Re: [pf] intelligence - more-needed now than in the past.

At 23:53 13/4/2001 -0700, Arnie wrote:
>... I feel that "intelligent partners" will know that to be globally
responsible they need to have NO biological children, in view of our excess
global population.  There are plenty of homeless children who can benefit
by being adopted by RESPONSIBLE parents.
>
· Note I didn't say all young women, in my PF post: 
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001II/msg00283.html

· I am quite certain that only /some/ “"intelligent partners" will know
that to be globally responsible they need to have NO biological children”.
  Leaving the ones I was talking about, likely the majority.

· And I don't think numbers (zero, 1, 1.7, or whatever) are useful to the
individual (that my note was aimed at). Our 3, for example, could be seen
as "wildly excessive" by a society in complete acceptance of the "1 child
per family" ethic, yet I would be willing to bet my life that those three
plus the one, two or three children they may (altogether) have, will be far
lighter on the earth, throughout their life, than 3 to 6 average people;
probably comparable to 1 or 2 average people, I'm guessing. (I'm thinking
of world average, here; I'm quite certain the 3 to 6 of them would be
living more sustainably than 1 average American.)

· I don't disagree with your pointing to being adoptive parents - that (or
foster parents) is probably the top option my daughter has, at least
currently. My wife did something related to that, when she was sponsoring a
Kenyan teenager through his secondary school (Starehe). He was top-equal in
his school years ago, from memory; she recently visited him and his wife
and child (I believe he's a doctor). They called their girl after her.


[Arnie: ]
>While in Australia recently there was considerable discussion about the
`importance' of "intelligent" (sometimes defined as "educated") people
having children. (the fertility rate is, I think, 1.7 per couple in AU).
At present it seems that the "intelligent/educated" people are delaying or
deciding not to have children.  IMHO therein lies WISDOM.
>
· I don't agree with the identification of: "intelligent" with: "educated",
though I agree that there is considerable overlap. The challenges I see,
and the problem-solving needed, are IMO more likely to be successfully
dealt-with by intelligent people as I described, almost-independent of what
formal education they've had. Intelligent people can teach themselves
(almost by definition), given suitable access to resources. Geoffrey Timms
saw the common University practice in his time of having an exam at the end
of the year, in that light. That is, the student had the option (which he
largely took) of teaching him/her self, and not "attending lectures",
"doing assignments", "taking frequent tests". The average person needs
these, but not everyone.

· However, if you were using "educated" in a more general sense, not
limiting it to the common meaning in nations where most people have fairly
easy access to tertiary education like the USA, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, then I would agree with you - one does need a useful combination
of /knowledge/, experience, and intelligence, to have the kind of opinions
that can be called wisdom. Such as the decision to have less than 3
children that you referred to.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVx3Cb
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: archive+pfvs@csf.colorado.edu

T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
==^================================================================