I have to say, I hadn't noticed the sudden silence in the last few months.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/opinion/letters/hasidic-schools-yeshivas..html

"The West burns under a heat dome as Pakistan drowns, Arctic permafrost melts and the great rivers of Europe go dry.

"Where have all the climate-crisis deniers gone, and why are they being allowed to hide?"

Stephen Cooper
Los Angeles
_____________________________________________

However, it just might be a good idea for environmentalists not to say, rudely, "I told you so." That way, the deniers can stop sulking after a while and have enough time to scrape their dignity together and - maybe - remake themselves as fighters of climate change, if not quite in the way their enemies were hoping for.

At any rate, I think the two of the biggest reasons liberals are having trouble with fighting climate change are:

1. Their unwillingness to say, loudly and frequently, that in a First World nation, no, it should NOT be acceptable to have more than one child - if that, no matter how married or rich you are. Any modern environmentalist will tell you that, if asked. (Older ones, like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki somehow never thought of that, even in the 1970s - when each of them had children!) One reason it's different in Third World nations is that people there don't consume nearly as many resources. Another is that having children is often the only form of Social Security, and each couple has to anticipate that at least one child will die in childhood. But even "only" 8 billion people may not be able to eat three meals a day if disasters keep happening, so any economic problems we will have by shrinking the birth rate even further will just have to be dealt with - likely through teaching extreme personal frugality.

2. Their unwillingness to say that frugality should NOT be just for adults. Why does anyone expect future generations to sacrifice their First World lifestyles (and the environmental harm that comes from consuming) when parents act as though it's OK for kids to demand almost anything, on a whim, without so much as telling the KIDS to pay for it? Yes, they'll be crushed, but they'll get used to WORKING for what they want or even not wanting it any more - and the parents won't have to make any depressing lectures about the environment - or the family's lack of money.

(IMO, the only time parents should say "we can't afford it" as opposed to "it's not good for you" or "earn it" is when they're talking about things like the basics of food, clothing or shelter. Of course, any homeless kid already knows the parents are poor.)

On 9/15/2022 7:53 AM, Lenona wrote:
> I have to say, I hadn't noticed the sudden silence in the last few months.)
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/opinion/letters/hasidic-schools-yeshivas.html
>
> "The West burns under a heat dome as Pakistan drowns, Arctic permafrost melts and the great rivers of Europe go dry.
>
> "Where have all the climate-crisis deniers gone, and why are they being allowed to hide?"
>
> Stephen Cooper
> Los Angeles
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> However, it just might be a good idea for environmentalists not to say, rudely, "I told you so." That way, the deniers can stop sulking after a while and have enough time to scrape their dignity together and - maybe - remake themselves as fighters of climate change, if not quite in the way their enemies were hoping for.
>
> At any rate, I think the two of the biggest reasons liberals are having trouble with fighting climate change are:
>
> 1. Their unwillingness to say, loudly and frequently, that in a First World nation, no, it should NOT be acceptable to have more than one child - if that, no matter how married or rich you are. Any modern environmentalist will tell you that, if asked. (Older ones, like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki somehow never thought of that, even in the 1970s - when each of them had children!) One reason it's different in Third World nations is that people there don't consume nearly as many resources. Another is that having children is often the only form of Social Security, and each couple has to anticipate that at least one child will die in childhood. But even "only" 8 billion people may not be able to eat three meals a day if disasters keep happening, so any economic problems we will have by shrinking the birth rate even further will just have to be dealt with - likely through teaching extreme personal frugality.

Today, we have a whole political party which seems to have the intention
that EVERY baby that can possibly be conceived has to be carried to
term. First, banning abortion, then they will be aiming at banning birth
control in every form they can get away with. They seem to want to ban
sex unless it is for the purpose of producing babies.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:53:39 AM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:
> I have to say, I hadn't noticed the sudden silence in the last few months..)
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/opinion/letters/hasidic-schools-yeshivas.html
>
> "The West burns under a heat dome as Pakistan drowns, Arctic permafrost melts and the great rivers of Europe go dry.
>
> "Where have all the climate-crisis deniers gone, and why are they being allowed to hide?"
>
> Stephen Cooper
> Los Angeles
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> However, it just might be a good idea for environmentalists not to say, rudely, "I told you so." That way, the deniers can stop sulking after a while and have enough time to scrape their dignity together and - maybe - remake themselves as fighters of climate change, if not quite in the way their enemies were hoping for.

We are conditioned by childhood tales, like Chicken Little, who said "The sky is falling," when it wasn't. Always some who identify with storm and stress issues, because it suits their disposition.
> At any rate, I think the two of the biggest reasons liberals are having trouble with fighting climate change are:

My impression is that liberals, in fact, identify with causes like climate change, because they need a survival band stand to advertise their lack of independence and traditional values.
> 1. Their unwillingness to say, loudly and frequently, that in a First World nation, no, it should NOT be acceptable to have more than one child - if that, no matter how married or rich you are. Any modern environmentalist will tell you that, if asked. (Older ones, like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki somehow never thought of that, even in the 1970s - when each of them had children!) One reason it's different in Third World nations is that people there don't consume nearly as many resources. Another is that having children is often the only form of Social Security, and each couple has to anticipate that at least one child will die in childhood. But even "only" 8 billion people may not be able to eat three meals a day if disasters keep happening, so any economic problems we will have by shrinking the birth rate even further will just have to be dealt with - likely through teaching extreme personal frugality.

