. when he’s old, he doesn’t want a younger next generation to be working to provide his pension, then?
He’s progressive so he doesn’t need people to provide his pension, he has the government and, as we know, governments have as much money as they want to spend
We already have a heavy tax on children. If you aren’t rich and both parents have to work to put food on the table, you probably need daycare. Where I live, daycare is ruinously expensive.
“Where I live, daycare is ruinously expensive.”
Trump is going to let you deduct that cost from your taxes.
Welfare mothers should be trained and tasked to providing child care out of local churches and community centers.
Welfare mothers should have their tubs tied so as not to burden the rest of us with any additional children.
Yeah, tubes not tubs. Was eating pancakes with real maple syrup and not paying attention.
It’s called Kindergarten; soon to be pre-kindergarten so they can start brainwashing your brats sooner.
g
This where Leftists show their true moral depravity and anti-human agenda behind the CAGW scam.
As Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC once said, “We redistribute the world’s wealth de facto through climate change policy”… Christiana Figueres, another IPCC official said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting for ourselves the task of intentionally, within a difined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least the last 150 years.”
Leftists HATE the idea of inalienable rights where free men can live their lives as they see fit and and have the right to freely interact with other free men to achieve mutually beneficial agreements , without the use of force or coercion, which is the true definition of capitalism..
Leftists also HATE the concept of individual property rights where individuals are free to create wealth and have the right to own the fruits of their ideas and labor and to do whatever they like with it,
Leftists’ CAGW agenda was to create a climate of fear to extort $trillions from taxpayers and to create CAGW policies where central governments controlled every aspect of our lives: how many kids we can have, what cars we can drive, what kinds of energy we can use, where we can live, how much money we can keep, what we can eat, what energy taxes would be, etc.
Leftists will ultimately fail miserably because once this stupid CAGW scam implodes under the weight of empirical evidence (which has ALREADY disconfirmed the CAGW hypothesis) the blowback against Leftists will be profound.
Leftism is a despicable construct based on governments initiating force and coercion against free men to extract as much power, control and money as possible from the governed.
No thanks…
The demonic influence of Marx, Darwin & etc. will not die, it seems, eternal vigilance is necessary. Without God anything is possible.
Oh dear!
everything is permitted. Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche.
Darwin has nothing to do with Marxism, progressives, socialism, or any political -ism. Darwin developed Evolutionary Theory, and that’s it.
Evolutionary Theory has no moral or ethical content.
Likewise, god has nothing to do with morality because blindly following orders — even supposedly divine orders — can never be moral. Morals are about choice of behaviors. Choice requires conscious thought. For that reason, blind obedience can never, ever, be moral behavior, even if that behavior is acceptable.
If someone follows biblical or koranic commandments after thinking about them and deciding they are right, then they are following those commandments after their own personal decision and on their own personal authority, not god’s. Morals always come back to human choices. To suppose morals come from obedience to divine orders is to be in a state of delusion, or perhaps in a state of deep ignorance.
Pat Frank,
“Likewise, god has nothing to do with morality because blindly following orders — even supposedly divine orders — can never be moral.”
It seems kinda obvious to me, that people don’t have to obey God, real or not . . I mean, surely you noticed the affair in the Garden? . . Etc. etc. etc ?
And you might imagine that those who believe in God are blindly following orders, but that’s you imaging things, not believers doing things . . (and the blindly following thing is actually part of your “religion”, right?)
I suggest you rethink the whole God thing, without the presumption that He does not exist. Unless you do, I see no way for you to relate to “believers” rationally . . I was a non-believer most of my life, and didn’t realize just how . . thin the logics of atheism (including Evolution) are . . till I no longer assumed they were necessarily so, so to speak.
PS~
Please consider this Law; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Can one blindly obey such a Law? . . Is it even possible?
John,
As always, you could not possibly be more wrong.
Why should anyone rethink the God thing? There is no evidence in support of the God hypothesis, nor really is there any against it. It’s completely unscientific, because it’s not possible to test the hypothesis and show it false. Neither is there any actual evidence in its favor.
The whole point is indeed to take it on faith, ie blindly. If God were logical or demonstrable scientifically, then there’d be no need for faith. ‘Without blind faith, belief in God has no redemptive value.
As Luther said, “I must tear the eyes out of my reason, in order to be a Christian.” As an Early Church Father said, “I believe precisely because it is absurd.”
