Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Pyrrho]

...

If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else. This is obviously the thing to do.

I have seen people post such sentiments before, but I do not agree at all.  There are things that are worse than dying, and there are things that are worse than the extinction of the human race (which, however, is not part of the poll, as millions of people starving to death does not necessarily entail human extinction).  I happen to think, though, that not having children is not one of them.  Some others seem to disagree.

Your having children doesn't mean anything at all if those same children will grow up to die of hunger or because of some other closely related factor one day.

Certainly, if one knows that one's children will starve to death, and one is able to not have them, then it does seem like it is less than a good idea to have them.  Apparently, though, several people believe that the right to have them anyway trumps such considerations.

My guess, though, is that they are not thinking of it that way, and are thinking of other people's children starving to death.  That, too, reveals interesting things about people.

We have rights, yes, but those rights don't mean anything in and of themselves. This is especially true if by having these rights you are giving up other, more important rights in the process[or if you are at the same time imposing on other people's rights]: like the right to live for example.

The idea of the relationship between one's rights and the rights of others is central to the question.  When rights come into conflict, it is interesting to see which rights different people regard as paramount, and even more interesting when they explain their reasoning on the subject.

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry. I still don't think that requiring vaccinations for kids who want to attend public schools in any way shape or form equates at all with the government stripping away a person's right to have children by permanently sterilizing their bodies by force.

I have just explained some similarities.  Are you saying that there are no similarities?

Of course, it is not exactly the same thing.  That is true of everything that has even a slight difference from other things.

It's not just not exactly the same thing. It's a worlds of difference. It's the difference between something minor and something extreme. This seems so basic, I am at a loss for words...

If the blue underlined line on your post stands alone as its own principle, all kinds of heinous things can be "justified."

Such as?  And how so?

...Such as having a government that takes people from their homes by force and sterilizes their bodies against their will, stripping them of their inherent right to have children as a way to "avoid starvation" due to overpopulation.

  Just because something being done in a small, relatively insignificant way is acceptable, doesn't mean the super extreme of it is acceptable. I shouldn't even need to argue or further explain this.

You mean you believe that everyone should just take your word for everything and just agree with you no matter what you say?  If not, then you do need to argue and explain.

You also have not answered the final question of that post.  Do you believe you have the right to cause other people to starve to death?  It is a simple 'yes or no' question.  But by all means, feel free to explain and elaborate your answer, if you wish.

I did not answer that question because it is a loaded question. If starvation happened in your scenario it would be a natural consequence of something that in and of itself has nothing to do with starvation: having the right to decide your own family size. It's not like I would be directly taking away a person's right to eat by having a kid. With that being said, I do think the right and responsible thing to do would be to plan your family size according to what's best for the world. But the government should have no business sterilizing people's bodies by force. As PT said, I would take my chances with the natural way of things than live in a world with such a government that is tyrannical enough that it treats its people like cattle and strips them of their humanity and basic rights.

And everything I just said here is a repeat of what I have already said. You asked for opinion, and I gave you mine. If you can't accept my answer then I don't know why you asked in the first place.

[Pyrrho]

... It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. ...

No.  If millions of people starve to death, that does not necessarily entail the extinction of the humanity.  The choice is between millions of people starving, and between people being forcibly made sterile.

This can be examined in terms of animal overpopulation.  When that occurs, then many individual members die of starvation and such things, but it does not necessarily mean that all of the members of that species die.

A brutal experiment could be done (which I hope no one does, but probably someone already has done something similar) with rats in a very large enclosure, with enough food for a thousand rats being delivered each day.  The rats would likely overbreed and exceed the food limit, with very nasty results.  The rats would likely fight and kill each other over food, and would also likely eat each other as well.  My guess is that this would not cause the rats to all die off, and, if that is correct, there would be no extinction, just a nasty, brutal existence for the survivors.  Eventually, perhaps, the rats would evolve to not overbreed, but unless and until that happened, there would be a very gruesome situation.

[Aoi Magi]

I voted for option 1, cause that is the best way to have them suffer and in turn corrupt their souls.


Anyway:
1) People in general are stupid, and illiterate/home-schooled people tend to be stupider. Plus it is human nature to do exactly what they are told not to do, so the second solution would simply fail if people don't understand the cause and yet are forced to obey.

2) Why do you think the population growth is much higher in third world countries and among the poorer circles of society? The simple answer is, it is more profitable for them. For example, more children means more income from child welfare grants., in places where child-labor is a thing, more children means more earning opportunities for the family, and so on.

Thus the easy solution to the problem is to let people take care of there own mess. When the government stops helping people rely on their children, and when it is made clear that having a educated child is much more beneficial than a horde of uneducated brats, people will instinctively change their ways.

