Contraception and Population

There is an opinion I hold on contraception which I thought was pretty radical. I mentioned it to someone I knew some years ago and he said it was unrealistic. But recently I mentioned it to another friend, and she seemed to think that people might be interested in it. So here it is. Instead of telling our young people to remove their heads from nude selfies how about we suggest that intercourse should be for procreation only? If life is precious, is not the creation of life just as precious? Has not our treating sex as a pleasurable entertainment led to all sorts of problems? Including a generation of young people increasingly addicted to porn (apparently)? What have we got to lose? Better intimate relationships, more beautiful and meaningful intercourse, and such relationships more likely to be between people who really love each other? Now I am not suggesting that everyone will be able to live up to the standard, but I am suggesting that the standard should be held up as an aspiration. It will have other benefits too - we will not need the pill, and thus stop the estogen polution that is building up in our waterways. Also it should reduce the production of condoms and the waste products associated with that. Now I know that in the past the Catholic church held this ideal and it led to large families. But I think that is because Irish Catholics and others were obeying the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. The idea is that sex is not used as means of simply gaining pleasure, but only when there is a genuine desire to procreate. This does not mean having sex continuously and simply not using contraception. Now my friend had some ideas of her own. She suggested that people who could not support children should not be having them. I think she was suggesting that there is an unhealthy link between welfare payments and child rearing in our society. Anyway, what she is suggesting is not unheard of, not so long ago a man could not get married (and thus not have children) until he had demonstrated he had the means to care for his wife and family. There is of course a danger in this, that only the wealthy will be able to breed, so it does require a reasonable level of income equality and opportunity to work. But my friend also suggested the reverse. That people who can raise a family well, and provide for them should. This suggestion was that some well-off people spend their resources on pleasures (e.g travel) and leading a hedonistic lifestyle, when they should be reinvesting those resources into the next generation. Anyway, those are some thoughts on how we might move towards managing global population sustainably into the future with the side-effect of dealing with some pressing social and environmental problems at the same time.

About Mandatory Internet Filtering

Mandatory Internet Filtering has been proposed as a way to supposedly prevent the exploitation of women by preventing or, at least controlling, access to pornography. It is presumed that (1) all pornography is degrading to women; and (2) that mandatory filtering will end or, at least, drastically reduce the availability of pornography. Given the increase in the trafficking of heroin and other illegal drugs after the decades long "War on Drugs", it seems no less likely that a ban on Internet pornography will be end of pornography. Rather, it will make it more costly and give more business opportunities for gangsters as has occurred with narcotics drugs as a result of its criminalisation.

Links to web-sites and pages about Internet Filtering



(23/7/14) includes YouTube
(10/7/14) by Bryan McDonald
(12/3/13, includes video),
(12/3/13, includes video),

From , Candobetter

The articles below describe attempts by the Australian government to use the claim, that all pornography degraded and exploited women, as a pretext to give the government power to filter all of our Internet usage. The government came much closer to success than it otherwise would have been able to, as a result of support for Internet Freedom by , author of "Silencing Dissent" (2007). They no doubt counted that vocal support from an ostensible supporter of free speech would reassure many who would otherwise be concerned about an attempt by government to control the flow of information through the Internet. The proposal aroused furious public opposition. Articles about this on include:

(22/8/09) by James Sinnamon, (21/8/09) by , (7/5/09) by Catherine Manning, (2/12/08), (21/8/09), a press release by Greens Senator

The outcome, as described in the Wikipedia article , is somewhat ambiguous. Much of the flow of Internet traffic is still free, but some is also subject to filtering and a number of web-sites have been by the Federal Government. The Federal Liberal/National coalition government which had previously voted down attempts by Labor Senator Stephen Conroy to introduce the filter, now appears to be moving towards mandatory filtering. For further information, please see the of . Articles include:

(6/9/13), (6/9/13), (5/6/13), (31/5/13), (28/5/13), (17/5/13), (16/5/13), (11/9/12), (27/5/11), (3/2/11).


includes YouTube

Appendix: articles about the United States' alleged "war on drugs"

– Global Research (Jun 2014), (May 2014) – RT, – RT Op-Edge (Apr 2014), – Global Research (Sep 2006), (Apr 2014) – VoltaireNet, – Information Clearing House (22/3/14) , (6/3/14) on – re-published from , (Nov 2013), (Oct 2013) – Global Research, (May 2010) – Global Research, – Global Research (Apr 2007), – VoltaireNet, by F. William Engdahl, (21/9/06) by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, , .