What do you make of this news?
Pope Benedict XVI, as part of a 144-page encyclical critiquing the international economic system, argues that the use of birth control is poor economic policy, the Washington Post reports. According to the document, birth control is not only immoral but also harmful to the economy because it narrows the "brain pool" of qualified labor. The document makes similar arguments about abortion.
The document was released ahead of Wednesday's Group of Eight industrialized nations summit, which will focus on the world economy. According to the Post, the timing of the document's release indicates that Benedict "aims to insert his voice into that discussion by focusing on the moral underpinnings of the meltdown."
Friday, 10 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is hilarious. I wonder if the vatican is unhappy that they are not able to find people who are as smart as they would like to work there.
Anyway, it's a typically convoluted argument from a religious institution. Who is complaining that there aren't enough smart people in the world to do jobs? Or is this just supposed to be a theoretical argument? And what do they plan to do with all the additional stupid people that are born as a result of their policy? Is the vatican going to employ them?
Anyway, I don't buy the vatican's alleged reverence for life. I think it's more likely that they would prefer a larger pool of potential catholics in the world to contribute to their wealth, and that's why they make these ridiculous arguments.
The Post is inaccurately reporting what Pope Benedict said, taking the remark about the brain pool out of context.
The remark, in context, was one of six problems cited as being experienced by countries suffering decline due to birth rates falling below replacement levels- other problems are strains on welfare systems, increased cost of these systems, and reduction of savings needed for investment. You can read it for yourself in Chapter 4, or part 44 second paragraph of the encyclical. Every nation with these problems has pro-natalist policies within their boundaries (for certain segments of their native population) but supports anti-natalist policies in the developing world.
In all, concering the subject of population control, the Pope is echoing concerns of a branch of the feminist movement, the Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment: "population control involves external domination over people's reproductive lives whereas birth control involves individual autonomy and empowerment."
If you read the encyclical the Pope is speaking out against the population control policies of Structural Adjustment Agreements developing and Third World Nations are forced to adopt in exchange for development loans, and as well he is speaking out against the mercantilist policies of these Agreements. http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty
So why does the Post take this tack when the Pope is calling for global governance, a globally regulated financial system, and a global authority capable of enforcing global regulations, the very same things Obama, Brown, and the rest of the G8 want? The Pope calls for sustainable development, economic justice, social justice, and environmental justice- the very aims of the UN and its supporting nations. He disagrees on two primary points: population control Northern Hemisphere control of Southern Hemisphere resources.
A good essay from the Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment: http://www.cwpe.org/node/71
Here is what Ruth Ginsberg has just had to say about what she thought the intention of Roe v Wade was: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4
So there you go Lisa. Why do you assume these unborn children would be stupid? Where is the logic in that assumption? Do you perceive the same eugenics benefits Ginsberg thought she perceived in the passing of Roe?
With all that could be said about the G8 Summit, and all the editorializing that could be done, the Post chooses to disingenously misrepresent the encyclical in this particular.
> Where is the logic in that assumption?
Well, you know, it has nothing to do with logic; it's based on the very, very simple empirical observation that people are born with a variety of intellects. Perhaps the pope reasons that if he wants people to be born, god will intervene and they'll all be geniuses, but the fact is that more people being born will result in some more smart people being born, some more dumb people being born and mostly average people being born, so while the pope has plans for utilising the smart people, I'm wondering what his plans are for the stupid. It's only the incompleteness of the thinking that is faintly interesting to me.
The Pope didn't say anything like that Lisa. Here is what he said:
"Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs."
And what he says is simply a statement of current affairs. That is why Russia, France, Spain, and several other European countries offer things like paid family leave, baby bonuses, tax credits for children, and maternal health care. The Pope is primarily lamenting how current IMF and World Bank policies are focusing on population control in third world countries instead of on development of infrastructure, health care, education, and agricultural reform:
"The notion of rights and duties in development must also take account of the problems associated with population growth. This is a very important aspect of authentic development, since it concerns the inalienable values of life and the family. To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view."
While far left of what makes me comfortable, the encyclical is on the whole a beautiful expression of compassion composed with an understanding of relevant issues. It simply isn't what one would think it is focusing on that intentional misrepresentation the Post presents.
It's potential life v actual life - surely intelligent people would find a way to get around having children even without birth control?
And therein lies the real problem with birth control. It lowers the average intelligence of the population because it's the stupid ones who end up having, on average, larger families.
Post a Comment