BS: Green/Godly Gardening

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:11 PM

Blackbird I reckon : Image

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: lady penelope
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:21 PM

Ah, the terms 'pest' and 'weed' both denote that which is not welcome in the opinion of those that 'hold' a certain area.... They are slightly subjective points of view... all open to argument of course...

CarolC - Fantastic work on the recipes!!! *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 04:55 AM

Yes, LP - thanks CC and IB for beavering away.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 06:16 AM

I wonder, does this mean I can do other links to myspace images without having to go through the usual protocol? Let's give it a go shall we...

Sedayne's Instrumentarium, Granny's Bay, June 2008

Well, it works in preview anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 06:28 AM

Talking of Beavers... There was a time when beavers were considered to possess intelligence on account of their architectural abilities, able to construct dams of incredibly sophisticated design. Only later was it discovered that beavers were instinctively averse to the sound of running water and would go to any lengths to silence it. Even when no actual water is present, as on a recording, a beaver will attempt to stuff up the loudspeaker! So much for animal intelligence, and ultimately, I fear, intelligent design, which is to say those who perceive an intelligence behind the universe and a purpose thereto are perhaps missing the point rather.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:24 AM

Well, it's a fact, IB, that my husband contends human engineers seldom operate with intelligence either, though perhaps not due to sensitive ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:13 AM

...speaking of which, I just had quite a hassle with myspace - I'd used a free profile editor to get a similar look to my personal site, but last week I awoke to see it back to the standard, with quite a lot of info. needing to be re-done. Apparently, it was due to myspace's ads being blocked...I'm not sure if there's a safe free way of editing it...?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:29 AM

Like many others, we use Thomas's Myspace Editor, which is simple & effective. Follow the link on my page.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:54 AM

Thanks, IB, I'll look again at that one, which I've also seen used quite a lot - but I'm a bit wary now, as I think it was when myspace did those recent changes to their site that the problem occurred...and, next time, they may delete the lot. Or perhaps the html that we have to put in allows pop-ups sometimes..?
Back to gardens, or rough at least, have you and yours had the chance to walk around, if not play, and of those fine links, near your current abode?...noticed this year the Open is at Birkdale, but here's another...

Poem 158 of 230: LYTHAM AND ST. ANNE'S - SUMMER 2001

On bus-line seven,
    From Blackpool's station:
The homes of St. Anne's -
    Wide, like her shore's sands;
Lytham's seaside green;
    And THAT course between.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:13 AM

I used Pimp My Profile. I got mine from their "Artistic and Abstract" category. I made quite a few changes to the template they provided, though. This is what it looked like originally...

http://www.pimp-my-profile.com/generators/preview.php?mode=myspace&layout_id=107766

I made a lot of changes to that using their "Tweak it!" function, for which there's a link just below the sample pictures for each layout. Here's how my page looks with the changes I made...

http://www.myspace.com/squeezemusette

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:07 AM

Thanks Carol, I'll keep that one in mind, too - but, as I say, we should be a bit wary of these freebies, and perhaps check occasionally that they don't allow pop-ups or suchlike to block myspace ads (me, in particular, as I have been caught-out once already). Also, I enjoyed my visit to your Space.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

I've had that layout for over a year with no problems so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 12:18 PM

Myspace exists on advertising revenue, which is how we can all have free space; the only on-screen advertising on the pages is at the page tops, but there's more on the home pages etc. Using Thomas' Editor you get a pop-up when the page first opens, which is only fair give that it's free. Remember, in being part of myspace we are selling our souls to the corporate devil, so I'm not about to complain too much. All the recent glitches seem to have been ironed out with no ill-effects to the HTML formatting generated using Thomas' Editor. This is actually pasted into the profile so I can't see how it can be effected.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:23 PM

On both the local and national news, and from David Attenborough, here tonight, they mentioned how butterflies (good indicators of ecological health) are on the decline, plus that 20 "butterfly survival zones" are being created in our countryside...and, as I say, surely these efforts are assisted if gardeners go-native with their selection of flora.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:53 PM

Along those lines, I have found myself lately feeling very grateful every time I see a bee pollinating the flowers in my garden. I worry about whether or not we will have this help for much longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:45 AM

from Spaw: "We were approaching "civilization" again only a few hundred yards below the falls and came upon a middle aged couple. The wife looked exasperated and I guess she was as she asked, "Is there anything else to see down that way beside the rocks and the woods and the river?"

That reminds me of my uncle and his girlfriend coming over to England from Long Island a few years ago. We were in a village in the Cotswolds and had a mooch round, which she loved - she's a magpie, and had bought many knick-knacks in the souvenir shops. We then started walking a path across a field to the next village, about half a mile away. After about three minutes, she suddenly piped up with "Why are we here? There are no buildings here!"

