Why do i write 'i'?

As a general rule, i try to write using standard textbook English. So i use the male pronouns he, him or his rather than the inclusive but clumsy he/she, him/her, his/her, and the standard 'man' rather than 'humankind'. Moreover, i try to construct my sentences in a fairly standard manner, keeping in mind, for example, that a preposition is not a proper word type to end a sentence with. And that it's usually bad form to start a sentence with a conjunction. I likewise do my best to never split an infinitive. Not that i don't occasionally slip up inadvertently, but you get the idea.

But i have deliberately broken one rule of standard English, namely, spelling the word 'i' without capitalizing it (except when it begins a sentence). Why? I'll tell you why:

The better question would be why would i capitalize the nominative case of the first person singular pronoun? I don't capitalize other pronouns like 'me' 'we' 'she' 'you' 'they', etc. It's not a proper name. Other languages don't capitalize its equivalent ('yo' in Spanish, 'io' in Italian, etc.). Why does written English single this pronoun out as something special? Do we have a collective tendency toward narcissism? Might this subconsciously be the root cause for the Me generation complex? You might say that the unorthodox uncapitalized form not only makes more sense, but is a small attempt to de-emphasize self, to deliberately counter the 'me first' tendency implied by standard English.

The idea was first proposed to me by the folks at Miles Jesu, a small and humble lay religious order personally known to me in Chicago. In all their writings, they employed the lower case 'i', for pretty much the same reasons as i have just offered. (See this article, for one example.)

But now i see that, in their recent writings, these people have reverted to standard English. (See this article, for a more recent example.) I don't see an explanation for this, but i can guess that their reasons for reverting might go something like this:

The unorthodox approach may be well-intended, but mostly ineffective, and even more of a distraction than anything else. Words are meant to convey a meaning, and if the words draw attention to themselves by such non-standard usage, they lose their effectiveness. It could even be argued that such unorthodox writing style draws undue attention to the writer, an ironic defeat of the original intent to diminish self!

So, after giving this some thought, i think i'm ready for a personal compromise. I still reserve the right to spell the word 'i' as lower case in my personal notes and correspondence, but starting right now, I will revert to standard upper-case in my published writings, for the sake of clarity. This little crusade was fun, but rather pointless, if you know what I mean. The I's have it.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage

We think that the sins we hug tight are ourselves, but we are wrong. They weigh us down, they deform us, they obstruct our sight.
  -Anthony Esolen

Having mentioned it in a few previous posts, this post is my endeavor to focus on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage...

Tolerance

Tolerance is commonly invoked as an argument for legalizing or sanctioning same-sex marriage. Namely, that the mainstream majority heterosexual world must learn to accept people who are different, and not fear or hate homosexual individuals.

I have no problem with this sentiment as far as it goes. Certainly we should neither fear nor hate any other individual or group of people. But accepting people does not mean accepting all behavior without question. Tolerance, as i have argued in a previous post, does not necessarily entail the abandonment of behavioral standards.

Justice and equity

Another major premise is that allowing same-sex marriage is simply a matter of fairness and equity, that it is unjust to withold this basic human right from a group of people who just happen to have a different approach to sexuality.

The problem here is with an illogical view of marriage as a 'right', defined by human society. The unspoken assumption is that by altering the definition of marriage, we can change what it is. But true definitions don't work that way. Human rights, at least the important, inalienable ones, are natural rights, determined by nature. That's what makes them inalienable and universal. Likewise the real definition of marriage is not subject to arbitrary change. It is what it is. (See natural law argument below.)

If marriage could be redefined to include same-sex couples, then it could also be redefined to include triples or any number of individuals. (This idea is already being pursued.) It could also be redefined to include non-human partners - someone who wants to marry his dog (or goat?). Once you start claiming the ability to redefine such things, the sky's the limit. Lest you be tempted to dismiss this as reductio ad absurdum, remember that, not many years ago, same-sex marriage would have been considered an absurdity.

