They don’t abjure sex, but the effect is the same:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

It’s hard for me to feel regret that this moron wants to end her line.

But here are some people that I’d hope would be even more proactive than the Shakers, and really get on with the job:

We endorse a more “healthy” hatred of humanity

When we went out to the White Sands monument, I was reading one of the signs about how life adapts to the shifting dunes. Yuccas apparently root themselves in the interdune area, planting roots deep to get at the underground aquifer. As the sand advances and starts to bury them, they grow ever higher, to keep their stalks in view of the sun. This continues for years until they may be only a couple feet above the top of the dune, with thirty feet of plant beneath. They persevere.

Until, that is, the dune continues to advance, removing the supporting sand from around the thirty-foot plant until it collapses of its own weight (somehow, the aspect ratio of the Ares I, of which I saw a model at Holloman today, comes to mind).

There’s a lesson there somewhere. I guess it’s “life sucks, and then you die.”

On that cheery note, I’m off to bed, so I can go watch Armadillo win the Lunar Landing Challenge in the morning. Or be surprised if they don’t.

Here are a bunch of folks discussing whether or not the universe has a purpose. I’m too busy to read it all right now, but I thought my readers might find it of interest. Without reading it, I was a little surprised that the “maybes” and “yeses” outnumbered the “no ways” or “unlikelies.” I think it does, but I recognize that it’s a (non-theistic, in my case) religious belief.

[Via the Derb]

I’m fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa’s confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn’t death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.

I’m fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa’s confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn’t death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.

I’m fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa’s confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn’t death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.

Phil Bowermaster has some thoughts on animal rights, as does Megan McArdle.

I would find it tough to give up eating mammals. I am bothered by eating pork, because pigs seem to be quite intelligent (though not enough to forgo it), but I have trouble working up much sympathy for cattle. I’m also a little off put by baby mammals (so I rarely eat lamb, and almost never veal), though that actually seems a little irrational to me. Just my own version of Leon Kass’ “yuck factor” I guess. And I have no problem with eggs, though I wouldn’t want to eat deep-fried chicks (even disregarding the inefficiencies of finding much meat amidst the bones and viscera). Anyway, as noted, forgoing all animal protein, as vegans do, is a very tough lifestyle to do healthily.

All these things, as Phil notes, are driven more by culture and innate tastes than any rational or ethical analysis. Many cultures have no problem with eating land-based arthropods (fried locusts, anyone), but I can’t stomach them unless they come from the water. And it’s not just the size.

I hope that we aren’t far from technology that allows a filet mignon to be grown in a vat, which will resolve a lot of these issues once and for all.

Dr. Helen has some thoughts. I’m with Mark Twain and Heinlein on this issue, myself. Every action we take is, ultimately, for ourselves, if for no other reason that it makes us feel good.

Michael Gerson somehow imagines that Second Life proves that libertarianism doesn’t work. Ramesh Ponnuru (no libertarian) points out the flaw in his “argument” (such as it is).

An interesting dust up between Leon Kass and Steven Pinker on the nature of the mind, and morality.

I think that, as is often the case in debates like this, that they are talking past each other, which is almost inevitable, given that they start with such profoundly different premises.

[Update early afternoon]

John Derbyshire (from whom I got the link) has further thoughts. I’m a little surprised that he’s surprised that Kass can have a nasty side, though.

[Update an hour or so later]

He also has some cogitations about consciousness.