From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #709 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, May 13 2002 Volume 01 : Number 709 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:55:53 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Book Groups (Andrew's Poll) Andrew's poll wants to know about grass-roots support of Mormon literature. Tell us about your experiences in book groups/clubs. Have you ever participated in a local book group? In a book group dominated by Mormons? If so, did your group read any Mormon literature? Did you suggest any titles? How did it go? Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:16:39 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Someone told me that he thought my writing was ALWAYS about sex. (Well, that's not true, of course--though quite a number of my stories do address it.) I have been so aware of marriages where the wife in particular was squeamish about sex, and shared herself infrequently with her husband. I personally feel that such is a violation of covenant. The wife has given herself to her husband, and he to her, in a sacred setting (in or out of the temple) and before God. A marriage between a man and a woman symbolizes (to an extent) the marriage between Christ and the Church. It suggests that just as we must become intimately, even nakedly familiar with our Savior--hiding nothing--and rejoicing in His benevolence, so we are called upon to become intimately acquainted with our spouse, giving of ourselves freely and receiving "due benevolence." As does Gae Lyn, I know of a case where a man was excommunicated after he committed adultery--twenty years or so into a marriage where his wife refused him sexually. Well, the Church judged that man, but God will judge the wife. I'm pretty bold on this subject, by the way, and have told my married daughter that sex should become one of the great joys of her life. When we got the "Chastity" lesson in Relief Society, I got so sick of the "Beware" signs getting stuck up everywhere that I finally blurted out, "So is sex good at all?" That brought a rather timid laugh from my RS sisters, and the answer, "Yes! That's why it's sacred!" By the way, unlike Joseph Smith, I consider the Song of Solomon deeply inspired and magnificent, expressing the joy of fully intimate relations between spouses and the joy of full spiritual intimacy between Christ and his bride. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:26:16 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Hee hee hee! I always knew there was something sinister going on there. My only question -- once you take over the world, what are you going to do with it??? Melissa wrote: Though it's too bad he revealed the secret desire of all Mormons to take over the world. We're really only supposed to discuss that in Relief Society Enrichment nights. Or did you think we *really* cared all that much about making picture frames out of old milk cartons? Melissa proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:48:01 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism On Thu, 09 May 2002 14:35:24 -0600, bob/bernice hughes wrote: >>>Melissa Proffitt writes: >>>What frustrates me (and this is a general comment, not directed at = Jana,=20 >>>by the way) is >>that so many environmental activists would prefer us=20 >>>*not* to do the research >>ourselves. Many of them are dedicated = people=20 >>>who have come to the conclusions they >>support because of extensive=20 >>>study, but instead of encouraging others to do the same, >>they try to= =20 >>>sell us on their conclusions. > >And Jacob earlier wrote that Mormons are skeptical of Environmentalism=20 >because Mormons are =91practical,=92 =91don=92t scare easily,=92 and = resist =91following=20 >the crowd.=92 The clear implication is that if you choose to embrace=20 >Environmentalist arguments, you are not practical, scare easily, simply=20 >follow the crowd, you ignore extensive study, and write trite platitudes= =20 >(bromides). Bob, I am really sorry you chose to read my comments in this light. Let = me elaborate so as not to be misunderstood again: 1. Many people who are already environmental activists take the = positions they do because they have done the research and are convinced of its accuracy. They are responsible, informed individuals who have strong feelings on the subject. 2. UNFORTUNATELY, some of the people in this camp, in trying to convince others of the legitimacy of their stance, choose to use emotional = arguments rather than pointing "newbies" to the data and research THEY THEMSELVES = read in order to reach their own conclusions. This disturbs me for a lot of reasons, primarily the implication that either the data are not sound, or they don't trust people to reach the "right" conclusions. =20 It has been my experience that, with a very few exceptions (as with every possible field of study), scientists who research environmental issues = are rigorous-minded individuals who are interested in finding out what is happening to our world on local, regional and global levels. Reasonable people look at their results and often come up with different--even opposing--interpretations. All I want is the opportunity to do the same without being sold one way or the other. > I may choose to further research a topic;=20 >but if I choose *not* to further