The family: a proclamation to the world

[Truth in love]

Thanks. The article looks interesting, although it doesn't cite the scientific studies it refers to, neither does it appear to address some of the questions I raised.

That being said here are some preliminary thoughts on the article given that I'm pressed for time.

-It is reffering to feeding 10 billion, if each couple had 6 to 7 children (i personally know a JW couple that have 14) how long do you think it would take to easily get to 20 or 30 billion?

-The article states, 'The real threat is not that the earth will run out of land topsoil or water but that nations will fail to pursue the economic trade and research policies that can increase the production of food and limit environmental damage.'
So isn't it putting the cart ahead of the horse to say let's reproduce first and solve present problems later? Shouldn't we persuade the governments to pursue the relevant policies first then reproduce when the present problems are solved?

- again from your article, 'Malnutrition afflicts 700 million people because poor nations do not have enough money to buy food.' Given that you are opposed to mandatory redistribution of wealth and Christianity has failed over the past 2000 years to adequately redistribute wealth shouldn't we solve the present hunger problems before adding more mouths to feed?


True, and Christianity has certainly been a mixed bag in the extent to which it reduces or increases suffering.


No they didn't (note my use of hitches razor applied to your empty claim)

In my opinion

1. Human can produce more resources than they consume.

Thanks. The article looks interesting, although it doesn't cite the scientific studies it refers to, neither does it appear to address some of the questions I raised.

That being said here are some preliminary thoughts on the article given that I'm pressed for time.

-It is reffering to feeding 10 billion, if each couple had 6 to 7 children (i personally know a JW couple that have 14) how long do you think it would take to easily get to 20 or 30 billion?

-The article states, 'The real threat is not that the earth will run out of land topsoil or water but that nations will fail to pursue the economic trade and research policies that can increase the production of food and limit environmental damage.'
So isn't it putting the cart ahead of the horse to say let's reproduce first and solve present problems later? Shouldn't we persuade the governments to pursue the relevant policies first then reproduce when the present problems are solved?

- again from your article, 'Malnutrition afflicts 700 million people because poor nations do not have enough money to buy food.' Given that you are opposed to mandatory redistribution of wealth and Christianity has failed over the past 2000 years to adequately redistribute wealth shouldn't we solve the present hunger problems before adding more mouths to feed?


True, and Christianity has certainly been a mixed bag in the extent to which it reduces or increases suffering.


No they didn't (note my use of hitches razor applied to your empty claim)

In my opinion

On the abuse issue When there is an explicit right and you go out of your way to deny it that is abuse.
California made it illegal to have an outside restaurant unless you made moves then you were okay. The ordered churches closed and let strip clubs stay open. (the former being legally protected).


Now onto your worries about the population. I did a quick check on a few things. The population is not a worry.


We waste a lot of food:

How Much Corn To Make A Gallon Of Ethanol? - Corn farm (net energy loss) (13.9 Billion gallons a year)

How Many Gallons Of Ethanol Per Acre Of Corn? - Corn farm (426 gallon per acer)

A little math we are burning 32,629,107 acres of corn per year that could be used to feed people.

Millions of farm animals culled as US food supply chain chokes up Our covid freak out destroyed massive amount of food supply.

U.S. Fertility Rate 1950-2022



The Biden administration will pay farmers more money not to farm



Oh and hey lets pay to keep 21 million acres from being used to farm. That will help a poor.

The US is sitting at about 1.7 births per couple. You need about 2.2 to keep the population where it is. So even when a couple has 8 or every 22 kids the average births over all are still way low in most of the developed world.

Births, Australia, 2020

“For all Australian women, the total fertility rate was 1.58 births per woman.”

The over population myth is not a fact, not a real threat and frankly not even close to being support by actual data.



There is no near by hard cap on the food we can produce to feed people. We do have bad government, gangs, greed and laziness getting in the way. But the cold hard reality is that we have the tech and ability to feed everyone. WE do need to use it.

 

[danieldemol]

1. Human can produce more resources than they consume.

Assertion without evidence.

...I did a quick check on a few things. The population is not a worry.


We waste a lot of food:

How Much Corn To Make A Gallon Of Ethanol? - Corn farm (net energy loss) (13.9 Billion gallons a year)

How Many Gallons Of Ethanol Per Acre Of Corn? - Corn farm (426 gallon per acer)

A little math we are burning 32,629,107 acres of corn per year that could be used to feed people.

Except that you are completely ignoring that there are reasons why we are using ethanol. Reasons include renewability, offsetting the environmental impacts of non-renewable fuels, national security. For a fuller explanation see link: Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Benefits and Considerations
Again though even if there were no benefit to ethanol, it would take time to end it's usage, and would be putting the cart ahead of the horse to increase the population level *before* ending its usage.

