Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and if the government did the whole population control thing -right-...no fuck ups, no corruption, it would -still- be an immense violation.  That's what makes it a sticky issue, not an issue of efficiency and accurate accounting. If the government were a bunch of good guys in white hats, population control itself, as an idea, won't have moved an inch from where it is now. It's just a better class of bullies at the wheel of the -same- idea, lol.

[Catholic_Lady]

-and if the government did the whole population control thing -right-...no fuck ups, no corruption, it would -still- be an immense violation.  That's what makes it a sticky issue, not an issue of efficiency and accurate accounting.  If the government were a bunch of good guys in white hats, population control itself, as an idea, won't have moved an inch from where it is now.  It's just a better class of bullies at the wheel of the -same- idea, lol.

Well said.

[Thumpalumpacus]

---

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?].

Well, one need not be a practicing geneticist to make such points. My point about genetic diversity is knowledge available to anyone with some college-level biology education. And it seems obvious to me that eugenics is going to cull genetic diversity, given its stated purpose.

We'll have to disagree about the proper role of government. I don't find your mention of the religious threat very compelling as an argument-by-analogy. Simply because an entity may serve one purpose well is no reason to grant it overweening power in another, unrelated issue.

[Clueless Morgan]

  2) Force people to not reproduce as much as they wish (i.e., people who reproduce will be forcibly made sterile).

You've already stated that every other method of trying to bring population levels under control have failed, why would you think threatening people with sterilization if they reproduce would be the magic bullet solution to bringing population levels under control? Without some sort of idea in mind of when the sterilization program would be lifted (a sustainable population size), and measures in place to make sure those measures are implemented when that number is reached (as presumably it would take at least many, many decades if not more than a century or two), I see bad things happening as a result of this.

Since it's obvious you are looking for the pragmatic solution to ensure our survival in the long run, why not simply execute half of the population, specifically old people and others that we don't need in society? I mean, it's cheaper than the technology, funds and investment necessary to control who reproduces and it's not like we are concerned about morality, right?

Kinda makes sense if you're talking pure pragmatics and not the moral question of killing versus sterilizing versus starvation. If all you're after is a lower population, then the thing to do would be to immediately kill half the population -or whatever percentage would be required to bring the population under control. Demands on resources would immediate drop, there would be, probably, and over abundance of food at that point, and you wouldn't have to wait for people to die of natural causes which could take years to happen, and in the meantime they continue to consume resources.

Of course, that would be insanely immoral, IMO... (unless, by some freak occurrence, you get a whole spat of volunteers for the slaughter... )

I suppose my bottom line would be that if I were the deciding vote, I don't know that I could vote to remove a person's right to physical autonomy (that's a big deal to me personally) so I'd have to vote to NOT enforce mass sterilization.

Sorry if this is a repeat of previous sentiments, I didn't read all the posts...

[Excited Penguin]

---

Well, one need not be a practicing geneticist to make such points.

---

         

Yes, one need be, at least if one is sure as hell he's right about something, like you are, for one.

---

My point about genetic diversity is knowledge available to anyone with some college-level biology education.

---

        

College level knowledge is not good enough to not make any mistakes when talking about such things[as we're bound to do]. All I'm saying is let's drop it down a notch on the whole assurance thing you've got going on here, eh?

---

And it seems obvious to me that eugenics is going to cull genetic diversity, given its stated purpose. 

---

       

I'm sure it does, as it does to me. I never said otherwise. Check twice, before you reply to something.

---

We'll have to disagree about the proper role of government.         

---

You don't agree that the government is there to watch our backs, so to say?
 Do you think maybe that it's there to stab us in the back?/sarcasm

---

I don't find your mention of the religious threat very compelling as an argument-by-analogy.

---

         

Oh, good, you don't!  
It wasn't meant as such. It was meant as a joke. I guess you missed it. It's called tongue-in-cheek humour. I hear only some people can get up their mantras* for this. wink wink.
* I know, but it has such an apparent visual component to it: like it's some sort of shield. Idk why. But I love playing with words like that. There's also the original sanskrit meaning to it: a thought. So that, combined with the eng expr give rise to, is a perfect match.

---

Simply because an entity may serve one purpose well is no reason to grant it overweening power in another, unrelated issue.

---

         

I never implied such a thing either. Would you stop that! It's starting to bug me.

[Whateverist]

Welcome to hyper-rationality. The final solution.

[Whateverist]

Double post with issues.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your formatting makes your posts very difficult to handle from my phone, so I'll handle this last post of yours from my computer, in a few hours.

But the idea that only a trained geneticist can comment on genetic matters is retarded. By your own logic, you shouldn't be posting on this topic because you're not a trained sociologist.

I sure don't expect that to happen, and I wouldn't ask you to stop posting because -- get this -- we're having a discussion. We're not actually formulating policy.

You should learn how to embrace differences as a learning tool. Your insistence on didactic formality is unrealistic.

[Excited Penguin]

---

 -and if the government did the whole population control thing -right-...no fuck ups, no corruption, it would -still- be an immense violation.

---

Please, explain to me, how come?

Do you even understand the meaning of the words, as per definition takes you:
violation, means, the, action, of, violating, someone, or, something.
Or, of, the, words:
To, violate, means, to, break, or, fail, to, comply, (, with, a, rule, or, formal, agreement, ). 
Fail, to, respect, (, someone's, peace, privacy, or, rights, ).
Treat, (, something, sacred, ), with, irreverence, or, disrespect.