research, I may take a base position = one=20 >way or the other. Choosing to side with Environmentalists as a base = position=20 >is no worse than choosing to side with the opposite side as a base = position. I'm afraid I will simply have to disagree with you on this topic. Not = that it is wrong to start from one base position as opposed to the other, = which is fine with me. What I disagree with is the idea that it is ever right = to simply stop doing the research. There are people in both camps who have changed sides because they chose not to stop questioning assumptions. Environmental thinking is very closely tied to environmental policy; our government is passing laws and regulations intended to affect the environment based on the expressed opinions of the people. ("Opinions" meaning "positions one takes on an issue," and not implying that because it's 'opinion' it's nonfactual or unworthy of consideration.) Taking an unconsidered stance on an issue that could have a measurable effect on people, animals, or the environment would be in my opinion highly irresponsible. You cited the essays of several Mormon intellectuals on the subject of = the environment. As it happens, I have read a number of the essays you = mention. Do I agree with them? Not entirely. But I have never said that they = were stupid for taking the positions they do. In fact, about a third of the environmental reading I do is by people whose opinions are completely the opposite of mine. And no, I don't do it to poke holes in their arguments= or ridicule their diminished mental capacity. I do it because I want to = really know both sides of the argument--not just what someone I agree with = *says* is the stance of the "opposition." This is my idea of responsible, = rigorous thought. Yes, it's true that I approach such issues from a certain base position--but I don't let that stand as a replacement for independent analysis. (Hmmm. That could probably be taken as a personal attack implying that Bob doesn't engage in independent thought, which was what = he originally thought I was implying, rather than as an elaboration on my approach to scientific research. Oh well.) Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:27:45 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Small LDS Publishers and Amazon I have a question about purchasing LDS books. The other day I tried to buy Blake Ostler's recent book on the attributes of God from Amazon for a discussion I've been having with him over on LDS-Phil. Amazon listed his book, but didn't have any way of purchasing it. It turned out the only way I could get the book was to go directly to the publisher (Kofford Books) and order from their rather amateurish web page. (The order page had numerous misspellings) Further, unlike Amazon, this entailed a $4.00 s&h charge. Ouch. Is this pretty typical for LDS books? I notice Amazon has most Signature and Deseret Book books on LDS, along with the other major publishers. (University of Illinois Press, etc.) Since I think Blake is making an important contribution to LDS theology which really has languished for most of the last century, I hope to see more of these sorts of books. Yet they don't really seem to be making it as a significant publishing enterprise or even are available to the typical member. (Most of whom order off Amazon or Desert Books web pages) What is the place for smaller publishers in reaching the wider Mormon audience? BTW - for those interested Blake's book can be ordered from www.koffordbooks.com I notice that it is now available from a secondary book seller, "Meador Books", on Amazon as well. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:18:16 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Collective Agency? Jonathan Langford wrote: > This, I think, is one of the basic paradoxes of human nature: that while we > are individuals, we are also, irreversibly, social--which I think means, in > part, corporate (in the sense of a group, not a modern business > corporation)--beings. I don't think it's possible for any of us as > individuals to define ourselves, without at the same time some reference to > the group(s) of which we are members. That's an important point, I agree, but it raises questions about the nature of responsibility and morality in a society in which evil has become lawful, and to do good requires giving in to temptation. What are the moral limits of political (corporate) action? What are the implications of evil for the theory and practice of politics? The 20th century has presented us with several excellent examples of societies in which evil was lawful - the Third Reich and Stalin's USSR (one might argue that the society was actually lawless, but the distinction for my purposes here is too fine) spring to mind. The de-Nazification of Germany after WWII and the de-Sovietization of Eastern European countries after 1990 expose some problems of defining guilt and responsibility in such societies. Mass evil occurred in those countries, and it was a phenomenon of obedience, unlike the theological concept of sin and evil that stem from disobedience. Morality can't be determined by community, else there'd be no defense from totalitarianism, and no way to judge someone who conformed to community standards. In the wake of their totalitarian experiences, the Germans, Russians, Poles, Bulgarians