Science

Some assert that, since science has proven homosexuality to be biologically determined, it must be recognized as purely natural and on a par with heterosexual behavior.

Scientific theories come and they go. There have been some studies seeming to show a genetic basis for homosexuality, while others dispute that claim. The principle of natural selection demands that, for a 'gay gene' theory to hold up, a pleiotropic argument would have to be advanced as well. That is, there would have to be a corresponding genetic benefit to offset the obvious biological handicap of the homosexual trait. To date, there seems to be no hint of evidence for such a beneficial pleiotropy. (See this article for further articulation of this and other points.) Other theories currently being advanced point to either developmental causes or non-genetic organic (chemical or microbiotic) causes. While far from certain, this general tack seems to be more plausible than the fading 'gay gene' theory.

This is all interesting, but not terribly germane. The debate over what underlies homosexual tendencies can never address the nature of marriage, or its heterosexual essence. Neither can science ever really address the rightness or wrongness of human behavior. I suppose that moral theology and legal jurisprudence may both draw from the well of scientific knowledge, but science itself must be concerned only with empirical observation, and be silent on matters of judgment, else it ceases to be science and becomes ideology instead. (See my Epistemology post.)

Consider: There may well be organic or genetic factors that dispose some individuals to alcoholism. Would this make the consumption of alcohol into a human right? (Ask a highway cop that hypothetical question.) In the same way, the question of whether homosexual behavior is chosen or biologically determined is an interesting question, but it has no real bearing upon whether the behavior should be sanctioned.

Scripture

Due to man's inherent religious instinct, many have attempted to justify homosexual behavior on Scriptural grounds.

This invariably involves 'discovering' the sin of Sodom (Gen. 13:13, 19:4-11) to be inhospitality rather than homosexual rapaciousness. Further, stringent Mosaic laws (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Deut. 23:17) against homosexual relations are facilely dismissed as outmoded and irrelevant. In the New Testament (Rom. 1:26,27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10), the Apostle Paul is condescendingly stereotyped as a homophobe, or as an unthinking product of the narrow culture of his day. (Of course, the moderns making this charge are not shaped by their own cultural biases!) And, most wonderfully, Jesus' lack of explicit mention of the subject is taken to mean that He endorses homosexuality.

This 'explaining away' of relevant texts is a classic example of Scriptural eisegesis, the reading into Scripture to attain a predetermined interpretation. Moreover, it betrays an attitude of hostility or at least condescension toward the Bible. Rather than docilely receiving Scriptural truth as a disciple should, such eisegesis involves a rather arrogant critiquing of Scripture, judging the Word of God instead of allowing oneself to be judged.

Rather than turn this blog post into a lengthy Bible study, i would invite anyone interested to search the Scriptures for yourself. If you avoid the heroic intellectual gymnastics described above, and stick to an honest exegesis, letting the Bible teach you, i think it will be obvious enough that every Bible passage that speaks of homosexual activity, in both Old and New Testaments, clearly treats it as sinful.

Love

Following from the above misunderstandings, many assert that Christian love demands the acceptance of same-sex relations as being normal and good.

But true love isn't characterized by a bland approval of everything. This would not be love, but complacency. Christian love flows from love of God, and from a desire to obey and honor God in all things. The Christian is commanded to love the sinner but hate the sin. To do less is actually a failure to love as Jesus commands us to. (Ref: the opening quote above.)

Jesus loves the sinner, and then calls the sinner to repentance and to holiness. That's what real Christian love looks like.

Defense against aggression

Homosexuals are often portrayed as a persecuted minority unjustly attacked and oppressed by the powerful majority. This may be the silliest argument of all.

With very few exceptions, the popular movement to resist same-sex marriage is just that - a resistance movement. The proactive aggression is clearly coming from the militant gay culture, seeking to overthrow centuries-old social and legal norms. The counter-movement seeks to protect the institution of marriage and the family from such undue and destructive aggression.

