The Sorriest Generation

[STEED]

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html

Fascinating bit of reading what do you guys think about it in the U.S?

[The Avon Lady]

I disagree with his level of pessimism. That is, I don't think the US is about to fall off the cliff of doom and gloom. I actually think Europe is in much more immediate danger.

Normally, I don't like to copy full article for Jerusalem Post subscribers but I'll make an exception. This article, by an acquaintence of ours, appeared in this past Friday's JPost Magazine.
Think Again: The greatest threat (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395473734&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rosenblum, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of radical Islam's signal successes has been to give credence to those who believe that religion constitutes the greatest threat to mankind. In the short run, a nuclear Iran presents the strongest candidacy for triggering an apocalypse.

A strong case can be made, however, that too little religion constitutes as great a threat, in the long run. An economically stagnant, increasingly depopulated Europe is Exhibit A. The United States, which is both the developed world's most dynamic and most religious country, is Exhibit B.

The Talmud in Ta'anit (23a) describes an incident involving Honi Hame'agel. One day, Honi saw an old man planting a carob tree, and asked him how long it would be before the tree bore fruit. The man answered, "Seventy years." Why, then, Honi inquired, was the man bothering to plant a tree whose fruits he would never eat. The man replied, "Just as my fathers planted for me, so am I planting for my children."

Only as long as people conceive themselves as part of a chain of generations will they plant carob trees. That sense of generational continuity - the Burkean social contract between "those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born" - no longer exists in Europe. Europe is rapidly becoming a childless society, whose citizens have neither the incentive nor the inclination to plan, much less sacrifice, for the future. With current birthrates, there will be a hundred million fewer Europeans by mid-century. Spain's birthrate is 1.1 children per couple, and a number of European nations and Canada are not far ahead.

In the 1970s, the great fear was that an exploding world population would result in the rapid depletion of the earth's natural resources. Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich predicted in his best-selling The Population Bomb (1968) that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. Four years later, the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of a long list of crucial minerals - gold, mercury, tin, zinc, petroleum and gas - by 1993. None of those dire predictions came remotely close to fulfillment.

But one natural resource is rapidly disappearing in many parts of the globe: human beings. And human beings, as Mark Steyn notes dryly in a recent New Criterion article, "It's the Demographics, Stupid," are the "one indispensable natural resource." Europe by the end of the century will resemble a continent hit by a slew of neutron bombs. The great buildings will still stand, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living, observes Steyn, through a period of "self-extinction of the races that built the modern world."

This population decline is of immense consequence for Western nations. Societies with few children are by definition aging societies. A dwindling cohort of younger workers cannot foot the bill for the vast panoply of social benefits to which oldsters have become accustomed. As Steyn puts it, if only one million babies are born in 2006, it's a pretty good bet that a country will not be able to fill two million job openings in 2026.

THE ONLY way to make up the shortfall is by importing a million foreign workers, most of them from Muslim countries. But that process will only expedite the transformation of Western Europe into an extension of the Maghreb, already predicted by Bernard Lewis.

Not surprisingly, those who no longer take the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply seriously do less multiplying. The United States is both the Western world's most religious country and that with the highest birthrate. The "red states" carried by George W. Bush in 2004 included 25 out of the 26 states with the highest birthrates; John Kerry's "blue states" included the 16 with the lowest.

A lack of children, however, is only one aspect of the West's lack of future orientation. Those who lack belief in an afterlife, indeed in any transcendent values that might give meaning to their lives, gravitate toward a hedonistic, here-and-now existence.

Asked by Foreign Policy magazine what current ideas, values and institutions may disappear in the next 35 years, Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer confidently predicted, "The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments."

The proliferation of assisted suicide and euthanasia laws in Europe, and even in some American states, suggests that Singer's dystopian prediction may well come to pass.

Singer himself denies any higher value to human life over that of animals. Human beings, he avers, are nothing more than the sum total of their pleasures, i.e., more sophisticated pleasure-seeking animals.

