Random Sterilization

[Sayonara]

I agree. Let's start with you.

I don't know about you but I have no plans to bring children into this god forsaken world, so consider his first volunteer found. If there is one there will be others.

 

 

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?

He's not proposing that anyone should be given or denied the right to 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.

Evidence?

 

 

Look at china.

What about it? Just saying "look at China" isn't very helpful.

 

 

And about this:

I'm just.. speechless.

Why?

I'm assuming from your reaction and from your previous posts that you don't consider the needs of any one person to outweigh the needs of any other, and that the rights we assign to people should not be contravened no matter how arbitrary they are.

 

We are now so numerous that we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that in order to put food on a plate, it is becoming ever more necessary to take food away from another plate.

 

If you extend the argument to protect the rights of the individual, you end up with a lunatic asylum situation, where society tears itself apart trying to give everyone the same things in an environment that cannot support it. Clearly that is not sustainable, and the only logical solution is to reduce demand. That means reducing the rate of reproduction of the population.

You don't actually need to reduce the size of the population - don't forget that people do die anyway.

 

Why is it so important that we protect the "rights" of one individual or couple to create a new life, while at the same time we cannot guarantee the rights of already existing parents to get access to the resources they need to raise their child? That's a monstrous way to run a society.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Evidence?

What about it? Just saying "look at China" isn't very helpful.

In other words, that's what the chinese do. Or used to, I'm not sure. They were only allowed a certain number of kids (1), and they all wanted to pass on their family names, so if they got a girl (who wouldn't pass on the name) then they'd kill her and have another.

[Sayonara]

In other words, that's what the chinese do. Or used to, I'm not sure. They were only allowed a certain number of kids (1), and they all wanted to pass on their family names, so if they got a girl (who wouldn't pass on the name) then they'd kill her and have another.

Oh right, that's the standard practice in China is it? Mass infanticide from house to house?

 

Well, if that's what you heard then OBVIOUSLY any social change that bears the slightest resemblance to that kind of population control will invariably have the same results, even if the people in question are sterilised and wouldn't be able to replace their murdered offspring.

 

[Sayonara]

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.

Are you saying the blind and/or deaf can't or don't reproduce?

 

If you are, then you are wrong. If you are not, then you are putting words in his mouth.

[Pleiades]

Are any other animals regulated in their reproduction?

Well for one, most domesticated animals have their reproduction regulated; take for example the pedigree dog. Secondly, while we are animals, we are also humans, and we have the responsibility to use our higher intellect to regulate our reproduction on a personal and global level.

 

Thirdly, everything is regulated in its reproduction, its called natural selection. Natural selection won’t always work for humans however, mainly because we live such an un-natural lifestyle. The scheming, arrogant, greedy, ruthless, cunning, uncompassionate business man might have lots of money and therefore be a desirable mate (to some), but these are certainly not qualities that should be encouraged.

 

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

Yes we must have compassion, but I did not suggest that we kill or sterilize anyone, only that we encourage the less desirable traits in humans, while encouraging the better traits. This can be done with compassion, for example we could give cash incentives for certain people not to reproduce; it is still their own choice.

 

In the end, people should be able to regulate themselves; if they cannot support a child, or they have genetic disorders that will likely be passed on to offspring, they should be thinking about not having that child, or in the latter case, adoption.

 

In other words, that's what the chinese do. Or used to, I'm not sure. They were only allowed a certain number of kids (1), and they all wanted to pass on their family names, so if they got a girl (who wouldn't pass on the name) then they'd kill her and have another.

Which is why reproduction should be self regulated if possible, besides those were probably isolated cases of infanticide blown out of proportion to make China’s child limiting look bad.

 

 

The solution to our overpopulation problem is to gently introduce reproductive control, for example; children in schools should be taught more about the consequences of unregulated reproduction. When the concept of reproductive control is more widely accepted then we can start using other, more effective methods.