[Pyrrho]

I have just explained some similarities.  Are you saying that there are no similarities?

Of course, it is not exactly the same thing.  That is true of everything that has even a slight difference from other things.

It's not just not exactly the same thing. It's a worlds of difference. It's the difference between something minor and something extreme. This seems so basic, I am at a loss for words...

You have not explained why you think it is dramatically different.  If someone forcibly injects you with something, do you not think that is a matter of great importance?  It would be to me.  I don't think people should have the right to inject other people with substances against their will unless there is a really, really good reason for it.  The same applies to other violations of bodily integrity.

You are not saying that it isn't a matter of importance if someone injects you with some substance against your will, are you?  And if it is a matter of importance, how is that so very different from another thing that is also a matter of importance, that also involves a violation of bodily integrity?

If someone came up with a way to sterilize people with an injection, would that make it acceptable to you in the hypothetical situation of the opening post?

Such as?  And how so?

...Such as having a government that takes people from their homes by force and sterilizes their bodies against their will, stripping them of their inherent right to have children as a way to "avoid starvation" due to overpopulation.

Try again.  You say that it is "all kinds of heinous things", yet you have only one example (which frankly, I find unconvincing).  Also, do you think you have the right to swing your arm into someone's nose?  Is it a fundamental right to move your arm any which way you please?  If not, then you really have a good deal of explaining to do to make your position intelligible.

You mean you believe that everyone should just take your word for everything and just agree with you no matter what you say?  If not, then you do need to argue and explain.

You also have not answered the final question of that post.  Do you believe you have the right to cause other people to starve to death?  It is a simple 'yes or no' question.  But by all means, feel free to explain and elaborate your answer, if you wish.

I did not answer that question because it is a loaded question. If starvation happened in your scenario it would be a natural consequence of something that in and of itself has nothing to do with starvation: having the right to decide your own family size. It's not like I would be directly taking away a person's right to eat by having a kid.

So you believe it is okay to indirectly take away someone's right to feed their children?  Their children starve either way, as a result of your action.  So why does it matter whether it is direct or indirect?

With that being said, I do think the right and responsible thing to do would be to plan your family size according to what's best for the world. But the government should have no business sterilizing people's bodies by force. As PT said, I would take my chances with the natural way of things than live in a world with such a government that is tyrannical enough that it treats its people like cattle and strips them of their humanity and basic rights.

And everything I just said here is a repeat of what I have already said. You asked for opinion, and I gave you mine. If you can't accept my answer then I don't know why you asked in the first place.  

I am trying to understand the principles upon which you are basing your judgement.  Also, I started asking you questions about your position when you claimed:

Excellent analogy.  Personal choice versus the effects on others.

I dunno... I think mandatory disease vaccinations for kids entering public school is a far cry from forcibly sterilizing people's bodies and taking away their right to have kids...

You have still not explained how the two are so very different.  You seem to simply expect everyone to agree with you on that, but that is obviously not the case, which should have been obvious before you made that claim, since two of us had already stated that we regarded them as similar.

Also, I did not ask you for that opinion (though I am not complaining that you gave your opinion on that).  But you are just wrong to say that I asked you anything at all about the matter of whether forced vaccinations was a proper analogy for the hypothetical of the opening post or not.

You chose to give an opinion about something which no one asked of you, and now I am wanting to understand your opinion that you volunteered.  You claim that they are very different, yet you have failed to explain the difference and have simply dogmatically claimed that they are very different.

[rado84]

I'm a glutton, so take a quick guess which option I voted for.

[Pyrrho]

---

This is difficult. Obviously it's a very extreme and specific scenario, which makes a lot of assumptions about there being no other workable solution, which seems extremely unlikely. That's fine with me, just making a note of that. I personally wouldn't like the government to force anything on anyone that isn't completely necessary. But needs must as the devil drives (!?). The government already forces a fair amount of stuff on us in the interests of society.

In this unthinkable state of affairs, I do think the analogy with vaccinations is somewhat valid. It would seem an obscene comparison in today's world, but the world in question is not today's world. Priorities can and must change. Refusing to accept the urgent need for action in the hypothetical is somewhat akin to theists refusing to answer questions about "what if God told you to kill". So in that spirit, I'll say the question is "as silly" as that perhaps, but I'll address it anyway.

If this was to be done, sterilisation as part of the birthing process would make the most sense, but it's not that straightforward because you have the males to consider. (See below.)

So I'm not sure yet, I'll give it more thought.

