"Can I Get a Witness News?"

[5-90]

Now, this I can handle. I've long said that the answer to the question of "Where does God live?" can be found in a combination of quantum mechanics and hyperspace cosmology:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=952695&cl=2654567&src=news

So that doesn't really bother me at all...

However, here's something else - considering we're getting heavily overcrowded (global population approaching seven billion - if it hasn't crossed that line already!) but isn't Japan heavily overpopulated locally as well?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_re_as/japan_baby_drop_box

I'm not sure this is a good solution for a difficult problem. I may not have an alternative (yet...) but I'm reasonably sure that this isn't the way to go...

Discuss one or both.

 

[Matthew Currie]

On the drop boxes, it seem to me to be a reasonable response to a problem that already exists. It's not as if babies aren't already being abandoned, after all.

Of course there's the theoretical possibility that some mothers will now abandon children whom they would otherwise have kept, but this seems like a situation for which you can make a utilitarian argument: how many new abandonments are acceptable relative to the number of babies saved from harm and death? I think many people would consider a few extras a reasonable tradeoff for improving the chances of the others.

And of course, there is the secondary question, too chaotic for anything but speculation, of whether the babies, and the society in general that must ultimately absorb them along with their problems, disorders, needs and crimes, are really better off being raised by mothers who'd abandon them at the drop of a hat if they thought they could get away with it, or if perhaps it's better for all concerned if they end up in the box.

Of course, statistics might be hard to get reliably, since we can surmise that at least a few babies are successfully eliminated without discovery, and if those numbers now appear in the drop boxes, it could be mistakenly seen as a trend toward more abandonment. We can't ever be sure how many babies are buried, or stuffed surreptitiously into hefty bags. But still, it seems reasonable to try the system and see how many babies actually appear before assuming anything.

 

[5-90]

On the drop boxes, it seem to me to be a reasonable response to a problem that already exists. It's not as if babies aren't already being abandoned, after all.

Of course there's the theoretical possibility that some mothers will now abandon children whom they would otherwise have kept, but this seems like a situation for which you can make a utilitarian argument: how many new abandonments are acceptable relative to the number of babies saved from harm and death? I think many people would consider a few extras a reasonable tradeoff for improving the chances of the others.

And of course, there is the secondary question, too chaotic for anything but speculation, of whether the babies, and the society in general that must ultimately absorb them along with their problems, disorders, needs and crimes, are really better off being raised by mothers who'd abandon them at the drop of a hat if they thought they could get away with it, or if perhaps it's better for all concerned if they end up in the box.

Of course, statistics might be hard to get reliably, since we can surmise that at least a few babies are successfully eliminated without discovery, and if those numbers now appear in the drop boxes, it could be mistakenly seen as a trend toward more abandonment. We can't ever be sure how many babies are buried, or stuffed surreptitiously into hefty bags. But still, it seems reasonable to try the system and see how many babies actually appear before assuming anything.

Intriguing reply - and somehow, I'm not surprised to see something like that from you. We've had in-depth debates before, and I've always enjoyed them.

I still tend to think it's the wrong answer to the right question - but if we have to have a population that continues to expand, why not try to do something to improve the quality as well as the quantity? I'd still rather see condoms for the Third World and Asia - or perhaps we should just blast China back into the Stone Age? I do find it interesting that the most overpopulated areas of the world tend to be the most resource-poor as well...

Kinda reminds me of my Final essay in Ancient Peoples of Mesoamerica - I posited that the decline of the Mesoamerican peoples was already underway when the conquistadores came over the puddle due to human sacrifice. Not due to any moralistic issues - but because they were draining off their "best and brightest" to be sacrificed to appease the gods... The instructor told me it was the most interesting position paper he'd read in a few years, which compliment I graciously accepted (and it served to further remind me that I've got what is generally considered a "warped" view of the world.)

Got anything to say on the other question?

 

[Matthew Currie]

Intriguing reply - and somehow, I'm not surprised to see something like that from you. We've had in-depth debates before, and I've always enjoyed them.

I still tend to think it's the wrong answer to the right question - but if we have to have a population that continues to expand, why not try to do something to improve the quality as well as the quantity? I'd still rather see condoms for the Third World and Asia - or perhaps we should just blast China back into the Stone Age? I do find it interesting that the most overpopulated areas of the world tend to be the most resource-poor as well...