The arguments for tradition

Although the pro-family counter-movement is mainly a resistance and a reaction to militant homosexual advocacy, it also involves several of its own proactive and fundamental points:

Marriage as foundational

Briefly, this argument is for recognition of marriage as the very foundation of civilization. The sanctioning of heterosexual monogamous marriage advances the domestication of men, the protection of women, and the rearing of children in stable environments. It provides men with the means of knowing their children and thus the motivation to provide for them. It allows men to become co-workers with other men instead of rivals. In other words, marriage makes civilization possible. This is not to claim that civilization has perfectly achieved these benefits. It is to say that marriage is the means of achieving them. Other types of social arrangements cannot advance these same essential principles.

Therefore, to the extent that a society embraces and is founded upon marriage with all its rights and responsibilities, it will be civilized. To the extent that it eschews these principles, it will cease to be civilized. Do not imagine that man became civilized and then decided to 'invent' marriage. You could even say it was the other way around: Marriage 'invented' civilization.

From this simple point it can be seen that any redefinition of marriage would detract from these foundational principles. This would be, in effect, to move away from civilization and toward savagery.

Natural law

Closely associated with natural rights (life, liberty, etc.), natural law is law which is determined by nature, and so is valid even in the absence of statutory law or positive law.

So, natural law regarding marriage derives from the essential nature of marriage. In its very nature, marriage can only be the pairing of a man and a woman. The complementarity, mutual dependency, and potential fecundity of this arrangement are of the essence, and objectively so, not subject to arbitrary interpretation. (I also explored this thought further in a previous post.)

Common law

What nature is to natural law, history is to common law. The plain fact is that for centuries upon centuries human societies and their governments have recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman. The long-standing precedent is an important argument in its own right.

Some have disingenuously argued that, just as the long-standing institution of slavery was abolished, so should the common law precedent of monogamous heterosexual marriage be revisited. But for a long-standing law to be overthrown, it should first be proven to be flawed.

The American institution of slavery, only a couple of centuries old, was clearly flawed, and so its demise was just and right. Roe v. Wade, now 30+ years old, is also flawed. The common law institution of heterosexual marriage, millenia old, is not flawed. (In fact, as argued above, it can be seen as the foundation of civilization, and thus preceding all other legal precedents.)

Love and tolerance

As noted above (and here), the Christian concept of love goes way beyond mere passive acceptance, to the much more compassionate offer of repentance and forgiveness.

It is very honest and loving to agree with God that homosexuality is a problem, not a gift. Having homosexual tendencies and temptations is not in itself sinful. Exercising one's free will to engage in homosexual acts is sinful. But it doesn't end there; there is remedy in God's grace.

Repentance and forgiveness

There is first of all the remedy of forgiveness for sin. That is what Jesus died on the cross for, so that sinners could be forgiven. He didn't die so that we could excuse ourselves, or identify ourselves with our sin, but so that we could reject sin and be forgiven. This necessarily involves repentance - agreeing with God that our sins are evil, and that we should try to avoid doing them. The good news for all of us is that Jesus keeps on offering forgiveness for our repented sins, even when we fail again and again and again and again... I suspect that the vast majority of people repeat the same embedded and habitual sins over and over. That's not good, and one should always endeavor to gain mastery over such sin. But it's not beyond God's grace. Repeated sin, when confessed with contrition, is taken care of. Sin that is excused or rationalized is not. Jesus didn't die for our excuses, but for our sins.

Healing

There is sometimes a remedy for the underlying same-sex attraction as well. Jesus can and does heal individuals, replacing their interior brokenness with His wholeness. Miracles of grace still happen.

Holiness

For many, the homosexual feelings never go away. These individuals have a heavy cross to bear, one of chastity and self-control. In such cases, the decision to bear the cross is the only 'remedy'. This becomes their path to holiness, and their very powerful means of glorifying God, achieving their own sanctification, and making the world a better place. For one very moving example, see this story.

