↪SonOfAGun Yes, I am well-aware of that tragedy. Doesn't this confirm my suggestion that attempts at forceful control give rise to even worse situations? — Tzeentch

not if you remove the option.

↪SonOfAGun I would be surprised? How? — Tzeentch

Did you know that during the Chinese one child possibly, baby girls where sold, aborted, and is some cases killed postnatal. it is called female infanticide. Solution to only having one child = try until you have a boy.

But why do you focus on female fertility when male fertility is so much easier to control? — unenlightened

because males are also far less likely to not want to do what the are being asked to do. that is including adult males and their pubescent children that they don't want to be sterilized. You will never get all males to voluntarily/forcibly come in to be sterilized. Now if you could do this to males a birth through the passage of laws, you would still face initial problem but it would be something that could be over come. But that is not something that can be done with males. So not possible. With females on the other hand, technically it would be possible even if the technology does not exist today, it is not far down the road.

It will not work the way you are suggesting it. There would be revolt. And depending on the circumstances there might even be revolt my way.

↪SonOfAGun You accept that there is no way to deal with the problem. Period. — Tzeentch

You would be surprised at what solutions people will accept when the problem gets bad enough.

↪IvoryBlackBishop I think there's only one way to regulate population that doesn't risk jeopardizing the moral integrity of a society, and that is to make people refrain from procreation out of their own volition.

The talk in the comments of forced sterilization and selective abortion should show you where the other path leads to: straight down into the rabbit hole

How to make people refrain from procreation voluntarily?

First, stop promoting the idea that everybody should have children, or that children are a fundamental part of leading a fulfilling life. Instead, present them as equally valid choices, and let people figure out what suits them best. Currently, I think the societal norm is heavily skewed towards having children. Not having children is sometimes seen as sad or weird. That's a problem, because it creates external pressures in people who perhaps otherwise would not have chosen to have children.

Second, educate people thoroughly on the responsibilities of a parent and the implications of putting another human being on this Earth. This should bring people to the realization that simply "because I want to" is not a sufficient basis for having children and that they should heavily weigh the interest of their (future) child. Furthermore, it should discourage people with a history of substance abuse, crime, mental disorder or genetic deficiencies from having children by confronting them with the possible consequences of such a choice.

Bad parenting is the cause of much grief in this world. However, two wrongs don't (and can never) make a right. Draconian laws can never be the answer. — Tzeentch

So your idea is moral hand waving? And when this doesn't work (because it wont) what then?

There is one thing that I am pretty sure of, whatever rout is chosen (either male of female) if the process is not completed/finished in a hospital at birth, it will not take to society without some pretty heavy handed laws and enforcement which makes the whole thing likely to fall apart or be risen up against.

I'm not sure that would be even possible with a pre-pubescant girl. — unenlightened

Should have responded to this part. You extract all eggs at birth then reintroduce them as needed.

Indeed, but those eggs are immature, and will mature usually one at a time from puberty. If there is an artificial way to mature eggs, I am not familiar with it. Normally, eggs are harvested from a female by stimulating with hormones to mature several eggs at once; I'm not sure that would be even possible with a pre-pubescant girl. — unenlightened

The eggs can be reintroduced for maturation.

What you have proposed is that other people, women, the poor, anyone but you and your kind should face interventions and restrictions. — unenlightened

You are incorrect here, I have no attachment to my own sex in this matter, if I thought that the most viable rout to success would be through males I would not hesitate, but I don't and so here we are.

There is no wealth gene. On the contrary, wealth being inherited leads to unwarranted survival and so weakens the gene pool. Which explains a deal of idiocy and ugliness. — unenlightened

Yup, you are correct which is why I added the caveat "I am sure that it is more complicated than that however." in the message below the one you quoted. For instance, What are we to do with the children of parents who can no longer afford to take of them? Yes you are correct there are still many moral concerns to be worked out, but do you have suggestion that do not involve some form of "survival of the fittest?"

^^^ I am sure that it is more complicated than that however.

↪SonOfAGun The bigger problem, in my opinion, would be to figure out a system that determines who can procreate and when, without causing unintended shifts in either the genepool or the culture. — Echarmion

Survival of the fittest has always been the way. I don't see any reason to change that. Those who can afford to feed their children will be granted licenses.

It rather depends what one would do. Feed them would be good, Nuke them would be bad. But that's just my opinion... — unenlightened

And if you don't have the option to feed them what then. If there is the option to feed them, this conversation is moot anyway.

Oh good. Well I can confirm that it is much much cheaper and safer to sterilise men than women. And of course the puberty problem applies to both sexes equally. One solution would be to make sterilisation voluntary, but to confine unsterilised men and allow them access to women only as the population requirements arise. If you are not opposed to abortion, you could also selectively abort most of the male foetuses and reduce the crime levels at the same time. — unenlightened

You seem to be very emotionally attached to this question. My comments are not prescriptive. It is a thought experiment.

