memebag

Stop saying "population explosion" and read what I'm typing. I don't see how industrialized countries can stop using contraceptives. It isn't because the population will "explode", it's because we don't live on farms with extended families. We don't have the resources to care for large families while we live in cities with two working parents. I'm asking you to explain how you see that working out. Why won't you just tell me? Sure. But many others wouldn't. So we agree that our current views about sexuality aren't anything novel, right? I'm betting "no".

1. I haven't argued that there would be a population explosion threatening quality of life on earth if people stopped using contraceptives. You keep trying to say I am, but I'm not. Again, I'm asking how you reconcile your opinions with the economic and social changes caused by the industrial revolution. 2. My argument isn't really about how sex is viewed in recent US history, but how sex is viewed over all of human history. Look beyond your idealized vision of middle class white 1950s America and you'll see that our current views on sex are nothing new. 3. I have made no arguments about when life begins. My argument is that any definition of when life begins involves someone drawing a line for someone else. Personally, I never want to have an abortion. The odds of that happening are incredibly small, since I'm a man. If a woman decides she wants an abortion, for whatever reason, I don't want to subject a child to her mothering.

I'm just asking how you see the consequences of your opinion. And you won't answer my questions. My point is that contraceptive use increased because we moved from farms with large extended families to cities with small nuclear families. We control our births more than we used to because of the industrial revolution. That's not a radical view of history; I thought it was widely accepted. You said there were "numerous statistics such as the ever-lowering age at which children report first having sexual experiences, the ever-increasing mentions of sex in media and public life, etc.". Sorry, that survey isn't even one of those statistics. According to you. Wait, so it's OK for states to decide when abortion is legal, but not for individuals, and not for the federal government? Why states? What gives them better clarity on this issue than the more specific or more general entities involved? No he isn't. Meme is asking you how the world would work if we made sex "sacred", all about reproduction and not about pleasure. Meme is arguing that contraceptive use increased because we can't take care of all the kids we used to take care of and because more of them survive infancy. I'm not arguing that the world will overpopulate.

Force isn't the issue. You're saying sex was more sacred when it was more likely to produce a new person and you want to return to that. The US population in 1860 was 31 million, 20% urban. By 1960 it was 189 million, 70% urban. (source) Contraceptive use increased long before 1960, with the advent of vulcanized rubber condoms and later, their automated production. I've searched and don't see it. I see that most of these numbers weren't measured for most of human history, so I don't know how you can make these claims. A sperm will develop into a human being under the right conditions, just like an embryo will. Are you willing to let individual states decide?

But you can't wave your hands and solve population problems. Contraception wasn't as necessary in an agrarian America with high infant mortality rates as it is in an urban America with low infant mortality rates. If you want to make sex more sacred by getting rid of contraception, you'll have to figure out what to do with all of the extra people. Let's see those statistics, then. But using conception as the line is arbitrary. You could just as easily define life beginning with the production or release of sperm and ova. Aren't sperm alive, by your definition? Again, you're drawing lines for other people. I don't know what a "unique risk" is, but I know it's a line that would have to be agreed upon, just like the age of a fetus. No. I'm willing to let people decide for themselves and leave the state out of the question.

But you said " I don't think that the modern industrial revolution necessitates population control", then talked about how we don't have to live in dense cities. I'm just asking how we will shape our modern world without population control. If every conception was brought to term, where would we put those people? Who would care for them? Or are you saying that population would be controlled, but only through abstinence or the "rhythm method"? OK, so where are you getting this information about the sacredness of sex 50 years ago? Sure, but bread ain't sex. Humans have been obsessed with sex throughout all of history. This is nothing new. The US is more accepting of this obsession now than it was 50 years ago, but the obsession is the same. And other places and other times have been much more accepting than we are now. But that's you drawing your line. Conception is your arbitrary line. Plausible arguments could move that line forward or backward in time. You also draw the line about a mother's life being "at risk". That's a very fuzzy line. If a baby will impoverish a mother, doesn't that increase her level of risk?

So it's OK to draw some lines but not others. Or it's OK for you to draw lines but not OK for other people to draw them.

How will we pay for all of these extra humans? Who will raise them? Will we lower our standard of living so that one parent can stay home to raise children? Will we give up our independence and privacy and live in extended family households? Just so we can make sex "sacred" for you again? I challenge the assertion that sex was "immeasurably more sacred" 50 years ago. I see no evidence to support that statement. Where are you getting your information? "Leave it to Beaver"?

That's just not historically accurate. Sex has always been a source of pleasure, and people have always had ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Modern contraception made it safer and less traumatic, but it didn't create an entirely new culture. If you want to place blame, you can start with the screw. Not that kind, the metal kind. The modern precision machined screw facilitated interchangeable parts, which fueled the industrial revolution, which drew workers from farms to cities, which reduced the need for children made raising them less convenient. The demand for modern contraceptives was fueled by increased population densities brought about by assembly lines. The desire for sexual pleasure never changed; the extended family support systems available for raising kids on traditional farms was replaced with the nuclear family, so population needed to be controlled.

Here's an idea: how about we move this to another forum?

No, it's what they call family planning visits. Planned Parenthood provides cheap contraceptives, which reduces the need for abortion.

No conspiracy. Given Jesus' views on prostitutes, I see no discrepancy in the bag message.

Why Bose Sucks I know what I'm talking about. I've got Radio Shack speakers!

We'll have to play Trivial Pursuit: Eno Edition some time.

Who is Brian Eno? He's a human involved with music and art. There's a wikipedia article about him. He was in Roxy Music, had a solo career, worked with Robert Fripp, Devo, Talking Heads, U2 and a bunch of other people.

I dunno. Hopefully when crunch is reading.

Just one of many. I also plan to talk about my swimming pool a lot.

Nah, I've got other bookstores closer to me, and Amazon. I'll probably never visit BAM again.

Several reasons. First, it can conceal other sounds. Elevator music helped conceal the sounds of elevators, which could be disconcerting for passengers. It can also be used to select who stays in and who leaves a space. Brian Eno composed a wonderful piece in response to the cheery background music he heard at the Cologne airport. He thought it would be much more calming to make music that made people stop caring if they died.

Really? BAM has a huge Christian book section, much bigger than B&N or Borders. Their web site touts specialty "Testament Shoppes" that feature "the best of references and writings for the Christian market". If it's just market forces, why don't B&N and Borders follow suit?

You can disable that. I read that site, and it never logs me on. They can still see that someone is requesting pages, and they can also see that same someone never clicks through their ads.

I bet he can deal with it. I drive around with a HAIF license plate frame and I wear a HAIF T-shirt once a week.

Patience, grasshopper. The river will not obey your will. You must shape your will to flow with the river. Now walk the path of NoScript.

I have Firefox with Adblock Plus and I never see ads. I just disabled it for a minute to see if chron.com even has ads. It does, but I didn't know that. If you install Firefox, Adblock Plus is the first recommended plug-in. I can't imagine why everyone doesn't use something like that to strip ads from their lives. I also use a DVR to skip commercials on TV.

Do you see any of the ads? If so, why? Technology is giving us the ability to remove advertising from our lives, if we wish to do so. You said "online content [will] take off", and I thought that meant you thought an accepted measure of online readership would encourage spending on online ads. It might have the opposite effect, and remove funding for online content.