The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

I was referring 'absolutely-absolute' to the freedom to act and think.

Okay, but nobody ever suggested that the freedoms we have to act and think are "absolute." They're always limited. So there's no faulting God for "failing to live up to" an absolute standard He never promised, and we can never reasonably expect.

Thus if a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate exists, that GOD could have limited human abilities to prevent ALL humans from commit evil acts and violence.

Of course. But if He did, what would the consequences be? Bahman and I have worked on that question for a bit. Seriously, you should go back and catch up. One of the things we've established is that if God had done that, there would be no human freedom of volition anymore. If you want to know why, you'll have to go back and read.

But, that evil acts happened mean that the supposed GOD does not exist.

Actually, it does not imply that at all. You are missing a premise there, that you would need to make your case. The premise would read something like, "It is not possible that God could have any sufficient reason for allowing suffering." But why would we grant such a premise? It seems quite clear it's very possible He could.

Since GOD is omniscient [past and future], it is an implied plan.

Another fault in logic here. Foreknowledge is not predetermination. To "know" and "to cause" are quite different actions. For instance, even if I foreknow completely correctly what you will do, and even if it turns out you do it, it does not even remotely imply that I forced you or compelled you to do it. You were not the victim of some kind of "plan" of mine. Your volition remains your own, and entirely free, even if I happen to foreknow its result.

So the argument just doesn't hold water. It's got at least one missing premise you can't supply, and a confusion between two key concepts, the mistaking of the one for the other, creating amphiboly. That, in addition to the earlier problem we had with "absolute," of course.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was referring 'absolutely-absolute' to the freedom to act and think.

Okay, but nobody ever suggested that the freedoms we have to act and think are "absolute." They're always limited. So there's no faulting God for "failing to live up to" an absolute standard He never promised, and we can never reasonably expect.

Point is your supposedly omnipotent and omniscient GOD in the first place draw out his planned blueprint and created humans with unrestricted freedom to act, i.e. including the enabling all humans the freedom to commit evil and violence.
So it is not God's promise in this case, God is the one who drew the blue prints and created thereof humans who are capable of committing evil and violence.

Note even now with humans when they create things, there is a mindfulness of fool proofing or idiot proofing what is created to prevent possible evil actions or errors.

So how come a GOD that is omni-wise, omni-compassionate with omnipotence is not mindful in creating humans that are foolproof or idiot proof of committing evil and violence such as torturing babies for pleasure?

Thus if a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate exists, that GOD could have limited human abilities to prevent ALL humans from commit evil acts and violence.

Of course. But if He did, what would the consequences be? Bahman and I have worked on that question for a bit. Seriously, you should go back and catch up. One of the things we've established is that if God had done that, there would be no human freedom of volition anymore. If you want to know why, you'll have to go back and read.

I did not read both of you made the exact point I was trying to make.

If GOD had created all humans who are compassionate and morally good, no humans would commit evil and violent acts upon other humans and babies,
BUT all humans would still be have the freedom of volition [except evil] to do whatever is good.

But, that evil acts happened mean that the supposed GOD does not exist.

Actually, it does not imply that at all. You are missing a premise there, that you would need to make your case.
The premise would read something like, "It is not possible that God could have any sufficient reason for allowing suffering."
But why would we grant such a premise? It seems quite clear it's very possible He could.

Yes being omnipotent could but should not due the reason below;

As I had argued, the reason is, it is a contradiction for a supposedly omni-wise, omnibenevolent/compassionate & omni-GOOD with omnipotence to create humans that are evil prone, e.g. torturing babies for pleasure.

Since GOD is omniscient [past and future], it is an implied plan.

Another fault in logic here. Foreknowledge is not predetermination. To "know" and "to cause" are quite different actions. For instance, even if I foreknow completely correctly what you will do, and even if it turns out you do it, it does not even remotely imply that I forced you or compelled you to do it. You were not the victim of some kind of "plan" of mine. Your volition remains your own, and entirely free, even if I happen to foreknow its result.

Note your supposed GOD is supposed to be omnipotent, thus capable of doing anything in according to his intentions.
That GOD created all humans with the potential to commit evil thus must have first planned that in his blueprint what humans are supposed to be.
Since GOD is omniscient, he must know that humans he planned and created will commit evil such as torturing babies for pleasure in the future.

As such your supposed GOD did plan for the consequences of evil upon humanity.
Therefore your supposed GOD is a premeditating murderer and torturer of babies for pleasure.
Otherwise being your supposedly omni-wise, omnibenevolent/compassionate & omni-GOOD with omnipotence would have ensure fool proofing the problem of evil at source.