Females are born with all of the eggs they will ever produce. so no, it is not a question of puberty where females are concerned.

What I have proposed is the most morally soft thing I could think of that society as a whole might actually accept under the right conditions (like massive food shortages in the face of an out of control population growth rate). What you are suggesting is just nonsensical.

Or we could stop being total pricks and decide it's a deeply repugnant and immoral idea in the first place. :vomit: — unenlightened

Not concerned with the morality of the question only the feasibility. But I do have a question for you: is it more moral to let people starve to death when one could do something to stabilize the problem? You know that we are not talking about an if but when right?

There's always going to be some resistance to this sort of program until it becomes traditional. — unenlightened

Well, I guess we'll just have to see how things shake out then. I'll bet on my approach you can bet on yours.

↪SonOfAGun Well, you'd just have to lock them up from the beginning of puberty until you have a sufficient sample, or better still, just pick a few of the best for that program, and sterilise the rest at birth. — unenlightened

Lol, yah that is not a Recipe for civil revolt.

No, if you sterilise the men, you can leave the eggs where they are, and they will also last 40 years or so. — unenlightened

But you can't sterilize the men at birth you need sperm first, which doesn't even get produced until midway through puberty.

↪SonOfAGun It would be much better to take sperm samples and sterilise men. Less invasive, easier to store, and insemination, when required, more certain and safer. and young sperm would be lees liable to produce birth defects. Surprised you didn't suggest it yourself. — unenlightened

Yes you are right, "storage would be difficult", but the alternative is even less viable. Once you release the males into the wild, it will be far more difficult to get them back, and the moral concerns will be far more pronounced, and revolt far more likely. As far as storage difficulties go, I also know that we have a projected eighty years before the population of earth reaches 15b. By the time we get there, we may not be talking about cold storage at all, but storage in some form of nutrient rich synthetic bio fluid. As you know, under such conditions, human female eggs can last up to around forty years.

Well first of all it would have to be possible to regulate it in a manner that doesn't cause massive followup problems. China's one child policy is a cautionary tale here. — Echarmion

Could always remove all reproductive material (eggs) from females at birth and put them in cold storage until a license is issued. Would be difficult (storage), and could present unique problems (storage failure is bound to occur), among other moral concerns, but it is not entirely infeasible, and under the right conditions could be a viable alternative (like say, when the global population reaches upward of 15-20 billion).

(Fun fact: I once wrote a paper for a philosophy class about Descartes' conceivability argument, wherein I argued that the argument is sound but Descartes misconstrues what "conceivable" really means, which I titled "Inconceivable: or, You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". The TA who graded it got a big laugh out of it.) — Pfhorrest

Yah, is one of the all time greatest movies, I really do know the difference between the words, I swear.

entomology
— SonOfAGun

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. — Pfhorrest

haha damn you atuocorrect

What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism? — Pinprick

My assertion: Belief is not a valid approach to logic in the first place, so why are you trying to shoehorn it in here. The true test of of the truth value of a thing/concept is can it's existence be proven or can it be practically applied in reality. Whether or not humans believe something is entirely irrelevant.

^^^ empty set is also defined by this symbol "∅" not zero.

what is the empty set — Pinprick

Set Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/

Obviously that’s true, but when we use the term “nothing” in everyday speech we exclude the properties you mentioned. — Pinprick

Your use of the word in question is not typical of everyday speech. You say that there is nothing in the box, therefore, atheists believe in nothing, as an attempted philosophical argument, however, "nothing" in philosophical terms, where logic is applied, the term nothing has a very specific meaning, which is why we use the term "empty set" in reference to what you are talking about.

Metaphorically speaking, if you have a box with no Gods in it, then what do you have in the box? — Pinprick

I am not concerned with metaphor. One could just as easily claim that metaphorically the box contains the fundamental physical properties of the universe, therefore, atheists believe in the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and who even knows if that is the truth. Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe?

I don’t understand this. I’m not making any claims about the rest of reality. There’s only two options: a box with at least one God in it, or a box with no Gods in it. A box with no Gods in it is an empty box because it contains nothing. There’s no need to try to make claims about what other things could be in the box, if that’s what you’re trying to say. — Pinprick

An empty box, does not contain "nothing". Even if you were to draw a perfect vacuum in the box and seal it in complete darkness it still contains space, virtual particals, and time. So I don't know where you are coming up with this box filled with nothing from. it is not possible: nothing. At least as far as we know. You can have a box with no god in it. That is perfectly fine. Don't know how you are going to prove that though.

to the OP

Democracy is an ideology. It is not universally understood and that is most certainly true in the US! The US is Christian and Christianity supports autocracy and the US is more autocratic than democratic. I doubt if anyone in the US can write 10 characteristics of democracy, while a professor in Syria, I met online, had a far better understanding of democracy than people in the US. When I praise democracy it sure is not the US I praise. — Athena

Lol, we don't have a democracy in the United States of America. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy can be explained pretty simply (if fifty-one wolves and forty-nine sheep get to vote on what is for dinner we're havein lamb chops). That is not the way things work in the US.