Animals, however, do not generally plan for the future. Nor will citizens who have no one to whom to transfer their accumulated wealth, and who have long since ceased viewing their own countries as the embodiment of enduring values worthy of preservation be inclined to worry much about tomorrow.

European workers have proven notoriously unwilling to consider any alteration in their increasingly unsupportable employment benefits. The attitude is: If the coffers run dry, that'll be someone else's problem. Why should I worry?

EVEN THE most fundamental task of self-defense is beyond most of the West. For the past half century, European countries have been content to rely on the US for protection, while spending almost nothing on their own defense. Appeasement has become their default response to external and internal threats. Always better to push off danger to the indefinite future, which has ceased to be of concern.

Confrontation, on the other hand, risks war, and with war goes death. If one's life has no meaning outside of itself, and death represents the end of everything, then one would be insane to opt for a course that increases the immediate risk to life, even if it results in greatly reduced future danger. Europe's inability to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran is but the latest example of the habit of appeasement.

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," observed historian Arnold Toynbee. By losing their connection to the future, the post-Christian societies of the West find themselves hurtling towards extinction.

[Skybird]

Well, I'm sorry myself and thus find this topic deeply depressing.

[The Avon Lady]

Well, I'm sorry myself and thus find this topic deeply depressing.
Don't tell Kiwi about it! :(

[CB..]

what we are really talking about here is perhaps the seperation of church from state--and the increasing intolerance towards religious thought that requires the extinction of all opposing religious thought--because when it boils right down to the last dot on the last page of the last Holy book---that's what most religions require of the world---most civilised people do actually want to believe in a higher power (in some form or another IMO) but the failure of organised religion to provide a believable universe in which we can all live as equals has created the "fingers down the black board" schizm between religiuos thought and the secular world--made worse i believe by the failure to notice that most people do in fact believe in something regardless of wether that belief falls into any of the available pidgeon holes currently established by religious thought-- personaly i don't find it at all difficult to find something bigger than me to believe in---(and lets face it that's the baisc key) all i need do is look out the window--
there is an infinite universe out there --and if that isn't big enough and or impressive enough and or thought provoking enough then we really are too "full of ourselves" to progress intelligently thru life

[STEED]

we really are too "full of ourselves" to progress intelligently thru life

YES :/\!!

[SUBMAN1]

I disagree with his level of pessimism. That is, I don't think the US is about to fall off the cliff of doom and gloom. I actually think Europe is in much more immediate danger.

Normally, I don't like to copy full article for Jerusalem Post subscribers but I'll make an exception. This article, by an acquaintence of ours, appeared in this past Friday's JPost Magazine.
Think Again: The greatest threat (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395473734&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rosenblum, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of radical Islam's signal successes has been to give credence to those who believe that religion constitutes the greatest threat to mankind. In the short run, a nuclear Iran presents the strongest candidacy for triggering an apocalypse.

A strong case can be made, however, that too little religion constitutes as great a threat, in the long run. An economically stagnant, increasingly depopulated Europe is Exhibit A. The United States, which is both the developed world's most dynamic and most religious country, is Exhibit B.

The Talmud in Ta'anit (23a) describes an incident involving Honi Hame'agel. One day, Honi saw an old man planting a carob tree, and asked him how long it would be before the tree bore fruit. The man answered, "Seventy years." Why, then, Honi inquired, was the man bothering to plant a tree whose fruits he would never eat. The man replied, "Just as my fathers planted for me, so am I planting for my children."

Only as long as people conceive themselves as part of a chain of generations will they plant carob trees. That sense of generational continuity - the Burkean social contract between "those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born" - no longer exists in Europe. Europe is rapidly becoming a childless society, whose citizens have neither the incentive nor the inclination to plan, much less sacrifice, for the future. With current birthrates, there will be a hundred million fewer Europeans by mid-century. Spain's birthrate is 1.1 children per couple, and a number of European nations and Canada are not far ahead.

In the 1970s, the great fear was that an exploding world population would result in the rapid depletion of the earth's natural resources. Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich predicted in his best-selling The Population Bomb (1968) that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. Four years later, the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of a long list of crucial minerals - gold, mercury, tin, zinc, petroleum and gas - by 1993. None of those dire predictions came remotely close to fulfillment.