The call to holiness is, of course, given to all. The specific cross we each have to bear on our way is unique to each one.

From the Catechism

Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say on the subject:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Amen. Much more articulate than my blatherings.

Alternate religions

Man is a religious animal. No amount of debate or theorizing or psychological manipulation can change that. It is an indelible part of human nature, just as much as language, music, humor, and apposable thumbs. The illusion of atheism is just that: an illusion. It isn't a question of whether or not you are religious; it is merely a question of whether or not you will worship God, or whether you will make for yourself some other god, an idol.

From the very beginning, man has been torn between the humble desire to worship his Creator, and the proud desire to exalt himself instead. But man has never succeeded in 'turning off' his religious inclinations. If he doesn't worship God, he will find a lesser idol. If he doesn't follow a true religion, he will make one up.

Many folks might object to this assertion, citing religion as hypocritical. Indeed, the infamy of religious hypocrisy is commonplace, so familiar and well recognized as to be hackneyed. There is the stereotypical Baptist preaching loudly against sexual immorality while carrying on an adulterous affair. The celibate Catholic priest found guilty of child molestation. And let's not forget the medieval selling of indulgences, the practice of simony, etc, etc.

Yet these examples serve to illustrate even more clearly the original assertion. Think about it. Even when he fails to live by the demands of his religion, man must believe. Rather than break off believing, he makes excuses for his behavior, at least to himself. Others see through his excuses, and rightfully call it hypocrisy. The very cry of 'hypocrite!' presumes that something genuine has been corrupted. Were religion not such a deeply seated part of our human nature, we would not object so strenuously to its misuse.

Substitutes for God - idols - come in many forms. Some people worship money, dedicating themselves religiously to its procurement and enjoyment. Some worship fame or prestige. Some politicians have literally sold their souls in the pursuit of political power and influence. Certain environmentalists worship Mother Earth as their goddess. The list goes on and on.

This last example has special significance for me, personally. I have spent the past 40 years or so maintaining a fairly keen focus on issues of conservation and environmental concerns. Only recently have i come to see that, for many, these concerns have taken on the characteristics of religious fervor. The pursuit of environmental quality based upon empirical data is replaced by a dogmatic and evangelistic zeal, demanding conversion and radical adherence to a sort of Gospel of Ecology.

One public figure has been on a world-wide tour engaging in what can only be called evangelizing or preaching. His sermons are emotion-laden pleas for repentance, on moral grounds, of the sin of producing greenhouse gases. Nor is religious hypocrisy lacking here. The same public figure, willing neither to reform his own grossly consumerist lifestyle nor to abandon his religious environmental fervor, makes excuses for himself in the form of 'carbon offset credits'. Others see through this hypocrisy, while he and many of his co-religionists apparently do not.

There are grave spiritual dangers inherent in weaving a new religion out of global warming alarmism. Idol worship and false religions always end up degrading and destroying their adherents. (Besides that, in the long run rigid dogmatism could well erode the credibility of true research on the subject of global warming, and thus counter-productively retard reasonable corrective measures.)

As much as fanatical environmental alarmism interests and troubles me, there is another wave of alternate religions that is much more pernicious. Various sects within this religious trend - denominations, if you will - advance different emphases. There is first of all the creed of Feminism, with legal abortion as its main sacrament, and artificial contraception as its minor one. That this is a religious sect is clearly seen by the howls of protest and righteous indignation that arise whenever these sacraments are threatened or challenged in any way. According to the creed of Feminism, patriarchy is seen as the Original Sin, and, accordingly, marriage and the traditional family are abhorred.

Then there is the Population Control sect, which accepts the same two sacraments, but offers its own version of Original Sin. Namely, these believers would trace virtually every social and environmental ill back to the cardinal sin of human propagation. The Gay Rights religion, with its built-in rejection of propagation, meshes well with these two, while adding its own emphases on hedonistic pleasure and redefining human sexuality.