and others cringed in the face of the need to explain individual actions, or shied away from exposing them. People had chosen not to think, and thus had fallen into evil. But thinking or not thinking is a political and moral act, and not thinking was itself evil. Thinking people have a hard time understanding the behavior of people in a totalitarian state because it's hard for thought to grasp thoughtlessnes. What Arendt called "the banality of evil" is this essential senseless element of mass or group evil. Eichmann left aside any unease he might have felt in arranging the Holocaust in the execution of duty. He wasn't a sadist or a monster; he was worse, a thoughtless, feeble-minded clown. He might as well have been shipping crates of paper as Jews. And so it was across Germany and the USSR. Any people can succumb to mass evil if they see no legitimate limits to political or corporate action. The most effective way to seduce them to evil is to show them the aquiescence of everyone else. That doesn't take away individual responsibility, but it does say that the corporate environment can make it easier to forget. In that sense we can say that there are evil corporations and evil states, but the moral responsibility is still individual. Justice is possible because there are limits beyond which humans shouldn't go. That's part of what it is to be human, and that's one reason that collective guilt and innocence are unjust. They impute blame and praise regardless of individual actions, and they make the judgement of particular acts pointless. If all are guilty, none is better or worse than anyone else, so all are innocent. It was the lack of personal responsibility that made Nazi death-camps, the Soviet Gulag, the Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide possible. It was the unwillingness to think and to pass moral judgement. Bureaucracy, whether political or corporate, evaluates personal actions on the basis of their efficiency in achieving some end, not on the ends they strive to achieve. It reduces the individual to a tiny cog in the machine, undermines individual responsibility, and leads to the rule of nobody (my preferred definition of 'bureaucracy'). But when those cogs have to stand responsible for what they've done, they're reindividualized into somebodies. In Arendt's words, "If the defendant excuses himself on the ground that he acted not as a man but as a mere functionary whose functions could just as easily have been carried out by anyone else, it is as if a criminal pointed to the statistics on crime - which set forth that so-and-so many crimes per day are committed in such-and-such a place - and declared that he only did what was statistically expected, that it was mere accident that he did it and not somebody else, since after all somebody had to do it." > Our cognitive tools for viewing the universe are developed socially, as much as > individually. Thought largely seems to be formed by language, which is > inherently social. I would go so far as to say that the space we have for the > exercise of agency is largely granted to us by the conflicts, overlaps, and > tensions among the different > groups to which we belong. I think you go too far. I think that there's an essential human nature that language and society can undermine, but that only individual humans can abandon. Our exercise of agency may be limited, but we're never compelled to evil. We have to choose it either by acting or by abandoning thought. Our fellows can encourage us to good or evil, and they can make the choice easy or hard, but they never lift from us the responsibility for our decision. > So yes, I think a group does have agency. It certainly has the power to make > decisions. It's an abuse of the concept to claim that a group's > decision-making relieves the individual of responsibility for his or her own > choices, but I don't think we need to deny that groups make choices in order to > maintain the responsibility of > individuals to make choices of their own. I don't think I'm arguing semantics when I say that individuals within a group make choices, not the group itself, and that the group functions precisely to relieve the individual of responsibility for choices. It can't really do that, but it can persuade us otherwise if we turn of our critical faculties. We're social animals, but not in the way that some jelly-fish are social, all wedded into a single entity. We aren't a single organism, nor even a single super-organism like some termites and ants. > I'm aware that in doing this I'm stepping, to a certain degree, within > Jim's own area of specialty, as the discussion started with the notion of > business corporations. But in broadening it to the question of whether > such a thing as corporate agency *ever* exists, it seems to me that Jim has > opened this up as fair game to the rest of us as well... It's hardly the proprietary domain of economists, and corporate behavior isn't an area on which I've even spent much thought, let alone developed any expertise. I agree with you fully in this: > A truly good and subtle literature, it seems to me, denies neither group > agency (the hyper-individualistic approach) nor individual agency (the > naturalistic, deterministic approach), but is instead largely concerned > with exploring the interface between the two. It's at that interface that morality exists, isn't it? One man alone can hardly be more a more effective moral agent than can an ant in an anthill. It's at the interface where individuals interract in a thoughtful way that interesting things happen. Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:30:50 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art > > Sometimes we are asked to consecrate our talents, sometimes we are hired for > them. I used to be ambivalent about what to do should the Church ask me to donate my time and artistic talent. In the past, I have consented (directing roadshows, for instance). But one day I was talking to James Arrington about this and he turned my eyes around. He said, paraphrasing, "If the ward meetinghouse bathroon springs a leak and they want Brother Jones the Professional Plumber to fix it, they pay him. If the ward wants a stake dramatic production, they call James Arrington the Professional Actor but they expect him to donate his time. What's wrong with this picture?" Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:03:07 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism On Thu, 9 May 2002 13:40:37 -0600, Jana Pawlowski wrote: >Melissa, at the risk of sounding like a sissy, let me say that the one >phrase, "to speak against" was pretty innocuous because 1) I'm not = ashamed >to say that I do have a bias against storing nuclear waste in Utah (or = any >of the West for that matter) It's not the bias you have that concerns me, particularly since your = other posts have been very clear on your position. In itself, it was = innocuous. (You'll notice I didn't come screaming after you at the time.) Combined with the later statement that you were just mentioning an issue, which to= me implies a *lack* of bias, I thought the incongruity should be pointed = out. > 2) I'm just getting back into the List and >writing, my kids have been sick for a month, I'm distracted, and am not >dotting all my I's nor crossing my t's. Okay, now *this* would make you sound like a sissy. :) Either you = aren't ashamed of coming from your strongly held position, or you made a mistake because you weren't able to be thorough in checking your posts. I think everyone who's ever posted to this list has written things they didn't intend, myself included, for no reason other than it just happens = sometimes. So if you're saying that you would have phrased your first post = differently if you'd read it more carefully, I'm fine with that without knowing that you're under stress. Though I do feel sorry for you and the sick kids, which is never fun. >I implore the group (and this is >general, definitely not directed at Melissa) to not start making each = other >an offender for a word or a phrase anyway. Well, here's another issue. If somebody makes a statement that is = ambiguous (or possibly antagonistic) isn't it right to address that statement and point out the other ways said statement could have been understood? It would be wrong to assume the very worst possible interpretation and = respond to that alone--if I had accused Jana of being a shill for Earth First!, = for example, based on one small discrepancy. But that's different from = pointing out the other possible interpretations and letting the author clarify his initial message. Actually--on the topic of not being hypercritical of small errors--I = think we have two duties: first, to be generous in interpreting others' = comments; and second, not to be overly defensive when our own are corrected. = Although I have trouble with that last one because I dislike being wrong in = public. Still, I think it's at least as important not to be offended for a word = as it is not to make others the offender. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:12:58 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew. It uses the same alphabet, many of the grammatical rules are the same, but some of the translations come out a little bit different because of the things that are different. It was the language of the common man at the time of Christ. Hebrew was used in the synagogues and has continued to be throughout the centuries, even though Aramaic is now one of the dead languages. Several of the last books of the OT were written in Aramaic, however--Daniel for one, which is what we were working on the summer I took it. They used to teach it at BYU (probably still do.) Karen Tippets - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:08:56 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith (Comp 1) >ivan wolfe > >If what Richard Hopkins said is true (I've heard similar allegations) that the >man who played JS in Legacy was a porn star - that may be all the church is >worried about. I think that is a valid concern to have. I wonder what percentage of porn actors go into porn because it's an exciting and glamrous branch of showbiz, and how many go into it because it's the only acting gig they can get. Does the church's reputation suffer if it helps an ex-porn star earn a living? MBA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:27:24 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Stephen Carter wrote: > ...when somone in America reproduces, many more resources go toward that > new person - much more than goes to new people in other countries... if > Americans quit reproducing so much, there would be manymore resources to