It is irrational and contradictory, there is no sufficient reason for your supposed GOD with omni-wisdom, omnibenevolent/compassionate & omni-GOOD with omnipotence to justify the enabling terrible evils and violence such as torturing babies for pleasure to happen at all.

[Belinda]

You do...

Ad hominem.

you either lack knowledge...

Ad hominem.

Economic growth must stop because natural resources are finite, and have reached the turning point.It is not good to be unaware of the urgency. I do not know
what lies you have been listening to.

[Immanuel Can]

Point is your supposedly omnipotent and omniscient GOD in the first place draw out his planned blueprint and created humans with unrestricted freedom to act, i.e. including the enabling all humans the freedom to commit evil and violence.

And?

God is the one who drew the blue prints and created thereof humans who are capable of committing evil and violence.

Yes. And to make your case, you would need to show that that was a worse thing than not creating any free-will beings at all. Can you show that?

Thus if a supposedly omni-wise and omnibenevolent/compassionate exists, that GOD could have limited human abilities to prevent ALL humans from commit evil acts and violence.

Of course. But if He did, what would the consequences be? Bahman and I have worked on that question for a bit. Seriously, you should go back and catch up. One of the things we've established is that if God had done that, there would be no human freedom of volition anymore. If you want to know why, you'll have to go back and read.

I did not read both of you made the exact point I was trying to make.

Then you didn't read it carefully enough.

If GOD had created all humans who are compassionate and morally good, no humans would commit evil and violent acts upon other humans and babies,BUT all humans would still be have the freedom of volition [except evil] to do whatever is good.

That would not be sufficient for free will.

If you read the argument, you would realize that that just moves the problem up one level, and doesn't solve it. If you say, "God is obligated to make people do good things," then why wouldn't it be right to say, "A truly righteous and good God would be morally obligated to make humans only ever do the very BEST things"? That would follow logically. But to force people only ever to do the very BEST things they could would be to make them incapable of free will.

So you're back to the basic problem in your argument. Can you show that allowing people to have free will is worse than making them robots? That's what you would need to show.

Since GOD is omniscient [past and future], it is an implied plan.

Another fault in logic here. Foreknowledge is not predetermination. To "know" and "to cause" are quite different actions. For instance, even if I foreknow completely correctly what you will do, and even if it turns out you do it, it does not even remotely imply that I forced you or compelled you to do it. You were not the victim of some kind of "plan" of mine. Your volition remains your own, and entirely free, even if I happen to foreknow its result.

Note your supposed GOD is supposed to be omnipotent, thus capable of doing anything in according to his intentions.[/quote]
Well, I disagree if what you stipulate by "omnipotent" is that God is capable of anything. The Bible makes it quite clear that there are things God absolutely never does -- lie, break promises and do things contrary to His own nature, among them. But this is not a function of a lack of potency, but rather a product of the fact that God is so potent that nothing can ever make him act in a way He does not wish to, or that is contrary to His own nature.

Secondly, to say God is "capable" of doing something is not to say God has to do it. I am capable of killing somebody. But I have never done it. That does not speak to my lack of potential to do so; it only speaks to the fact that I have chosen not to do it.

That GOD created all humans with the potential to commit evil thus must have first planned that in his blueprint what humans are supposed to be.
Since GOD is omniscient, he must know that humans he planned and created will commit evil such as torturing babies for pleasure in the future.

This is not illuminating or helpful to your case. We all acknowledge the fact that people do such things. What you need to prove is that THERE CAN BE NO SUFFICIENT REASON for God to allow such creatures as we, free-will-having beings, to exist.

Can you do that?

Take your best shot.

[Immanuel Can]

Economic growth must stop because natural resources are finite

Eventually, that's going to be true, no matter what we do. The world is running down, and we know it and can measure it by entropy. Were the Earth ten times the size it is, that would still be true.

The question is really "How close are we to that point?" And the answer is, "Not close at all." We have abundant resources right now, impeded only by politics; and we have the prospect of then end of poverty and of a level population, if we only keep educating our women. That's the quickest method to getting the birth rate to just below replacement levels; women who are educated, on average, have two children or less. Then we have the best situation we can arrange.

[bahman]

The very fact that appearance, body, is an illusion made of mind makes mind fundamental.

