Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Should Christians buy organic?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OldWiseGuy" data-source="post: 57935177" data-attributes="member: 139156"><p>There are ancient time-honored reasons for having large families; quickly expanding numbers for defense of territory, insuring against loss due to disease, famine, and war (consider this olde English planting rhyme, 'One (seed) for the buzzard, one for the crow, one to rot, and one to grow'); outnumbering rival families within your own society to gain wealth and political power, etc. All of these require the expansion of the food supply, usually agriculture based. Even today in America the rapidly growing Latino population is seen by their leaders as a future polical advantage over whites. The RCC for centuries encouraged large familys, and not entirely for upright reasons: they wanted more Catholics. (Imagine the pressure on some Latino communities by the RCC and by their political leaders to continue to have large families.) Every world empire encouraged fecundity in the lower classes as they supplied the workers, and the soldiers. Agriculture has been the means to these ends and was and still is being abused thereby. North Africa was the 'breadbasket of the Roman Empire'. Today it is a desert............. You are correct that prosperity reduces the need for large families, and conversly, smaller families reduce the need for 'prosperity'; prosperity gained at the cost of the health of not only the soil but the people as well. Also consider that because of technology we need fewer people to do what it took many to do in the past. This means we need less land for cultivation, not more. We cultivate more land because of the large export market, and non-food uses of grains; mainly ethanol. If all the cropland were converted to organic we would still produce more than we consume, and have plenty left for exports.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OldWiseGuy, post: 57935177, member: 139156"] There are ancient time-honored reasons for having large families; quickly expanding numbers for defense of territory, insuring against loss due to disease, famine, and war (consider this olde English planting rhyme, 'One (seed) for the buzzard, one for the crow, one to rot, and one to grow'); outnumbering rival families within your own society to gain wealth and political power, etc. All of these require the expansion of the food supply, usually agriculture based. Even today in America the rapidly growing Latino population is seen by their leaders as a future polical advantage over whites. The RCC for centuries encouraged large familys, and not entirely for upright reasons: they wanted more Catholics. (Imagine the pressure on some Latino communities by the RCC and by their political leaders to continue to have large families.) Every world empire encouraged fecundity in the lower classes as they supplied the workers, and the soldiers. Agriculture has been the means to these ends and was and still is being abused thereby. North Africa was the 'breadbasket of the Roman Empire'. Today it is a desert............. You are correct that prosperity reduces the need for large families, and conversly, smaller families reduce the need for 'prosperity'; prosperity gained at the cost of the health of not only the soil but the people as well. Also consider that because of technology we need fewer people to do what it took many to do in the past. This means we need less land for cultivation, not more. We cultivate more land because of the large export market, and non-food uses of grains; mainly ethanol. If all the cropland were converted to organic we would still produce more than we consume, and have plenty left for exports. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Should Christians buy organic?
Top
Bottom