Since I support the "right" for people to have abortions, commit suicide, defend themselves and their property with deadly force, Denmark's laws forcing the abortion of Down Syndrome babies, the death penalty, not wearing seat belts, and people fucking/smoking/drinking/drugging themselves into an early grave I think it would be hypocritical to not support forced sterilization...
We're basically talking about denying a future existence based on X for the possibility of a better human life experience. Sterilization is one method of achieving social goals that are in the best interest of the species. I mentioned Denmark earlier which is a fine illustration of how simply stopping the process of child birth can positively affect a population on many different levels. So, how can that happen?
- Less people means more food to go around. More food means less global suffering. Less global suffering means more human flourishing.
- Economic benefits could easily include reducing generational poverty, genetic disease that drains health systems, reduced homelessness, etc.
- It also helps solve many global climate change issues since less people require less "stuff" that needs to be manufactured.
- Making less stuff is better for the environment in which we must live. It pollutes less to make less stuff and less stuff means less garbage poisoning the environment. A better environment also promotes human flourishing.
- Sterilization takes a few generations to reduce a population, but it is actually pretty humane compared to the faster, more efficient method of just lining people up and shooting them. It also scores higher because, once met the policy can be abandoned.
I would gladly support a FAIR system of forced sterilization as long as it could be applied equally among a population and there was no way to get out of it. Unfortunately, that's far too unrealistic to entertain the notion seriously.
We're basically talking about denying a future existence based on X for the possibility of a better human life experience. Sterilization is one method of achieving social goals that are in the best interest of the species. I mentioned Denmark earlier which is a fine illustration of how simply stopping the process of child birth can positively affect a population on many different levels. So, how can that happen?
- Less people means more food to go around. More food means less global suffering. Less global suffering means more human flourishing.
- Economic benefits could easily include reducing generational poverty, genetic disease that drains health systems, reduced homelessness, etc.
- It also helps solve many global climate change issues since less people require less "stuff" that needs to be manufactured.
- Making less stuff is better for the environment in which we must live. It pollutes less to make less stuff and less stuff means less garbage poisoning the environment. A better environment also promotes human flourishing.
- Sterilization takes a few generations to reduce a population, but it is actually pretty humane compared to the faster, more efficient method of just lining people up and shooting them. It also scores higher because, once met the policy can be abandoned.
I would gladly support a FAIR system of forced sterilization as long as it could be applied equally among a population and there was no way to get out of it. Unfortunately, that's far too unrealistic to entertain the notion seriously.