go > around. And if American's produce more new people... then even more resources > will be taken up leaving less for new people in other countries, thus > accelerating their mortality... Much dismal literature has been predicated on the notion that the world's resources are divided up in a zero-sum game. If Americans are rich, it can only be by using more than their fair share of resources and making others poor. The world is caught in a Malthusian vise, its masses doomed to immiseration as burgeoning populations devour that fixed resource pie. I'm amazed that the marvels of modern technology are made of sand - silicon chips and light pipes have replaced copper wire and banks of mercury switches. Less power is required to do more and more, and resource supplies stretch further and further into the future. The resource pie has grown and continues to grow. Ceramics and carbon can replace steel and aluminum, new houses are lighter and more spacious than old houses that cost more to build. There are bottlenecks and there always will be, but they fall or move back when we push hard enough against them. Economics has been called the dismal science (the blame is Malthus'), but it's really the optimistic science, and economists' optimism has been justified time and again. One of the things I love about Mormonism is its innate optimism, an optimism that should find expression in our literature and art. Some have noted critically the Mormon idea that there's enough and to spare in the world, but there really is. Wealth isn't about stocks of oil and cobalt and titanium, but about squeezing more from less. The dismal world of the mercantilists, who thought a nation's wealth was measured in its gold stocks, was toppled by the British and Dutch who realized that wealth is found in daring and imagination, that a nation poor in physical resources can grow spectacularly wealthy all the same, while nations (like Spain) that see the world in fixed-pie terms can be crushed into poverty by their gold stocks. Wealth is a human creation, not a natural resource that has to be divided up just so. I say, leave doom and gloom literature to people who think this world is a vale of tears. Our literature should recognize the true injustices and problems in the world without giving in to pessimism and without fear. And now it's time for me to go to a graduation party. I need to recover from wandering around campus today in a black woolen robe and velvet hat in bright sunlight, high temperatures, and high humidity. And don't bother calling me to task for anything I've written, because I'm leaving town tomorrow for a month in Paris and Prague (if my wife can find her passport, she'll be coming with me). Goodbye, and don't feel guilty about having ten kids and driving an SUV. Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:47:34 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Collective Agency? ___ Johnathon ___ | While this is an important point, I also can't help but | think of the many times in scripture when a people is | spoken to *as* a people, with (apparently) the capacity | to choose evil or good, to deserve punishment or reward. | It seems to me--based on what I see in scriptures, and | elsewhere--that there is such a thing a collective agency, | in addition to individual agency. ___ This is an excellent point and very important. The scriptures more frequently speak of communities than they do individuals - especially in terms of prophecy and punishment. Because of our individualist tendencies in America, we have a hard time reading texts in that way. Still there is a recognition that God views in terms of communities in terms of his historic workings with human beings. ___ Johnathon ___ | This, I think, is one of the basic paradoxes of human nature: | that while we are individuals, we are also, irreversibly, | social--which I think means, in part, corporate (in the | sense of a group not a modern business corporation)--beings. ___ I don't think it a paradox, but I think it is something we frequently forget. If you compare the way our culture works with ones in the more Catholic countries where community is emphasized more, there are some astounding differences. Even in our early days with United Orders, community was far more important than today. That's not to say Mormon community is so in favor of individual views that we have no sense of community. As many in Utah point out, there is a strong homogenization tendency. Those who vary too far from the community norm are often shunned. I notice though, that our literature tends to focus much more on the individual than the community. Indeed you tend to see more angst in LDS fiction that is the individual feeling the weight of belonging to a community. The individual feels stress because of this "conforming" inclination. If they do break from the community there is then that tension of how to be an individual, yet belong to the community - but the focus is always on the individual and not the community. I can think of any fiction I've read or heard about that looks at all these things from the point of view of the community losing a member or the pain the community feels as the individual breaks away. Examples of the books I'm thinking of are things like Card's _Folk of the Fringe_ or some of Evenson's short story or recent novel. In all cases the focus