↪SonOfAGun Calm down, Man...you're gonna blow a gasket.

You were suggesting an incorrect etymology of the word "atheist"...and I corrected you. Seems to me a "thank you" is in order...not all this bullshit.

Yes, I agree with you that debating atheists have managed to get the meaning of the word "atheist" changed from what it SHOULD mean...a person who supposes there are no gods...or who supposes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...to anyone lacking a "belief" in any gods.

But doing that forces agnostics, babies, infants, and toddlers to accept the descriptor "atheist" to be considered atheists. I cannot speak for all agnostics or babies or infants or toddlers...

...but I will not accept that. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Not sure why that argument bothers you so...but you certainly are entitled to be as bothered as you chose to be. — Frank Apisa

I have no problem with the stated entomology, only the interpretation and being told that I am wrong, when, through the course of logic, I have shown my reason to be sound.

1. your entomology doesn't refer to the English usage
2. it is impossible to oppose something that does not already exist.

aside from that, your authoritative use of the word Yo kinda pissed me off. You should deal with my arguments rather than your current strategy.

Sorry for the doubble message. Forgot to quote.

I have no problem with the stated entomology, only the interpretation and being told that I am wrong, when, through the course of logic, I have shown my reason to be sound.

1. your entomology doesn't refer to the English usage
2. it is impossible to oppose something that does not already exist.

aside from that, your authoritative use of the word Yo kinda pissed me off. You should deal with my arguments rather than your current strategy.

Yo...

...the word ATHEISM came into the English language BEFORE the word THEISM...

...so it does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' that a god exists) = without a 'belief that a god exists.

It derives from the Greek, through the French...and means "without a god"...NOT without a "belief" in a god. Most people realize that until VERY RECENTLY...the word "atheist" was always used to denote a godless person...someone who denies the existence of any gods.

Now...if you want to dispute the etymological dictionary entries I offered...be my guest.

But do not expect me to agree with doing that. — Frank Apisa

That is not the current definition of Theism man, don't know how to simplify it for you any more than that man. As well, concept of theos predates athéisme. with out the concept théisme having already been understood/understandable you cannot have the opposing atheism. you cannot just make up anything you want to put an opposition to "I am aparforial" it doesn't mean anything man. at best they came into existence at the same time and then your athéisme doesn't even refer to the current ENGLISH WORD and usage. for the love of Oden's beard man.

^^^ Also the hard difference: Nothing is impossible. Something can actually be empty given the right definition of empty. "My glass is empty mam. Will you please refresh my beverage?" "My Glass has nothing in it." = false statement.

^^^ Plus we also don't need to define the rest of reality in terms of belief.

↪SonOfAGun What is the difference between emptiness and nothingness? — Pinprick

An "empty set" adjust for the existence of the rest of reality.

Huxlian agnosticism is the true path.

↪Mac I view it as a lack of belief as well. If Theists believe that a God exists, “God” is the object that their belief refers to. If Atheists believe that no Gods exist, then “no Gods” would have to be the object that their belief refers to. But “no Gods” isn’t an object. It is empty (or “nothing” as I referred to it earlier). — Pinprick

Yah, but belief in an empty set does not constitute belief in nothing. Maybe they believe in fairies. What? There is nothing stopping them from believing in fairies.

↪TheMadFool It's not a belief to be unconvinced. It is to be unconvinced. — Mac

Its about how people interpret/understand the word and use it just as you are doing now. many people have many interpretations of the word and use it in various ways, very few of which are actually correct. and this causes communication problems.

[reply="atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."

(As you can see...from about 1580.)

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=atheis


theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

(As you can also see...from about 1670)

Those are not referring to the the same thing. the first is a Greek to middle french translation of "godless", and has no relevance to the current understanding of the word theist. Also one cannot possibly create an opposition without something to oppose. so theos or the middle french théisme must first already be understood/understandable.

I grok what you are saying here, SoaG, but the problem with your argument is that the word "atheism" came into the English language before "theism"...by almost 100 years...

...so it could not possibly have derived that way. — Frank Apisa

according to google, etymology of theism places its origin in the mid 17th century and atheism in the 18th century.

I grok what you are saying here, SoaG, but the problem with your argument is that the word "atheism" came into the English language before "theism"...by almost 100 years...

...so it could not possibly have derived that way. — Frank Apisa

Looked it up this isn't true

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Colloquial is as colloquial does ... :yawn: — 180 Proof

It is not an ad populum. It takes into account how people understand the word on a large scale. Also there is nothing false about that definition. Many people take it to mean just that.