 

I also believe that every human should have the chance to be a parent, in the present they could easily adopt a child, in the future (like 100s of years in the future) perhaps the excess children of the genetically superior parents could be candidates for adoption. In any scenario, reproductive control should take into account not only genetics but also the environment in which the child would be raised. For example, we could put in place laws that require a certain income to be met before reproduction is allowed; if people really want that child, they will get the money from somewhere.

[Skye]

Realistically whatever population pressures that come up in the future will be solved the way they always have in human history: war.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are you saying the blind and/or deaf can't or don't reproduce?

 

If you are' date=' then you are wrong. If you are not, then you are putting words in his mouth.[/quote']

Of course they can. It was just an example.

 

Well for one, most domesticated animals have their reproduction regulated; take for example the pedigree dog.

Yes, but that's because of humans. Any animal that regulates their reproduction without human intervention?

 

About Skye's post: Maybe, but war is going into non-lethal now... so you can't be sure.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

perhaps the excess children of the genetically superior parents could be candidates for adoption.

"genetically superior"? So then there's parenting segregation: "Nope, your genes are bad, we'll have to castrate you."

 

edit: I really don't want to take a position, but if I think there's something wrong with your reasoning, I'll point it out.

[Pleiades]

I also believe that every human should have the chance to be a parent, in the present they could easily adopt a child, in the future (like 100s of years in the future) perhaps the excess children of the genetically superior parents could be candidates for adoption. In any scenario, reproductive control should take into account not only genetics but also the environment in which the child would be raised. For example, we could put in place laws that require a certain income to be met before reproduction is allowed; if people really want that child, they will get the money from somewhere.

I did specify that this would be far in the future, so things could be a little bit different, but let me try and put it in a present day perspective. Say for example we have a parent with a dominant genetic disease, this makes the parent genetically inferior, as the bad trait will always be passed on to the offspring. The parent decides that they do not want to bring a child into the world with the same disease they themselves have had to live with. So they choose to adopt a child from a ‘genetically superior’ parent, i.e. one without such a genetic disease. This scenario has possible already been played out, it could happen in this age. I never said the parent would have to be forcibly sterilized; it is entirely reasonable that they could make the choice to adopt the children of ‘genetically superior’ parents by their own free will.

 

 

Yes, but that's because of humans. Any animal that regulates their reproduction without human intervention?

Very few animals regulate their reproduction, mostly because they are incapable as individuals of making decisions that benefit the species as a whole, unlike humans. The only animal I can think of that does something like this besides humans is hive animals like bees. The queen is very selective of who she mates with, only the best male bee is selected, the queen makes reproductive ‘choices’ based on the genetic superiority of the available mates. Only a handful of the hives members get to pass on their genes, if that’s not “natural regulated reproduction to increase an elitist class” I don’t know what is.

 

Anyone who has read Starship Troopers will know exactly what I am talking about.

[Skye]

Well only a handful of bees within a hive can mate, the queen and the males. There aren't that many males to choose from, but the queen doesn't restict herself much, genetic diversity and all that. This polygamy is not favourable to the workers descended from the original male though, because the new offspring are not as closely related to them. So they usually resist this polygamy, it's more their selectiveness rather than the queens that keeps the number of male mates down. Still the queen will usually have multiple mates during her life. The female worker bees are physically incapable of mating but they can produce eggs that result in male bees (male bees are produced from an unfertilised egg). The other worker bees don't like this though, they aren't as closely related to it as to males produced by the queen) and will destroy the egg and punish the worker.

[Pleiades]

Well only a handful of bees within a hive can mate, the queen and the males. There aren't that many males to choose from, but the queen doesn't restict herself much, genetic diversity and all that. This polygamy is not favourable to the workers descended from the original male though, because the new offspring are not as closely related to them. So they usually resist this polygamy, it's more their selectiveness rather than the queens that keeps the number of male mates down. Still the queen will usually have multiple mates during her life. The female worker bees are physically incapable of mating but they can produce eggs that result in male bees (male bees are produced from an unfertilised egg). The other worker bees don't like this though, they aren't as closely related to it as to males produced by the queen) and will destroy the egg and punish the worker.