But one natural resource is rapidly disappearing in many parts of the globe: human beings. And human beings, as Mark Steyn notes dryly in a recent New Criterion article, "It's the Demographics, Stupid," are the "one indispensable natural resource." Europe by the end of the century will resemble a continent hit by a slew of neutron bombs. The great buildings will still stand, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living, observes Steyn, through a period of "self-extinction of the races that built the modern world."

This population decline is of immense consequence for Western nations. Societies with few children are by definition aging societies. A dwindling cohort of younger workers cannot foot the bill for the vast panoply of social benefits to which oldsters have become accustomed. As Steyn puts it, if only one million babies are born in 2006, it's a pretty good bet that a country will not be able to fill two million job openings in 2026.

THE ONLY way to make up the shortfall is by importing a million foreign workers, most of them from Muslim countries. But that process will only expedite the transformation of Western Europe into an extension of the Maghreb, already predicted by Bernard Lewis.

Not surprisingly, those who no longer take the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply seriously do less multiplying. The United States is both the Western world's most religious country and that with the highest birthrate. The "red states" carried by George W. Bush in 2004 included 25 out of the 26 states with the highest birthrates; John Kerry's "blue states" included the 16 with the lowest.

A lack of children, however, is only one aspect of the West's lack of future orientation. Those who lack belief in an afterlife, indeed in any transcendent values that might give meaning to their lives, gravitate toward a hedonistic, here-and-now existence.

Asked by Foreign Policy magazine what current ideas, values and institutions may disappear in the next 35 years, Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer confidently predicted, "The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments."

The proliferation of assisted suicide and euthanasia laws in Europe, and even in some American states, suggests that Singer's dystopian prediction may well come to pass.

Singer himself denies any higher value to human life over that of animals. Human beings, he avers, are nothing more than the sum total of their pleasures, i.e., more sophisticated pleasure-seeking animals.

Animals, however, do not generally plan for the future. Nor will citizens who have no one to whom to transfer their accumulated wealth, and who have long since ceased viewing their own countries as the embodiment of enduring values worthy of preservation be inclined to worry much about tomorrow.

European workers have proven notoriously unwilling to consider any alteration in their increasingly unsupportable employment benefits. The attitude is: If the coffers run dry, that'll be someone else's problem. Why should I worry?

EVEN THE most fundamental task of self-defense is beyond most of the West. For the past half century, European countries have been content to rely on the US for protection, while spending almost nothing on their own defense. Appeasement has become their default response to external and internal threats. Always better to push off danger to the indefinite future, which has ceased to be of concern.

Confrontation, on the other hand, risks war, and with war goes death. If one's life has no meaning outside of itself, and death represents the end of everything, then one would be insane to opt for a course that increases the immediate risk to life, even if it results in greatly reduced future danger. Europe's inability to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran is but the latest example of the habit of appeasement.

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," observed historian Arnold Toynbee. By losing their connection to the future, the post-Christian societies of the West find themselves hurtling towards extinction.

This is about the best article I have seen on this subject in a long time. Good post!!! :up:

-S

[STEED]

European countries have been content to rely on the US for protection, while spending almost nothing on their own defense.

Well here in the UK our Prime Minister is spending 500,000,000 over the next 5 years on updating our stocks of Nuclear Weapons.

[August]

I disagree with his level of pessimism. That is, I don't think the US is about to fall off the cliff of doom and gloom. I actually think Europe is in much more immediate danger.

That's about my take on it.

[STEED]

The whole world is sliding towards New World Order and that stinks. :down:

[Type941]

We are losing our borders and our resolve to protect them. Foreigners control our debt, and now President Bush wants to give them control of our ports

So that's what it it's all about.

I'd say he's right in one thing - morally the country is messed up and before our american friends start hissing 'look at your own country' I'll say that the rest of the world is morally decaying too. But I think it's largely America's fault in that, indirectly, thanks to Hollywood and double standards it preaches in world politics. It becomes OK and that's that. It's sad. Disagree if you like.

