| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 943 Joined: 22 Jul 2008     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1031 Joined: 17 Jul 2008     | I think your right, but it shoulden't be done faschestly. I think the problem could be easily regulated by easyer and less expensive acess to birth control... And more Darwen awards... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1394 Joined: 17 May 2008     |
Then again, I do originate from a 3rd world country, where everyone had, or are, living in not so comfortable conditions to get access to tertiary educations, but that's what society have been working for. Making sure our children are giving the chance to have a better life than their parents; I think it's idiotic to believe that children should be given as much hardship as the farmer who worked his ass off to get his child the resource needed to get out of high school and college with a 'piece of paper' that's going to help him give his own off springs a better chance at living like any other kids in developed countries. It's in my belief that educated people have more to contribute to society, and that most of the educated people I know, have their children on the same path of academic success as they are. Now don't get me wrong, I am totally against the idea of birth control in countries that barely are as populated as China/India, but it's also wrong to encourage said control in the form of warfare or any other means. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 127 Joined: 9 Nov 2008   |
Actually, having a society is the first step towards a totalitarian society. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1146 Joined: 27 Aug 2008    |
Um, YES it sounds messed up, worst of all because it's not true. There are still more people after the war than there are before it. Check the WWII population statistics if you don't believe me. The countries in the world with the worst starvation problems are not those with the highest population density--they are the ones with the least political freedom. The solution to hunger isn't population control, it is liberty. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1146 Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
This is like saying that basketball ability is vitally important because this is what some people living in the Philadelphia Ghetto pursue as a means of getting out. The current over-emphasis on tertiary education is a result of (at least in the U.S.) degree inflation, not that people with a tertiary education actually are better workers. I know plenty of people around here with degrees who are complete idiots and don't know anything about anything. Seriously. In countries where people still have to work hard and endure privations to get their kids through college, there's a lot less degree inflation because the educational product had damn well better be worth something. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 117 Joined: 30 Oct 2008  | In this country at least the gap of earnings between graduates & non-graduates has been steadily decreasing for years. Nowhere did I mention that children should go through hardship, I did however state that your theory that only the well educated should be allowed to reproduce is quite frankly, insane. Without your labourers, manual workers, the ones who do the day to day grind, where would this world be then? If those people, including the farmers do not contribute to society, tell me who does? I put it to you that without "uneducated" people to do the "shitty" jobs this world would fall to bits. Your farming argument is also irrelevant (from my point of view at least) I have 2 friends who have been to Uni, got degrees, then returned to run the family business........farming. You also forget that people, once they get to the age of say 16 are capable of making their own life choices. I chose to not go to college or Uni, do I therefore have nothing to contribute to society? Do I not deserve to reproduce? |
Beat Writer Posts: 127 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 |
Yeah, if you really want something to thin out the world population, it needs to be a disease like the black death, which, coincidentally enough, did in fact help thin out the population of Europe enough to fix a famine that was going on. Probably not the ideal way of wiping out world-hunger though. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2633 Joined: 30 Sep 2008    |
You understand that if this problem is not addressed it may lead to the exhaustion of all or most of the resources necassary for human life? If populations go unchecked they grow too large to survive in their environment, they either suffer massive die offs or go extinct. Humans already occupy nearly every habitable corner of the globe, once global population peaks there are two outcomes. A. Many large distinct population centers begin to die off due to lack of food and water, and increase of diseases that circulates faster because of the close quarters. thus leaving a much smaller population. (the likely outcome) B. The species wastes and exhausts all means of sustainance, eventually leading to humanity's extinction. (wars over resources may greatly attribute) then there is the alternative, capping populations with birth limits(possibly with government controlled contraception). And maybe if humanity's space travel technology undergoes a tremendous leap, TREMENDOUS, we may move to colonize other planets and usher large numbers of people to live on new worlds. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 117 Joined: 30 Oct 2008 |
|