There is, of course, much common ground between these different denominations. They all focus on a revamping of human sexuality, morality, and propagation. There is general agreement among them over the virtues of legalized abortion and of the condom. There is in all of them a strict dogmatism and evangelistic fervor that can only be characterized as religious. With some exceptions, neither they nor outsiders may think of these folks as being religious in the usual sense, but they most assuredly are. Indeed, as asserted above, we are all religious, in one way or another.

Here's my point: At the very center of your being is an exalted spot, a place esteemed above all others, a throne, as it were. The question is: Who, or what, sits upon your 'throne'? Do you bow before some other human? Is your pet ideology your all-consuming desire? Do you worship yourself? Or does God sit upon this throne?

The person who refuses or neglects to believe in and worship God is likely to believe in and devote himself to almost anything else.

Thanatos antidote

At the end of my 'Thanatos' post below, i touched on a theme that i will now try to expand upon. Namely, that there are alternatives to the cultural despair over consumerism.

Consumerism isn't the only force driving the population control ideology. Materialism and hedonism contribute as well, but these two vices are quite ancient; consumerism is the new kid on the block. Only after we were well into the Industrial Revolution was consumerism even possible - so i believe it deserves special attention and a creative, thoughtful response.

Allow me first to define a couple of key terms. For this topic, a consumer must be defined as someone who consumes resources that will not be replenished within a reasonably brief period of time - let us say within the span of a human life, and/or who produces waste which is not neutralized within a reasonable period of time. Both ends of this industrial, consumerist pattern are problematic, causing harm to other forms of life, and to Earth itself.

The "ism" in consumerism refers to the dogmatic belief that to thus consume is an inherent part of living as a civilized human being, that we must live that way. We're all familiar with the incessant drumbeat message: With every passing year, we consume more resources, produce more waste, and cause more devastation. The 6:00 news tells us of a new environmental crisis; we watch a nature documentary and learn of another endangered species; we open a popular magazine and read of global warming. We accept the word 'consumer' as our rightful moniker, and we meekly take upon ourselves the sinister meaning of that identity. The unspoken, perhaps subconscious logic is clear:

 1. Nature is beautiful but fragile.
 2. Man consumes, and so destroys nature.
 3. Therefore, we are doomed, and it's our own fault.

Perhaps some folks prefer to alter the 3rd point to point to some other people as the sole problem; some may openly advocate drastic population controls. In any case, the general effect is that it evokes a type of low-grade despair. Or maybe panic, and a frenetic search for an immediate panacea. At one level, it can be seen that not all human activity is despicable. Burning natural gas to warm our houses may be consumeristic, but burning wood from a local forest, if done properly, is not. Radioactive nuclear waste may be a serious problem, while kitchen scraps can easily be composted. But it all seems so overwhelming, and these small points so insignificant.

The more intense the despair and panic, the more stark are the counterproductive effects. The public figures producing the loudest and shrillest cries of alarm are often the very ones living in a profusely wasteful manner, while conjuring lame arguments of self-exemption. Despair and panic are like that, producing paralysis and a counterproductive exacerbation of the problems.

Even more problematic: this panic and despair can lead, either explicitly or subconsciously, to a sort of collective self-disgust, and a fear or loathing of our own generative instincts. So we stupidly buy the myth of overpopulation, and turn aside from a generous love of human life. We don't want to thrive, because we are secretly ashamed of our life. (Ironically, i believe that the current cultic obsession with titillating sex also stems from this unaddressed fear of our reproductive powers.)

If these words resonate at all, here is my plea: Let us shake off the mesmerizing effects of this despairing line of thinking. Realize that the second premise of the above logical syllogism is very refutable. We do not have to live in a way that destroys our world. Let us embrace a more intelligent and more constructive syllogism.

That logic begins by recognizing that God created this world for us to live in. We are not an accident, nor are we intruders; we are meant to be here. In truth, we are meant to thrive, and we are meant to be stewards of this world (and, who knows, perhaps eventually beyond, to other parts of the universe!)

