sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (08/13/83)
Oho! Larry Bickford awakes and rises to the fray! Sorry if I heated things
up too much, but I felt you were treating very serious issues with levity;
and frankly that got to me. I will try to keep cool, but unless you start
dealing with issues instead of brushing them off, I may be forced to
bring in the heavy artillery. (i.e. I may start crying. You wouldn't
make a grown man cry, would you?)
Have you noticed how many recursive articles are on this group lately?
Indented lines with *'s on them are my original article, normal indents
are Bickford's answers, unindented lines are my current say.
Steve den Beste raised the temperature of our discussion (sex,
overpopulation, etc.) a little. Let's try some ice...
I might mention that my last name is "Den Beste", not "den Beste", but then
I shouldn't complain - at least you left the space in my last name, which
is more than I can say for most mailing lists I am on!
* "The issue that causes such marriages to break up is not too much emphasis
* on sex, it is simply that sex is a major portion of anyone's life.
* Marriage is supposed to provide to each person involved those things
* necessary to satisfy basic needs - loving, support in crises, a friend with
* who to talk, AND... sexual satisfaction."
A "MAJOR" portion? That's a high presumption; I'm fairly confident that more
time is spent in eating than in having sex. And this is also sure: if you're
looking for marriage to provide sexual satisfaction, you're in for a big
letdown. The physical joy creates the splendid environment to communicate
intimate love in; the communication process should already be established.
You might note that I said "A major", not "THE major". I am looking for
marriage to provide sexual satisfaction AMONG OTHER THINGS. Somehow I don't
think that is unreasonable, but then I have this idea that there is nothing
wrong with being happy.
By the way, don't be too sure that you spend more time eating then having
sex. The physical interaction involved is not limited to coitus - sleeping
together (for many hours) is part of it as well. I, at least, find that
cuddling is more important to me than intercourse - and I need many
hours a day to really feel good.
All of this avoids my original point: I think it reasonable to expect a
marriage to fulfill a certain set of needs in the people involved. Sex
is no more nor less important than any of the others - but it is unique in
that in the traditional approach to such things it is the only one not
tried out before the people get married. During a long courtship I will
find out whether I can talk to a woman, whether I can cry on her, whether
I trust her fully, whether whether we have fun together, whether we have
tastes in common, whether she has habits which annoy me, and so on for a
really long list. Why is sexual compatability the only thing in this long
list that cannot be tried out before marriage? I contend that it should be
just the same as any of the others.
Since the other things are tried out but this one is not, that was the
reasoning behind my contention that it is a very likely cause of marriage
breakup. It is more likely to be a source of unpleasant surprises than
any other.
* "If ANY of these are missing, the marriage is sick; maybe the people stay
* together anyway, but they are not as happy as they could be."
Your implication is that without premarital sex, the marriage isn't what it
could be. You've gotta be kidding. I know too many counter-examples.
No, my contention is that without premarital sex, sexual compatability is a
matter of luck rather than planning. Some are lucky, some are not. I don't
feel like leaving something like this to chance, myself.
* "First off, some people stay married because they think they should even
* though they are intensely miserable in such a position; second, when they
* do get divorced, they often do not publicize the REAL reason that they
* broke up."
Two no's from the people I know. Their attitude toward sex is obviously
different from yours, and they're not missing out on anything. Allow me to
throw your statement back: "sexual incompatibility" is probably a smoke
screen for other problems.
Sometimes sexual problems have basis in other things, but sometimes it is
basic as well. Often the sexual problems caused by other things are caused
by a whole cultural thing about sex having to do with performance and
self-esteem, which I consider extremely unhealthy. What has this to do
with premarital sex? I think that people who have had a couple of tight
sexual partners before marriage are much more certain about their sexuality,
so problems in other areas won't reflect so much as sexual problems.
I might add that I in no way believe in one-nighters or sleeping around.
I believe that Sex is part of Love - I just don't think that either should
be confined to marriage.
* "My cousin (severely inflicted with Down syndrome), at least, is not
* capable of understanding the ministry of God."