Paperboy Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Sep 2008  | Right, I'm going to jump into this moral melee with +1 great sword of Philosophy drawn (Naturally). So, in short, lets talk trash. Now, I see what you're saying, and it's a perfectly valid opinion, and as a Brit, I can also relate to the context. An NHS, plus the highest teenage pregnancy rate equals a conundrum which politicians daren't wade into. However, there are some flaws in your idea, flaws that can be highlighted. But first, just to get definition right, Moral is the correct word. Governments don't invent morals, it does tend to be the people whom the government serve who do that. There is a difference between morality and law. America, for example, is lawfully a secular nation, but no-one really thinks that, do they? Anyway, moving onwards. It could be argued that having a child is a human right, as you identify. However, I say more. It's not a right, it's an instinct, like eating, and drinking. True, it may be more prevalent in some over others, but reproduction is what makes us living animals, let alone humans. To deny this to anyone is akin to not letting a man eat because he's too fat, and needs to loose weight; yes, it's logically correct, but humans are never logical, and it flies in the face of several thousand years of instinct. Another problem. Call me what you will for citing Karl Marx, but society will forever be cut into two basic groups ; the bourgeoisie, or ruling class, and the Proletariat, the working class. I presume the complaints are aimed at the latter class (Or at least, parts of it). Now, presume they are barred from having children. They will die, as will all things, but who will replace them? Someone has to do their jobs, and in turn, make themselves needy. For there to be a rich, there must, unfortunately, be a poor. And the poor are more likely to have the rather self-destructive attitudes we are discussing. 'Tis an unfortunate side effect of being capitalist. The solution is not a limit on childbirth, in my opinion, but rather, it can be found in education. My friend once told me the difference between the private school life and the state school life, and to sum it up, the private schoolers do just as many illicit activities as state schoolers, but the key difference is "One group is clever enough to hide it". And it's not just the kids tat need the education either (Although, if you catch the kids young, you go 'em), parents need to be forcibly knocked out of their old ways if need be. Perhaps if counciling sessions involved basic philosophy, we'd be living in a brighter world. Not that philosophy does anything on it's own, but hopefully it should make the people who need it most realize that life is different to what they think, and contrary to belief, it's not all going against you. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1146 Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
Famine and plague go hand-in-hand in densely populated areas. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1146 Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
Um, no, because of the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. Besides, the resource most needed for human survival is human intelligence, and you just get MORE of that when the population increases. There is a theoretical limit to the number of human beings the Earth could support, but long before that time having children will become so prohibitively difficult that it won't be an issue. There have been big jumps in the sustainable apex population since the industrial revolution due to advances in food production, sanitation, and medicine, but this isn't an unlimited trend and it's not anything to worry about. In places where those advances have been removed (Zimbabwe!!) the population has crashed and is actually decreasing. IIRC some of the Scandinavian countries have negative population growth, too, because people there don't have many children, they have strict immigration controls, and people frequently move away. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1679 Joined: 29 Dec 2007  | I like how you think Aravier, we shouldn't limit childbirths by legal measures, that would just lead to workforce and military personnel shortages and gender imbalances. However, basic parenting should be a topic covered by education. Right now, students are forced to learn about topics they hardly think relevant to their day-to-day life, so why not give them something practical? Put a parenting education program in our schools so students can learn what pregnancy and parenthood are all about. Even if it doesn't cut down on teen-pregnancies, at least they'll have some idea of what they're doing. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 884 Joined: 19 Sep 2008    | I do see the OP's point, as I lived in Bristol, specifically Bedminster, which me and my friends used to call the 'Genetic Safari' because of the high amount of 14 year old chavs pushing around a pram with two kids in it. Because of the welfare system, its become quite an attractive proposition to simply drop out, have kids, then get paid to do nothing by the government. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 598 Joined: 27 Apr 2008 | The arguement that the working class need to reproduce in order for there to be more workers to do the lower eschelon jobs is a falacy. The people who are creating the over population are not transfering working class values to their children, there is a definite view of why work when you can earn more than the minimum wage sitting on your arse at home. This I know when I was a single fancy free eighteen year old I worked the system so I went to the cinema every day and never missed buying the latest metal CD, I earned more at home than a minimum wage job. If you go into a school which serves a "chav" community you will find that the children have no ambition other than to be on the dole there parents values are transfered and that sadly is shiftlessness and deceit. The minimum wage jobs are mainly being done by Poles who work far harder than our own indigenous peoples. I perhaps should suggest eugenics at this point as I am sounding more right wing than I ever wished to. I am not a Conservative and yet I am agreeing with the middle England Daily Mail reading masses! |
Paperboy  Posts: 13 Joined: 13 Nov 2008    |
