Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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].

What I find fearful is the willingness to permit the government to violate privacy in such a profound manner ... my fear has nothing to do with the unborn.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I think it is a bad thing, and not because of the connection with NaZis.

1) I disagree that any government should wield that sort of power at all over its own citizenry.

2) Such a program would almost certainly reduce the genetic diversity of the species, with results that are unforeseeable but potentially disastrous.

[Catholic_Lady]

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].

Just some clarification here in regards to the bolded.

A human is referred to as en embryo only for the first 2 months of his/her existence (may be different for other unborn animals, bur for humans it's 2 months). After that, he/she is referred to as a fetus until the time of birth. Once he is born, unless he is born very prematurely, he is referred to as an infant.

As for your feel/know/think/grow thing... 

Well, in regards to feel, experts say we were able to begin feeling pain at 4-5 months in the womb.

Know/think - It's impossible to know what goes on in the mind of fetuses and younger infants, and of course, none of us can recall when we were in that position. But studies do show that at 7 months in the womb, we do begin going into REM sleep, which is the sleeping stage where we dream.

Grow - Well, we are all growing non stop from the moment of conception until we finished puberty. We were growing especially fast when we were still in utero. So yes, unborn humans and other animals are growing.

Hope that helps!

[Minimalist]

KUSA Wrote: I think if we ever get to the point where forced sterilization is necessary we should start with people that have low IQ levels.

There won't be a republicunt left.

[IATIA]

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.

No more Einsteins or Michelangelos.  Low IQs can have high IQ kids and vice versa.

[Excited Penguin]

---

You might not die of old age. You might get treatment or medication to extend your life indefinitely.

Not going to happen.  I have a living will to eliminate that scenario or any others.

---

I still don't think you understood the scenario[you wouldn't have to die in any form or manner so that will couldn't really go into effect, by the way. You would just have to kill yourself to prevent something like what I'm talking about happening.]. I meant extend the kind of life you are living right now, not subsist as a vegetable. Though I can't see anything wrong with that either, seeing how it would be more like taking a long nap, with the possibility of being brought back to life one day and continuing to lead something resembling the old one, at least in spirit, whereas dying means no such thing. Well, maybe, and that's a big maybe, we will be able one day to bring back even the dead, with their old memories and everything, but that would be something of the very remote future[if I were to guess], one in which we'll be able to manipulate the fourth dimension, time, at will, as well as receive, comprehend, and make use of all of the remaining available information on any one subject[at least as far as it's relevant to the matter at hand]. Of course, if anything like that ever happens, you just know there's going to be some[or many] religious nut[s] claiming the bible was proved to be right once again[hopefully not though, let the Hitch be wrong about this].

---

---

Without the sun, we have no energy and the sun will die because it is out of fuel.  Will not be able to fix that

---

Everyone might not die when the sun "dies". We might prevent that from happening in the future, or we might protect ourselves from it happening while at the same time inventing a way to sustain ourselves without the help of natural sunlight, or we might even travel to a new sun. You just don't know, do you?
I'm saying we might prevent all that happening in the future. You just can't know that we won't.
Stop repeating yourself. I got what you think the first time you said it. Either get in line with my thinking, argue against it or go get checked for tardiness[and don't be late doing so, either].

---

---

Is that definitely the case, about the universe? Is it so sure a thing that there's absolutely no arguing about it? I doubt that.

Yes.

In the long run, humankind will be long gone anyway.

---

I still doubt that. I expect you to present me with some kind of proof/explaining. I won't just take your two-pennies-worth for it.
Again, I don't know that humankind will be long gone by then, and neither do you. Stop claiming shit you don't know.

---

---

Hope that helps!

---

It doesn't in the least!
I only ever asked you to correct me if I'm wrong about embryos feeling anything. I'm not.

---

A human is referred to as en embryo only for the first 2 months of his/her existence (may be different for other unborn animals, bur for humans it's 2 months). After that, he/she is referred to as a fetus until the time of birth. Once he is born, unless he is born very prematurely, he is referred to as an infant.  

---

What does that have to do with anything?

---

As for your feel/know/think/grow thing...  

Well, in regards to feel, experts say we were able to begin feeling pain at 4-5 months in the womb.  

---

Glad they do. What now?