[TteFAboB]

I disagree with you entirely because the American foreign policy is the opposite of Hollywood.

You haven't seen the list of the Oscar nominees and winners, or watched any Hollywood political movies in the past months, have you?

If that was the case, America would be sending an ambiguous dual message, W Bush says share Democracy but fails in his plan, Hollywood says isolate and also fail at that.

Then what is the world catching? If they aren't catching one or the other, but both, then they can choose if they agree to isolationism or interventionism, if they are choosing what they pick, America isn't preaching anything at all.

Here's some morality for you:http://www.bbt.com/about/media/newsreleasedetail.asp?date=1%2F25%2F06+9%3A48%3A52 +AM

[Type941]

US is double faced in politics because they say they bring democracy, but forget to mention that the 'lucky country' that gets it will have to either go through a war or invasion, or better, sell off all its national interest in the sake of american (Ukraine, Georgia for example). So yes, double standards. Than it acts like a bully towards weak countries and can't do crap against countries which can fight back (like China for instance).

Hollywood on the other hand is doing its best to convince everyone that no matter what happens the US will save the day.

Than about political movies - I don't watch the garbage made by the likes of Michael Moore and I don't recommend that to anyone else. Most of the once respected actors now preaching on how to lead life, the likes of Jolie and Penn going out of their skin to portray themselves as some fekin saviours of humanity. Comon. Tell me about bloody Hollywood a bit more. MOst of them are rediculous people with enourmous ego's, comletely detached from real life. Most of them because there are some really talented people but majority - it's a hard to watch. That's why I find myself watching many old american movies, even from the 80s and early 90s. From new ones, I can probably name 3 movies in last 5 years that I actually remembered what they were about. Here's an example - a good movie dealing with racism issues, Crash, by the end turns into some very predictable story, though starting rather nicely.

One of the worst things in america now IMO is this political correctness, that's unfortunately exhibited more and more by even users in the forum. You can't say anything there without being called a racist, a hypocrite, a non-patriot, and so on and on. Well, that's the culture. That's decay. Look at the damn cartoons that we have here, and it's a proof that the issue is not just america, it's everywhere. ANd the political correctness took on nicely here in europe too. What about that Mayor in London being ousted? Talk about democracy at the heart of it. :doh:

[STEED]

Type941 has raised some interesting points worth thinking about :up:

[TteFAboB]

Hollywood is vehemently opposing to Bush's foreign policy.

But you can't be naive, whatever Bush wanted to do with the world, he can't fight the entire world at the same time alone, he can't bring Democracy from Africa to the Pacific even if he wanted to, or could or knew how.

That would have to be a global goal from all Democracies. But the Chinese dragon won't have to be taught any Democracy, the Chinese people are giving the example and pushing it more and more, remember the newspaper censorship that had to be revoked due to popular demand some weeks ago?

So if anyone's on a mission to spread real Democracy, don't even worry about China, if anything, it will be the Chinese people who will give a lesson.

All the movies nominated for the Oscar and those who won a statue are against the interventionist foreign policy, Bush or "American culture", in favour of political correctness. I don't know where you picked the "in the end the US will save the day". The only movie I've seen with that message was "Team America", and that's a (very good, highly recommended) comedy. I agree with everything you said about Hollywood's celebrities, you can add lots of names to that list.

I disagree however that political correctness is cultural, it's anti-cultural in any culture you pick, because you replace real culture for PC, people are no longer what they are or used to be, they become a new label, history is rewritten, and so on.

[STEED]

So we are agreed on the fact the spread of Political Correctness around the world has gone to far in all our countries. As for Hollywood they live in their own little world, and have no real idea of what is going on around them.

[SUBMAN1]

From what I can tell, The US and China will go to war at some point over Taiwan. No other way as far as I can see. The US has said it will defend Taiwan, and China has vowed to invade it if it doesn't come back on its own. It is only a matter of time.