The Scholastic philosophers were barking up the wrong tree in attempting logical proofs of God’s existence. It took later Protestant theologians to recognize the truth that Christianity requires a God Who hides Himself. By faith alone are you saved, not by works. So says the Bible. The Church might differ.
Darwin was a scientist, who got much right about the natural world. To the great advancement of human knowledge and understanding.
Marx was a philosopher, who got it all wrong about everything. Disastrously.
If you follow ‘Love thy neighbor’ because god says you should, John Knight, then your behavior is not moral; merely law-abiding. If you follow it because you’ve decided it’s a good idea, then you are being moral, but on your own authority, not on god’s.
That is the point of my prior post. I regret you missed it. Morality originates in humans, not in god.
Pat,
Besides which, if humans emulated God, we would behave as evilly as we wanna be.
We’d practice genocide on a massive scale, let babies be born just to suffer miserably every day of their short lives, let other animals be eaten alive from withing and deny heaven to the vast majority of people.
We learn in the OT, Isaiah 45:7 that “God created evil”, yet in the NT, 1 John 4:8 that “God is love”. Go figure.
The commandments of which God are you going to follow?
Anyone who lumps Darwin with Marx is not being fair or objective or accurate. Darwin didn’t invent anything, he merely sought to describe the actual functioning of nature. And he made a good job of it. He correctly described selection as a process for speciation and diversity. His hypotheses pointed to an objective and absolute truth that was ultimately confirmed by our understanding of the role of DNA in sexual reproduction. That evolution occurs is not a fault, and no one save for God (if you think He’s the architect of our existence) Gaia/Mother Nature can be blamed. Evolution is just nature’s way, the way we reproduce by sexual reproduction and an occasional imperfect gene replication. If that reality offends you, maybe you can take some small solace in considering that no human being came from a monkey, and that we all came only from our two parents. Perhaps you could consider the inspiration in an ancestry tree that relates all of us to each other, to all life on this planet, an idea more awesome and powerful than any religious dogma or creation mythology as far as I’m concerned. As for Karl Marx, he FALSELY claimed to understand human nature and human politics, FALSLY claimed to have invented a better way to organize society, that his was a scientific endeavor, FALSLY implied that “we” could collectively direct lives and perfect humans for the betterment of “society.” Marx was reckless and filled with hubris common among self-hating misanthropists who are irrationally wed to their own ideas without evidence. Marx could no more define the outcome of socialism than Kevin Trenberth can define “sustainability.” Marx gave us Stalin and Mao’s cultural revolution and Pol Pot, and Venezuelan suffering today. Among Marx’s progeny, we have Communists, Stalinists, Maoists, Lysenkoists, Progressives, Eugenicists, and other misanthropes and alleged environmentalists, from among which come some of the most infamously wrong predictions in the scientific record.
Shawn Marshall– One’s belief or disbelief in God is not a prerequisite to the establishment of morals and ethics.
Our natural and inalienable human rights exist because of the very nature of man.
As sentient beings, human existence depends on our ability to think rationally, logically and creatively as our existence doesn’t depend on pure animal instincts that are hard-wired into our DNA, but rather through human action derived from conscious thought and utilizing we’ve been taught.
Accordingly, whatever individuals create and produce with their minds, individuals have the sole right of its ownership and are free to use that property however they like for their best interest. No man, or entity of man, has the right to initiate force or coercion against the life, liberty and property of others.
Eventually complex communities, societies, city-states and sovereign nations evolve with courts and governments organized for the sole purpose of protecting, defending and maximizing human’s individual inalienable rights.
The reason Socialism in all its forms (Fascism, crony crapitalism, Progressivism, Democracy, Theocracies, Kleptocracies, etc.) fail is that they are all based entirely on the immoral premise of the initiation of force or coercion against individuals without their consent, backed by the barrel of a gun…
All these anti-human constructs will eventually fail are because they are the moral and ethical antithesis of man’s nature, and they all fail to respect, defend and protect the inalienable rights of individuals, which is essential for man’s very survival and man’s ability to thrive.
Communists are socialists with a monopoly on guns.
