(May 29, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The implications of giving any government that sort of intrusive power are unacceptable regarding civil liberties.

Right.  I understand the problems with my suggestion, and I also understand why it will never be implimented; because humans are (naturally)selfish beings who value their own liberty over the life of any other thing on the planet.  They often value it over their OWN life.  I'm just looking at long term consequences of the freedom to have 12 kids that all live to be 80+ years old.  It isn't good, and it will take away the freedom of future generations to have things like, say, fresh water and...food. 

I still think it would be the right thing to do, but I realize most people would disagree with me. 

---

Let me be clear about someting real quck,then I need to go for a while.

I think everyone has the right to live their life the way they see fit, unless that way impinges on the safety or rights of others.  Having unlimited babies (19 kids and counting style, or even just 3 or 4), is impinging on everyone's right to have enough healthcare, food, water, etc to go around, therefore I think that right should be restricted or liscenced.

I can clarify more later, but I think that should explain why I think that specific right should not be protected the way other rights are.

I think it's better to address that with reasoning and economic opportunity, rather than legislation.

What you call "selfish", I call a natural right: the right to do what one will with one's own body.

Let me ask you: do you support abortion rights?

(May 29, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 1:40 pm)KUSA Wrote: Forced sterilization is kind of mean don't ya think?

Yes, it is.  But freedom has a price, and I'm not comfortable with the price of a mass extinction event.  That's just my personal opinion.

I think everyone should have the right to have 1-2 kids PER COUPLE, and after that, tough nuts. No more kids.

@cocunningham, I do think nature will take are of our overpopulation problem with something like what you have suggested, or some other fast spreading highly  deadly viral disease, but will it already be to late by then?

Instead of forced sterilization, governments could offer free sterilization and birth control to anyone who wants it.  Perhaps taxes could be lower for anyone who has between 0 and 2 children.  

(May 30, 2015 at 8:04 am)Nope Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Aroura Wrote: Yes, it is.  But freedom has a price, and I'm not comfortable with the price of a mass extinction event.  That's just my personal opinion.

I think everyone should have the right to have 1-2 kids PER COUPLE, and after that, tough nuts. No more kids.

@cocunningham, I do think nature will take are of our overpopulation problem with something like what you have suggested, or some other fast spreading highly  deadly viral disease, but will it already be to late by then?

Instead of forced sterilization, governments could offer free sterilization and birth control to anyone who wants it.  Perhaps taxes could be lower for anyone who has between 0 and 2 children.  

Even better: they pay you to get that shit tied up.

The justification offered for reproductive limits and compulsory sterilization is future resource scarcity...and yet those of us with just two children or less - no coercion involved..are the ones with the lion's share of the resource pie...whilst the unwashed masses with 20 child families barely get a bite and are not, thusly, contributing to that problem through sheer weight of numbers...as your suggestion would seem to imply.  

Your suggestion...btw, might be construed as a call to sterilize the poor.........just tossing that out there in case you hadn't considered it.

I think that we might want to allocate resources better, before we go to jotting down a number of kids a person can have before Uncle Sam waves a scalpel at their genitals.  

(May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: The justification offered for reproductive limits and compulsory sterilization is future resource scarcity...and yet those of us with just two children or less - no coercion involved..are the ones with the lion's share of the resource pie...whilst the unwashed masses with 20 child families barely get a bite and are not, thusly, contributing to that problem through sheer weight of numbers...as your suggestion would seem to imply.  

Your suggestion...btw, might be construed as a call to sterilize the poor.........just tossing that out there in case you hadn't considered it.

I think that we might want to allocate resources better, before we go to jotting down a number of kids a person can have before Uncle Sam waves a scalpel at their genitals.  

Additionally, I would like to know why people believe the slippery slope wouldn't apply to eugenics? Who decides what are desirable traits? Is it just intelligence? Physical Strength? Beauty) If it's intelligence, are IQ tests enough? Where do we start, and where do we stop? Should people lose the right to marry whoever they want if it violates the eugenics program? 

Quote:Actually, eugenics doesn't say anything about perfection. It only seeks to increase the strength and incidence of what is considered desirable genetic traits by those making the selection.

C'mon, eugenics and its proponents don't openly argue they want to create a perfect species, but that's the ultimate goal - Maybe not literal perfection, but to create a very desirable, superior, stronger and smarter species. Who decides what is desirable?

(May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your suggestion...btw, might be construed as a call to sterilize the poor.........just tossing that out there in case you hadn't considered it.

Meh. If someone would rather take advantage of the cash and obviously isn't committed to the idea of having children, then rich or poor, I see it as a win-win.

(May 30, 2015 at 11:48 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your suggestion...btw, might be construed as a call to sterilize the poor.........just tossing that out there in case you hadn't considered it.

Meh. If someone would rather take advantage of the cash and obviously isn't committed to the idea of having children, then rich or poor, I see it as a win-win.

I agree.  And I don't think people should be getting tax breaks for having children at all.  If anything, people should be taxed more for having children, but I think I would just leave it neutral for tax purposes.

(I do, however, think that education and health care should be provided free, which would be coming from general taxes, which is indirectly giving people money to have children.  But I don't think they should be given actual cash for having children.)