-S


http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/1600/waco6ut1zn.gif http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/5082/uzi3ck.gif http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1918/dead22hq.gifhttp://img385.imageshack.us/img385/12/cyblast40ox.gif http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/4074/wildcat6my.gif http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/9500/wolfe1ut.gif

[Skybird]

The assumption that we can solve the problem of shrinking population and thus problems in economy by importing millions of Muslim workers, as stated in one of the essay quoted at the beginning, I find to be dangerous, wrong, and suicidal, because it would increase inner social tensions of Western communities beyond braking point, and would open the door for Islam. I do not need to repeat what I think of Islam, right? ;)

the thinking error lies in assuming that we can carry on as usual, not needing to correct the exessive living styles, the consuming and materialism beyond any reasonbale scale, like we enjoyed in past decades, since WWII. the recommendation of importing legions of foreigners to do the work, finance our social structures and keep the economy in shape implies that we can afford to continue to manage our socieities like that. I think that it totally wrong and can only seal our doom. No matter if we like it or not, but we need to push the braking pedal, and not just a bit. Either we learn to reorientate our lifes in terms of ethics, value and cultural education, making these the focus of our lifes, or we continue to buy-buy-buy, making moneymoneymoney and chasing our bosses - for that necessarily open the doors and gates for Islamic workers and then simply disappear as a european cultural identity and history.

We are living far beyond what our ressources can support. That is the heart and core of the problem of our future.

After WWII the nations and especially germany were flat and empty, no wonder that there were two-digit economical growth rates, and an optimistic mindset - from there, it only could become better. People worked, and saw things growing as a result. They also had a perspective that it was worth it, and that their children should (and would) be better off. But today? We take the luxury of our lifes as granted. But we have reached a climax that high, that it cannot go much higher. The wheel is turning, and what goes up, must come down. The cycle will be completed. We only have the choice to adopt to that, being prepared as good as possible that way, or we could try to stop time flowing by, making the present everylasting. Which, of course, is an effort doomed to fail.the wheel of time will keep on turning, no matter if we adopt to that, or not.

If the last let's say threehundred years were one long historical year, then we are in late autumn of that year, and afterwards comes winter. That is not the time for reaching out and expand, but to settle down, making your home tight and having reserves at hand, instead of headlessly wasting them for noithing more than just the most imminent future time ahead - the next minute, that is. You reflect about the gains of the old year, and plan for the new one.

If you think I am pessimistic, then you are wrong, I just think in cycles, concerning nature and history as well, I do not think in linear models that much. Which basically only means this: after winter comes spring.

[TteFAboB]

Bravo! :up:

[Wim Libaers]

The assumption that we can solve the problem of shrinking population and thus problems in economy by importing millions of Muslim workers, as stated in one of the essay quoted at the beginning, I find to be dangerous, wrong, and suicidal, because it would increase inner social tensions of Western communities beyond braking point, and would open the door for Islam. I do not need to repeat what I think of Islam, right? ;)

Well, the real problem is not so much population size as it is population ageing, and trying to stop that trend with immigration leads to ridiculous results, even if the immigrants are not a culture of psychopaths.

http://www.apsoc.ox.ac.uk/Oxpop/publications%20files/wp03.pdf


If you think I am pessimistic, then you are wrong, I just think in cycles, concerning nature and history as well, I do not think in linear models that much. Which basically only means this: after winter comes spring.

For those who survive the winter...

[STEED]

Well, the real problem is not so much population size as it is population ageing.

The World of Logans Run round the corner that's me gone :damn:

[SUBMAN1]

Well, the real problem is not so much population size as it is population ageing.

The World of Logans Run round the corner that's me gone :damn:

You know how old you have to be to even know what that movie is? Oops! I'm dating myself!

-S

[STEED]

Well, the real problem is not so much population size as it is population ageing.

The World of Logans Run round the corner that's me gone :damn:

You know how old you have to be to even know what that movie is? Oops! I'm dating myself!

-S


:rotfl: :rotfl: Oops you let that one slip SUMAN1 :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Sixpack]

I disagree with his level of pessimism. That is, I don't think the US is about to fall off the cliff of doom and gloom. I actually think Europe is in much more immediate danger.