Millions of farm animals culled as US food supply chain chokes up Our covid freak out destroyed massive amount of food supply.

Calling 1.01 million deaths in the US a "freakout" comes across as irresponsible, and guess what, the more dense the population is the more risk of infectious disease spreading. Population increase causes population density increase.

The Biden administration will pay farmers more money not to farm

Oh and hey lets pay to keep 21 million acres from being used to farm. That will help a poor.

From your link;
'The goal is to add 4 million acres of farmland to the Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production to blunt agriculture’s environmental impact.

The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would expand a program that pays farmers to leave land fallow, part of a broader, government-wide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030.'

Considering that you don't seem to think this is an important reason for doing it I can only assume this means you are unfamiliar with the negative effects that climate change has on not only the poor but farmers as well (think of the effects of droughts and flooding, as well as the millions of poor people that will be displaced by rises in the ocean level).

U.S. Fertility Rate 1950-2022

The US is sitting at about 1.7 births per couple. You need about 2.2 to keep the population where it is. So even when a couple has 8 or every 22 kids the average births over all are still way low in most of the developed world.

Births, Australia, 2020

“For all Australian women, the total fertility rate was 1.58 births per woman.”

I'm sorry but those figures are the result of effective population control policy/strategy and measures in place. To use them to argue for an unchecked population growth policy is illogical in the extreme.

There is no near by hard cap on the food we can produce to feed people. We do have bad government, gangs, greed and laziness getting in the way. But the cold hard reality is that we have the tech and ability to feed everyone. WE do need to use it.

Even if that were the case (which is highly doubtful for the reasons outlined above) solving all those problems would not be an overnight change, and increasing the population before these problems are solved would result in disaster for hundreds of millions of people worldwide and a great number of people in the US as well.

On the abuse issue When there is an explicit right and you go out of your way to deny it that is abuse.

There is no explicit right to harm others.

California made it illegal to have an outside restaurant unless you made moves then you were okay. The ordered churches closed and let strip clubs stay open. (the former being legally protected).

I suspect there of being a typo in there again (unless you made moves?).
I don't know the reason (if any) for preventing churches from having indoor services in California (they were allowed to have outdoor services), whilst allowing strip clubs to have indoor services so I won't defend it or even comment on it.

In my opinion.

 

[Truth in love]

Assertion without evidence.

I
Except that you are completely ignoring that there are reasons why we are using ethanol. Reasons include renewability, offsetting the environmental impacts of non-renewable fuels, national security. For a fuller explanation see link: Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Benefits and Considerations
Again though even if there were no benefit to ethanol, it would take time to end it's usage, and would be putting the cart ahead of the horse to increase the population level *before* ending its usage.


Calling 1.01 million deaths in the US a "freakout" comes across as irresponsible, and guess what, the more dense the population is the more risk of infectious disease spreading. Population increase causes population density increase.


From your link;
'The goal is to add 4 million acres of farmland to the Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production to blunt agriculture’s environmental impact.

The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would expand a program that pays farmers to leave land fallow, part of a broader, government-wide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030.'

Considering that you don't seem to think this is an important reason for doing it I can only assume this means you are unfamiliar with the negative effects that climate change has on not only the poor but farmers as well (think of the effects of droughts and flooding, as well as the millions of poor people that will be displaced by rises in the ocean level).



I'm sorry but those figures are the result of effective population control policy/strategy and measures in place. To use them to argue for an unchecked population growth policy is illogical in the extreme.



Even if that were the case (which is highly doubtful for the reasons outlined above) solving all those problems would not be an overnight change, and increasing the population before these problems are solved would result in disaster for hundreds of millions of people worldwide and a great number of people in the US as well.


There is no explicit right to harm others.


I suspect there of being a typo in there again (unless you made moves?).
I don't know the reason (if any) for preventing churches from having indoor services in California (they were allowed to have outdoor services), whilst allowing strip clubs to have indoor services so I won't defend it or even comment on it.

In my opinion.

Assertion without evidence.


Except that you are completely ignoring that there are reasons why we are using ethanol. Reasons include renewability, offsetting the environmental impacts of non-renewable fuels, national security. For a fuller explanation see link: Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Benefits and Considerations
Again though even if there were no benefit to ethanol, it would take time to end it's usage, and would be putting the cart ahead of the horse to increase the population level *before* ending its usage.


Calling 1.01 million deaths in the US a "freakout" comes across as irresponsible, and guess what, the more dense the population is the more risk of infectious disease spreading. Population increase causes population density increase.