Well, I didn’t know all that. So, are bees a bad example or not? they were just the first thing I thought of.

 

It doesn’t really matter though; humans should make their reproductive choices to benefit the species as a whole, not the individual. This happens in other species through natural selection, but since humans have deviated so far from what we call ‘natural’, we must resort to other methods of improving the genetic stock of the species.

[LucidDreamer]

Pleiades, I find a couple of things wrong with your argument. First of all what your suggesting is a state-controlled Eugenics program. Any state that controls the fate of its people’s progeny has absolute control. Furthermore, you are suggesting that the people be segregated by gene superiority. This would ultimately result in an elite class with absolute control. History has shown that oligarchy’s do not benefit the society as a whole, but rather divide society into classes that lead drastically different lives. Your elite class would posses all of the power and wealth while the unfortunate masses toiled to support them. There would be no class mobilization because your elite class would have absolute power with their control over the genome. Eventually there would not even be any class struggle because the genes that lead to resistance would be bred out of the worker class.

 

As a side note it seems what that you and skye are talking about is mate selection and hierarchial sexual dominance. Most species use mate selection and hierarchial sexual dominance is found in several species as well. Baboons for example.

[Pleiades]

Pleiades, I find a couple of things wrong with your argument. First of all what your suggesting is a state-controlled Eugenics program. Any state that controls the fate of its people’s progeny has absolute control. Furthermore, you are suggesting that the people be segregated by gene superiority. This would ultimately result in an elite class with absolute control. History has shown that oligarchy’s do not benefit the society as a whole, but rather divide society into classes that lead drastically different lives. Your elite class would posses all of the power and wealth while the unfortunate masses toiled to support them. There would be no class mobilization because your elite class would have absolute power with their control over the genome. Eventually there would not even be any class struggle because the genes that lead to resistance would be bred out of the worker class.

You raise some good points here, and I agree, if such a state run eugenics program was implemented in the next few years, it would be a disaster. Fortunately, that’s not exactly what I’m suggesting.

 

You must agree that, in order for a species to progress in a positive direction, a genetic selection of the reproductive members must be made. In most cases we call this ‘natural selection’; this method is no longer effective for the human species. However, at this point in time, neither the individual nor the state is capable of making such selections in the best interests of the species; we are simply too selfish. Hopefully, at some point in the future, the individual will be able to make such reproductive choices. Until such a time I can guarantee the species will stagnate; we will see less genetic extremities and more mediocrity; in essence, the human species will be nothing but average.

[Sayonara]

Of course they can. It was just an example.

1) You don't speak for mooeypoo,

2) If they can, the "example" means nothing.

 

 

Yes, but that's because of humans. Any animal that regulates their reproduction without human intervention?

Let me make this very clear:

Every animal species on this planet is subject to ecological interactions which modulate their population sizes.

 

 

About Skye's post: Maybe, but war is going into non-lethal now... so you can't be sure.

Maybe for the USA and UK it is, with their ability to bomb targets from high altitude or from the sea, but for the people at the other end of the smoking barrels I don't think it is quite what you'd call "non-lethal".

 

Skye was talking about war being used as a counter-population mechanism. I think people being killed is somewhat implied

 

 

 

First of all what your suggesting is a state-controlled Eugenics program. Any state that controls the fate of its people’s progeny has absolute control.

What's wrong with that?

 

 

Furthermore, you are suggesting that the people be segregated by gene superiority. This would ultimately result in an elite class with absolute control.

What's wrong with that?

 

 

History has shown that oligarchy’s do not benefit the society as a whole, but rather divide society into classes that lead drastically different lives.

What's wrong with that?

 

 

Your elite class would posses all of the power and wealth while the unfortunate masses toiled to support them.

That situation exists now in the vast majority of countries, and to a certain extent in the democratic West.

 

 

There would be no class mobilization because your elite class would have absolute power with their control over the genome. Eventually there would not even be any class struggle because the genes that lead to resistance would be bred out of the worker class.

Pure speculation. Say hello to random drift etc.