"Acceptable" to who? Communist nation like China tried to limit child birth, then backed away. Long tradition of disfavoring female babies.

> 2. Their unwillingness to say that frugality should NOT be just for adults. Why does anyone expect future generations to sacrifice their First World lifestyles (and the environmental harm that comes from consuming) when parents act as though it's OK for kids to demand almost anything, on a whim, without so much as telling the KIDS to pay for it? Yes, they'll be crushed, but they'll get used to WORKING for what they want or even not wanting it any more - and the parents won't have to make any depressing lectures about the environment - or the family's lack of money.

Communist China has called it "social reform," and established work camps for re-education.

> (IMO, the only time parents should say "we can't afford it" as opposed to "it's not good for you" or "earn it" is when they're talking about things like the basics of food, clothing or shelter. Of course, any homeless kid already knows the parents are poor.)

Let's face it, in U.S. the poor and homeless are the result of parents who are poor and homeless, so single mothers depend on government hand outs, drug addiction is rampant, need for abortion a consequence of sex trade for drugs, and our male gangsters not only throw free drug parties, but bankroll police and judges with income from trafficking and collusion with enforcers and political lobbyists.

IMO, what's being ignored and even accepted is political party collusion with government trafficking with tax money to sell arms and manipulate its free market economy. The economy that has evolved is now going into inflation, so that the value of money is going down, and we must depend even more of government socialist programs.

Thanks for using the forum as an advertising platform.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:

> Today, we have a whole political party which seems to have the intention
> that EVERY baby that can possibly be conceived has to be carried to
> term. First, banning abortion, then they will be aiming at banning birth
> control in every form they can get away with. They seem to want to ban
> sex unless it is for the purpose of producing babies.

Personally, I think it's less about punishing sex and more about punishing the childless, the childfree, and those young couples who refuse to have more than one child.

The reason I'm saying that is, in highly conservative/religious communities, young men and women alike who refuse to find spouses AND refuse to become religious or conservative missionaries, tend to get treated very badly even if they don't HAVE sex lives. (Unfortunately, liberals aren't too kind to heterosexual men who refuse to get married either. Liberals tend to forget that if women have the right to stay single and childfree, so do men.)

What's more, if a man and a woman are both over 60 and having a premarital (not adulterous) affair, unless they're well-known as pillars of their church, are the conservative church leaders really likely to "out" them as sinners?

Most of the time, I suspect, the leaders don't really care about those couples. What they ARE opposed to is young people taking control of their own futures by not having babies, whether through abortion, birth control or celibacy.

Childfree singles often have more money - and they vote. Many people see childfree WOMEN, with their political power, as more terrifying than childfree men - but who knows why. Both have the power to change society greatly, as the childfree Ralph Nader did. (As anyone knows, he's had no shortage of enemies in Big Business.)

Banning abortion and birth control are clearly great ways to keep poor people poor and easier to control. Heaven forbid that everyone be well-fed, well-educated, and politically active. Especially minorities.

And anyone who honestly thinks abortion is an "industry" should realize by now that if anyone made it an industry, it's the ones who want to restrict ADULTS' access to birth control. Hint: that ain't Planned Parenthood.

Something I wrote elsewhere:

Once, at Amy Alkon's now-defunct blog, I posted a link to a Margery Eagan column that mentioned the long anti-abortion standing of white supremacists. (Of course, that doesn't mean the converse is true - and yes, there are plenty of nonwhite anti-abortionists.) Title:

"Race, not abortion, was the founding issue of the religious right."

You can read the column here:

https://www.proquest.com/bostonglobe/docview/1994037324/C4B77203A7344F0APQ/1?accountid=38363

At least one person thought it was ludicrous to suggest that such people would be anti-abortion - he said something like: "that would be advocating for more black babies!"

Well, first of all, since when are white supremacists in favor of women's rights in general, duh?

And opposing abortion is a great way for politicians to keep poor people poor and easier to control. So white supremacists (voters and politicians alike) had to choose between:

1. allowing black families to become more affluent due to family planning

2. forcing white families, even poor ones, to have more babies.

I think it's clear why #1 would not be considered acceptable - and why #2 would be considered no big deal.

Which would also help to explain why access to birth control and sterilization is likely next on the chopping block, as UMass professor Karen Lindsey (born in 1944) sort of predicted back in 1972. "Why Children?" (1980, ed. Dowrick & Grundberg) is a collection of essays by 18 women. Most of the women became mothers. Lindsey got sterilized at age 28, despite the opposition of her relatives AND her left-wing "friends." Her essay is on pages 243-249.. Quote:

"Abortion and other forms of contraception still allow room for the myth of woman's destiny: 'I don't want children YET.' Sterilization says, firmly, that for the woman seeking it, the question is not birth control but birth prevention, and childless women who opt for sterilization are making it clear that they, and not society, will determine their 'roles.' "

(The rest of the essay is fascinating; she said she first got an image of how happy a childfree life could be at age 7, when she saw Betty Hutton as a trapeze artist in the movie "The Greatest Show on Earth.")

And speaking of punishing the childless and the childfree, I know two single men in their 50s who are very well-educated, but they both struggle financially - and I remember one of them complaining about how, when he asked for housing help from the state, he found that you pretty much have to have small children before anyone cares about your plight.

(Maybe not the best example, but it's the only one I heard about that wasn't from an anonymous online source.)

At any rate, we've all heard how politicians worry about "where is the cannon fodder going to come from" when the poverty rate goes down due to family planning.