is on the outsider. There is always this sense of alienation. That is, I think, typical of American literature. Compare this to more Catholic based literature like John Donne. No man is an island. Let no man ask for whom the bell toils. It tolls for you. All that line of thinking is breaking down the distinction between individual and community. The recend thread on Environmentalism really ties into this, as Johnathon points out. Environmentalists are pushing for a holistic sense of community. If Mormons worry about this, it is because of that fear of community I think. This is interesting as the entire thrust of the gospel is a making-one. Literal at-one-ment. Community is intrinsic to LDS theology. It begins with our notion of family and marriage is the first primal at-one-ment. The intention of a ward is literally to become a big family and the next step is the church as a whole as a family. Unfortunately, as the mainly failures of various United Orders show, that isn't easy to accomplish. The goal, however, is a City of Enoch, which has more in common with the Catholic view of community epitomized by Donne than it does most modern LDS literature. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:43:27 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism - ---Original Message From: Stephen Carter > This line of logic bothers me. It seems to imply that since > people in other > countries are dying, we are welcome to reproduce with > impunity. I would say > that it rather argues that we should be doing more to help > the people who are > dying. How does having children mean that we aren't helping people who are dying? I don't get the trade-off you imply. > Also, when somone in America reproduces, many more resources > go toward that > new person - much more than goes to new people in other countries. So > hypothetically, if Americans quit reproducing so much, there > would be many > more resources to go around. And if American's produce more > new people because > new people are dying in other countries, then even more > resources will be > taken up leaving less for new people in other countries, thus > accelerating > their mortality, thus giving us the exuse to continue our > reproduction. It > seems that a vicious cycle would be created. I don't think that we do or should have more children because others are having fewer. It's a dumb reason, but then, I don't know of anybody who has children based on the children that other countries are or aren't having. Most people I know have children because they want them and can afford them. In the U.S., enough people want children who can't have them that even children who aren't desired can find a home to love them and raise them. With regards to sparing resources for other countries, though, I think you've neglected two very important details. First, while it is true that American's consume more than people from other countries, it is also true that we produce way more. We in the U.S. are capable of producing enough food to feed the entire *world* using the farming techniques we have now and the land we could allocate to farming. We don't only because people don't want us to--they'd prefer that we produce computers, software programs, movies, and pharmaceutical innovations. If American's stop reproducing, then the result will be *less* to go around as our production also drops off. Our workers are some of the most efficient in the world and we are net contributors not consumers of world resources (taken as a whole). Where would we be without the health and industry innovations pioneered in the U.S.? Second, the health and mortality problems of other countries are man-made. Africa doesn't have to be a benighted backwater with declining populations and high mortality rates. Africa has awesome mineral resources--on par with anything we have here. But the problem isn't that there isn't enough food in the world to feed the people in Africa. The problem isn't even that we're all hoarding our resources so they can't have them. The problem is that petty despots and tyrants wage war on each other and no infrastructure exists to get the resources to those who so desperately need them. The point being that how many children we have in the U.S. has really nothing to do with the population or mortality of those in Africa. Much more important to alleviating the pain and suffering in that part of the world would be political change and stability followed by intelligent delivery of the aid (in knowledge as well as resources) that we've proven time and again that we're willing to send. > I also object to this argument on quasi-religious grounds. If > it is true that > the mortal experience is an important part of eternal > progression, then I say > we have the obligation to create a world where everyone's > mortal experience > can be rich, not just the American's. I absolutely agree. But how do you do that? That's the problem. Having fewer children in the U.S. isn't going to do anything for those in other parts of the world. How can we create a world where everyone's mortal experience can be rich? Since I cannot force people to change their political, legal, and economic systems, the best I can do is welcome the children I feel I can support and to ensure that they have access to the best I can give them (speaking spiritually and not necessarily