We should not expect or even try to turn this around on a dime. It took about 200 years of industrialization to get to our present wasteful state. It may take awhile to climb back out, and into a more healthy and sustainable system of living. My point is that despair and panic are not the way to go. Shrill and desperate cries of alarm tend to paralyze rather than mobilize. The more reasonable way is to first embrace a better syllogism:

 1. God's creation is good.
 2. Man is the pinnacle of God's creation.
 3. Therefore, let us exercise responsible dominion and stewardship.

It all begins with faith, the most reasonable state of mind for a human being.

Stress offset credits

I'm launching a new home-based business enterprise, Dogpatch of the North Stress Offset Credit Services, Ltd. The concept is quite simple: for those of you who are producing more than your fair share of stress, i can, for a nominal fee, provide the stress relief to make up for your excesses. You know who you are: you IRS agents, overbearing bosses, road-rage drivers, fatuous politicians, etc. Your obnoxious habits cause other folks to develop ulcers and high blood pressure. You have an oversized stress footprint, and until now, the only thing you could offer was an abject apology to those poor folks whom you put into a high-stress state.

Well, help is here! Now you may contract with me, and i can generate, in your name, enough stress-reducing antidotes to compensate for your overage.

To begin with, it is well known that a strong dose of profoundly expressed truth can result in a state of deep meditational calm in the recipient, blowing away all feelings of stress. Thus, a single visit to this little blog with its breathtaking insights can counteract, say, a severe chewing out from an ill-tempered boss. For those few who do not find my writings inspirational, that's OK - comic relief also relieves stress, so the general effect would be the same.

The contractual agreement would be a simple matter of matching your excess units of stress (SU), with my stress reduction credits (SRC), so that you can continue to harangue and irritate as always, but with a clear conscience, knowing that, by contracting with me, you have in effect made up for all your stress excesses and have achieved a zero stress footprint.

I would assign each of my clients the appropriate number of blog hits to correct for the stress excess of that client. Fees would be based upon the current market value for stress reduction credits. Currently the market value is $267.34 per SRC. This price has been pretty stable, remaining in the $250 - $300 range for some time now, but, like all things, that could change. You have to admit this is a very reasonable price range, all things considered. Naturally, the blog hit counter and the appropriation of hits to specific clients would be carefully documented, and subject to third party audit control to guarantee that stress relief is really being performed per contract agreement.

As this enterprise grows, i may expand to include on-site stress relief. Stress victims could actually visit my humble homestead and engage in any number of more intense stress-melting activities, like watching the snow melt off my henhouse roof, splitting a pile of firewood at sunset, hoeing a row of potatoes barefoot, etc. The possibilities are endless (although some options are admittedly seasonal). The stress victim would not pay for these services, but would just be asked to sign a voucher to document that stress relief services were rendered. These documented SRCs would be handled per client contract as above.

It's a win-win scenario for all involved. Stress producers get to continue their obnoxious behavior with a clear conscience, their victims get relief, and i can make my property tax payment. Most importantly, we can all achieve a more serene and peaceful existence. It's what our world needs now!

I know there are others out there who could also provide these and similar stress credit services. It should be noted that, as the originator of the idea, i own the copyright to the basic concept. But, generous and kind-hearted fellow that i am, i would be willing to consider offering franchise agreements to those who can demonstrate the ability to provide the same kind of stress reduction. I believe there is enough surplus stress to keep us all well employed.

So, whether you are that irresponsible stress over-producer, a stress victim, or a fellow stress absorber, feel free to contact me (click here), and let's start reducing global levels of stress!

Thanatos

An early twentieth century movement seriously proposed the practice of selective breeding of the human species, usually known as eugenics. Margaret Sanger, a vocal eugenist, openly lamented the unrestricted propagation of "inferior types". She wrote about producing a "race of thoroughbreds", and eliminating "human weeds". (See this link for starters.) Founder of the American Birth Control League, today's Planned Parenthood, she mainly targeted her birth control measures to the poor, immigrants, and other minority groups. These remain the primary target clientele for Planned Parenthood today.