Normally, I don't like to copy full article for Jerusalem Post subscribers but I'll make an exception. This article, by an acquaintence of ours, appeared in this past Friday's JPost Magazine.
Think Again: The greatest threat (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395473734&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rosenblum, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of radical Islam's signal successes has been to give credence to those who believe that religion constitutes the greatest threat to mankind. In the short run, a nuclear Iran presents the strongest candidacy for triggering an apocalypse.

A strong case can be made, however, that too little religion constitutes as great a threat, in the long run. An economically stagnant, increasingly depopulated Europe is Exhibit A. The United States, which is both the developed world's most dynamic and most religious country, is Exhibit B.

The Talmud in Ta'anit (23a) describes an incident involving Honi Hame'agel. One day, Honi saw an old man planting a carob tree, and asked him how long it would be before the tree bore fruit. The man answered, "Seventy years." Why, then, Honi inquired, was the man bothering to plant a tree whose fruits he would never eat. The man replied, "Just as my fathers planted for me, so am I planting for my children."

Only as long as people conceive themselves as part of a chain of generations will they plant carob trees. That sense of generational continuity - the Burkean social contract between "those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born" - no longer exists in Europe. Europe is rapidly becoming a childless society, whose citizens have neither the incentive nor the inclination to plan, much less sacrifice, for the future. With current birthrates, there will be a hundred million fewer Europeans by mid-century. Spain's birthrate is 1.1 children per couple, and a number of European nations and Canada are not far ahead.

In the 1970s, the great fear was that an exploding world population would result in the rapid depletion of the earth's natural resources. Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich predicted in his best-selling The Population Bomb (1968) that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. Four years later, the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of a long list of crucial minerals - gold, mercury, tin, zinc, petroleum and gas - by 1993. None of those dire predictions came remotely close to fulfillment.

But one natural resource is rapidly disappearing in many parts of the globe: human beings. And human beings, as Mark Steyn notes dryly in a recent New Criterion article, "It's the Demographics, Stupid," are the "one indispensable natural resource." Europe by the end of the century will resemble a continent hit by a slew of neutron bombs. The great buildings will still stand, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living, observes Steyn, through a period of "self-extinction of the races that built the modern world."

This population decline is of immense consequence for Western nations. Societies with few children are by definition aging societies. A dwindling cohort of younger workers cannot foot the bill for the vast panoply of social benefits to which oldsters have become accustomed. As Steyn puts it, if only one million babies are born in 2006, it's a pretty good bet that a country will not be able to fill two million job openings in 2026.

THE ONLY way to make up the shortfall is by importing a million foreign workers, most of them from Muslim countries. But that process will only expedite the transformation of Western Europe into an extension of the Maghreb, already predicted by Bernard Lewis.

Not surprisingly, those who no longer take the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply seriously do less multiplying. The United States is both the Western world's most religious country and that with the highest birthrate. The "red states" carried by George W. Bush in 2004 included 25 out of the 26 states with the highest birthrates; John Kerry's "blue states" included the 16 with the lowest.

A lack of children, however, is only one aspect of the West's lack of future orientation. Those who lack belief in an afterlife, indeed in any transcendent values that might give meaning to their lives, gravitate toward a hedonistic, here-and-now existence.

Asked by Foreign Policy magazine what current ideas, values and institutions may disappear in the next 35 years, Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer confidently predicted, "The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments."

The proliferation of assisted suicide and euthanasia laws in Europe, and even in some American states, suggests that Singer's dystopian prediction may well come to pass.

Singer himself denies any higher value to human life over that of animals. Human beings, he avers, are nothing more than the sum total of their pleasures, i.e., more sophisticated pleasure-seeking animals.

Animals, however, do not generally plan for the future. Nor will citizens who have no one to whom to transfer their accumulated wealth, and who have long since ceased viewing their own countries as the embodiment of enduring values worthy of preservation be inclined to worry much about tomorrow.

European workers have proven notoriously unwilling to consider any alteration in their increasingly unsupportable employment benefits. The attitude is: If the coffers run dry, that'll be someone else's problem. Why should I worry?

