Random Sterilization

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And it didn't really help much...

[atinymonkey]

I don't know, I assumed it had some effect.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yeah, and it also made people want to have kids just to disobey the law, which was a problem in itself.

[Aegir]

blike said:

It does seem rational, however, it would most certainly trigger national outrage (at least in the US). I've heard quite a few people mention this facet of china in a very negative light. Of course, most of the ideas tossed around in this thread would trigger national outcry should they be imposed.

 

I don't think national outrage is somthing that is important to the decision making process... as you said no plan would ever be implemented if everyone liked it.

 

-Demosthenes- said:

When will this becaome a problem?? Not for a long time.

 

What makes you say that ? If the world's population were to keep rising at the rate it has for the last fifty years the population of the world would nearly double. You can say the earth can support 6 billion people but certainly not 12 billion ?

 

-Demosthenes- said:

Colonization of other planets will be available eventually.

 

But not soon enough.

 

-Demosthenes- said:

People can live in antartica if they have to!

 

Even if they could it wouldn't be anywhere near the standard of living in a hospitable climate. Also they would be totaly dependant on the rest of the world for food, having a bad storm ? Well guess you just starve to death! Youwont find me moving to antartica.

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm sure it won't come to that. But we can't stop people from reproducing, it is the reason for every living thing on earth to be alive.

[MishMish]

The idea is not to stop people from reproducing, but to address the problem of unlimited reproduction.

 

I am opposed to anything based on means testing or which smacks of eugenics, any proposal needs to be universal and uniform. There will always be cheaters, any system will have cheaters, can only try to put systems in place to minimize them.

 

Question about China though, other than the problems ensuing from killing off infant daughters, has the one child policy of itself caused specific problems

[Sayonara]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :

And it didn't really help much...

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

 

http://www.fathersforlife.org/worldpop3.htm

 

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :

Yeah, and it also made people want to have kids just to disobey the law, which was a problem in itself.

Yeah, everyone likes to disobey the Chinese Government because they're such a jolly bunch of warm-hearted old souls. They love a good laugh.

 

TIAN AN MEN SQUARE ring any bells?

[Radical Edward]

oh just let the economy deal with it. The less poor people there are, the less reproduction there will be.

[-Demosthenes-]

Tien an men square? Is that the one with the man blocking the tanks?? Was that about the Chinese child laws??

[Sayonara]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

Tien an men square? Is that the one with the man blocking the tanks?? Was that about the Chinese child laws??

Indeed. The happy little chap who decided to block the progress of the tanks that were crushing the demonstration (literally - some in their tents while they slept), and was executed for his troubles.

 

It wasn't specifically about child laws; my point was that Chinese parents don't sit around thinking of ways to seriously piss off their government and make their lives more difficult at the same time, just on a whim.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Some in their tents while they slept? Why haven't I heard about it?

[Glider]

Must be an oversight on the part of the Chinese Government. I'll have a word with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They said they're sorry, but as it was quite embarrassing for them on the whole, they decided not to tell you online. They asked "Didn't you get our e-mail?"

[-Demosthenes-]

That's why we can't become like that. It's crazy and it would never work. There's only so many freedoms you can take away.

[mooeypoo]

That's... quite an alarming post, I'd say.

 

I can't believe we're talkinga bout STABILIZING population with... THESE measures.

 

Besides, it would be HELL to find a decent husband this way.

[MishMish]

Mooey, actually, I think reducing the population not just stabilizing it is in order.

 

And just what measures do you think might be effective, if you consider these not viable for being too offensive?

 

As for finding a husband, should think if you were Chinese your chances would be excellent, though will allow finding a decent husband is problematic under any circumstances

[mooeypoo]

Okay, okay, wow.

 

Lets start with the simple announcement, though being a bit not-scientific, i think everyone would agree:

YOU are not GOD.

 

I'm not saying that in a religious zealut kind of way, i'm saying that as a human kind of way. YOU have no right to decide that another person is sterilized. In fact - no one does. LUCKILY.

 

Whether it's "helping" the worlds population or not - FIND ANOTHER WAY. I dont think this is a serious way of talking about stabilizing the population of the world.

 

In fact, I was SO CERTAIN you're kidding, I joked about finding a husband.

 

Don't worry about me, darling, I'll make my way around the universe. YOU however -

There are so many consequences to this, I dion't know where to begin.

 

I'll try:

 

• The psychological aspect - People would be "SUPERIOR" if they would be able to breed. Go watch movies, man, it's the oldest story in the universe.
   
  
• "Natural" aspect - if you take every "third child" how do you know you're not causing the distruction of the human race? perhaps those you prevented from reproducing are exactly those you WANT to reproduce.
   
  
• Social Limits - you are now playing god with third of your population. Why not taking it further? Like killing all blind and deaf - not everyone can reproduce ANYWAYS right? So why not just destroy them at the very beginning? They're taking valuable spot in the "To Be Reproduced" List.
  And there's so many other Social (and "government") threats, I think I'll need an entire thread just for that.
   
  

 

The bottom line is that this is just plain WRONG.

You want to contol your population - try thinking of better ways like teaching third-world countries how to use birth prevention.

Or try to make sure that the population in those third world nations are being fed right, and treated right.

 

Hell, try to find extra space for more people on Mars or Jupiter for all I care - but just know that if you start with THIS SORT OF THINGS most odds that you're never done with them.

 

~moo

[MishMish]

Well, aside from the minor detail have changed to favoring one child policy, still feel bound to comment.

 

I can see that it could be used for eugenics, but it need not be and I specifically set it up as random to forestall that possibility. And being random would no more threaten the human race than random unlimited reproduction, at our current population we're hardly in danger of losing genetic diversity, and if we were controlled breeding of a different sort might be in order.