economically). > I'm not arguing for zero population growth (I have two new > people of my own, > one of whom is watching me type this. Hi Mason!) But I am > arguing that the the > world is much different (economically, medically, > environmentally etc) than it > used to be. We have to think something new. I'm open to suggestions. What is it that we can think that is new and will alleviate this suffering? One of the powerful things about fiction in general is that we can explore new modes of thought. We can error check systems before actually undergoing the cost of implementing them. Doing this is a strong trend in Science Fiction (and Fantasy to a lesser extent) and one of the reasons I enjoy it so much. A work that can posit an entirely new and foreign world has latitude to explore the workings of something new and see how it might function if implemented. This is what makes Robert Heinlein so interesting, though I hardly agree with his Rational Anarchy conclusions. The thing is, based on his books, I can see what he thinks is a good idea and apply my personal perspectives against it so I can articulate *why* I think things wouldn't really work that way. What I'm saying is, if you have a new way of thinking, then put it out here so we can examine it. What I dislike is when people knock on how we're doing things now without ever expressing how they think things should be done differently. This isn't meant as an attack on you, Stephen, I mean this generally. If things aren't going how you wish, then tell what, how, and why things should change. This discourse is what drew me to literature in the first place and keeps me coming back for more. My college "career" is a broad swath through academic disciplines as I looked for things that explored the world and attempted to understand it in all the glorious human complexity. I started with economics, went to history, political science, and classical studies. Eventually, I ended up in the English department and discovered home--a place where cause and effect can be discussed, where lives are dissected and ideas analyzed in their full human imperfection. I loved it then, and love it still. Which is why I repeat--if you have ideas, let them out. Let us see how you would solve problems (human, societal, religious, personal, *any* problems). Just don't expect us to agree all the time--that's part of what attracts me to this mess :). Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:01:32 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism - ---Original Message From: Jonathan Langford > This paragraph seems to suggest that the cost of human damage > to the environment is largely a sentimental/ethical/esthetic > one. But from the reading I've done, I don't think we know > the real cost yet. Environmental systems seem to be > consistently more complex than earlier assumptions suggested. True, but they are also proving to be consistently more robust that earlier and even current assumptions suggest. > Certainly, in addition to the moral and religious concerns > Jim cites, there are also many unanswered questions on the > concrete, material level about sustainable quality of life > for 6 or 7 or 20 billion humans. I see these as largely > scientific questions, because it's only through science that > we can come to any reliable sense of the potential > cost--without which no reasonable cost-benefit analysis can be made. While I see it as a scientific question, as you do, I approach zero population in the same way I approach having children of my own. To me, it's really the same question anyway. Since science hasn't decided if we can support 20 billion humans on the Earth, that question has no relevance to me. I think science has conclusively proven that we can support the 6 billion we have now (and would do a better job of *that* if it weren't for waste and cruelty). Extrapolating for the next couple of billion people we could add, I'm pretty comfortable with our capacity to absorb them when/as they arrive. We can produce enough food and shelter for them if they want it. For me, absent revelation or science, that's enough information to make the decision to have more children and not be so paranoid that welcoming more babies into the world *might* be a bad thing. Looking too far ahead is just borrowing trouble. We're not going to double the population of the world so very soon and we'll certainly have opportunity to make changes/corrections along the way. I'm not saying that we should halt scientific inquiry, mind. We should certainly try to find out if we *can* handle 20 billion people on the planet. We should be monitoring the effects that we have and be careful that we aren't making short term decisions that will irrevocably harm our long-term prospects. That said, we shouldn't feel like we can only proceed once we have all the answers. We will never have all the answers. Heck, I don't believe that we will ever have all the questions. But we have enough to make decisions right now and that information indicates to me that a) we're to multiply and replenish the Earth--that command has not been rescinded and b) we have enough to see us through the foreseeable future. We walk by faith, not knowledge. That will be the case until and unless our knowledge is absolute. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #709 ******************************