Why are we worried (St. George, Pleasant Grove: bankrupt, living, safe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now we have a beautiful little eight-pound bundle of joy. Where was that eight pounds of biomass borrowed from?
And here we have a fundamental difference in how we view human beings. You view humans as having no more potential than a bird, a reptile or a tree. Some of us, apparently with immature intellects, think otherwise.
Anyway, I'm off to spend time with my biomasses ... er children.
One of the associated principles is a major law that governs the behavior of the universe. Its called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. (there's also Boyle's Law that states that gas will fill the immensity of any given space!) It holds, in part, that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, it can only be redistributed. Biomass -the stuff that living organisms are made of - is matter. (Honest? You mean that stuff I was taught in church from the time I was little is actually true?)So now we have a beautiful little eight-pound bundle of joy. Where was that eight pounds of biomass borrowed from? A desert tortoise? A flamingo? An oak sapling? It didn't come out of thin air. At any given time, the earth is running at maximum sustainable biomass - the fecundity of life is limited by the amount of solar energy the earth receives. (So, Steve, you're privey to the knowledge of just how much matter has been allocated and alloted to this particular earth?)we're somewhat of an endangered species now at only six and a half billion of us. Well...that's what we're doing right now whether or not we've given it much thought. Yes, we can continue to expand the capacity of our human support system...by whittling away at the Web of Life through land and resource conversion. Whether or not it is ethically permissible to do so is not a question that should be taken lightly or brushed aside with fiat assumptions. (nor should the other side of the coin be dismissed out of hand)
So what would you propose? That we treat each aging generation like some reproductive pyramid scheme? (so, what, exactly, do YOU propose? Perhaps we can just get rid of the old when they reach a point of non-usefulness, along with all those pesky new mouths that demand to be fed. Sorry, but you're beginning to sound like your bending toward the "ultimate solution." How, exactly, would you implement your viewpoint, without infringing or overriding the viewpoint and agency of others? You throw out these "facts" as if they were set in stone, ignoring the mere idea that they may not, indeed, be the final be-all and end-all, and you're off and running. But how, if you were given the power to do so, would you bring everyone around to seeing the light that you see?)
Well it's not a rant against bringing children into the world, but about ignoring the moral consequences (have you carefully looked at the moral consequences of the opposite of bringing them into the world?) of reallocating the resources that the health of the biosphere depends on for further human population increase...and the ideo-political culture that might reinforce such a view. .
(how about doing all possible to see that everyone gets to share in the rescouces?---yes, it can be done. If the goal is just to have fewer people on earth so that those who are here can have the whole pie to themselves maybe we should halt all research into the curing, and prevention, of disease; it then shouldn't be long before we reach a point of more than enough for the few that are left! I've also noticed that you haven't mentioned the idea that you, yourself, are a consumer of resources; it's only the new beings coming to earth that seem to annoy you, plus your not-so-hidden dislike of some of the tenent of the LDS Church; it must be a trial to you dealing with all of us who are so badly informed, so ignorant of facts and figures, so un-enlightened!)
Here’s my final post on this thread and the one that directly addresses the initiating query.
Michelle and other posters have generally framed the what-are-we-worried-about issue of being a religious outsider in terms of direct impact: how personal interactions between LDS and gentile residents might play out. Those concerns are perhaps misplaced. Based on reliable feedback from friends who have relocated there, and my own experience living in Mesa, AZ, I think the primary concern should be the indirect impact of LDS dominance on the social environment. The result, in the experience of many, is an ultraconservative culture that is distinctly Utahan and...for better or for worse...a culture distinctly apart from that of mainstream America.
All religions produce a certain world view in the minds of their adherents. So long as no one religion predominates, no one particular world view will telegraph through to public policy and the secular culture one experiences on a daily basis. The Church of Latter Day Saints isn’t just a religion. It’s also a major multi-national business corporation with huge financial assets and vast real estate holdings...very powerful. And so part of the associated world view is one that puts a premium on business success and perhaps even tries to understand such complex ideas as biological systems in terms of business models. Earlier posters have noted the lack of independent thought and the lack of concern for the environment. I’ll leave it to the individual readers to decide if the overall tone of the apologists here leaves us with the impression that Utahans maintain an appreciative understanding of the interconnectedness of Life, or whether an anthropocentric world view with a smug sense of species superiority generally holds the natural world in low regard.