Wrong again. Shepherd's (a home and ministry for the mentally handicapped)
does a very good job of getting the residents to understand God. Maybe it's
easier for them - with the blessing of child-like faith. They are hardly
"preserved in their misery." If those who are taking care of your cousin
want more info, mail me their address (or you can hardcopy e-mail).
I found this interesting. When did you meet my cousin? How the hell do you
know what Freddy-Charles is capable of? I don't doubt that some of the
less handicapped are capable of understanding a subset of religion, but
my cousin is not capable of taking care of himself - he doesn't even know
what "money" is; how is he supposed to understand "everlasting salvation"?
As it happens, I don't think my great-uncle needs your address - he is the
son of a hell-fire-and-brimstone Methodist minister and is intensely
religious. If it were possible to help Freddy-Charles in this way, I am
sure that he will try.
* "WHY HAVEN'T YOU ADOPTED ONE [mentally handicapped child]?"
Does this beg the question that I have adopted any other kind? I am not yet
in a position to support any child, born in my house or otherwise.
My point here was that some people have amnio-sentises (sp?) done on
fetuses to check for Down Syndrome or PKU or (as it turns out) over a
hundred other things they can now detect. If the child is likely to be
severely handicapped, many decide to abort the fetus and try again.
If you are willing to adopt the moral authority to prevent the
abortion, I contend that you should take the resultant moral responsibility
to help with the consequences of that authority - namely, helping to raise
the child that results. There are many people who don't feel they can
raise such a child. Such children are put up for adoption. If 1% of
the people who oppose abortion on moral grounds would follow
through and adopt such children, there wouldn't be any institutions for
them (and good riddance).
If you aren't willing to help raise the child, who are you to say the
abortion should not happen? Authority without responsibility is tyranny.
* "WE ARE NOW OVERPOPULATED and we better do something about it or it will
* result in war and the destruction of our planet."
Bad news, Steve - this planet is doomed anyway. The only question is whether
it's sooner or later. (Either running out of energy or solar nova.)
This is fatuous and you can do better. Are you really contending that the
fact that the sun will become a red giant in 50 or 100 billion years means
that it is OK for us to have a nuclear war in the next 50 years?
To give a serious answer to your question, when the sun enlarges, I don't
think we will be here any more because we will have colonized the rest
of the galaxy.
This is, unintentionally on your part, a perfect example of what I most
dislike about many fundamentalists: They are so concerned with the next
life that they won't do anything about this one. Let's prevent WWIII,
THEN we can worry about saving souls!
In my original article I wrote better than half a page describing the various
problems of resource exhaustion and pollution that overpopulation will cause.
This one line was my conclusion. Again, you failed to deal with it as a
serious (in fact, critical) issue by trying to brush it off as a joke.
My article was in response to one by you (i.e. the first of a series of
which this current article is the fourth) in which you contended that the
world was not overpopulated "since there is plenty of food available".
My contention is that food is not the critical issue in overpopulation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Many people may have difficulty with my contention that warfare is caused
by overpopulation.
I thought this might be a good opportunity to expand on that a little.
Being a pacifist, I have an odd hobby: wargaming. (However, moving little
lead figures around on a table never hurt anyone, so don't condemn me.)
As part of that hobby, I have read the classic book "On War" by Klauswitz.
It was published in about 1828. Until that time, military experts in all
countries had been analyzing battles and strategies and tactics based only
on the units that were present and their capabilities. Klauswitz stated the
(now obvious) truth that War is not a thing unto itself - War is the ultimate
form of diplomacy (in the sense that it is how two countries settle their
differences if no other way can be found). Hence, it is not reasonable to
consider the strategy of a war or the tactics of a battle without knowing
the political undertones which caused either in the first place.
In our era, "war" must be defined as the use of killing force for political
purposes. Terrorisim is a tactic of warfare (and under some conditions a
very effective one.)
A beautiful example of Klauswitz' contention is the Viet-Nam war. Why did we
lose? Primarily the reason we lost is that the U.S. was fighting for a
stalemate, while the North Vietnamese were fighting to take over the South.