Indeed, that particular part of the field did not have its own souvenir shop. Or even a tea rooms. What were we thinking?


Re the earlier link to eco-travel, it's interesting that there appears to be a bit of a backlash at the moment. Much "eco-travel" means tourists travelling to and through places which are not particularly geared up for tourism. As a result, the environmental impact of their presence is actually a lot greater, as the carbon footprint associated with getting to places that are "off the beaten track" is substantially higher. I was watching a programme recently which pointed out that a lot of "eco-tourism" these days is simply the latest fad in middle-class one-upmanship.

In fact, Benidorm was cited as the new face of eco-travel:

Go green - go to Benidorm!

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:41 AM

Fascinating stuff, Ruth. I wonder - might not eco-travel be of far greater detriment to indigenous cultural process that immigration per se? Given that immigration is the consequence of economic / political necessity and is manifestly committed, whereas tourism is just so much colonialist indulgence; putting the world on show for the most superficial of reasons, just so our latter day voyeuristic ego-travellers can have something to talk about over dinner parties, or wherever...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

I read the article, and was pleased about the resort's efforts, but the rest of the article was quite sensibly criticized in some of the following comments, I thought.

I do like the UNESCO 'sacred places' project. Some fragile areas should be just left alone by hordes of humans, or we will end up destroying them.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:29 AM

Bee, there are good points made about the over-developed coastline, the water resources etc. But by visiting resorts where this development has already taken place at least tourists are using large-scale facilities which already exist, rather than creating a market for new facilities in places which are currently "unspoilt".

I say this as a bit of a devil's advocate - I would rather have pins in my eyes than go to Benidorm, and one of the best holidays I've ever had was a "low impact" luxury safari in Zambia, in a camp which only took 12 guests at a time, and which did loads for the local economy and community. Prototype sensitive tourism and a fabulous experience, but sustainable in the long term...?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:42 AM

If the point of eco-tourism is for people to be able to see unspoiled places, it seems to me this is a good thing for many of those places (certainly not all of them). There is no guaranteeing that such places will not end up like Benidorm in the long run, even if there is no eco-tourism. If such places are places of beauty, what's going to prevent more large-scale building in them eventually anyway? But with eco-tourism at least, the owners of facilities in such places have an incentive to keep the surrounding areas unspoiled rather than building them up, or they will lose their clientele.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM

carol, each development decision is going to be different, isn't it? Each will have a different social and environmental impact on the area. So I don't think we can simply say that it's a good thing across the board...

"If such places are places of beauty, what's going to prevent more large-scale building in them eventually anyway?"

Local legislation? Protection orders?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM

I would suggest reading my post again. I didn't say across the board. I did say, "certainly not all of them".

I can say from experience living in a city that is an up and coming resort area, when real estate people get involved, local legislation tends to work in favor of the people who make their money in the real estate business. Our city council is made up mostly of people who make their money in real estate, and most of their decisions reflect this inherent conflict of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

I'm feeling a little hopeless about eco-anything at the moment. The Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia is one of the most heavily clear-cut areas of the province, and right now I can hear the machines, which have been running from 7am to midnight every day for two weeks now, not a half km. from where I sit. I've had a headache from the grinding constant noise for days - my tender rural ears are not used to this.

I'm really torn. We've protested this practice for years and gotten a few protected areas out of it, and I'm well aware of the much needed well paid forestry jobs involved. I also know that these guys will not likely replant, which IMO is better than replanting a mono-culture of spruce, which is the common practice. The new forest here will begin with blueberries, brambles, nannyberry, elderberry and similar plants, quickly succeeded by young poplar, birch and maple, and last will be the spruce, fir, and a few pines. It's a better kind of mix than what was already there, for many kinds of wildlife, and the policy now is to leave standing snags that encourage woodpeckers and owls to nest. Still, it is disheartening to see the vast barren cut-outs the first year or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:07 PM

There's pros and cons, and controversy, with golf-course development, also. As one of the presenters of The Open (BBC) coverage highlighted, a native rough can be good for native fauna; but some courses have been developed in parts of the world where fairways and greens require lots of extra watering.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

Golf courses are a plague here - far too many of them, they require far too much fussing and application of pesticides and herbicides, and the fertilizer run-off has damaged a number of waterways near various courses. Plus, any wildlife that frequents them gets chased away or otherwise disturbed. I don't mind a few, but in the maritimes there are far too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:09 AM

...and too many people? 6.7 billion is too many for the area of land on Earth; and 50 million is too many for the area of land that is England, e.g. I certainly don't agree with the Chinese "Communist" Party on everything, but I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies...