Kinda reminds me of my Final essay in Ancient Peoples of Mesoamerica - I posited that the decline of the Mesoamerican peoples was already underway when the conquistadores came over the puddle due to human sacrifice. Not due to any moralistic issues - but because they were draining off their "best and brightest" to be sacrificed to appease the gods... The instructor told me it was the most interesting position paper he'd read in a few years, which compliment I graciously accepted (and it served to further remind me that I've got what is generally considered a "warped" view of the world.)

Got anything to say on the other question?

I agree in general about the population issue, and of course better ways of disposing of unwanted babies are no solution to underlying issues. The question at hand, though, seems to be the very limited one of what to do with the unwanted babies that are actually popping out despite all best efforts at control and education. Obviously, just as in an ideal world we wouldn't need to argue about abortion because nobody would need one, in the world we should be aiming at, baby drop boxes will become obsolete too. In the meantime, though, there are those babies, and the unfortunate fact is that the least responsible and least qualified mothers still have them, and drop them in the wrong places. Mothers who do not wish to take any more responsibility for their babies than they did for themselves will always find a way to shed themselves of a kid, and when they are afraid of consequences, they do it often enough in ways that are considered odious by most people, and extremely odious by those, such as Catholics, who consider even the unborn to have rights. We could, of course, just say "tough s***, kid," and let them freeze or suffocate or whatever, which in a sense is what we all do about much of the world already, but abandoned babies in our own midst are kind of conspicuous and they get people motivated. Ultimately, I suspect that the provision of drop boxes will have a negligible effect on the overall ugliness of the world, but in the meantime, a few babies are saved from death and suffering, and that seems like a small good thing that costs very little.

 

[5-90]

I agree in general about the population issue, and of course better ways of disposing of unwanted babies are no solution to underlying issues. The question at hand, though, seems to be the very limited one of what to do with the unwanted babies that are actually popping out despite all best efforts at control and education. Obviously, just as in an ideal world we wouldn't need to argue about abortion because nobody would need one, in the world we should be aiming at, baby drop boxes will become obsolete too. In the meantime, though, there are those babies, and the unfortunate fact is that the least responsible and least qualified mothers still have them, and drop them in the wrong places. Mothers who do not wish to take any more responsibility for their babies than they did for themselves will always find a way to shed themselves of a kid, and when they are afraid of consequences, they do it often enough in ways that are considered odious by most people, and extremely odious by those, such as Catholics, who consider even the unborn to have rights. We could, of course, just say "tough s***, kid," and let them freeze or suffocate or whatever, which in a sense is what we all do about much of the world already, but abandoned babies in our own midst are kind of conspicuous and they get people motivated. Ultimately, I suspect that the provision of drop boxes will have a negligible effect on the overall ugliness of the world, but in the meantime, a few babies are saved from death and suffering, and that seems like a small good thing that costs very little.

True enough - I don't think I said it was inherently a "Bad Thing" - just that it's the wrong answer to the right question. At least there's some hope of improving the breed that way, even if it doesn't really do anything to thin the herd...

 

[Matthew Currie]

True enough - I don't think I said it was inherently a "Bad Thing" - just that it's the wrong answer to the right question. At least there's some hope of improving the breed that way, even if it doesn't really do anything to thin the herd...

Yes, but unfortunately (and I'll end it here, because there are WAAAAY too many worms in this can!), I think some of those who are most vocally sure of the answers to the big questions of life and God and everything else also must bear much of the responsibility for some of these problems. I will leave the finer points of that unsaid, except to note that the sponsor of the Japanese drop boxes seems appropriate in the circumstances.

 

[5-90]

Yes, but unfortunately (and I'll end it here, because there are WAAAAY too many worms in this can!), I think some of those who are most vocally sure of the answers to the big questions of life and God and everything else also must bear much of the responsibility for some of these problems. I will leave the finer points of that unsaid, except to note that the sponsor of the Japanese drop boxes seems appropriate in the circumstances.

Interesting point, and one we can (mainly) agree on. More wars have been fought because someone didn't give the right answer to the "God question," and George Carlin put it. Look at what we're dealing with in the Middle East - we're fighting a batch of religiously-motivated whackjobs because we didn't give the right answer to their "God question," and they consider us "The last Great Satan."

I don't pretend to know all the answers - and the purpose of posting the first news story wasn't evangelism - more philosophical. I don't want to commit to a belief system that I don't hold to - but I've long had some passing interest in finding the answer to the question of "Where does God live" for my own curiousity - an intellectual pursuit, if you will.

When it comes to beliefs, there are entirely too many worms in that can, and I don't have a bigger one handy - so I'm not going to open it either...