Pat rank,
“If you follow ‘Love thy neighbor’ because god says you should, John Knight, then your behavior is not moral; merely law-abiding. If you follow it because you’ve decided it’s a good idea, then you are being moral, but on your own authority, not on god’s. ”
I don’t do blind faith in human authority . . you’re going to need more than simple declarations to convince me you even realize what morality means, let alone that you are master of what is and is not moral. Seriously, the lack of even an “it seems to me” in there somewhere, renders your head waaay to big for me to compete with ; )
Attempting to obey; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, cannot be a moral act, because . . ?
Is attempting to stay within the posted speed limit also automatically not a moral action, simply because it is posted? Please explain with a bit of depth . .
Ain’t nothin’ new under the sun ….
~ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face…
Gabro has attempted the same silly game before with me . . He believes, apparently because some person told him so, that “The whole point is indeed to take it on faith, ie blindly.” . . but he never did support that idea with anything but repetition . .
You get into your car, you insert a key and turn it, because you have faith that this action will cause the car motor to become very active, and be able to propel the car, and you, about. It’s not blind faith, though.
The notion of blind faith is just some crap some zealous anti-theists made up so they could trick gullible people into believing something that doesn’t make any sense, but would cause them to be hostile to people who believe things they don’t, as far as I can tell. Sorta like social justice warriors/black lives matter and such . ..
And check out this megalomania act;
” There is no evidence in support of the God hypothesis …”
This mega actually believes he knows what every single person that ever lived has observed . . He really believes, as far as I can determine, that if he is unaware of or rejects evidence, it doesn’t even exist, because he is unaware of or rejects it . .
The rest of us? Throughout history? Including many famous scientists? Just fools who believe things for no reason . . or agree with Gabro ; )
John Knight, you’re arguing things I have not maintained. My point is this: obedience is not morality. Do you have trouble with that concept?
Doesn’t moral behavior require thought and personal choice? If you disagree then we have no grounds for conversation.
Mickey Reno, really well said.
Pat,
“John Knight, you’re arguing things I have not maintained.”
Not true, I say.
“My point is this: obedience is not morality. Do you have trouble with that concept?”
Had you said * obedience is not necessarily morality* I’d agree wholeheartedly, but you didn’t. You said it can’t be moral to obey.
I say, that depends on who and what you obey. I asked about posted speed limits, and surmise you get that point . .
To expound on what I think is “missing” from your broad-brush approach to the matter, I see it as ignoring the effects one’s obedience might have on others. Socrates comes to mind . . and if your child saw you disobey the law for instance, there arise complexities that I think you would grant change the nature of the matter at hand . . And, when it comes to a Creator God, I have this crazy notion that He counts too . . and I have a moral responsibility to obey Him, much as a child does, to some extent, to obey their human parents.
I owe Him everything, He does not owe me anything. On what “moral” grounds can I disobey; Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? Those are His children too, ya see.
John, if you obey a speed limit slavishly, it’s not a moral action even if it has good outcomes.
But I surmise you obey the speed limit because you judge it’s a good and reasonable law.
Would you agree that obeying an immoral law is, well, immoral? Would you choose to disobey a truly immoral law? For example, would you oppose a law requiring abortions after two children?
If your answer is yes, then you implicitly agree that obedience to the law does not define morality, and that you follow speed limit laws by moral choice rather than by strict obedience. That makes my point: morality resides in the choice, not the action.
Further recall that obedience to the law was disallowed as a defense to Nazi camp guards.
As regards children, as you know they are not morally competent. For them, rote obedience is categorically different from that of adults.
We apparently have a different concept of god’s obligations, John. If god created you, he owes you everything. To create into need and danger and then abandon is the height of immorality.
Mr. Frank,
“John, if you obey a speed limit slavishly, it’s not a moral action even if it has good outcomes.”
Slavishly? Please . . just obey, not slavishly obey, is what I asked about. Stacking the deck rhetorically is not helpful to honest discourse, I feel.
“But I surmise you obey the speed limit because you judge it’s a good and reasonable law.”
I meant you, particularly in situations where one has no way of determining whether the posted limit is a good and reasonable one (“simply because it’s posted”). I suggest that you have no logical grounds for declaring that can’t be a moral action . . and suggest it likely has been (non-slavishly) on your part at times. So too, I suggest, a person might (non-slavishly) make an effort to comply with “love thy neighbor as thyself”, and that be a moral act on that person’s part.
“Would you agree that obeying an immoral law is, well, immoral?”
