Posted on 11/19/2010 7:04:51 AM PST by markomalley
On Wednesday's Joy Behar Show on HLN, the host asked about parents who are "overpopulating" the world, and guest Helen Fisher, a Rutgers University professor, compared having a large family to littering, "as if we've got too many people on this planet to begin with." Fisher also bizarrely stated that "for billions of years, we [humans] ended up having one or two children per woman."
Host Joy Behar devoted the last two segments of her 9 pm Eastern hour program to how women are trending away from having children. Besides Fisher, she brought on author Rachel Shukert and Laura Scott, who manages the "Childless By Choice Project" blog. Near the middle of the second segment, the host blurred the line between typical large families, most of whom have children by natural means, and celebrities such as the "Octo-Mom" and Kate Gosselin and her family. This is where Fisher made her extreme leftist remark:
BEHAR: What about these people who are overpopulating- the Gosselins, the octo-moms- these people who have been vitro with hundreds of things in there- you know what I mean? What's up with that?
[Video embedded at the link]
SHUKERT: You know, I think it's so interesting how the way that- like their kids have sort of- like, taken the role of kids in the olden days, when they all had to work as farmhands-
BEHAR: Yeah. Now, they're on reality shows-
SHUKERT: Now, they're on reality shows, instead of in the field.
BEHAR: Yeah, exactly. I mean, what do you make of that?
FISHER: Well, I think it's as if- I mean, now, people regard that as littering, and- you know, as if we've got too many people on this planet to begin with.
SHUKERT: That's true.
FISHER: So, it's interesting that-
SHUKERT: I was thinking how much greener it is to not have kids. That he feels he can have steaks and things because he doesn't have kids. It's like I can drive a Hummer. I don't have a kid.
FISHER: Well, you know, for billions of years, we ended up having one or two children per woman, and we're moving back to that now, one or two children per woman.
One wonders what the professor meant by her "billions of years" remark, as the human species obviously hasn't been around that long.
Earlier, at the beginning of the second segment, Behar asked the Rutgers professor, "Why do you suppose, Helen, people say that there's something odd about not having kid?"
Fisher first touted the obvious genetic disadvantage not having children carries, but then gushed over the innovation of making that very decision: "There is something odd about it- I mean, from a Darwin evolutionary perspective, you're choosing to not pass on your DNA on into tomorrow, and in terms of- you know, genetic survival, you have lost....On the other hand, times have changed so dramatically, and we're finally at a time in human evolution when women can make that choice, and I think that's what's a thrill."
[H/t: Creative Minority Report blog]
> Hm...I wasn’t aware that my choice not to reproduce was a “curse”.
That’s what the Bible indicates, like it or not.
They’re already trying to convince us that marriage is useless and child-rearing in a stable, married family is much less fun than all the wild sex and meaningless relationships you could have without that eternal contract before God and man.
They can take their studies and toss them, along with all the minority families they split with welfare and the “sexual revolution.” Now they’re trying to convince our teenage daughters to get pregnant early because it’s sooo cool.
They will burn in hell.
My son and I spent the morning at the local museum with a homeschooling group. One of the moms was criticizing parents who only had one child - saying (very sarcastically) they must have it so easy...getting to sit around all day drinking lattes and not working hard like moms with several kids. She went on and on until she realized I’d heard every word.
So it goes both ways. We have 1 kid because we wanted 1 kid. It’s no one else’s business how many kids you have or don’t have. I admire parents of multiples, and I don’t criticize them.
That said, Joy Behar needs to get her facts straight before spouting her absurd opinions on national tv. And her guest was a moron.
That depends on your reasons for doing so. If you did so in order to have more play time and more toys, I think it would apply.
Well, let's see: I'm single (and likely to remain so). Given that, it would be rather irresponsible of me to have children, yes? What's more, I'm not fond of children; I find them annoying nuisances. As for play time and toys (interesting that you'd couch it in those terms instead of saying free time and spending resources on one's self), it's certainly a factor. I have no desire to invest tens of thousands of dollars and years of my time on a child...so why should I? It's my life to live, not that of an as-yet hypothetical offspring.