---

---

That's what makes it a sticky issue, not an issue of efficiency and accurate accounting.

---

 

Nope. What makes it a sticky issue, in your case at least, is not comprehending the meaning of one's own used words, such as violation. You might be drunk or drugged out of your poor old rassoodocks, so don't worry, I get it, really.

---

  If the government were a bunch of good guys in white hats, population control itself, as an idea, won't have moved an inch from where it is now.  It's just a better class of bullies at the wheel of the -same- idea, lol.

---

You sound like a redneck. Yes, population control would have moved an inch from where it is now, seeing how a bunch of good guys in white hats would'nt be bullies, by definition:
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

Population control isn't about what it actually is. It's about implementing it. Therein lies the apparent problem. Practice makes perfect, though.

---

---

But the idea that only a trained geneticist can comment on genetic matters is retarded. By your own logic, you shouldn't be posting on this topic because you're not a trained sociologist.

---

No, not by my own logic, maybe by yours though.

Here's what I actually wrote:

Yes, one need be, at least if one is sure as hell he's right about something, like you are, for one.

I, unlike you, don't really claim to know much about anything, at least not for sure, and especially not when called on it.

---

I sure don't expect that to happen, and I wouldn't ask you to stop posting because -- get this -- we're having a discussion. We're not actually formulating policy.

You should learn how to embrace differences as a learning tool. Your insistence on didactic formality is unrealistic.

---

'DIfferences', as used here, by yourself, is just an excuse for stupidity. It's not called difference of opinion anymore when one's whole argument for something is shattered by someone else's.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. Seriously? You think I'm being too formal? Get a grip on what's really happening, would you? You're just trying to back away from the rabbits I just pulled from my magician's hat.
You're not fooling anybody, least of all me. Unless you'll either aknowledge or otherwise address the mistakes I already pointed out, so far, and not attack by use of various logical fallacies, I won't pay any more attention to you, and you could die ignorant for all I care, literally.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, one need not be a practicing geneticist to make such points.

Yes, one need be, at least if one is sure as hell he's right about something, like you are, for one.

I'm pretty sure that stripping genetic variants from the genome reduces variability. That's kind of the definition, you know.

My point about genetic diversity is knowledge available to anyone with some college-level biology education.

College level knowledge is not good enough to not make any mistakes when talking about such things[as we're bound to do]. All I'm saying is let's drop it down a notch on the whole assurance thing you've got going on here, eh?

Implicit in every one of my posts is the possibility I could be wrong. I'm offering you an opinion about a hypothetical event. I had relied on your ability to interpolate in order to see that I am opining, and not speaking from a position of certitude. If it will make you feel better, I will add to every opining post to you the disclaimer "in my opinion", just so you're clear that it is indeed an opinion. If you actually need that, I'll happily oblige.

And it seems obvious to me that eugenics is going to cull genetic diversity, given its stated purpose.

I'm sure it does, as it does to me. I never said otherwise. Check twice, before you reply to something.

Did I impute that view to you? No, I didn't. You need to quote the post where I did if you're going to insist on being rude. Justify your snark here, or apologize for it.

We'll have to disagree about the proper role of government.        

You don't agree that the government is there to watch our backs, so to say?
 Do you think maybe that it's there to stab us in the back?/sarcasm

Clearly at this point you're looking for an argument and not a conversation. I'd suggest that you take my words at face value.

I don't find your mention of the religious threat very compelling as an argument-by-analogy.  

Oh, good, you don't!  
It wasn't meant as such. It was meant as a joke. I guess you missed it. It's called tongue-in-cheek humour. I hear only some people can get up their mantras* for this. wink wink.

You're not very funny, kid. I love good humor, but that requires wit and pertinacity, and both seem in short supply from the comedian here.

* I know, but it has such an apparent visual component to it: like it's some sort of shield. Idk why. But I love playing with words like that. There's also the original sanskrit meaning to it: a thought. So that, combined with the eng expr give rise to, is a perfect match.

*yawn*

Simply because an entity may serve one purpose well is no reason to grant it overweening power in another, unrelated issue.    

I never implied such a thing either. Would you stop that! It's starting to bug me.

Good! You clearly need to have your preconceptions, shallow as they are, rattled a bit. But to address your lie in the quoted passage above:

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.

Perhaps you should at least scroll back and check what you've posted before you contradict yourself like this? Your views are incoherent, and apparently ad hoc ... you cannot even remember what you've posted earlier in the evening.

Hopefully your next reply will have more thought and less of those useless tags that only clutter shit up. Focus on content, rather than presentation -- that is where your weakness lies. To wit: look at the ratio of content to pointless html tags in this screenshot:



Quit dicking around with forum features, and tighten up your thinking. It's got holes in it that would sink the Lusitania.

I never said I would be willing to let the government violate my privacy in any manner at all.

Actually, you did:

If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else.

"Anything else" clearly includes government intrusion into wombs. Another example of you contradicting yourself within the same thread.

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.

What a pointless discussion you look for. There's no such thing as a perfect world, there never can be one, and if that is the only conversation you're willing to engage in, you should perhaps retreat to an ivory tower and resume your mental masturbation without inflicting it on others who are equipped to deal with the complexities of the real world.