 

As for superiority complexes among those who are fertile, can't say that had occurred to me. But I do not see that random sterilization, assuming could be done at birth or at a young age, is so different from being born sterile.

 

As for playing God, not quite, and see no need to return to the eugenics question you raise again. Yes, of course it is a limitation on people's rights. When rights may be restricted is to prevent greater harm, and I consider the threat (reality, actually) of overpopulation the greater harm. It is taking the rights of future generations, as well as the rights of other species, into consideration in determining where the balance falls, rather than only considering the rights of the present human population.

 

Education, birth control, are all fine and grand, but I would add that a solution which is not sufficient to the problem is not a solution, and I do not consider those sufficient. Instead, we will be faced, quite likely sooner rather than later, with water wars and more widespread disease and starvation. Not the finest quality of life to leave our descendents while we fret about our rights to unlimited reproduction.

 

All that said, I think that random sterilization would possibly lead to infanticide of sterile children, and more likely to trade in children.

 

But most simply the entire premise is flawed as it still allows unlimited reproduction but only restricts it to some. Basically is assuming fertility rates will hold at relatively lower levels regardless of how many people do or do not reproduce. How I could have not seen that I had introdued such a flimsy assumption is beyond me, but if nothing else does, that nixes the idea right there.

 

After a minor tangent with random sterilization, am back to the one child policy as my favored

[Glider]

mooeypoo said in post # :

I'm not saying that in a religious zealut kind of way, i'm saying that as a human kind of way. YOU have no right to decide that another person is sterilized. In fact - no one does. LUCKILY. 

 

Unfortunately, rights very rarely come into the equasion. Denmark was carrying out compulsory sterilization on women until 1974.

[-Demosthenes-]

Really? Did they a population problem?

 

I think that doing a something like that is a moral outrage. You can't cut people open or whatever and cut their organs out! It's sick. There has to be a different and better way, if worse comes to worse, which I don't even think will happen any time soon. If it does come, I hope I'm long dead by then.

 

PS: I hope that my post was long enough

PSS: I hope there's no span either

[Glider]

No, they didn't have a population problem. It was an attempt to eliminate certain hereditary conditions from the population.

[MishMish]

I think part of the problem is that sterilization primarily has been used in eugenics programs. Does not answer all of the emotional reaction of course, but is invariably brought to mind. But we sterilize our critters for population control, I consider it the responsible thing to do at least, and was that model was following. But think have found enough practical reasons would not work I can safely dismiss the idea.

 

And might add, just as a thought, those who favor some sort of education rather than a more direct intervention are going to have to explain to me not only how that could be sufficiently effective at reducing overpopulation, which I do not believe it can be, but how it does not betray the same arrogance or playing of God. The line between education and indoctrination is a fine one, and if your purpose in educating is not to provide all necessary information but to guide behaviour the only real difference is being more manipulative and managing to not arouse indignation. That may be considered a practical factor making indoctrination more effective, would say it is, but in terms of denying others their rights in a real sense I see no difference

[Pleiades]

*Steps up onto his soapbox* *dons flameproof suit*

 

All this stuff about people having the right to reproduce is stupid; rights are nothing but a fabrication of society usually imposed by a government. Why do we let a government control our rights? Because if we didn’t, society would revert to people fighting to determine who has the right to do something, which makes us no better than animals. The government should be a reflection for what is best for the human race, not the individual, if it were up to the individual, we would all be fighting each other to determine our ‘rights’.

 

So, in the best interests of the human race, we should not only attempt to reduce the population, but also to ensure that the less desirable traits in humans are decreased, while the better traits encouraged. Random sterilization would serve only to decrease the population, not to increase the quality of the human race.

 

So, don’t try to claim that eugenics, population limiting, or any other type of reproductive control is an infringement on people ‘rights’. Reproduction should be no more a right than driving a car, both can have disastrous consequences if left unregulated.

[mooeypoo]

I agree. Let's start with you.

 

 

 

 

Being a usual cynic, this kind of response is hard even for ME. I didn't mean it as a death threat, I meant it as a cynical way of saying: WHO, in god's name or without gods name -- ARE YOU or any other human being -- TO DECIDE which will DIE and which will live?

 

You know what happens when we "decide" to trim population? People start to kill their daughters because they only allowed to have 1 child, and a female child means their family name dies.

 

Look at china.

 

And about this:

So, don’t try to claim that eugenics, population limiting, or any other type of reproductive control is an infringement on people ‘rights’. Reproduction should be no more a right than driving a car, both can have disastrous consequences if left unregulated.

I'm just.. speechless.

 

I don't get that often.

 

I ... am shocked, and have nothing ot comment. Or rather: BETTER NOT comment.

 

Holy cow.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are any other animals regulated in their reproduction?

 

No. Why should we?

[LucidDreamer]

*Steps up onto his soapbox* *dons flameproof suit*

 

All this stuff about people having the right to reproduce is stupid; rights are nothing but a fabrication of society usually imposed by a government. Why do we let a government control our rights? Because if we didn’t' date=' society would revert to people fighting to determine who has the right to do something, which makes us no better than animals.[/b'] The government should be a reflection for what is best for the human race, not the individual, if it were up to the individual, we would all be fighting each other to determine our ‘rights’.

 

So, in the best interests of the human race, we should not only attempt to reduce the population, but also to ensure that the less desirable traits in humans are decreased, while the better traits encouraged. Random sterilization would serve only to decrease the population, not to increase the quality of the human race.

 

So, don’t try to claim that eugenics, population limiting, or any other type of reproductive control is an infringement on people ‘rights’. Reproduction should be no more a right than driving a car, both can have disastrous consequences if left unregulated.

 

Part of what separates us from the animals is our compassion- without it we would truly be no better than animals