As long as the U.S. was attempting to maintain the status quo, if the
North continued to fight we had to as well or let them win (which we ultimately
did). Thus the only non-defensive strategy we could employ was to saturate
bomb the North in order to defeat their will to fight. Since there
was a strong patriotic feeling in the north, and strong economic reasons
why the north needed the south (the north was industrialized, while the
south had most of the natural resources), they continued to fight.
Just in passing, there was never any doubt that we could win in 12 hours
just by using tactical nuclear weapons. (Sometimes this was referred to
as "turning North Vietnam into a parking lot".) Why didn't we? Well, it would
have brought world censure down on us and maybe started World War III.
Militarily we had the capability, but for political reasons it was not a
tactic we could use.
What does war have to do with overpopulation? I have showed that war
is an aspect of politics. Let me take a sidetrack to talk about the
effects of overpopulation on politics:
Think for a moment of all the places on earth where there has been
violent unrest in the last ten years: Rhodesia, Iran, Libya, Palestine,
Argentina, Central America, South-east Asia. Almost all of them have
a rapidly rising population of uneducated poor. This is no coincidence.
When the population rises rapidly and most of the people are destitute,
there will be unrest and rioting, but ultimately there will be someone
who says "Hey, let's get us a few guns and take over." So you get Idi
Amin's and Khadafi's and Ayatollahs and Argentine Generals and Chilean
Generals and so on. They take over, but it turns out that they know a
lot more about dreaming than they do about running a country, and their
economies go to pot. The people get really upset (for obvious reasons) so
the rulers rely on force to maintain a semblance of order - and you get
wholesale executions or death squads or whatever.
The same process has happened all over the world many times in the last
decade. Often what happens is that the rulers cannot control things
at home, so they look for a war outside to unite their people in patriotic
zeal. (Remember the Malvina's?)
Sometimes the pattern is different - the country collapses into virtual
anarchy, and a neighbor notices and attacks. (Iraq did it to Iran, and
someone did it to Idi Amin, but I don't remember who.)
Then there is an old favorite: The revolution is caused by a coalition,
but when they succeed one part of the coalition takes over and forces
the others out - who go underground and continue the war. Sometimes the
leaders who were squeezed out are assassinated. (Remember Trotsky?)
This is happening in Zimbabwe right now.
So, what do we have: War is an extension of politics caused when differences
cannot be settled by negotiation, and population increase leads to
political unrest and then to extremist intransigent governments, and
often therefore to war.
What I fear is that if too much of this goes on it might cause a collapse
of the world economy, which could lead to world war. With the weapons
we have now, that is unthinkable - but might happen anyway.
At this point probably several of you are thinking "Why ain't this in
net.politics?"
Good question. I have a good answer: One of the biggest sources of
overpopulation is religious objections to the use of birth-control
(primarily those of the Catholic church).
My contention: Long before we have mass starvation most places in
the world (especially here) we will have ended it all with an all-out
nuclear exchange, brought on by overpopulation.
How could this happen? I can think of several scenarios. Consider
this one:
Brazil and the third world nations collectively renege on their debt
to the industrialized world. This causes a full scale international
banking collapse, which leads to a world depression such as to make
the one in the 30's look like a wet firecracker. Most world trade
ceases.
This leaves the USSR in a really bad situation: It is not self-sufficient
in food. It buys the excess it needs from four primary sources: Argentina,
Australia, Canada and the U.S. The USSR buys everything it needs with
cold cash - they do not have and never have had credit in the western
world. This means that they have to sell enough on the world market to
get the hard cash they need to buy food. With the world economy in collapse,
they cannot do it, but need food anyway. This leads to a political
confrontation between the USSR and the west: "Give us food anyway, or
else." The "or else" is a nuclear exchange. Up she goes!
I might mention the other side of this world trade collapse: The western
nations occupy the mideast oil fields for their own survival. This could
just as easily spark the final war.
Well, in an attempt to not get upset, I have gotten gloomy instead.
Have a nice day, Bickford!
Steve Den Beste
Tektronix
[decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekecs!shark!sdb