Poem 102 of 230 CONGESTION

The waxing view;
And the taboo:

Again-and-again for congestion,
Leaders make this sort of suggestion -

Nationalisation,
    Remuneration,
Standardisation,
    Cooperation,
Integration;

Fine...but (through dread of accusation -
    "They don't care about our children" -
And of losing the next election)
    Most politicians never mention -
Promote a lower population.

I do care for the lives of children,
And think birth-control mends congestion -

Curb the birth queue
And influx, too.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:03 AM

"Plus, any wildlife that frequents them gets chased away or otherwise disturbed."

My ex-husband played a course in South Africa where the monkeys would come down from the trees and nick your balls... :0)


"Curb the birth queue
And influx, too."

Oh dear. Here we go again...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:42 AM

"I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies..."

the by-product of China's "green, humane" birth policy

and more
quote from the site above:
"Critics have cited a number of reasons for the deliberate starving of these Chinese children. Many of the children admitted to the orphanages were abandoned because they were born disabled. In a country that has an official policy limiting families to one child, some couples abandon disabled children so that they can try again for a healthy child; others may do so to shift to the state a caretaking burden they are unable to bear.

In the Chinese orphanages, according to these critics, it is these disabled children who tend to be subjected to `summary resolution'--deliberately starved, not treated when they develop easily treatable medical conditions, sometimes medicated to keep them quiet as they starve, and confined to `dying rooms.'...The parallels with the treatment of disabled children in German institutions during the Nazi era are haunting."

and, of course, female infanticide

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 10:53 AM

"Curb the birth queue
And influx, too."

And Walkslikearacist again shows his stripes. "Green/Godly" my fuckin' ass. Too many people certainly but I think its obvious where you stand (although it is difficult to find a piece of shit standing in a pile of it).

This thread has never been about gardening...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

There are other (long time and well respected) members of the Mudcat who aren't attacked for saying the same kinds of things about population control. My own opinion is that it's possible to develop technology that would make the growing population less of a problem than it currently is. We just need to be working much harder on developing these technologies. Also, populations tend to produce a lot of offspring when they are under stress. Those of us in the West (the US and the UK, in particular), could help reduce this problem quite a lot if we didn't wage our proxy resource wars in those countries, thereby putting their populations under stress.

On immigration, my own opinion is that it's not possible to keep cultures geographically separate. That horse has left the barn. Not that I would desire it even if it wasn't too late... I find that people who are culturally similar or the same will still find people to scapegoat even without the presence of people who are culturally different. I lived for 13 years in a place that was about as culturally homogeneous as it is possible to be, and they picked on people who were a different kind of Lutheran than themselves, or people who were poor or came from a different neighborhood.

But if we want to create a situation in which there would be fewer people from stressed populations trying to find peace and security in our countries, we need to stop contributing to the problems that are stressing out those populations. Most people would rather stay in their own countries if they can feel secure and have a decent standard of living. If we want to ensure that the immigrants already in our countries will be able to live among us peacefully, we need to make sure that we don't discriminate against them in our countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

"Too many people certainly" (Spaw)...there are now about 1.3 billion people in China - what if the government had not tried regulation? And, as for any human rights issues in any given country, Ruth, that's where a stonger better-respected UN is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

Wavey Davey, you were the one who called China's approach to population control green and humane. I'm not sure how "green" a system is which has created a population of complete gender imbalance, but it has been known for many years that the system there is anything but humane for the millions of children who have become little more than its waste product.

The UN is not the world's police force. Unless you are suggesting replacing all federal law with the UN, it would have no power in such cases. The fact is, your "green, humane" system, which might be so on paper, has failed dismally in reality.

Given your views on immigration, I'd love to know what you think of the agencies who rescue little girls from Chinese orphanages - these children who are the victims of the system you so admire - and place them with families abroad, including here in England...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM

You agree that it's difficult to know exactly what's going on in China, Ruth? Do you agree that there was/is a need for the government there to attempt to slow population growth? I don't think orphans should be displaced to a foreign land, frankly. And as for England, now, one in three children have to try and grow up in broken families - do you think it's a relatively good place to bring up a child. I think it was a few decades ago - not now.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM

bloody hell, Wavey - you're so blinkered it's quite scary.

Have a look on the links I provided at how those children are living in Chinese orphanages and tell me that ANY life in the UK wouldn't present them with a better alternative. The stories about orphanage "dying rooms" have been circulating in the west for at least 15 years that I'm aware of, so while some aspects of China may be impenetrable, this is one area which is well known thanks to several undercover investigations by journalists. Nothing done in the name of "population control" could justify the miserable lives - and sad, needless deaths - suffered by the children in the links I posted.