From your link;
'The goal is to add 4 million acres of farmland to the Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production to blunt agriculture’s environmental impact.

The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would expand a program that pays farmers to leave land fallow, part of a broader, government-wide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030.'

Considering that you don't seem to think this is an important reason for doing it I can only assume this means you are unfamiliar with the negative effects that climate change has on not only the poor but farmers as well (think of the effects of droughts and flooding, as well as the millions of poor people that will be displaced by rises in the ocean level).



I'm sorry but those figures are the result of effective population control policy/strategy and measures in place. To use them to argue for an unchecked population growth policy is illogical in the extreme.



Even if that were the case (which is highly doubtful for the reasons outlined above) solving all those problems would not be an overnight change, and increasing the population before these problems are solved would result in disaster for hundreds of millions of people worldwide and a great number of people in the US as well.


There is no explicit right to harm others.


I suspect there of being a typo in there again (unless you made moves?).
I don't know the reason (if any) for preventing churches from having indoor services in California (they were allowed to have outdoor services), whilst allowing strip clubs to have indoor services so I won't defend it or even comment on it.

In my opinion.

That fact that we are not living in cave as hunter gathers tells us that people produce more than they consume.



On the ethanol issue if you noticed the little bit about hos much it costs in terms of energy ethanol take more energy to make than it produces. (Now it’s a heck of a deal for the corn famer), but it does not make energy.

You mentioned 3 major points:

“renewability” it renewable just not net power

“environment” The resources that are spent in terms of the steel refining, rubber processing etc. to make negative power end any environmental gain.

“national security.” A net energy loos does not improve national security.



Covid was a problem.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

In Peru, Ivermectin cut covid deaths by 75% in 6 weeks: cheap, safe and quite ignored

Not saying that we would have had 0 deaths, but it the medical system on the US actually did their best to save lives, not send money to big pharma and try to oust Trump we likely would have had death tools of 20-30% of what we did. So around 200-300k. Now that is worse than the flu (Burden of Influenza , but not off the charts bad.



On the issue of climate change I’ve studied it for over 20 years. The short answer is that I already have a religion. The science is a joke nearly always. The frauds that have been committed, the cover ups etc. prevent me from trusting the “experts”. I’m all for trying to limit pollution, plant trees etc. but the climate alarmism is not scientific.

On the issue of births. The fact that the birth rate is low and declining was in response to your concern about the couple with 14 kids.



There are (at least in the US) explicit rights to religious freedom and to assemble. Most governors in the US attacked this. The exact levels varied widely.



Movies*

In short the threat to the world is not extra babies. We can and should try to produce more food, expand opportunity for people to work and to get everyone out of poverty. If you wish to believe in climate alarmist ideas I respect your right to do, but I'll not join you in it.

 

[danieldemol]

On the ethanol issue if you noticed the little bit about hos much it costs in terms of energy ethanol take more energy to make than it produces. (Now it’s a heck of a deal for the corn famer), but it does not make energy.

You mentioned 3 major points:

“renewability” it renewable just not net power

'Figures compiled in a 2007 National Geographic Magazine article [1] point to modest results for corn ethanol produced in the US: 1 unit of energy input equals 1.3 energy units of corn ethanol energy. The energy balance for sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil is much more favorable, 1 to 8. Over the years, however, many reports have been produced with contradicting energy balance estimates. A 2006 University of California Berkeley study, after analyzing six separate studies, concluded that producing ethanol from corn uses marginally less petroleum than producing gasoline.[2]'

Source: Ethanol fuel energy balance - Wikipedia
And I note you haven't even considered the benefit of having renewability as opposed to being a limited supply.

“environment” The resources that are spent in terms of the steel refining, rubber processing etc. to make negative power end any environmental gain.

How do those end the reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and how do those items compare for petroleum production?

'The carbon dioxide released by a vehicle when ethanol is burned is offset by the carbon dioxide captured when the feedstock crops are grown to produce ethanol. This differs from gasoline and diesel, which are refined from petroleum extracted from the earth. No emissions are offset when these petroleum products are burned. On a life cycle analysis basis, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced on average by 40% with corn-based ethanol produced from dry mills, and range between 88% and 108% if cellulosic feedstocks are used depending on feedstock type, compared with gasoline and diesel production and use.'

“national security.” A net energy loos does not improve national security.

That would also be a strawman, reducing reliance on foreign oil imports improves national security.

Covid was a problem.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

In Peru, Ivermectin cut covid deaths by 75% in 6 weeks: cheap, safe and quite ignored

Not saying that we would have had 0 deaths, but it the medical system on the US actually did their best to save lives, not send money to big pharma and try to oust Trump we likely would have had death tools of 20-30% of what we did. So around 200-300k. Now that is worse than the flu (Burden of Influenza , but not off the charts bad.

