= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Our society lacks good self-preservation mechanisms - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (105)
I'm not sure what you mean here. How is it different now from any other period in history, and what effect do you think that'll have?
To whoever voted this comment down: did your brain provide a particular reason that it was unnecessary to worry about catholics taking over the world by having babies, or did it just output a feeling that it was somehow wrong -- maybe even racist -- to worry about such things?
(Not the downvoter.) Racist? Catholics are not a race.
Some minds tend to jump to the "Racist!" accusation every time they hear a disparaging comment about a group of people, regardless of what those people have in common.
I wasn't implying that it was a sensible feeling -- I was just describing a sort of internal flinch.
ETA: Here in California, it is to some extent a race issue. We have a large and growing Hispanic population, who are very strongly catholic. If that population continues to grow, without moderation of their religious leanings, it could significantly impact the politics of the state.
The very fact that you're denying that it's racist is EVEN MORE RACIST!
P.S. I make no apologies for my recent trend in comment quality...
Catholics really aren't that bad.
It hardly seems like the Pope can be blamed for AIDS-related deaths based on people not using condoms. Given that he advocates "Use abstinence and don't use condoms", and the effectiveness of abstinence is not increased by using condoms, following his advice will not lead to more AIDS. If people follow the advice "Don't use abstinence and don't use condoms" then they're not following his advice and I don't see why he should be blamed for it.
If not being abstinent was a live option for Catholics, then I'm sure condoms would be reconsidered. However, if people are already going to disregard his advice regarding abstinence, I don't see why he should have to give them more advice about what to do in that case.
Imagine that the Pope claims that God has issued two new commandments:
Would you then argue that it's not his fault that most Catholics have dirty feet?
Indeed I would. I would in that case make fun of Catholics for following such a silly religion, and happily tell people who didn't follow one or both of those that they're being bad Catholics. But for anyone who follows the walk-on-your-hands-all-the-time religion, it's certainly their own fault if they're not up to the task.
People who follow, or try to follow, the whole of the Pope's advice can work to reduce the availability and social acceptability of condoms, which will reduce condom use among people who may or may not care what the Pope has to say. Additionally, since abstinence is apparently very difficult for a lot of people, trying to be abstinent will not reliably result in abstinence; I suspect the number of people who go "well, I can't seem to manage abstinence, but at least I'm not using condoms! That part's easy!" is depressingly high.
I don't see why any such person would continue calling himself a Catholic in that situation. Clearly the options there are 'not a Catholic' or 'Catholic who believes he's going to Hell'. And non-Catholics shouldn't listen to the Pope at all.
It might be worth saying that Catholicism is somehow harmful to society, but it's hardly a fault of the Pope that he informs people about Catholic doctrine.
This... is religion we are talking about.
I am pretty sure that you can confess to a priest that you have been un-abstinent and be forgiven for it and not be destined for hell, although I am not an expert on Catholic doctrine. Adding condom use on top of lack of abstinence would have the consequence of having to do more penance, most likely.
I don't expect the Pope to do anything other than advise people according to Catholic doctrine. That's the job description. That doesn't make it a harmless activity. I wouldn't expect someone whose job title was "assassin" to not kill public figures for money, because that is the task of assassins. That doesn't make it a harmless activity.
Of course, if assassins were a socially acceptable profession and a high-profile assassin killed someone, it would not be appropriate to call the assassin out for doing his job; rather, one should question the wisdom of allowing assassins in the first place. If you've got a problem with the Church, then "The Pope should not have done his job" is an inappropriate way to make that complaint.
It wouldn't be beyond the scope of the job of the Pope to choose less harmful doctrines to concentrate on. For instance, instead of concentrating on the evils of condom use, he could encourage charitable giving, which (while less uniquely Catholic) is something that the church approves of.
You do have to be repentant, which kindof implies that you've changed your ways and are not going to do that sort of thing again. The ways of penance are a bit mysterious, but it couldn't possibly be a concern since it would probably involve 5 prayers instead of 4 or something like that.
A better response though, is that the person who has condoms and then is unexpectedly not abstinent will likely use them, and someone who is against condom use will probably not find himself in that position, which seems to be harmful. But I still don't think it's the Pope's problem to be giving advice to people for what to do if they're going to go around breaking the rules; why then follow his advice at all?
It's hardly without precedent to give people backup plans for what to do if they break rules:
"Don't you dare go to a party where there is any alcohol, young lady! But if you do, and you get drunk, for the love of God call me and I'll pick you up, don't drive!"
"Do not do anything that would cause you to get set on fire. If you do, stop, drop, and roll."
"Don't wear socks with sandals. But if you must, at least have them be short socks, not knee-length jobs in a heavy fabric."
"Don't drink the water there - if you do, boil it first."
That's more than balanced by extra births - if the example of Catholics taking over the world by having more children on average has anything to it. The Pope's strategey encourages risk - but the overall effect is positive in terms of helping Catholocism spread. With 1 billion members it must be doing something right.
Well, there's the cryonics death cult. Those guys think that, if you perform expensive rituals over your dead body, it might live forever in paradise.
It's like the Egyptian pharoes have been reincarnated ;-)
According to this Wikipedia page, there were maybe 2.4 million deaths due to AIDS in the whole world in 2007. I doubt the Pope was responsible for most of them.
How many deaths, directly or indirectly derived from the pope's prohibition, would be enough for his influence to be considered negative in this case ?
Catholics have a religion that help them reproduce in the modern world. They may well be more valuable in nature's eyes than the screw-ups who allow their reproductive potential to be sabotaged by their unfamiliar environment. However, Catholicism is not the only system of thought that promotes family values in modern times. See the Amish.