---

Know/think - It's impossible to know what goes on in the mind of fetuses and younger infants, and of course, none of us can recall when we were in that position. But studies do show that at 7 months in the womb, we do begin going into REM sleep, which is the sleeping stage where we dream.  

---

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's impossible if there's no mind to speak of to begin with. You wouldn't say a sperm thinks, would you? Just so until anything resembling a brain appears.

---

Grow - Well, we are all growing non stop from the moment of conception until we finished puberty. We were growing especially fast when we were still in utero. So yes, unborn humans and other animals are growing. 

---

Thanks, Marie Curie, I knew all that. Except I never said I had anything against babies growing, in general. I only have something against antichrists, if you catch my drift? I guess you don't. Let me put it this way. If you know that a baby is going to be the next Hitler[well, that may not be the best example, seeing how your beloved church actually never denounced Hitler while he was in power, neither did they resist helping him in murdering jews], no matter what else you do about it, say, you wouldn't be as against avorting that baby as you would normally be, now, would you? Just so, if a hypothetical baby is supposed to be one too many in the natural equilibrium of things[populace/resources], you wouldn't have any choice but to stop that baby from ever being made. As it happens, it won't be just about one such baby past a certain point, but about many, many potential babies, and that's what this poll/thread is all about in the first place.
 

---

Just some clarification here in regards to the bolded. 

---

So, yeah, screw your clarification. I never asked for it.
Others mightn't, but I can see right through your scrawny behind.

---

---

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.

I think it is a bad thing, and not because of the connection with NaZis.

1) I disagree that any government should wield that sort of power at all over its own citizenry.

---

I don't. 

We might all catch a virus that makes us incredibly stupid and violent[oh, wait, that already happened over and over with the religious outbreaks]. What then? I would want for my government to watch my back. After all, that's what it's there for in the first place.

---

---

2) Such a program would almost certainly reduce the genetic diversity of the species, with results that are unforeseeable but potentially disastrous.

---

That I agree with. But only because I'm not a geneticist. And neither are you, I might add[unless you actually are].

Except, of course, I wouldn't wish for such a thing[disaster] to happen. We would have to be  pretty much 100% certain we understand everything there is to know about genetics before venturing in doing this sort of thing universally. Except we wouldn't do it universally at first, not by any stretch of the imagination. It would only be at the level of trials at the starting point. Then, given enough generations, maybe it would be deemed safe enough to try on the volunteering population. There is a lot to discuss here, but you can't deny that you can't deny people who would want to do this to themselves in an isolated environment, say, on the moon, or in a black hole[how should I know where?].

[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.

No more Einsteins or Michelangelos. 

---

Whatever do you mean, Sir? Do you mean to say we should strive to positively uniform intelligence and creativity on a massive scale, and if so, I agree and why doesn't your sentence end in an exclamation point?

---

  Low IQs can have high IQ kids and vice versa.

---

That's true[ I think]. Kusa is wrong about this. We should only kill...umm...-I mean- sterilize people who are proven to have too much stupid in the bloodline to be able to get rid of.
jk. I think anyone can be taught anything. Otherwise, I wouldn't be wasting my time with you people, that's for damn sure. 

[Ravenshire]

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...

Having kids if far more a a responsibility than a right and quite frankly one that many people simply are not up to.

[Catholic_Lady]

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...

Having kids if far more a a responsibility than a right and quite frankly one that many people simply are not up to.

It's both.


Edit to add: I agree there are a lot of people who have kids who would be better off not having them. But that doesn't mean I think the government should have the right to forcefully operate on people's bodies and sterilize them against their will. If they wanna have kids, they should still have the right to have them.

[Excited Penguin]

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].

What I find fearful is the willingness to permit the government to violate privacy in such a profound manner ... my fear has nothing to do with the unborn.

That's all very laudable, Glenn Greenwald, except I never addressed you. But, sigh, I will respond to this vapidity anyway. 


I never said I would be willing to let the government violate my privacy in any manner at all. Nor do I think anyone else did. But we can talk about it, if you like. -- Just start a thread on government surveillance. You'll get a load of me talking about that, mind you!

In a perfect world the government wouldn't fuck up... ever ... in any way, shape, or form. That's the only kind of world I'm willing to talk about, at least as far as these kinds of talks go. Keep that in mind.