enforced sterilization

this is only temporary said:
Free world of warcraft accounts for all, and unlimited free internet porn. This will ensure vast segments of people in their reproductive primes never have sex and remain virgins well into their 20s. 30s maybe. ;) Population control, done. (J/K)
Click to expand...

Cheetos. Everyone knows every Cheetos stain on your shirt delays the loss of your virginity by 7 years.
 
Ugh, chill out everyone. I'm not advocating a eugenics program, rather trying to explore the logical consequences of implementing one. Read better.

moonlightam said:
This planet can realistically feed and shelter about 20bn people.
Click to expand...

I think what this comes down to is a quality-of-life issue. Money is useful for other things than buying a ginormous new mercedes SUV so that all my friends will think I'm a badass. If one thing in particular pisses me off about being broke all the time, it's that I must necessarily spend the better part of my life watching bad DVD rips and creating provocative (?) discussions on infj forum. I'd rather be travelling, learning something new, or investing time and effort in a new technology or a social cause. 'Course not everyone feels this way, but there are a lot of us out there!

There goes my good mood...
Click to expand...

Oh come on, that's a little unfair...

toska said:
Nnnooo this is a terrible idea. It's a violation of basic human rights. The solution to overpopulation is to improve economic conditions. Poorer people tend to have more children because they fear they will not have the means to take care of themselves when they become old.
Click to expand...

Forgot to include this in the OP (link to article citing the astronomical cost of raising a kid).

There are a lot of poor people in the US, and even for them, having kids is entirely illogical from a fiscal standpoint. People reproduce for emotional reasons, or because of cultural pressures. Or because they didn't bother to use birth control.

Also, while that movie 'Idiocracy' is hardly great film making, it makes its point pretty well.
 
MrDoobie said:
Not to mention that even if this program was instituted completely correctly and exactly the way the OP described with no corruption going on whatsoever it still would not be "non-prejudicial". Not even in concept.
Click to expand...

Not even China's 'one child' program?

MrDoobie said:
Developing nations, particularly those in Africa, already have unstable populations. To hit the fertility of developing nations so hard would stunt their progress and economic/technological growth for a generation.
Click to expand...

are you sure?

MrDoobie said:
It would still be racist and classist.
Click to expand...

Are all eugenics programs inherently racist and classist?

oceanbreeze said:
Families that rely on working hands as a means of substinence, and have high numbers of children in part because there's no guarantee that their existing young ones won't die from preventable problems, face a different reality.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Beneath a certain level of development, only a certain number of people can survive in within a certain ecosystem. For example, we all know that population growth looks like this and not this.

Also, who knew that Starbucks had 'boy with the arab strap' on their playlist? Kudos to corporate for having taste.
 
No, we simply dont need to implement any eugenics program, therefore I dont see the need of discussing any possible reasons or consequences of it.

And if you're bored and watching movies, I recommend this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Maybe not entirely topic-related, but enlightening. I'm outta here.
 
moonlightam said:
No, we simply dont need to implement any eugenics program, therefore I dont see the need of discussing any possible reasons or consequences of it.
Click to expand...

LULZ - WHAT?!
 
Ugh, chill out everyone. I'm not advocating a eugenics program, rather trying to explore the logical consequences of implementing one. Read better.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=4283]alice144[/MENTION]

Not to be a bitch....but being rude isn't going to help you here. You have a very rambling way of posting...often I have no idea what you are tryig to say in your threads because the title doesn't match the content, the content starts off as one thing, leads into a long rambling personal story and ends with something slightly different again. It's your pattern, maybe you should work on being more clear in your original posts instead of insulting the community at large.
 
Neverwhere said:
@alice144

Not to be a bitch....but being rude isn't going to help you here. You have a very rambling way of posting...often I have no idea what you are tryig to say in your threads because the title doesn't match the content, the content starts off as one thing, leads into a long rambling personal story and ends with something slightly different again. It's your pattern, maybe you should work on being more clear in your original posts instead of insulting the community at large.
Click to expand...

Its cause shes a real INFJ and you are all just poseurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
CindyLou said:
More people means more output. A policy like that would be an economic disaster for a developing country.
Click to expand...

I dont think it necessarily means more net output though.
 
UBERROGO said:
I dont think it necessarily means more net output though.
Click to expand...