If what you are saying is true (and I deny that it is, of course), then certain things would follow. One would be that no animals have ever suffered. Neither have any people. Neither is there an environment threatened in any way.

They're all merely products of mind, and hence, have no material reality. So there is no "problem of evil" in such a philosophy. There is, in fact, no such thing as "evil" at all.

No, good and evil come together. Good and evil are equal. They are just illusions made of minds.

Our minds are similar and simple.

This seems inconsistent. If we are not all one cosmic mind, then there is some kind of real separation between minds, which means there has to be some material difference between the different minds that makes each its own mind. The word "similar" tells us that you think these many "minds" are not exactly the same mind.

So you believe in a bunch of minds? But then you have to also be believing in some substantial difference between them that gives them their distinct identities, and makes them a bunch, not a singular mind. So now you're positing some kind of reality, and "all is mind" is false...

Yes. I have arguments for why what I said is true.

To me, mesquite or dog, one shall not hurt.

Why not? All is mind, you say: so there is no "dog" to be hurt, nor any actual "mosquito" to be killed either.

Aren't human beings of higher moral value than mere animals?

I don't think so.

Well, I can see why now. You can't believe either humans or animals actually exist.

You need to know the whole truth in order to see my worldview. I am questioning your worldview when I talk about harming animals.

...they are innocent.

No, they are non-existent according to your theory. Therefore they cannot be harmed by anything. One cannot harm a ghost or a fiction of the mind. No animal since the dawn of time has ever actually suffered, according to your theory: what' s really happened is only that the great cosmic mind (or the bunch of minds: I can't figure out which you believe in) has occasionally imagined or hallucinated such a thing. But it was never real. All is mind...there is no reality, no animals, and no suffering.

See, I can't make a coherent worldview out of all that. You're going to have to fix your explanation somehow. Either you believe "all is mind," but then none of your complaints about "evils" are real, or you believe in multiple minds, but then you also have to believe in some kind of substance or reality separating the one mind from the next, and thus making the one into many.

Which is it?

They exist. They are mind like me and you. Their bodies however are different. That is all.

[Immanuel Can]

So you believe in a bunch of minds? But then you have to also be believing in some substantial difference between them that gives them their distinct identities, and makes them a bunch, not a singular mind. So now you're positing some kind of reality, and "all is mind" is false...

Yes. I have arguments for why what I said is true.[/quote]
Can you help me out here? What arguments do you have?

I am questioning your worldview when I talk about harming animals.

Well, fair enough...but it can't be a sincere worry to you, since you don't believe animals actually exist, right?

They exist. They are mind like me and you. Their bodies however are different. That is all.

Oh? So "all is NOT mind"? Now I'm really confused.

You say "all is mind," but that "animals exist." Do they "exist" as mere delusions, as mere figments of a mind? Or do they exist as real, distinct, physical beings? You say they have "bodies": where do these "bodies" exist, if "all is mind"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is the one who drew the blue prints and created thereof humans who are capable of committing evil and violence.

Yes. And to make your case, you would need to show that that was a worse thing than not creating any free-will beings at all. Can you show that?

If you read the argument, you would realize that that just moves the problem up one level, and doesn't solve it.
If you say, "God is obligated to make people do good things," then why wouldn't it be right to say, "A truly righteous and good God would be morally obligated to make humans only ever do the very BEST things"?
That would follow logically.
But to force people only ever to do the very BEST things they could would be to make them incapable of free will.

So you're back to the basic problem in your argument.
Can you show that allowing people to have free will is worse than making them robots? That's what you would need to show.

Note my point,

• 1. IF the supposed-God exists,
  
  2. God is by nature is intrinsically omni-wise, omni-compassionate, omni-GOOD & omni-whatever as such it would not be the nature of your supposed-God to allow terrible evil [e.g. babies tortured by humans for pleasure, etc.] to happen via humans which is created by God.
  
  3. It is evident humans had committed terrible EVIL acts throughout since they were created.
  
  4. Therefore the supposed-omni-GOOD GOD does not exist.

You are trying to be deceptive in bringing in 'BEST'.
'BEST' do not imply Good.
Hitler did his BEST to fulfil his BEST mission.

I am not sure of your point, i.e.
IC: Can you show that allowing people to have free will is worse than making them robots?
I argued IF the supposed God exists,
then by its intrinsic nature of omni-GOOD, GOD must logically give free-will to humans to do Good but the free-will is limited in not committing EVIL.
Otherwise there would be a contradiction, i.e. Good do not follow up and conclude with evil.