I think, though, that aside from getting a cash payment up front for being sterilized (with the payment being more, the younger you get it), that one should also be given a tax break for it, so it continues to be paying you year after year, as you are continuing to benefit society year after year.  If there is one thing the world does not need more of, it is people.

If we don't take care of overpopulation in a relatively nice way, it will be taken care of in very nasty ways, like starvation, wars over resources, etc.  So people who advocate doing nothing about the problem, are really advocating starvation and war for the future.  They may pretend that they are not doing that, but it is mere pretense.  Advocating something that causes something else, is essentially advocating that something else.  Overpopulation is something that has been studied with various animals, and the outcome is always very unpleasant.

(May 30, 2015 at 8:04 am)Nope Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Aroura Wrote: Yes, it is.  But freedom has a price, and I'm not comfortable with the price of a mass extinction event.  That's just my personal opinion.

I think everyone should have the right to have 1-2 kids PER COUPLE, and after that, tough nuts. No more kids.

@cocunningham, I do think nature will take are of our overpopulation problem with something like what you have suggested, or some other fast spreading highly  deadly viral disease, but will it already be to late by then?

Instead of forced sterilization, governments could offer free sterilization and birth control to anyone who wants it.  Perhaps taxes could be lower for anyone who has between 0 and 2 children.  

Incentives are probably a better way to go about it than force, I agree there.  This would be a good option.

And yes, I support abortion rights.  I realize people should not be forced to do things withtheir bodies, but we force people to wear helmets and seatbelts so idiots don't kill themselves.  I think offering free sterelization and birth control, plus tax incentives for less children are good ideas.

The probelm then, of course, comes when people decide to have 19 children anyway, and cannot support them. Then people will scream and cry that the tax incentive punishes the children, and they are right BTW, not the parents.  So I'm not sure how to best deal with that.

This is all pipe dreams anyway.  We WILL overpopulate the planet and only make changes once we pass the critical stage and things become dire.  That just seems to be how humans work.

---

(May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: The justification offered for reproductive limits and compulsory sterilization is future resource scarcity...and yet those of us with just two children or less - no coercion involved..are the ones with the lion's share of the resource pie...whilst the unwashed masses with 20 child families barely get a bite and are not, thusly, contributing to that problem through sheer weight of numbers...as your suggestion would seem to imply.  

Your suggestion...btw, might be construed as a call to sterilize the poor.........just tossing that out there in case you hadn't considered it.

I think that we might want to allocate resources better, before we go to jotting down a number of kids a person can have before Uncle Sam waves a scalpel at their genitals.  

This isn't just aimed at Americans, or rich people.  Although I agree that the west uses too many resources, that is tied right into our entitlement issues, which go hand in hand with this freedom to screw up the world notion so many westerners have.

And hey, poor people might have a bit more money if they didn't have 6 to 20 kids.  Yes, I'm being a bastard, but it's true.  Giving them the option to have less children, and a financial incentive to boot, as someone else suggested, might help lift them out of poverty.  Did you consider that?  I'm very poor by american standards (because I'm disabled) so I chose voluntary sterilization after just one child.  Because of just one child, we have been able to slowly improve our lives. If I'd continued to have more children, I expect I'd be one of the unwashed masses, as you say, by now.

But this is because I had the education and drive to do so.  Most people....dare I say because of religion? though also basic biology...are driven to have many children even when they cannot afford them and it drives them deeper into poverty.  I see it all around me.  A family with one child just getting by, but they are able to take good care of that child still.  Then they have another, and it now they require government assistance.  Then they have another, and they have to move into a smaller apartment, often in a high crime area, despite having a bigger family....and so forth and so on.


When given some education and financial incentives, maybe people would make better choices about how many children they should have.  IF they don't, should we force them?  I don't know.  I hate the idea, but I hate the idea of future generations inheriting a destroyed environment much more.  So it's hard for me.  

(Also, overpopulation in places like China, India and Indonisia ARE a problem, they cause more disease, and starvation for those people.  I'm not just taking about America or rich people, really I'm not, I'm talking about humanity as a whole, and how we all need to make more responsible choices about reproduction.

I'm not trying to be cavelier about any of this. I don't think it's an easy thing, and any decision we as a society make, including not addressing it at all, will have far reaching implications and consequences.

Obviously there are MANY other areas where we need to make more responsible choices as well, but this thread is about eugenics, not about western consumerism.

(May 30, 2015 at 12:30 pm)Aroura Wrote: ...

This is all pipe dreams anyway.  We WILL overpopulate the planet and only make changes once we pass the critical stage and things become dire.  That just seems to be how humans work.

Yes.  The future is going to involve lots of starvation and there will be wars over resources.  People are too stupid to avoid these obvious future outcomes.

It is ridiculous that people look for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  We have not found it on earth, so we have no reason to believe that intelligent life is even possible.

On the surface, eugenics is a good thing.  If we could remove all defectives genes from our gene pool, who could argue the bad in that?  As long as it is a voluntary 'breeding process' and not a 'killing spree', I see no real issue at this time.