So if you wouldn't "displace" those orphans in a foreign land, Wavey, and the laws in China prevent them from being raised within families there, and the care provided by the state is basically abusive, what would you do to relieve the misery of their lives? And please don't mention the UN - this is not their remit and they're not doing anything about it. Is it okay to just shrug your shoulders and say "It can't be helped", and leave them to their fate? After all, they're only foreigners...

Having raised a child in the UK, at least I can speak from experience on the matter. Yes, the UK can be agreat place to bring up kids. It depends on where you live and your socio-economic background, but that's true of any country, and has in fact always been the case. My daughter is healthy, happy and thriving. She has received a good education and a sound upbringing (if I do say so myself) - though now that her father and I have separated, she is from what you would describe as a "broken home". What does that mean to you, exactly? Her dad is still very much in her life and we share her custody and our responsibility for her. She lives in a nice village and goes to a good school, and enjoys quite a priveleged lifestyle, to be honest. She says she's happier now than when we all lived together - the tensions of an unhappy marriage are stressful for everyone involved.

See, a lot of your philosophies stem from your theories about how life works rather than from direct experience. Theoretically, population control in China is "green and humane" - the reality proves to be quite different. In your mind, the only kind of stable home for a child is with two parents, but the realities of life meant that this is not always possible, and that when marriages break down (and it's inevitable that they will sometimes - that's life) children can still live in stable, happy homes.

Despite your much-mentioned travel through 40 countries, my guess is that your life and relationship experience is actually quite limited. Maybe you ought to wait till you have a bit more firsthand experience before you tell other people how best to live their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:11 PM

I stand by the idea that controlling the world's population is green, humane, and necessary - at least for those who do care about children and futute generations. The Indian government has also made an effort - on the windy roads, up the Himilayas, I saw sign-posts saying, e.g. "Have one or two, and that will do."

Poem 88 of 230: FROM 20TH-CENTURY SEXUALITY

From One Lover to Free Lover to Fee Lover,
    For children's sakes, let's fashion back to One Lover:
In public-life there are - guess what - women and men;
    Thus, upbringing's best by a woman and a man -
Not by one or two men, or one or two women,
    And not in a tug-of-war of women and men.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:30 PM

"at least for those who do care about children"

so what's your solution for China's orphaned girls, Wavey? All those sad little by-products of population control...

Your poem explains nothing, and offers no solutions to the real, messy problems of lives lived - not theorised about on paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM

CarolC, at one point I might have agreed that WAV does appear to be picked on as opposed to debated, which IMO is what you should ideally do if you disagree with someone.

Right now, however, and I am addressing you directly, WAV, I am shocked by your unthinking (I hope) support (even calling it humane!) for China's previous birth limit policies. Have you missed entirely that because, like far too many places in the world, women have been so undervalued in China that families have deliberately aborted girls, practiced infanticide with girls, abandoned them (along with children with birth defects or illnesses) to orphanages? Have you missed that there is now an overwhelming number of young men in China with no hope of ever marrying, because there are nowhere near enough young women for them to marry? That the Chineses government is predicting serious consequences in terms of an inevitable rise in crimes because of this? That there is already an increase in the abduction and rape of women, and that they are now making an effort to convince the people of the value of women?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM

On top of native gardening, tidal and wind power, etc, recycling, reducing our consumption, etc., Bee, we have to consider population control - i.e., if we care about future generations (it would be inhumane not to). What do you suggest on this "taboo" topic?...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

You once again fail to answer direct questions........The how-to of population control is a debatable topic certainly. But your (Wavy) "limiting influx" stands as at the very least, segragationist and racist.......which I believe you are as you continue to promote those things.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:49 PM

"What do you suggest on this "taboo" topic?..."

I asked you first. You're the one who seems to think he has all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:40 AM

WAV, I asked you how you could possibly have described China's policies, and the results, which are catastrophic for both women and men in that country, 'humane'.

You have a choice of answers, you know. You can admit that you were ignorant of the realities I've pointed out, and therefore intend to revise your views. Or you can somehow find a way to defend those consequences as being 'good', which I'd be fascinated to see. Or you can continue as you are, leaving us to think that in fact you have no human feelings at all for Chinese people and could not care less about their suffering, as long as there are fewer of them. I don't know any people who think that last, so I doubt if that's the case, but I'd really like you to clear that up for me.