I urge prospective relocators to do some research. Read some local newspapers and see if their philosophical filters are ones that you endorse. Listen to some local call-in talk shows in Utah and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable engaging in those conversations. Check the issues positions of Senators Bennett and Hatch on Project Vote Smart and ask yourself if they represent your values. Get a feel for how the indirect impact of the LDS shapes the state psyche and how it might affect your comfort level residing in Utah.
The fact is this: socio-politically, there is no state in the union that is to the right of Utah. It is redder than red. It’s a state you might want to live in if you thought that eastern Texas or rural Alabama might be too liberal. It’s also the whitest state in the country without a Canadian border (the Descendants of Cain ideology didn’t altogether disappear from the minds of the people with Official Declaration no. 2). Whether all this is good, bad, or indifferent depends on you and your expectations. Understand what you are getting into and ask yourself how it might affect the quality of your experience in your new home. Utah exists in its own universe; things are different there.
Ah, from his lofty tower Steve delivers his "final" say on the matter. He doesn't address issues raised, he just veers into a warning concerning the politics of Utah--all the while suggesting that he doesn't live here (has never lived here?) and LDS Church, its monolithic structure, and the radical-right members of same.
I would suggest you do follow his suggestion---and find out for yourselves.
In the meantime, hope the new year is good to all of you
Ah, from his lofty tower Steve delivers his "final" say on the matter. He doesn't address issues raised, he just veers into a warning concerning the politics of Utah--all the while suggesting that he doesn't live here (has he ever lived here?) and the LDS Church, its monolithic structure, and the radical-right members of same.
I would suggest you do follow his suggestion---and find out for yourselves.
In the meantime, I hope the new year is good to all of you
IXNAY! Don't tell people to find out for themselves. Think about it. Steve and the others, who post bleak portraits of Utah life, probably scare off potential immigrants, which means there will be more for us.
IXNAY! Don't tell people to find out for themselves. Think about it. Steve and the others, who post bleak portraits of Utah life, probably scare off potential immigrants, which means there will be more for us.
Yeah, but according to Steve, the state of Utah will just breed itself to death anyway.
No, no, Utahns are going to take over the world. Haven't you heard? We're going to continue breeding while everyone else does the socially responsible thing and stays childless. We're gonna win by sheer numbers! Steve doesn't need to worry though, we'll have plenty of resources, seeing how everyone else is going to become extinct.
There are six basic epistemologies that underlie human belief:
rationalism - belief based on independently confirmable evidence authoritarianism - belief based on writings or teachings believed to be inerrant by their adherents. emotionalism - a propensity to disbelieve conclusions that one finds distasteful intuition - belief based on gut feeling experientialism - belief based on personal involvement assimilation - tendency to adopt the prevailing beliefs of one's social environment - the "mind virus syndrome"
Well that's certainly a *rational* analysis, isn't it? And thereby is the flaw in your thinking. You are using one of your modes of knowing as a magnifying glass to examine the other five. And in doing so you are like one of the six blind men of Hindustan who upon touching one part of the elephants body presume to understand the whole. But there exists a means of knowlege your *rational* analysis omits. It's called PROPHECY. God imparts True Knowledge directly to the hearts of those who would eschew the arrogance of human intellect and place there unconditional faith in His Wisdom. I join the others in this thread in rejecting the claims of science all together. Intellectualism is the playground of False Prophets!
I join the others in this thread in rejecting the claims of science all together.
Latitudes--I hope you don't lump me (or some of the others on this board) in your above statement.
Anyone who rejects science all together out of hand is not open to truth. Sure, some scientists may be wrong---but, in many things, they are often right, and most of them are seekers of truth.
Remember what the Lord's definition of truth is? You might want to dig that one out and ponder it. The problem arises when half-truths are polmulgated as full truth, or when little understanding is put forth as ultimate truth--and that applies to religion as well as science. Truth remains truth, no matter the source that discovers it.
I have to agree, llasa, it's not correct to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Science has its place, and God works within natural laws. It's when people take it to extremes with their "rational inquiry" and intellectual elitism, to the exclusion of any and all faith, that we get into trouble.
An interesting read for how science can go hand in hand with theology: "The Faith of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