Sure, but you’re leaving out the *which you see as (immoral)* aspect, which to my mind vastly oversimplifies the situation we, as humans, are actually in . . In dealing with others, things very often become difficult to simplify to a clear cut; this is moral/this in not moral sort of level, I’m sure you would agree.
Now, you apparently have no compelling reason(s) to believe God exists, but I am not you, and I have witnessed things which don’t leave me able to rationally deny He does exist. So, for me, obeying that law I am convinced He “posted”, becomes much like obeying a speed limit sign, which you (presumably) believe was posted by a competent authority, and so can be a moral act to obey (and indeed an immoral act to disobey).
“As regards children, as you know they are not morally competent. For them, rote obedience is categorically different from that of adults.”
(obedience is obedience, sir . . the “rote” part is more rhetorical stacking of the deck, it seems to me.)
We, compared to Someone who makes galaxies, are not even as children are to adult humans, it seems clear to me . . and one would think someone as intelligent as you obviously are, would recognized that, frankly.
“We apparently have a different concept of god’s obligations, John. If god created you, he owes you everything. To create into need and danger and then abandon is the height of immorality.”
You must say why, sir . . or I just hear a man bitching about a hypothetical creator of galaxies not creating only vegetables he bathes in warm sunshine and gentle rains. If He offered you the choice right now, to have never been alive at all, or to be born into this world where need and danger exist; What say you? . . or, the choice of being made like those veggies, or being born into this world?
PS ~ abandoned? Perhaps the young child feels abandoned on her first day of school . . but that don’t mean she has been. Being away from mom and dad is a part of growing up, which she will either experiences, or never matures as her parents wish.
(He’ll be back soon enough, and forever is a long time ; )
John, in writing, “…a speed limit sign, which you (presumably) believe was posted by a competent authority, and so can be a moral act to obey (and indeed an immoral act to disobey).” you have exported moral authority into an external body; your “competent authority“.
In your system, the moral, or not decision rests with them. You merely accede. You have put yourself into the position of a child relative to a parent, leaving you free to obey by rote.
Once you give away authority, you have no further decisions to make. You have negated any internal standard by which to make moral choices. Every decision is external to you. Your subsequent obedience is mindless — meaning decision-free — and can not be an exercise in moral action.
None of that is rhetorical. It follows directly from the conditions you have outlined. You may feel virtuous in your behavior, but it’s not moral. Mindless obedience cannot be moral.
Truly, you cannot see the cruelty of creating a living being and then abandoning it into need and danger? Doing so would be the action of a sadist.
Pat Frank,
I noticed you cut yourself out, so to speak, in this quote;
John, in writing, “…a speed limit sign, which you (presumably) believe was posted by a competent authority, and so can be a moral act to obey (and indeed an immoral act to disobey).” you have exported moral authority into an external body; your “competent authority“.
Why, one wonders? . . I will not concede that you would (in reality) be exporting moral authority to anyone, simply because you conform to what you believe a competent authority has informed you is the safe speed limit. (Nor grant you would not be performing an immoral act, for disregarding such a sign) . .
“In your system, the moral, or not decision rests with them.”
Say what? Your decision to limit your speed (or not) would still rest with you, would it not? The competent authority’s decision was to post the sign, not slow your car down . . which is the slavish approach God could have taken it seems to me. And, loving one’s neighbor is no where near as “rote” an act as slowing one’s car.
You apparently don’t grasp that aspect of the “love thy neighbor as thyself” instruction at all . . it’s like you’re thinking it says “clap your hands whenever you see your neighbor” or some such simplistic thing . . . There’s all sorts of potential “deciding” that one might still have to do, after deciding to make the attempt to do as that “Posted Sign” directs . . and one wonders why you don’t assume that is true, frankly . .
“Truly, you cannot see the cruelty of creating a living being and then abandoning it into need and danger?”
Not when I consider the alternatives. Vegetable like existence (no need or danger and/or no awareness of need or danger), or not existing.
As you seem to “judge” the matter, God would be unable to generate autonomous entities that ever even faced real moral decisions, without being a monster for doing so, it seems to me. With nothing serious on the line (need/danger) how can a decision even be rationally called moral or immoral?
+1000
“Leftists will ultimately fail miserably”
Failure is success.
John, your use of “competent authority” is become equivocal. Your original meaning was in the context of moral authority.