Does that make me selfish? Not as I use the word. Selfishness in this context would be forcing taxpayers to support other people's children. I won't say one word against the Duggars, but Octomom having 8 kids on public assistance? That's selfish.
Suppose a couple makes the perfectly rational choice to have children because they'd rather spend their resources and time on each other. How could that possibly be characterized as "irresponsible"? Who are they being irresponsible towards?
Since I'm not a Christian, I'm rather indifferent. In any case, being in the Bible hardly makes something true, any more than for it does for myths such as Noah and the flood or people living for 900+ years.
> Since I’m not a Christian
I pray the Lord gets hold of your heart some day. I was an atheistic evolutionist until I was in my early 40s. Then I saw an undeniable miracle of Supernatural intervention by a loving God. Since then I have come to realize that my very existence, the very existence of this universe, even every breath I take, are all likewise stunning and astounding miracles.
> myths such as Noah
You know, if there were a catastrophic, world-wide flood, you might expect to find billions of creatures fossilized in lithified mud layers, laid down rapidly by water, all over the earth. You may also expect to find rapid extinctions of many of those creatures who may have been preserved through such a catastrophe, because of the unfavorable conditions existing for many years thereafter.
Nevertheless, none of us was there. We get to choose whose interpretation of the data, and whose account of how it got there.
I can’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine.
I think you're using a different definition of "miracle" than me. Your existence and every breath you take are a function of biology, not the supernatural. As the the universe itself...you find a creation myth sufficient explanation. Well, to each their own. I don't know why the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, but the evidence is overwhelming that it did. Was it directed by an Intelligence, or was it simply a natural process a la vacuum decay occurring in the quantum foam of the Multiverse?
Beats me. Without sufficient data it's amusing to speculate, but not particularly informative.
You know, if there were a catastrophic, world-wide flood, you might expect to find billions of creatures fossilized in lithified mud layers, laid down rapidly by water, all over the earth. You may also expect to find rapid extinctions of many of those creatures who may have been preserved through such a catastrophe, because of the unfavorable conditions existing for many years thereafter.
If there was a catastrophic, world-wide flood only 6,000 years ago I would expect the fossils to
a) Actually be only 6,000 years old, whereas radiometric dating methods from radiocarbon dating to samarium-neodymium dating show that they're much older. I was recently in Carlsbad Caverns, and while I was taking a tour of Lower Cave (highly recommended, by the way) the ranger pointed out a bat that had died on a stalactite which then "grew" over it. You could see it by shining a light through it. He said it had been dated to about 50,000 years ago by radiometric dating.
Hey, speaking of Carlsbad...there are delicate formations there that are tens of thousands of years old. Don't you think a few billion gallons of water rushing through the caverns would have had a deleterious effect on soda straws that break if you so much as brush against them?
b) I would also expect the fossils to completely mixed up...you never see (for instance) a fossil from the Cambrian in the same layer as fossils from the Cenozoic. All it would take is a single instance of something like this to throw evolution biology into chaos. Why do you suppose this hasn't happened?
Those are just 2 examples off the top of my head. Noah and the flood is a story, the best attempt of a technologically primitive people to explain the world around them. There's no reason to take it any more seriously than we do the story of Athena springing fully-formed from the head of Zeus.
Nevertheless, none of us was there. We get to choose whose interpretation of the data, and whose account of how it got there.
Precisely so. Some choose to base their understanding of the universe on the authority (as they see it) of the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc. Others such as myself rely on science.
I can’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine.
I think I can honestly say that if I was presented with enough valid scientific evidence for the Biblical creation account I would change my mind. Mind you, it would take a lot, given how much evidence currently shows it to be wrong. Thought experiment: suppose an overwhelming amount of valid scientific evidence was shown to you that the Biblical flood never occurred. After all is said and done the only argument you're left with is "It must be true, because it's in the Bible".
Do you change your mind?
> you find a creation myth sufficient explanation
Apparently, you find the “big bang” myth sufficient explanation.
If you want to believe that everything came out of nothing from nowhere for no apparent reason, that life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing and uncaring cosmos, that when you die you are just so much compost, and that the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction, have at it. That’s your myth.
The Big Bang isn't a myth, it's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development, built upon a veritable mountain of evidence.