• For example, if I created a million robots and programmed them with free will and autonomous learning, i.e. with the ability to do good and do evil.
  Then, after say 5 years, half the robots killed millions of humans based on their free will and autonomous learning.
  It is obvious in this case, I am responsible for the humans killed.
  If I am morally good, I will ensure the robots are programmed with fool proof measures to ensure the robot only good and never evil.

If GOD had created all humans who are compassionate and morally good, no humans would commit evil and violent acts upon other humans and babies, BUT all humans would still be have the freedom of volition [except evil] to do whatever is good.

That would not be sufficient for free will.

Note my argument above.
A supposed God that is omni-GOOD can create humans that end up with the free will to commit evil. It is not logically.
GOD logically must give free-will to humans to do Good but the free-will is limited in not committing EVIL.

Note your supposed GOD is supposed to be omnipotent, thus capable of doing anything in according to his intentions.

Well, I disagree if what you stipulate by "omnipotent" is that God is capable of anything. The Bible makes it quite clear that there are things God absolutely never does -- lie, break promises and do things contrary to His own nature, among them. But this is not a function of a lack of potency, but rather a product of the fact that God is so potent that nothing can ever make him act in a way He does not wish to, or that is contrary to His own nature.

Secondly, to say God is "capable" of doing something is not to say God has to do it. I am capable of killing somebody. But I have never done it. That does not speak to my lack of potential to do so; it only speaks to the fact that I have chosen not to do it.

Your argument is getting desperate and illogical.

I have explained above.
IF your supposed GOD is omni-GOOD, [omnibenevolent, omni-compassionate, has omni-empathy],
then God by nature, will not do EVIL, e.g. breaking promises, and the likes.

Point is,
logically, your supposed GOD is omni-GOOD, [omnibenevolent, omni-compassionate, has omni-empathy],
then whatever GOD created and do must not end up with EVIL elements, e.g. God created human torturing babies for pleasure, genocides and enabling tsunamis and earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands innocent people.

That GOD created all humans with the potential to commit evil thus must have first planned that in his blueprint what humans are supposed to be.
Since GOD is omniscient, he must know that humans he planned and created will commit evil such as torturing babies for pleasure in the future.

This is not illuminating or helpful to your case. We all acknowledge the fact that people do such things. What you need to prove is that THERE CAN BE NO SUFFICIENT REASON for God to allow such creatures as we, free-will-having beings, to exist.
Can you do that?

Take your best shot.

That people do such evil things, in the theistic perspective, is because God created human creatures with the potential to commit evil acts and violence, plus God is responsible for other natural evils such as earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural catastrophe that killed thousands and millions.

I have already shown you the reason, i.e. it is contradiction that a supposedly omni-GOOD God creating creatures [human] with free will to commit EVIL. That does not follow logically and thus more than sufficient reason.

Why theists conjure the idea of a real God and defend it like there is no tomorrow?
-some theists will even kill non-theists if their theistic beliefs are threatened.

Note the other alternative from the philosophical perspective of truth is,
the idea of God which is illusory emerged onto to human consciousness as an effective consonance to soothe the inherent existential dissonance.

Theists [like you above] twist and turn to defend the existence of their God as real to maintain consonance, else they will suffer terrible existential dissonance.
This is the reason why irrational-theists has to go through a terrible 'cold turkey' experience to the other side of rational non-theism.

[Belinda]

Economic growth must stop because natural resources are finite

Eventually, that's going to be true, no matter what we do. The world is running down, and we know it and can measure it by entropy. Were the Earth ten times the size it is, that would still be true.

The question is really "How close are we to that point?" And the answer is, "Not close at all." We have abundant resources right now, impeded only by politics; and we have the prospect of then end of poverty and of a level population, if we only keep educating our women. That's the quickest method to getting the birth rate to just below replacement levels; women who are educated, on average, have two children or less. Then we have the best situation we can arrange.

We do not have enough natural resources unless, right now, coronavirus kills most humans. We have been consuming too much, and now we are at the point of no return. You seem be unaware of the apocalypse now happening.

Ruination of Amazon rain forest to feed soya to pigs for greedy humans to eat too much of is an example of permanent damage to an essential natural resource. What do you think of Bolsonaro and Co.?
Women who are educated can and sometimes do a lot more than control their own conceptions!

[Immanuel Can]

Can you show that allowing people to have free will is worse than making them robots? That's what you would need to show.