 

 

As a side note it seems what that you and skye are talking about is mate selection and hierarchial sexual dominance. Most species use mate selection and hierarchial sexual dominance is found in several species as well. Baboons for example.

So do humans. I am not sure what role this plays in your argument.

[SurfSciGuy]

In the UK we have an ageing population. There aren't enough people having children - I think this is a phenomenon across the western world. There are mixed messages about population growth on the world scale, even the UN does not think it is cut and dried. If exponential population growth were to occur it would probably be from developing countries - we have no rights to impose population control programmes on these nations. The best thing to do would be to encourage development in these nations as increased development leads to a fall in birth rates (by following the example of our own societies).

 

As far as I am aware there is no population explosion in the states for example - it does worry me that either some people think that there is or that people want to think that there is so they can implement eugenics through the back door.

 

As for China, the government assures the UN that the days of rural female baby killings are over - the Chinese government never supported these, however they were a widespread phenomenon in rural China. Basically males are more desirable when it comes to working on farms - rural families need all the income they can get to survive. China is in a state of massive developmental change and information is still difficult to get, however Urban populations are on the rise and rural populations are decreasing. The earnings potential of Urban females and urban males is more similar than that of their rural counterparts, so there is less need to have a male child.

[LucidDreamer]

First of all what your suggesting is a state-controlled Eugenics program. Any state that controls the fate of its people’s progeny has absolute control. Furthermore' date=' you are suggesting that the people be segregated by gene superiority. This would ultimately result in an elite class with absolute control. History has shown that oligarchy’s do not benefit the society as a whole, but rather divide society into classes that lead drastically different lives. Your elite class would posses all of the power and wealth while the unfortunate masses toiled to support them.

[/quote']

What's wrong with that?

I'm assuming that the purpose behind the random sterilization/Eugenics program is to improve the quality of life of the society. If it weren’t' date=' what would be the point? Lets say you separate society into an elite group with all the wealth and luxuries of life and a worker class that lives in poverty and despair. While the quality of life for that elite group, composed of a small portion of the population has improved the quality of life for the vast majority has decreased. Thus, the whole purpose of instituting the eugenics program in the first place has been undermined. Furthermore, it is generally the populations that live in poverty that produce all the children that lead to overpopulation. By enlarging poor class you are indirectly creating the very thing you are trying to prevent.

 

Your elite class would posses all of the power and wealth while the unfortunate masses toiled to support them.

That situation exists now in the vast majority of countries' date=' and to a certain extent in the democratic West.

[/quote']

This doesn't make it a good thing. There is still a lot of class uward mobility in the west. There is no need to make it worse.

[Sayonara]

You are talking about elitism and eugenics, but I'm pretty sure the thread was about random sterilisation, with a view to avoiding such complications.

[Skye]

Regarding 'non-lethal' war, war doesn't actually have to involve many people dying. Most wars don't end in the complete anihilation of an army, let alone a whole people. But, as in the current situation in Sudan, you don't actually have to kill the people to cause their death. War, Famine, Pestilence and Death like to ride together.

[SurfSciGuy]

Until such a time I can guarantee the species will stagnate; we will see less genetic extremities and more mediocrity; in essence, the human species will be nothing but average.

 

Hate to be a pain, but how can you guarantee this? What are the trends you've observed to justify this guarantee? What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't?

 

At the end of the day - we don't have an over-population problem. We have an over-consumption problem by a decadent minority - we need to change attitudes not mating habits.

[Sayonara]

What does "[we] will be nothing but average" mean? Compared to what?

 

You could argue that sharks have been stagnant for millions of years, but they are still as effective now as they were when they first began to diversify.

[Pleiades]

I wanted to try and avoid this assumption, but it seems to me that today’s upper class is for the most part, genetically superior to the middle and lower classes. Can we agree that, to a certain degree, class and genetics correlate?