If you want to believe that everything came out of nothing from nowhere for no apparent reason, that life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing and uncaring cosmos, that when you die you are just so much compost, and that the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction, have at it. That’s your myth.
Did you even read my last reply? In regards to cosmogony I stated "Without sufficient data it's amusing to speculate, but not particularly informative." The same applies to the cosmos "caring" about me, or the existence of an afterlife. I don't know why the universe exists. Of course, there are plenty of people who think they do know. It was made by Allah. Or Yahweh. Or Vishnu...
Etc.
And by the way, you didn't answer my question. Please allow me to repeat it for your convenience: Suppose an overwhelming amount of valid scientific evidence was shown to you that the Biblical flood never occurred. After all is said and done the only argument you're left with is "It must be true, because it's in the Bible". Do you change your mind?
> I think I can honestly say that if I was presented with
> enough valid scientific evidence for the Biblical
> creation account I would change my mind.
I am an engineer. I have an engineer’s education and almost 40 years of experience in the field. I understand your point of view, as I was imbued with the same. Trust me when I say that, as an engineer, my new understanding of the world, that Design implies a Designer, and that Code implies an Author, has actually helped me with my career.
The more intimate you become with the nature of the Universe, the more miraculous its existence becomes. Consider the uncanny effects of nonlocality that imply exchanges of information at great distances among sub-atomic particles.
The more intimate you become with the nature of life itself, the more miraculous its existence seems. Consider unconscious molecules working together exchanging highly coded information for goals that transcend, by many orders, the existence of the molecules themselves.
These entities are either self-aware, or they are being directed and orchestrated.
I don’t believe that Noah’s flood happened just because it is in the Bible. I have seen what I consider to be compelling evidence. You may not consider it so, but I submit that is more likely a function of your world view, rather than your world view being a function of the evidence.
As for radiometric dating, there was a book published a few years ago, a scholarly work done by credentialed scientists, Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.
There is also another work, Starlight and Time, written by another credentialed scientist.
You will probably prefer the Evolutionist reviews of the books rather than read the books themselves. But if you do read them, I’m certain questions will arise, as they would in any inquisitive mind.
I know when, as an ardent evolutionist, I consumed the works of the evolutionist apologists. But there were times when their stories seemed too “just so”, contrived.
I find some of the posits of the Creationists to be “just so” contrivances as well. We will likely never know all the answers on this plane of existence, because we were not there when the Universe was formed, nor were we there to see life emerge or be created, depending upon the paridigm you prefer.
You see, we both have the same data. We prefer differing interpretations of that data.
I am familiar with the smug, condescending posture of the Evolutionist. I used to be annoyed by that, but, looking back at my own attitudes when I was an evolutionist, I now find it a cause for prayer.
It’s like Socialism. It is wrong. It fails everywhere it’s tried. Yet, its adherents continue to believe the Lie, regardless of the evidence mounting against them, regardless of how many times they have to readjust their narrative to encompass or reconcile newly emerging facts. And they tend to be condescending and smug in their ideology, considering those who reject it to be rubes, or even evil.
It is their worldview that directs their interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence that directs the orientation of their world view.
I freely admit that my worldview directs my interpretation of the evidence. In fact, it always has. I believe that is the case with everybody who has seriously considered the interpretations of the evidence presented by both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.
Certainly, greater minds than yours or mine have competed and struggled with these questions.
And just as certainly, relatively few minds have actually been changed in either direction.
> Suppose an overwhelming amount of valid scientific
> evidence was shown to you that the Biblical flood never
> occurred.
This is a straw man designed to “expose” me as an irrational person, unless I go along with the “evidence” you purport to present, or unless I’m willing to forego the accuracy of the Bible .
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
:)
I submit that no such irrefutable evidence exists, but I’ll humor your straw man.
If it can be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the world wide flood never occured, as a rational being I would be compelled to concur with the evidence.
There. Does that convince you that I’m rational?
However, no such evidence exists. And no such evidence can exist. We were not there in the distant past. We cannot observe it or experience it with our five senses. We can only intepret the data. You and I will interpret the data accourding to our respective worldviews.
The most significant aspect of my worldview is this. Let God be true and every man a liar. That includes man’s evidence, as well as his interpretations thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.