Note my point,

• 1. IF the supposed-God exists,
  
  2. God is by nature is intrinsically omni-wise, omni-compassionate, omni-GOOD & omni-whatever as such it would not be the nature of your supposed-God to allow terrible evil [e.g. babies tortured by humans for pleasure, etc.] to happen via humans which is created by God.
  
  3. It is evident humans had committed terrible EVIL acts throughout since they were created.
  
  4. Therefore the supposed-omni-GOOD GOD does not exist.

I saw your argument. It has the same basic flaw as the las time you said it.

You are trying to be deceptive in bringing in 'BEST'.

Not at all, if you think about it. But you need to think.

If it's wrong for God to allow something less than the good, why would it be right for Him to allow anything other than the best? Are you supposing that a truly righteous, good, God could (say) prevent abortions, but then turn around and wink at lying? Could He righteously come down hard against theft, but allow gossip and backbiting still to go on? It's got to be pretty apparent to you that those are still evils, and a good God could not be firm on the former and ignore the latter.

But why would we think a good God could, say, allow a range of less-than-completely-good options, or even a set of second-rate options, if He already knew the perfect option existed and He could have made that happen instead? So if God is truly righteous AND is obligated to make the good always happen instead of the evil, then He is also obligated to make the best always happen, not other things. And you're back to determinism, then.

IC: Can you show that allowing people to have free will is worse than making them robots?
I argued IF the supposed God exists,
then by its intrinsic nature of omni-GOOD, GOD must logically give free-will to humans to do Good but the free-will is limited in not committing EVIL.

Well, if an omni-good God, as you put it, must give free will to humans, then He must give them the choice of obeying His will, His choice, which always has to be the best, since He is who He is, OR the choice of doing the not-the-best, the not-HIs-will, the not-His-preference-but-theirs, which is exactly what it means to say an entity has "free will." Free will means the person can do according to his/her choices, not according to somebody else's. And in reference to God, who is the Source of all good, it necessarily means the option to choose evil instead.

For example, if I created a million robots and programmed them with free will and autonomous learning, i.e. with the ability to do good and do evil. Then, after say 5 years, half the robots killed millions of humans based on their free will and autonomous learning.
It is obvious in this case, I am responsible for the humans killed. If I am morally good, I will ensure the robots are programmed with fool proof measures to ensure the robot only good and never evil.

It's not by accident that your example refers to robots. If you did what you say, then you would have created Determinism. But it is quite plausible that to create free beings is more moral than to create robots.

Moreover, there's a much better analogy. Let's say you have a child. The child is a freewill-having being. And plausibly, your child might turn out to be a drug addict, a rapist or a thief, if things go badly in some way; every parent knows that. So would it be more moral for parents not to procreate, but instead to buy robots? What would be lost? What would be different? Would the parent who refused to create a child and instead buys a robot be a more moral parent than the one who has a child, learns how to raise and relate to that child, and gives that child freedom -- even though it remains quite possible that the child, having free will, will abuse his/her freedom?

What you need to prove is that THERE CAN BE NO SUFFICIENT REASON for God to allow such creatures as we, free-will-having beings, to exist.
Can you do that?

Take your best shot.

I have already shown you the reason[/quote]
Actually, you have not. You have stated only that evil is bad, and good is good. You have not done anything to show that there are not goods that make it reasonable to permit the possibility of some evils in order for the good to come about.

A woman who has a baby (the good) will have to go through labour (the evil). An athlete who has a goal of winning a race (the good) will have to go through tremendous strain and muscular pain in order to do it (the evil). A person who wished to obtain a PhD (the good) will have to go through a series of test and defences, and spend long hours studying difficult subjects and writing long explanations (the evil) in order to achieve the goal.

The idea of their being some suffering, some bad things, some pains and afflictions that are worthwhile in view of the goal is a routine feature of our experience. It's obvious to us all.

So what is your certainty that there can be no good sufficient to offset the bad that you perceive in the world? You have not answered that question. Instead, you've recycled the same flawed argument -- namely, that you think there can be no reason why a good God could allow evil, even though ordinary human experience strongly suggests the contrary is at least plausible.

So you need to fix that feature of your argument.

-some theists will even kill non-theists if their theistic beliefs are threatened.

A silly argument. Theists are manifestly not all alike. How many Mennonites, or Quakers or Unitarians have ever done this?

So your argument is on the level of, "Some women butcher their babies in abortion clinics, therefore all women are murderers." Does that make any sense, even on the surface?

[Immanuel Can]

We do not have enough natural resources unless, right now, coronavirus kills most humans.