 

If so, I can back up my guarantee. Look anywhere in the world, and you will find the same general trend; the upper class produces less offspring than the middle or lower classes. Now, I’ll make a gross generalization here but intelligent people are more likely to think; “I have no plans to bring children into this god forsaken world”, as you said Sayonara. This is obviously not true in all cases, there are always exceptions, but intelligent people are more likely to be of this opinion than less intelligent people (that or they are simply too busy to have a family). The middle (mediocre) class is more likely to have 2-3 children, an average number. The lower classes are more likely to have many more children, for whatever reason; ignorance of contraception, lack of means to procure contraceptive devices, lack of family planning services or in some cases, children are born so that they can ‘work on the farm’. Poor children are often put to work at a young age. In some extreme cases, the parents may have children so that they can sell them into indentured servitude as a way to make a little money.

 

Let me make it clear that there will always be exceptions, but these are trends that I have observed.

 

Sayonara, when I say ‘average’ I mean it in comparison to today’s gene pool. Today’s mediocre (average) and below average people are more likely to reproduce than the above average ones, thus broadening the average class while narrowing the above average class. It may be that this trend has been in existence for 1000’s of years, I don’t know, but I think it should be slowed or halted. The quality of or gene pool should be rising, not falling

 

The shark has ceased to evolve because it fits its ecological niche perfectly; it has no need to be better (although that could change now that humans are killing them). Humans on the other hand, are different, we occupy no niche and we can excel at many different things. Humans are not animals, and we are no where near living with the rest of the life on this planet in any sort of balance or harmony. We still have some evolving to do, for one it would be nice to try and breed excessively violent tendencies out of the genome, in the past it may have helped us survive, but we are now able to use intelligence to settle disputes, not violence. If we became less violent the world would be a better place, would it not?

[Sayonara]

I wanted to try and avoid this assumption, but it seems to me that today’s upper class is for the most part, genetically superior to the middle and lower classes. Can we agree that, to a certain degree, class and genetics correlate?

What are you basing that on?

 

 

If so, I can back up my guarantee. Look anywhere in the world, and you will find the same general trend; the upper class produces less offspring than the middle or lower classes... etc

I think you'd find that tricky to back up.

 

 

 

Sayonara, when I say ‘average’ I mean it in comparison to today’s gene pool. Today’s mediocre (average) and below average people are more likely to reproduce than the above average ones, thus broadening the average class while narrowing the above average class. It may be that this trend has been in existence for 1000’s of years, I don’t know, but I think it should be slowed or halted. The quality of or gene pool should be rising, not falling

You can't reduce genetic diversity to the level of "mediocre, average, superior" without masses of supporting evidence. That involves studying vast samples of the population at a genetic level, and will eventually require someone to decide which genetically-mediated traits are "good" and which are not.

 

 

The shark has ceased to evolve because it fits its ecological niche perfectly; it has no need to be better (although that could change now that humans are killing them).

No, the sharks have most certainly not stopped evolving. Staying in a niche is not the same as failing to evolve.

 

 

Humans on the other hand, are different, we occupy no niche and we can excel at many different things.

I would say we occupy multiple niches, given the biological definition. Granted, that still makes us different to most species.

 

 

Humans are not animals, and we are no where near living with the rest of the life on this planet in any sort of balance or harmony. We still have some evolving to do, for one it would be nice to try and breed excessively violent tendencies out of the genome, in the past it may have helped us survive, but we are now able to use intelligence to settle disputes, not violence. If we became less violent the world would be a better place, would it not?

It would, but you have to understand that "we still have some evolving to do" makes no sense whatsoever as a phrase. There's no goal here - evolution is the population reacting to a changing habitat, nothing more.

The fact that we are not animals is also irrelevant: selection doesn't discriminate between the two states of being, and neither does drift.

 

What were we talking about again?

[Pleiades]

Alright, lets not take this too far; I’ve said some things that I cant really back up, at least, not without “studying vast samples of the population”. So I can’t prove if “class and genetics correlate”. You are right; I’m making gross generalizations here.

 

 

No, the sharks have most certainly not stopped evolving. Staying in a niche is not the same as failing to evolve.

I agree sharks have not failed to evolve, only that they have no need to because their environment hasn’t changed much; they are still at the top of the marine food chain, and they haven’t had to change much to stay there.

