Yeah, we’ve had this discussion before too, about Aleister Crowley, a despicable human being, by most accounts. An idea exists independently of who came up with it, or who agrees with it.
Hitler thought Manifest Destiny was pretty cool. Hitler was a bad man and a lunatic. Does it follow that the settling of the American West was a crazy, bad idea?
Sorry, Pittbulll, I don’t actually mean to compare you to Hitler. :)[/quote]
Actually Hitler would be by todays standard pro life , No apology needed
Wasn’t being snarky about God in the least. The fact is, God has killed more babies in and out of the womb than all the abortionists and infanticidists put together. Either it was a deliberate act on His part, a well-planned move in the cosmic chess game which we mere mortals are unequipped to comprehend, or else it was an incidental consequence of the laws of biology, which God authored. God being the final arbiter of morality, how could any of his actions be immoral, or for that matter, amoral?
For the record, Dr Colonvaux is an atheist. I am not. This does not prevent me from acknowledging the accuracy of his observations, if not necessarily agreeing with the moral implications of them.
Humans have always culled their surplus offspring. And not just on isolated Pacific islands, either. Disregarding the practice among Neadertal and Cro-Magnon communities, which you will reject out of hand, we can talk about sacrifice of infants to Moloch by fire, the exposure of infants in Ancient Greece and Rome, right on down to drowning of unwanted babies in the Holy Ganges in India. And surely you don’t dispute the widespread practice of infanticide in China, where that bucket of water by the birthing-bed is not there so that the midwife can wash her hands. Surely this practice did not originate after the “one child policy” was inaugurated.
Infanticide happens. It has always happened, and it will continue to happen. So will abortion and slavery. Should we be upset at this fact? Of course. Can we do something about it? Maybe. That was what I was getting at in my previous post.
The post in question can be found on page 5 of this thread, right after your post saying that Pittbulll has a grandson.
Actually Hitler would be by todays standard pro life , No apology needed
[/quote]
Only if the life in question had certain genetic traits that he found acceptable. Pro life proponents want to save babies of all races and religions, including those who amniocentesis shows will be born with serious congenital mental and physical handicaps. Hitler, not so much.
First of all, I don’t believe infanticide as you described it was a common practice at any point in human history certainly not to the degree as slavery. I would wager one can find no example of it practiced on a large scale akin to the numbers (even percentage wise) that abortion is practiced today. In fact, in societies throughout history and across the globe you will find the opposite practice in effect, namely the strong encouragement of large families with as many children produced as possible.
[/quote]
Interestingly enough, Colinvaux observes that those big families happened as a result of, rather than in spite of, infanticide.
It is essential to notice here that infanticide is not a device to regulate population, neither is it a device to slow the growth of population. Infanticide, by helping to keep the family at optimum bigness, is a device to promote the reproductive success of the parents. It is the removing of surplus babies that the remainder may live to maturity and themselves reproduce. Infanticide is a habit that tends to make the population grow. .
Now, Fates of Nations contends that all of the darker episodes in human history, from poverty to aggressive war to genocide to totalitarianism, can all be attributed to the unchanged breeding strategy of people resulting in overcrowding.
Logically, inasmuch as Colinvaux views the results of overcrowding to be a negative thing, it follows that he would consider a practice that ensures that the population will grow (infanticide) to be a negative thing.
Fates of Nations is a fascinating book, which you will absolutely hate, which is why I hope you read it. Just as a creationist should read Wallace and Darwin, an atheist should read the Bible, and a Christian should read the Quran, I think it’s essential to read books containing views which may be at diametrical opposition to one’s fundamental worldview. Even if you find nothing to agree with, at least your own arguments will be stronger, by virtue of knowing what the other side actually believes.
No reason other than that he is a man at the top of his profession, a persuasive and amusing writer, and that much of why he writes (whether it agrees with your fundamental worldview or not) actually makes sense. He has no political axes to grind, at least not in Fates of Nations and Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare) which many people mistake for amorality (can’t imagine what that must be like), just comes to conclusions based on the observable evidence.
I recommend Fates of Nations to all of my friends. Mikeyali, whom I’m sure you remember, tells me it is one of the fifteen most influential-to-his-worldview books he has ever read.
You may read it and conclude that it is bull puckey. That is your prerogative, but I still hope that you will seek it out and read it.
Dunno. If I were ever to encounter a top ecological biologist who had come to conclusions diametrically opposed to Colinvaux’s, I’d certainly enjoy reading what he had to say.