A similar eugenics philosophy lay behind Hitler's pogroms against Jews and other "inferior" peoples. It would seem that eugenics in practice must always become genocide. Well, the Allied forces defeated Hitler militarily, but the poisonous thinking of racism, eugenics, and genocide remains, still espoused by many, whether openly or covertly.

Moreover, beginning in the 1960's or so, another toxic idea related to human propagation began to be fed to us: that our very presence on this planet is a problem; that we by our nature are destroying the earth that we depend upon; we're using up finite resources and producing waste at an ever accelerated clip, the problem grows more acute every year, and the only apparent solution is to reduce our numbers.

Myth (mith), n.: A widely held belief based upon an imaginary or legendary story.

This story, usually told by well-fed academics of Europe and America, seems always to portend an imminent, deadly threshold. I am not discounting or minimizing the real crises and human need in many areas. Yet threshold after threshold is passed, and the anticipated doom doesn't materialize. Indeed, global per capita real income and standard of living appear to be holding steady or even modestly growing. Are there limits to human population growth? I suppose all finite things have limits. Are we near our own limit? I know of no reliable evidence that would suggest that we are, nor have i seen proof linking any particular crisis to a root cause of "too many people". Yet the myth, and the conviction of impending doom, continue to afflict many. (Ah, but there may well be an impending doom to fear - that of the righteous judgment of God upon our ungodly beliefs and practices!)

Now, here's where it gets interesting: Put the two toxic ideas together, and what you get is something very much like today's Planned Parenthood agenda, or the United Nations Population Control programs. Namely, you get the racist and genocidal campaign to 'help' the folks in poorer parts of the world (which just happen to be Hispanic, African, or Asian) to discover the sexual revolution and to have fewer children. You get foreign assistance offered only upon the adoption of liberal abortion laws, forced or coerced sterilization, etc. This was Margaret Sanger's eugenic goal from the get-go: target the 'inferior' peoples, doing whatever is necessary to ensure that they have fewer babies.

Herein lies the poetic irony (and divine judgment?): Demographic trends suggest that the people who have drunk most deeply of the toxic myth are precisely those from whose ranks the myth arose, but who were not targetted for extinction by Sanger and Hitler, nor by the myth makers, nor by current Planned Parenthood and United Nations population controllers. Germany and Japan, for example, are experiencing a severe drop in birth rates, far below replacement levels. France, at two births per woman, scarcely replacement level, has one of the highest birth rates in Europe. Worldwide, all birth rates seem to be slowing, but there is a definite demographic shift away from the formerly dominant and ascendant European stock, to folks from Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South America.

So, now the generalized fear of population growth takes on a more racist tone. Many in the U.S. feel threatened by the growing influx of people from Latin America. Europeans grow more wary of the rising tide of people, largely Muslim, from the Middle East. White Russia may soon become predominately Muslim and Chinese. Much is written, and feelings run high, regarding the perceived shift in demographic power.

I can't help thinking that there must be a connection here... That the eugenics/genocide ideology of Hitler, Sanger, et. al., rooted in racial fear, has now morphed into a sort of Thanatos syndrome, a culture-wide death wish on the part of the very people who were to become Sanger's "race of thoroughbreds", a paralysis of our collective will to propagate and thrive. Ironic that the debased thinking of Sanger and Hitler may actually have helped to fuel the very population changes they most feared!

What about a challenge to the premise: Do we, in fact, have to live in the consumeristic mentality that leads to such anti-life despair? Must we adopt the self-loathing mantra of the population control agenda? Or might we do better to try to rediscover a sustainable way of living, in which human beings are rightly seen, not as a liability, but as a vital resource? I hope to expand upon this hopeful thought.