EVEN THE most fundamental task of self-defense is beyond most of the West. For the past half century, European countries have been content to rely on the US for protection, while spending almost nothing on their own defense. Appeasement has become their default response to external and internal threats. Always better to push off danger to the indefinite future, which has ceased to be of concern.

Confrontation, on the other hand, risks war, and with war goes death. If one's life has no meaning outside of itself, and death represents the end of everything, then one would be insane to opt for a course that increases the immediate risk to life, even if it results in greatly reduced future danger. Europe's inability to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran is but the latest example of the habit of appeasement.

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," observed historian Arnold Toynbee. By losing their connection to the future, the post-Christian societies of the West find themselves hurtling towards extinction.

it pretty much sums up my posts ot in this forum over the last year, with the exception of the statement that immigration of muslims will be neccessary. Plenty of Russian volunteers ! :D

[Sixpack]

I just think in cycles, concerning nature and history as well, I do not think in linear models that much. Which basically only means this: after winter comes spring.

Right, and after summer comes autumn and winter. And western fikkin people better put on a good coat soon... :yep:

[Iceman]

Maybe I mised something on this I thought you were looking at some site which was discussing Romans Chapter 13?...And Steeds question was...

"Fascinating bit of reading what do you guys think about it in the U.S?"

Don't know what you were trying to provoke by this thread but here goes.

Christians ..I.E. "Followers of Christ" believe in the Total Fufullment of the Law by accepting what Jesus Christ did with his life...I.E. submitting to Gods will of being crucified on the cross, as the ultimate ,and final ,and only sacrifice worthy of covering ALL of mans sins from start to finish of the creation of man....Period.It is the only way of salvation...and look at that word salvation...salvation from what?...salvation from Gods own righteous punishment of sin.

We were bought back by the blood and body of Christ and therefore can stand without fault before God as adopted sons.If sons then we become heirs of the kingdom....



Romans 8

[1] There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
[3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
[4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
[6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
[7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


Romans 3


[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
[26] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
[27] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
[28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
[29] Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
[30] Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
[31] Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.



Romans 13

[7] Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


Romans 4

[15] Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

This is why children are blameless and spotless because a child has NO concept or true grasp of the law....without the law saying thou shalt not kill how would one know killing is evil...Don't misunderstand me here I am speaking in reference to a child....but from here we go to an adult.

As an adult the "Law" and when I say Law I mean right and wrong is well known to adults....No one here needs a bible or koran to tell him that murder is wrong or cheating on your wife ir wrong or theft....The law or "10 commandments' were meant to show man and bring into the Light.... Sin,...and the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.It was meant as policeman to hold sin in check until the only worthy sacrifice of blood was made....once this deed was peformed a "New Teatament" was made with man and that testament is ...


John 3

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Period....No strings attached...no laws or deeds can earn it it was a gift.You Cannot earn a gift....


This is where Jews and Gentiles split...for now.


Romans 9

[31] But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
[32] Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
[33] As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Christians believe that Isreal is Gods chosen people but because of the hardness of there hearts the gospel of Christ was sent out into Allllll the world until the time of the end when God will again return to Isreal as a people and welcome them back into his fold.

Romans 11

[8] (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
[9] And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them:
[10] Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
[11] I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

But....the key to Christians is this...

Romans 11

[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
[27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
[29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
[30] For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
[31] Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
[32] For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.



Christians believe God will make good on his promises and Isreal is his chosen people and the jewel of His eye....Why?....I don't know you ask him when you see him.Point I was trying to make is...Steed ...Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers was Christs command but....also we as followers of Christ are not under the laws of man but of God so when in the future if you are still on this earth.And it is made into a law to receive a mark in your hand or forehead...You remember whos laws you are bound by.

[STEED]

Don't know what you were trying to provoke

General input don't panic :up:

[The Avon Lady]

You Cannot earn a gift....
Damn hell you can!

You just need the right frequent flyer program.

[Iceman]

You Cannot earn a gift....
Damn hell you can!

You just need the right frequent flyer program.


Always a catch though huh...:) jk ya Avon.