I can agree that the government should prioritise invermectin introduction.

As far asTrump goes, Trump's lies on the coronavirus where hampering the ability of medical experts to encourage necessary shutdowns, what did you expect their response to be? (reference: All the President’s Lies About the Coronavirus )

On the issue of climate change I’ve studied it for over 20 years. The short answer is that I already have a religion. The science is a joke nearly always.

I expected that this was the root cause of much of our disagreement. You prefer religion to science, I prefer science to religion. I guess that leaves us with not much to discuss except for me to offer that science is self-correcting whereas religion tends to only do the minimum necessary change to prevent the loss of it's followers - and that too begrudgingly.

In my opinion.

 

[Truth in love]

'Figures compiled in a 2007 National Geographic Magazine article [1] point to modest results for corn ethanol produced in the US: 1 unit of energy input equals 1.3 energy units of corn ethanol energy. The energy balance for sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil is much more favorable, 1 to 8. Over the years, however, many reports have been produced with contradicting energy balance estimates. A 2006 University of California Berkeley study, after analyzing six separate studies, concluded that producing ethanol from corn uses marginally less petroleum than producing gasoline.[2]'

Source: Ethanol fuel energy balance - Wikipedia
And I note you haven't even considered the benefit of having renewability as opposed to being a limited supply.


How do those end the reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and how do those items compare for petroleum production?

'The carbon dioxide released by a vehicle when ethanol is burned is offset by the carbon dioxide captured when the feedstock crops are grown to produce ethanol. This differs from gasoline and diesel, which are refined from petroleum extracted from the earth. No emissions are offset when these petroleum products are burned. On a life cycle analysis basis, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced on average by 40% with corn-based ethanol produced from dry mills, and range between 88% and 108% if cellulosic feedstocks are used depending on feedstock type, compared with gasoline and diesel production and use.'


That would also be a strawman, reducing reliance on foreign oil imports improves national security.


I can agree that the government should prioritise invermectin introduction.

As far asTrump goes, Trump's lies on the coronavirus where hampering the ability of medical experts to encourage necessary shutdowns, what did you expect their response to be? (reference: All the President’s Lies About the Coronavirus )


I expected that this was the root cause of much of our disagreement. You prefer religion to science, I prefer science to religion. I guess that leaves us with not much to discuss except for me to offer that science is self-correcting whereas religion tends to only do the minimum necessary change to prevent the loss of it's followers - and that too begrudgingly.

In my opinion.

I’ve had very different experience with both science and religion. Anyhow peace.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

So I have in no way acted up to the standards that I shouldn't be judged for bad posts but this seems like a really important thing to post anyway.

This is out of 1995 and many people are discussing this now; so here you go and thank you for reading:

The Family

A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Good stuff.

 

[paarsurrey]

The family: a proclamation to the world

So I have in no way acted up to the standards that I shouldn't be judged for bad posts but this seems like a really important thing to post anyway.

This is out of 1995 and many people are discussing this now; so here you go and thank you for reading:

The Family

A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

" The family: a proclamation to the world "

Kindly quote from Jesus in this connection, please. Right?

Regards

 

[robocop (actually)]

The family: a proclamation to the world

" The family: a proclamation to the world "

Kindly quote from Jesus in this connection, please. Right?

Regards

We believe in modern revelation, personally to the church and to the world. Jesus told Peter on this rock would he build His church. That rock was revelation it was revealed to Peter.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human advice life said a human thinker was mutual. Created equally first in life on gods earth.

Hence in that exact mutual equal human thinking position you are not allowed to thesis anything.

No stories allowed.
No status allowed either.

As we're natural balanced with nature said just a human telling a humans story.

Life originally before satanic machine human thinking sciences.

So you don't own any personal control or status as a human.... as nature did.

Exact humans advice. Balances natural.

So no lord terms existed actually which is a termed hierarchy.

Lord of trade. Lord in government...not nature balances. To over Lord. Was by nuclear sciences.

Nuclear sciences changed heavens gases

Immaculate. And water oxygenated life at ground. Natural light the flame way above our heads in vacuum void. Exact.

No over Lord term.

Ask a basic human question. Who invented human sciences by machines as a nuclear dust held at ground state only reaction?

The over Lord men had.

Why you are wrong trying to order nature to be natural and balanced again. As it cannot.

Men changed life bio and consciousness is an exact teaching. All changed human babies bore the sins of the adult parents who supported the sciences.

Which just about every human order uses daily...human technology.