 

 

It would, but you have to understand that "we still have some evolving to do" makes no sense whatsoever as a phrase. There's no goal here - evolution is the population reacting to a changing habitat, nothing more.

Perhaps ‘evolve’ is the wrong word, humans aren’t “reacting to a changing habitat”; they are trying to dominate it, modern man makes his own habitat, the city.

 

 

The fact that we are not animals is also irrelevant: selection doesn't discriminate between the two states of being, and neither does drift.

Agreed, selection doesn’t discriminate; my point is that selection is no longer selecting for the traits that will improve the species (see post #55, paragraph 2). The only problem is that no one is qualified to make these decisions, so I suggest that we modify our social behavior to allow selection to make the correct choices, perhaps by educating people about the dangers of unlimited reproduction. For example modern science has enabled otherwise sterile couples to reproduce, who are we to say that these couples should reproduce when selection has said they should not? It is social practices like these that degrade the genetic quality of the species. Why can’t those couples adopt a child? Why do they insist the child be their own? It seems selfish to me.

[Sayonara]

I agree sharks have not failed to evolve, only that they have no need to because their environment hasn’t changed much; they are still at the top of the marine food chain, and they haven’t had to change much to stay there.

I would say that they have. The environments they occupy have varied massively over the years, as have the species they share them with. Not to mention whatever pathogens affect sharks. Evolutionary changes aren't necessarily phenotypically obvious.

 

 

Perhaps ‘evolve’ is the wrong word, humans aren’t “reacting to a changing habitat”; they are trying to dominate it, modern man makes his own habitat, the city.

I suppose "habitat" was the wrong aspect to focus on there. There are several pressures that affect evolutionary change: pathogenic influences (as with the sharks), social effects (which can include changing dietary trends, changing family unit models and so on), abiotic effects such as natural disasters and our own influence on the environment, competition from other species (often gets overlooked with humans), and of course the big one - intraspecific competition, which will never go away.

[Pleiades]

You could argue that sharks have been stagnant for millions of years, but they are still as effective now as they were when they first began to diversify.

I was responding to this, if you don’t think sharks have stagnated, we don’t need to argue the point.

 

 

There are several pressures that affect evolutionary change: pathogenic influences (as with the sharks), social effects (which can include changing dietary trends, changing family unit models and so on), abiotic effects such as natural disasters and our own influence on the environment, competition from other species (often gets overlooked with humans), and of course the big one - intraspecific competition, which will never go away.

Agreed, but how can you be sure these pressures will result in selection that benefits the human species? Modern medicine gives us a vast array of disease and pathogen fighting weapons, these disease fighting abilities are not dependant on genetics; the most genetically challenged individual may be able to get medical help that allows him/her to live long enough to reproduce, thus defeating natural selection. One could argue that the poorer classes do not have access to modern medicine, but as you pointed out, genetics and class do not necessarily correlate, so there is no guarantee that genetically inferior individuals will be denied access to medicine through poverty.

 

I assume “intraspecific competition” is competition between members of the species. As I have already said, this type of selection is not always effective for the human species. For example, two groups of humans are fighting over some land, the more violent group wins and kills the other, they settle on the land and reproduce, increasing the over all number of individuals with genetic predispositions for violence. Humanity has been doing this for a long time but it’s hardly a noble way of life for intelligent life forms now is it? If we worked to discourage war and advocated intelligent negotiations (which we are to some degree), we would be decreasing the number of individuals with genetic predispositions for violence thorough a self imposed selection. This would not be a natural selection; it would be one of intelligent life, and it would benefit the species.

 

We don’t need a state imposed eugenics program, we don’t need random sterilization, what we need is people who make everyday choices with the good of the species in mind, not selfish people who makes selfish choices for the benefit of only themselves. Stop fostering the inferior and start promoting the superior, and have some compassion in doing so; don’t kill or sterilize someone with a genetic disease, merely suggest to them that their children will have to live with the very same disease, perhaps they should think twice about having kids.