Global warming

Amidst all the talk about global warming, it seems someone should be making the following simple point: Heat is just one of many forms of energy. Heat, light, magnetic force, electrical power, kinetic motion, the force of gravity... these are all types of energy. Now, i'm no physicist, but isn't the conservation of energy axiomatic, and included in the first law of thermodynamics? That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only converted from one form into another.

So, consider this: To speak of global warming is to say we are developing an excess amount of heat on our planet, which is to say we are accumulating a surplus of that particular type of energy. Stated in this way, the crisis can be seen as a potential for great advancement. The law of conservation of energy would seem to give unequivocal assurance that the excess heat could be converted into, say, electrical energy. This would solve two problems at once: it would provide a means of absorbing the excess climatic heat energy, and at the same time relieve our dependence upon fossil fuels and nuclear fuels in generating electricity. All that is required to realize this are the engineering details, which i will discuss further below.

The daffy California legislature may ban incandescent light bulbs if they want, and they may even believe that they are doing something worthwhile. But from all the data that i've seen (e.g. these three links), the lion's share of electrical power consumption in most American homes is refrigeration and air conditioning. Make those processes more efficient, and you've really done something significant.

Now, refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners all employ a mechanical system of absorbing heat from one place (the inside of the refrigerator or the inside of the house), and pumping that heat elsewhere (to the outside of the refrigerator or house). The design specifics may vary, but that's the basic process. The heat energy is not destroyed, only moved from one place to another. In fact, the operation of the mechanics consumes electrical energy and dissipates that energy in the form of heat, resulting in a net loss of electrical energy and an equivalent net gain of heat energy:

    Heat + electrical power -> Heat (transported) + more heat

Well, what if a system could be built which transformed heat energy at relatively low temperatures into electrical energy, thus reversing the net effect of the above:

    Heat -> Electrical power

Think of the ramifications. Instead of consuming electrical power, every refrigerator, freezer, and air conditioner would become a source of energy, putting electrical power back into the grid to be used for other purposes. If done correctly, the entire power grid might even become self-sustaining, needing no outside fuel sources such as coal or nuclear material.

I may as well fantasize further, and say that, with all this nearly free energy, we could then start building massive refrigeration units to convert all our extra global warmth into electrical or other forms of energy. Perhaps the excess electrical energy could be used in electrolysis plants to create hydrogen fuel as a stockpile of stored power for future use, eventually rendering all energy problems obsolete.

Well, as it turns out, there are already ways to convert heat into electricity. The conventional power plant uses heat to generate steam, which drives a turbine generator. This requires intense and massive heat, though, which does not answer the challenge. But new technologies are being developed which may work at lower temperatures. Right now, you can buy thermoelectric modules to produce small amounts of electricity, and soon you may be able to procure thermal diodes to do the same. Other new research uses thermoelectric modules made from cheaper organic materials, making them potentially more affordable and practical. Still other work has demonstrated the creation of electricity from candles, and even from tap water.

So far, these methods are not practical for an efficient redesigning of refrigeration or air conditioning applications. But some of these technologies may be improved, or other techniques may yet emerge which will fit the criteria and produce the revolutionary results discussed above. All that's missing are the engineering details. And, even as i write this, i'm sure that some brilliant young physicist or engineer will soon come along, and tackle those details. Probably he's in grad school right now, or perhaps high school, grade school, or still in diapers. That is, unless he hasn't been aborted. But even at that, surely another one will come along. Just so that one isn't aborted as well. Which brings me to the heart of my proposed solution:

We must come to recognize that people are the greatest resource this world has. I know the myth of overpopulation is a strong one. But it is also a statistically indefensible one; we haven't neared that threshold yet. To think that there is anything to be gained by the agenda of contraception and abortion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, literally. Human creativity and human genius and human toil and human love are what will solve the problem of global warming, and every other global challenge which we may face. A niggardly fear of babies is counter-productive as well as hateful.

So, in order to insure that the brilliant young engineer does indeed come forward, we need to immediately reverse Roe v. Wade, and impose a strict moratorium on further abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Our global future depends upon it.