Population is best controlled, since you ask, by alleviating poverty, educating people about reproductive health and birth control strategies, and countering the rantings of those religious groups which oppose birth control of any kind. That strategy has worked very well in countries where poverty is not a huge issue, such as Canada. There is never a case to be made for forcing population or birth control, because the consequences are always tragic.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:22 AM

Firstly, I am of course aware that there can and has been inhumane treatment of children in orphanages - including in my country.
And, as for population/birth control, what I'd add to the above is that reducing the revolting inequality between nations, and providing better care/security for the elderly within nations, would also help.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

WAV, could you possibly address the actual issue, which is not simply the evils of orphanages (something that can occur regardless of population control efforts), but the gender-unbalancing of an entire population, leading to severe consequences, and why you have called China's policy 'humane'?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

Sorry Bee, you'll have to wait while he reviews his favorite volumes of "Angelic Techniques Toward Godly Humanity" by Dr. Josef Mengele..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:33 AM

China's policy is certainly inhumane the way it's been carried out. There's no question about that. But not having any policy at all might be even more inhumane. Had the government not had any policy at all, China might well have become so overpopulated that large numbers of people might have died from famine. As it is now, some of China's rivers are becoming dry before they reach the ocean. These are mighty rivers that once carried large quantities of water all the way to the ocean. And that's after a few decades of having the population control policy. Try to imagine what things would be like in that country had the government not instituted its population control measures. Attacking people is easy. Finding stuff out takes a bit more effort.

The government of China certainly ought to find better ways of keeping their population numbers down, but to suggest they shouldn't have any policy for doing so at all shows a lack of understanding of the situation in China.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:29 PM

I was actually in China 20 years ago, and remember thinking - what will it be like when all these bicycle riders have cars; and, it seems, as they embrace capitalism and materialism, more-and-more do have cars; cars are becoming less-and-less polluting, thank goodness; but still, as CC says, thank goodness the governments of the likes of China and India have made some efforts on population control..."Liberty, as surfeit, is the father of much fast" (William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure).

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:42 PM

CarolC, 'not forcing population control' does not equal 'no policy at all'.

WAV, so you are okay with the consequences of China's backfiring experiment with population control - for you it really is a case of 'less Chinese people is good no matter how much suffering occurs'.

Now I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:51 PM

Like I said, I agree that the way it's being implemented is bad. But I would be interested in hearing any suggestions about how they might have done it more effectively. They needed compliance in what was, and still is, an emergency situation that could result in many more deaths than has been the case with the way their policy has been implemented so far. How might they have done things differently and still have gotten the compliance they needed?

I also have to say that although I hate that girls have been treated the way they have been under this policy, in order for that to have happened, girls and women must have not been regarded as having any value in the first place. That needed to be changed, and from what has been shown here in this thread (by others), the shortage of women in China is causing that society to reevaluate how they regard women. This is likely to have a profoundly beneficial impact on women in that country in the future.

So boiling it down to "people who don't condemn, in absolute terms, the population control measures taken by the government of China, are racists and Nazis" (as seems to be the inclination of some), is oversimplifying things in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM

No Bee - I'm very much for reducing suffering, as I've said in poems 1 and 71, e.g.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

CarolC, a number of circumstances drive people to have larger numbers of children. One is the practical consideration of working farm families to have children to help and expand the family harvesting capability. Another is the lack of knowledge to do anything much about how many children you have - reproductive education. Another is the meddling of religions which oppose birth control. Another is the patriarchal fetish for many sons, and the patriarchal contempt for women.

China actually made great steps in educating the urban and less isolated farming areas populations about birth control, though not so well in isolated areas. China is an enormous land area, with a monstrous population - hard to reach everybody. What China did not do was offer appropriate assistance to struggling farm families, so that the combination of a conventional perceived need for sons to help and a contempt for the value of women resulted in the practice of trying for a son until you got one. China did not institute a program of educating the people about women's equal value, nor did they attempt to deal with the problem for decades, despite being fully aware of the practice. They were also late, and I would blame a government consisting mostly of men who held the same prejudices against women, in understanding the consequences of not having enough young women.

Chinese social scientists were not stupid or uneducated, but they were a product of their culture, and they blindly entered a huge social experiment without a thought given to the inevitable effect on girls and women, and the eventual effect on men of too few women.

Making sure farm families were not hamstrung by having fewer children would have helped. Using their huge and largely successful propaganda machine to raise the status of women would have helped. Rewarding people for having fewer children would have helped - that kind of incentive has been offered in many countries, mine included, for increasing the number of children.

When people are largely affluent, secure, and educated, they limit the size of their families without anyone making it a law. China may well be on that path now - we can hope.

India, btw, is experiencing a similar problem, for similar reasons, though without the forced family size - low status of women + ability to abort or abandon = people opting for sons and not daughters.