Totally untrue, B. Factually untrue, as a matter of fact: verifiably untrue. You've fallen for propaganda there.

We've long had enough food that nobody in the world should be starving. And we have vast new reserves of things like oil, that have been discovered in the last few years. For example, the US has recently gone from being a dependent importer of oil to having an excess supply. There's a lot more than we used to know, or to be able to access.

You seem be unaware of the apocalypse now happening.

Point it out to me.

Ruination of Amazon rain forest

That's a product of politics, not of overpopulation.

Women who are educated can and sometimes do a lot more than control their own conceptions!

Of course. Nobody said otherwise. But the environmentalist loonies often try to suggest that population cannot be naturally controlled by positive means. Like you, they think people may even need to die in order for the world to survive. They are factually quite wrong; population would come under control naturally, without any deaths, if we only took the very positive step of educating young women...and I don't mean "educating only in keeping their reproduction in check." What happens is that educated young women voluntarily make choices to prioritize their freedoms and financial advantages, including having fewer than two children each. Uneducated women are forced to be reproducers, because they have neither knowledge nor means to resist those who drive them into that role. They become victims.

So by helping young women become educated and free, we can control world population voluntarily, painlessly, without killing anyone. Why wouldn't you want that?

[Skepdick]

Totally untrue, B. Factually untrue, as a matter of fact: verifiably untrue. You've fallen for propaganda there.

We've long had enough food that nobody in the world should be starving.

Idiotic over-smiplification.

What good is it producing enough food in location A if you can't move this food to location B (where people are starving)?

Moving things from A to B is precisely a problem of finite resources. Transportation isn't free.

Just because I have 4 cows and you have 0 it doesn't mean we have 2 cows each.

[Immanuel Can]

Totally untrue, B. Factually untrue, as a matter of fact: verifiably untrue. You've fallen for propaganda there.

We've long had enough food that nobody in the world should be starving.

What good is it producing enough food in location A if you can't move this food to location B (where people are starving)?

It changes the problem.

It's not that we don't have enough food; it's that the distribution and allocation of it is unequal. But there are actually few nations today that, if they had peace and good government, would even need food aid. Sudan might; but a lot of others would never need it. In fact, a good many disrupted nations have vast agricultural lands and natural resources that could be parlayed into everything they need. Look at central and southern Africa, for example. Or consider Russia, before they killed off all their bread producers in the Ukraine.

The problem is really bad government. People still starve in rich nations when civil war, despotism, certain particular religions, or Communism are in charge.

[Belinda]

We do not have enough natural resources unless, right now, coronavirus kills most humans.

Totally untrue, B. Factually untrue, as a matter of fact: verifiably untrue. You've fallen for propaganda there.

We've long had enough food that nobody in the world should be starving. And we have vast new reserves of things like oil, that have been discovered in the last few years. For example, the US has recently gone from being a dependent importer of oil to having an excess supply. There's a lot more than we used to know, or to be able to access.

You seem be unaware of the apocalypse now happening.

Point it out to me.

Ruination of Amazon rain forest

That's a product of politics, not of overpopulation.

Women who are educated can and sometimes do a lot more than control their own conceptions!

Of course. Nobody said otherwise. But the environmentalist loonies often try to suggest that population cannot be naturally controlled by positive means. Like you, they think people may even need to die in order for the world to survive. They are factually quite wrong; population would come under control naturally, without any deaths, if we only took the very positive step of educating young women...and I don't mean "educating only in keeping their reproduction in check." What happens is that educated young women voluntarily make choices to prioritize their freedoms and financial advantages, including having fewer than two children each. Uneducated women are forced to be reproducers, because they have neither knowledge nor means to resist those who drive them into that role. They become victims.

So by helping young women become educated and free, we can control world population voluntarily, painlessly, without killing anyone. Why wouldn't you want that?

I wonder how it is you do not know too much food is being produced. Do you not know soya is being fed to pigs and cattle, soya that could be fed directly to humans?

Do you really not know the Amazon rain forest is being removed to grow soya to feed pigs and cattle?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really not know the Amazon rain forest is being removed to grow soya to feed pigs and cattle?

Of course. But the problem is political, not a question of resources. We don't need to be chopping down the rainforest. The land burned off is low-quality for farming, and the food produced by that means would be extraneous entirely if it were not for corrupt governments and lack of options for poor farmers.

If you don't fix the politics, you can't save the rainforest. Brazil runs by its own rules.