It may not necessarily mean more net output but in a developing country with an unregulated market, probably. We know a policy like that would be economically harmful to a developing country, probably increasing poverty.
 
toska said:
Nnnooo this is a terrible idea. It's a violation of basic human rights. The solution to overpopulation is to improve economic conditions. Poorer people tend to have more children because they fear they will not have the means to take care of themselves when they become old.
Click to expand...

This, along with people not using/having access to contraceptives and having many unwanted pregnancies. I know in China has certain population control methods (I think Japan might too). Here in the 'west', I'm sure dozens of families pop up as a result of one-night-stands, but we sure as hell wouldn't support government regulated birth control. When I backpacked Europe, I saw they have plenty of condom dispensers and that should be something America adopts.

Edit to add: after reading the article posted by [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION] it is interesting to see how a better developed country leads to smaller birth rates over all:

birth rates are naturally falling around the world. The current growth in world population exceeds the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, but there are good reasons to believe that growth will slow down in the future. As countries become more technologically and economically advanced, people naturally choose to have fewer children. Also, there is a link between increasing female education and a declining birth rate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
alice144 said:
Not even China's 'one child' program?
Click to expand...

China's one-child program is a flawed system at best. Because it operates on a system of fines wealthy couples are practically exempt from this rule. Not to mention the fact that some people still manage to have their children illegally. It has also resulted, partially, in the epidemic of female infanticide which has resulted in "holy-crap-there's-no-pussy" problem that China has today. So not just classist, but sexist.

Also, note, that the law does not apply to citizens who subsist in an agrarian fashion. So even this law acknowledges the economic hit that restricting the fertility of farmers would have.

There are a lot of poor people in the US, and even for them, having kids is entirely illogical from a fiscal standpoint. People reproduce for emotional reasons, or because of cultural pressures. Or because they didn't bother to use birth control.
Click to expand...

Your standpoint is ethnocentric. Ever talk to the Amish?
are you sure?
Click to expand...

Considering a good chunk of Africa and other third world nations are still agrarian and their farmers can't afford technologies that would lessen the burden of not having a lot of children....

I should stop using Africa as an example because it's a complex continent, but what whole continent isn't, relative to Europe and North America?

Are all eugenics programs inherently racist and classist?
Click to expand...

Racist. Classist. Ableist. The historical precedent for eugenics programs haven't exactly been the shining example of equality. Who are we to decide what genes are "good" or "bad" and how would we go about eliminating the genes we have decided are "bad"? How do we decide who gets sterilized and who doesn't? There are a lot of practical issues when talking eugenics.

Maybe in the past, but not anymore.
Click to expand...

That's not true for everybody in the world.

Forgot to include this in the OP (link to article citing the astronomical cost of raising a kid).
Click to expand...

America is not the entire world.
 
alice144 said:
Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Beneath a certain level of development, only a certain number of people can survive in within a certain ecosystem. For example, we all know that population growth looks like this and not this.

Also, who knew that Starbucks had 'boy with the arab strap' on their playlist? Kudos to corporate for having taste.
Click to expand...

Actually I didn't know that. ETA: And I attempted to google it, but every graph I've seen does actually look like the latter and not like the former.
What's not the case anymore? Beneath a certain level of development? I don't quite understand the points you are claiming. Can you please clarify?
 
Last edited:
Now that I've thought about it a bit more, it actually boggles my mind how jaw-droppingly self-centered proposing this idea is. Using a narrow, ethnocentric perspective to decide that you know what everyone's values and lifestyle should be and you believe that lifestyle should be forced on everyone in the world without taking the time to think about or research the consequences it would have.

What is being suggested is global-scale enforcement of an invasive medical procedure on children. Forcing them into a hospital room where their genitals are sugically manipulated against their will. Such a thing is akin to child rape by law, and I am actually physically repulsed by the idea.

Have you ever read "Watchmen"? Do you understand why everyone is so upset at Adrian at the end? I mean, he saved the world, right?
 
Oh yes, I would also like to put it out there that this policy would never fly in most of the developing world. You would be stigmatized as a child hater just for bringing it up. Places where they have high fertility rates tend to like the fact that they have high fertility rates.

One thing that is often suggested is to contribute to the education and empowerment of women in developing countries. Educated women have less children. That is probably the best course of action. In the rural areas of where I was in Africa, very few girls ever finished high school. They only stayed in school until their parents found a husband for them, usually around 15-16. Then it was off to make babies and be a housewife.

So what you would really be going up against is patriarchy. I think that those old types of patriarchal systems do need to come down, but I know that they wont change easily.
 
[video=youtube;ASrFufnMNDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top