---

There is a bit of a problem though. When we say "people" are limited in how many children they can have, how is this counted? Most of you know by now... wait... Young children stop reading! You need a man and a woman in general to make a new human, but the woman parent gives birth to it (in the majority of cases, I'll ignore surrogates for the moment). Does this count towards an individual quota for both parents, or as a couple? If it's individual, we have the problem of the couple splitting up and then getting together with others. How do we make decisions then for the new couples? And of course, there would have to be a lot of DNA testing going on to prove individual qoutas, particular for the fathers, when they deny involvement.

If it's done regarding the couple, then we have problems too because couples break up. So this would have to default to individual quotas again unless we brand the mothers only.

Sorry for not responding earlier.  I will give you the same sort of response I gave earlier:

...
The story would have to be much more detailed to give definitive answers to those questions.  ...

How about this:  If you vote to force people to not have more children, you get to pick all of those things for yourself, in any way you like.  We can leave it that way for the purpose of the poll, and, if you wish, you can tell us how you would like these things to be arranged.

You might also be interested in this bit, which explains the origin of this poll:

---

This is motivated by posts in another thread.  Specifically, this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34562.html

My first post there:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34562-po...#pid987566

The question asked of me:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34562-po...#pid987573


In this thread, I have set it up specifically for the question raised there.  I would hope that the hypothetical of this thread would not happen.  As for how realistic it is, I do not know.  Some people seem determined to not use birth control, no matter what.  But I do not know what percentage of the population they represent, and consequently do not know how likely the hypothetical in the opening post is to actually occur.  But for the purposes of this thread, I do not care what the likelihood is.  It is simply a question of how such a situation should be dealt with, if it were to come about.

Indeed, I willfully made it idealized, in that I do not expect a single government of the world any time soon, but wanted to simplify the decision so that immigration was not an issue, and also to make it so that the decision would actually have the desired effect overall.  If, in the present world, one country curbs its population, that does not cause other countries to do likewise, and so the use of resources and effects on the environment and the likely starvation of many will not be stopped by the actions of one country in the world as it is now.

---

[Thumpalumpacus]

... It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. ...

No.  If millions of people starve to death, that does not necessarily entail the extinction of the humanity.  The choice is between millions of people starving, and between people being forcibly made sterile.

I find it hard to swallow any justification of the actual dehumanizing of people based on hypothetical fears of mass starvation or other results of overpopulation.

Mind you, I'm not saying overpopulation is not dangerous. I'm saying that I would vote "no" in the OP scenario because I think there are other, more humane ways to address the issue.

My apologies for extending it to species extinction. That clearly wasn't in there, and was me inserting my own reading. I'll be more careful next time.

[Jackalope]

Trying to separate the deontologists from the consequentialists?  I'll take my seat with the former.

Ultimately nothing can be right or wrong except through appeal to the desirability of its consequences.  To argue think something can be right or wrong in itself without regard to its global consequences is to shatter any pretense to relevance of the very concept of right or wrong.

"The ends justify the means" - agree, or disagree? (I happen to disagree, YMMV.)

[Excited Penguin]

This is my reply to Pyrrho.

---

There are things that are worse than dying

What things are worse than dying?

There* are things that are worse than the extinction of the human race 

Which things are worse than the extinction of the human race?

*I capitalized 't' in 'there' so as for the sentence to make sense out of context.

  (which, however, is not part of the poll, as millions of people starving to death does not necessarily entail human extinction)

Millions of people starving to death does not necessarily entail human extinction, as you have needlessly pointed out, it might though, and I think you agree, and that is why I brought it up.

  I happen to think, though, that not having children is not one of them.  Some others seem to disagree.

I agree also that not having children is not worse than dying/the extinction of the human race.

Certainly, if one knows that one's children will starve to death, and one is able to not have them, then it does seem like it is less than a good idea to have them.  Apparently, though, several people believe that the right to have them anyway trumps such considerations.

My guess, though, is that they are not thinking of it that way, and are thinking of other people's children starving to death.  That, too, reveals interesting things about people.

I agree completely.

The idea of the relationship between one's rights and the rights of others is central to the question.  When rights come into conflict, it is interesting to see which rights different people regard as paramount, and even more interesting when they explain their reasoning on the subject.

Again, I agree.

I have seen people post such sentiments before, but I do not agree at all.

I think, overall, we disagree only as far as we understand the word 'extinction' differently, which word was arguably used out of context by myself. Extinction is not necessarily a given state of things, it is also defined as a process. Or maybe I'm just not using it right.Anyway, forgive me for that. Let me then rephrase what I said about the extinction of humans, by declaring that the word[s] 'endangerement[of species]' should be read instead of 'extinction', wherever I used or made reference to this term.

---

Pyrrho, please inform me if you got the alert regardless of my hiding the bulk of my reply. I would like to find out if this technique works.