Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Excited Penguin]

I think if we ever get to the point where forced sterilization is necessary we should start with people that have low IQ levels. Let the smart people have kids and let the stupid ones go extinct.

I was wondering when eugenics would make its appearance.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.
You know, just because the Nazis made bad use of Nietzsche, eugenics, fascism, warfare, the swastika, and a lot of other things, doesn't mean we shouldn't ever make use of them again.

[Pyrrho]

---

Mostly, I click on "Today's Posts" and look at all of the pages on that, and on "My Posts" and look at each page until I encounter a page in which I have no unread threads.

I used to look at each forum that interested me individually, and occasionally still do that, but it is now fairly rare.

---

I do exactly that, except for the unread threads part. You mean you look until you encounter a page on which there's no threads you haven't kept up with, right? Your wording here is a little misleading. But thanks a bunch for that, I'll implement that ASAP =D [And I suppose this is done so as to ignore threads in which you would have to necropost in order to participate in, right?]
I used to look at each forum a lot, also. I gave up pretty quick, though, upon others reinforcing this feature(tnx becca!). 

I mean when I click on "My Posts," I look at the first page and notice which threads have new posts and which do not.  I usually look at all of them with new posts.  I also look at page 2 (of "My Posts") to see if there are any threads there with new posts.  If there are none, then I do not look at page 3.  If there are, then I do look at page 3.

In the case of "Today's Posts," I look at all of the pages.  However, I do not look at all of the threads; I only look at the threads that have new posts that interest me.

I do this not so much out of a concern for necroposting, but to take a look at the titles of currently active threads, in case any will be of interest.  I usually visit this site every day, but not always.  

As for looking at "My Posts," presumably, I had some interest in the thread before or I would not have posted in it, and so I try to take a look at new developments.

Just to be clear, I am not making any recommendations for what you should do; I am merely answering your question and telling you how I presently go about using this site.  Whether someone else will come along with a suggestion that will change my mind on how to go about these things is something about which I make no prediction.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yup, seems like the next logical step, in this sort of thinking. Scary stuff, if you ask me.

And why do you think that is "the next logical step"?  It certainly was not in my mind when I created this thread, which was a reaction to your response to my post in your thread in which you focussed on what I suggested was a bad last resort to avoid catastrophe.

I can't speak for her, but it seems like the natural next step once you grant the government the power to determine who can reproduce, because that process will either be random and arbitrary, or it will have criteria.

Bureaucracies detest randomness, and will surely move to establish criteria. And while genetic fitness is not the only criteria I can conceive, it is the one which, I believe, would prove most alluring.

Mind you, I'm not thinking you support it.

[Catholic_Lady]

And why do you think that is "the next logical step"?  It certainly was not in my mind when I created this thread, which was a reaction to your response to my post in your thread in which you focussed on what I suggested was a bad last resort to avoid catastrophe.

I can't speak for her, but it seems like the natural next step once you grant the government the power to determine who can reproduce, because that process will either be random and arbitrary, or it will have criteria.

Bureaucracies detest randomness, and will surely move to establish criteria. And while genetic fitness is not the only criteria I can conceive, it is the one which, I believe, would prove most alluring.

Mind you, I'm not thinking you support it.

^This.

[Pyrrho]

And why do you think that is "the next logical step"?  It certainly was not in my mind when I created this thread, which was a reaction to your response to my post in your thread in which you focussed on what I suggested was a bad last resort to avoid catastrophe.

I can't speak for her, but it seems like the natural next step once you grant the government the power to determine who can reproduce, because that process will either be random and arbitrary, or it will have criteria.

Bureaucracies detest randomness, and will surely move to establish criteria. And while genetic fitness is not the only criteria I can conceive, it is the one which, I believe, would prove most alluring.

Mind you, I'm not thinking you support it.

I was thinking more in terms of limiting the number of children each person could have.  With the second option of the poll, the expressed goal is to prevent starvation, not to genetically engineer humanity.

The goal of eugenics could be introduced by a supporter of it in situations in which there is not a population problem.  Or it could be introduced when there is a population problem.  So I see it as a completely separate issue, not as a natural or logical extension of the ideas in the opening post.

[Excited Penguin]

I was wondering when eugenics would make its appearance.

Yup, seems like the next logical step, in this sort of thinking. Scary stuff, if you ask me.

It's only scary if you identify with the unborn ones*, which you shouldn't; they are, by definition, non-existent.
*I mean to say unconceived, though, as far as embryos go, they shouldn't matter either, as they can't really feel anything[as far as I know, that is; please correct me if I'm wrong about embryos. Anyway, my principle is this: don't care about it if it can't feel/know/think/grow(this means to say, if it can't develop without considerably endangering its own species in the process) or do any other thing considered human or even animal].

[KUSA]

I think if we ever get to the point where forced sterilization is necessary we should start with people that have low IQ levels. Let the smart people have kids and let the stupid ones go extinct.

I was wondering when eugenics would make its appearance.

Well it's better than the other way around.

[The Grand Nudger]

Genetic fitness wouldn't even enter into the equation.  Talk about high minded villainy, lol. I think we should shoot lower, how much money do you have in your wallet? That seems a more likely criteria.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can't speak for her, but it seems like the natural next step once you grant the government the power to determine who can reproduce, because that process will either be random and arbitrary, or it will have criteria.

Bureaucracies detest randomness, and will surely move to establish criteria. And while genetic fitness is not the only criteria I can conceive, it is the one which, I believe, would prove most alluring.

Mind you, I'm not thinking you support it.

I was thinking more in terms of limiting the number of children each person could have.  With the second option of the poll, the expressed goal is to prevent starvation, not to genetically engineer humanity.

The goal of eugenics could be introduced by a supporter of it in situations in which there is not a population problem.  Or it could be introduced when there is a population problem.  So I see it as a completely separate issue, not as a natural or logical extension of the ideas in the opening post.

I get what you're saying, but I'm simply pointing out that others are quite happy to treat that distinction as meaningless once we grant the government the power of sterilization, and I have no doubt at all that politicians would pander to the uncomfortably large segment of the electorate that is still, in this day and age, quite racist.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Malthus always has the last laugh.

Boru