In the traffic example of your most recent post, you’re using it as fit to appraise safety.
Shifting ground in meaning makes your argument incoherent.
You obey god because you have decided that you must. Every choice you make after that is derivative, and without moral content.
Last word to you.
This philosopher wants to kill the “Anthropocene” that has just begun! Thus, the Post-Anthropocene is near..
What on Earth is a “Climate Philosopher”?
I thought philosophy was a discipline based on fact and followed logical propositions.
Western Universities are full of these under-educated, none too bright marxist “philosophers” who seem to contribute nothing to society. Reduce their funding and make them do some proper work.
We have no indication that Rieder is a Marxist. Throwing around such labels without justification is not helpful and doesn’t reflect too well on your own education.
Marxists come in many packages with many labels – for example:
Trotskyites, Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Shachtmanites, etc.
When I was at McGill in the 1960’s. there were about a dozen different Marxist groups – so many that their group names were extremely long – just to differentiate them.
In general, we observed that they fit into two groups:
1. The make-love-not-war, dope-smoking Harpo Marxists,
and
2. The nasty, angry, violent Groucho Marxists.
Most climate alarmists have embraced a Harpo Marxist approach and a few are Groucho Marxists – they just do not realize it – they think they are “Progressives”.
Regards, Allan 🙂
As if his intention is to save the world… . A Marxist by any other name ? The entire CAGW movement’s agenda is Marxists. It’s communist. The top ranking officials in the IPCC have said so. There is an entire list of who’s who in the CAGW field who have nothing but disdain and contempt of the government, the way of life, and economic engine of the United States.
Further, they have continously from the beginning tried by legal means to silence anyone who disagrees with them . They have used every resource that is available to them that is common to communism. Are you a Deiner? War crimes should be brought against you. What year did I hear that? Oh yeah, 2000 or 2001. How many of the predictions have come about? Zero. Oh, it did get warmer, far below any of the models, and way below that 95% certainty rate. Then there is data stretching. In fact NOAA just did that within the last year again. How much of the warming is real ? I suppose you were speaking out against the people who tried or are trying to bring charges against skeptics by using RICO ? That’s real American of them isn’t It?
Michael, think we are too stupid or uneducated to know a Marxists when we see one ? Where ever you stand in that structure, you’re just a useful idiot. If you had any education, you wouldn’t be supporting them. When a leader emerges among the competing individuals in a communist structure, the leader kills off the those who were in front first. That’s a fact. You’ll be shot, the skeptics will be re educated.
“long names” wasn’t that one of the gags from Life of Brian???
Good one, Allan.
rishrac, I agree that many leaders of the CAGW movement are closet Marxists or sometimes overt ones. However, CAGW has many more believers than Marxism has followers. Therefore, not all CAGW believers can be Marxists.
Some people like to lump together all world views they despise … alarmist = liberal = socialist = Marxist = … that may be convenient, but it is inaccurate.
Then they are useful idiots. CAGW is vehicle. All the goals and solutions are communist, whether those who believe in CAGW are communist or not. CAGW already paints a picture of the seething masses calling for action on global warming, when in actuality no one gives a crap. A tried and true communist tactic.
The world seems full of these “fartists”
Phiosophy is entirely not amenable to fact. Philosophy is what we use to deal with non-factual (subjective) things. If things are fact-based, then science, logic and reason can be used, there is no need for philosophy with facts. Facts do not change based on how you feel about them. At least that is my opinion.
Philosophy is the art of convincing you that something that isn’t true actually is
I thought it was “a walk on the slippery rocks”.
Philosophy based on fact? That was never evident in any philosophy course I was ever obliged to take. My takeaway was that philosophers tend to be people who have trouble understanding facts and therefore rationalize ad nauseum.
Has it occurred to him who might support pensioners in a few decades time, when there are no young people around?
I have no problem with this guy deciding not to have children.
Maybe he could go one better and off himself while he’s at it.
+1…(or should that be -1!?)
ROFL!
I think that goes over the line. Let’s try to keep ourselves more civilized more civilized than the CAGW social warriors.
Firstly, it’s necessary in a civilised society that all views be heard.
Secondly, it’s far more civilised to suggest advocates practise what they preach, than it is to have those same advocates calling for dissenters to be jailed, exiled or killed.