The assassination of Barack Obama by an ex-KGB assassain, paid for by Russia (Definitely the bad guys again) in 09 causes the fully-democratic congress to declare war on the nation, which brings in Vietnam, Bulgaria, Ukraine, China, Georgia and Romania to declare war on the US, in turn prompting NATO to support the US, reluctantly as always. Politians posture for the world to see, the other nations in the black sea area break down into civil war, and Pakistan turns up with old Soviet-era ICBMs, and launches them against Israel. Israel retaliates against every muslim country in the middles-east using weapons purchased from the U.S., and is wiped off the map when the pakistani missiles hit. The new Soviets and NATO blame eachother back and forth, and in the mean time, millions of Arabs die of chemical and radiation poisoning. Eventually, eastern europe breaks into hot war, with towns that used to be famous Black Sea resorts are reduced to rubble and piles of corpses. Istanbul is caught in the cross-fire, and burns to the ground. NATO forces the bankrupt New Soviets into a peace treaty that leaves both sides feeling cheated, and the survivors atempt to pick up the pieces of the shattered world. World War III in a nutshell. |
Paperboy Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Sep 2008 |
Amen to that one. There is so much useless rubbish being taught in "Citizenship" classes, that most teens just mentally block it. It's all very muchly common sense, and what isn't common sense is portrayed so ludicrously that it can't be taken seriously. Real example, the fire-service came to teach us road safety, but somewhere along the line I think they got the word "Safety" and "death" mixed up. What followed was an hour's worth of statistics of how likely it is you'll die on the roads, followed by a healthy deluge of government sponsored advertising involving un-dilluted death coming at you from every angle so long as you were within 10 meters of a road, and finished of finally with a delicious sprinkling of real crash photo's, with blood and guts everywhere. It was sheer overkill. Replace that with parenting classes, and I'd be a happier person. I also wouldn't have this recently-developed fear of roads. Tangent aside, I think it would be a brilliant idea. Hell, as you say, even if it doesn't work, and pregnancy rates stay the same, at least the government can then slap people who use ignorance as an excuse to claim benefits. I still think the Welfare state is the best thing that's happened to this country though. Shame it gets abused so much. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 98 Joined: 19 Oct 2008  | Anybody here read Enders Game. They didn't go into great detail and it's been a while since I read it, but as I recall it worked like this: When a family had a child they would get tax benefits for their first two children. If they had a third, not only did they lose the benefits for the first two, they had to pay huge tax hikes to help pay for the extra burden on an already overpopulated system. Doesn't sound like a terrible idea actually. As for reality, I live in the US and we have a problem here as well. I see it where I live ( I won't mention where) there's a group of people (I won't mention that either, because it would make me sound racist and I'm not) that keep having kids just so their WELFARE checks get bigger. I once met a young woman of about 14 years of age who said: "I wanna just start crankin' out babies just like my momma so I can collect WELFARE." I really wish I was making that up. I'm not though. She said it just like that and she was dead serious. Am I a terrible person for thinking that killing her right there would have been the RIGHT thing to do? Maybe, but I still thought it. |
On the Record  Posts: 5175 Joined: 3 Mar 2008     |
Over here, they give away $3000 for every baby born to a family. The problem is, there are a heck of a lot of births, and then a heck of a lot of babies being abandoned. It's chaos. Really, while barbaric, it's a practical and efficient method of keeping our population down. It may be morally wrong, but our Earth can't handle this many people (and growing)for much longer. Of course, we can avoid this method, claiming that it is murder, but planetary destruction through starvation and rising temperatures is not? It's your call. Just think about it. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 117 Joined: 30 Oct 2008 |
I am sorry, but i can't let this go. Your postings contradict each other. In one you state how only the educated should be allowed to reproduce, the next you talk of poor farmers working hard to educate their children. Forgive me (been the uneducated fool that I am)but according to your beliefs the farmer need never struggle as he is not educated enough to reproduce in the first place? You state you come from a 3rd world country, whilst living there , in your experience, were all the poor people such bad parents? Did they all not work hard (as you stated yourself)? Surely if the poor did not work hard & have ambition for their children, the world would be a much poorer place to live. I don't mean to come accross as agressive & I apologise if I do. Your first post just hit a nerve with me is all. My personal gripe is with people who have kids & can't afford both emotionally & financially to support them, support your own don't expect the government or anyone else to do it for you. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2585 Joined: 27 Sep 2008   |
I agree in theory. Thinking about it, it may work in our society, since men and women are more or less equal, and human rights are a priority. I doubt it would be put into practice, as there would be too many militants against it. |
Paperboy Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Sep 2008 | Ah, you're talking about the underclass! That's the posh sociological term for it. Even that can't be solved by birth restrictions. It's more about how the welfare state, and it's flaws. Y'see, the system is about 60 years old now, and it's been tinkered with so much that part's of it are faulty, other parts close to collapse. For example, earning more on the dole than off a minimum wage job. Another example, you loose some of your benefit when you study, which means you can't get out of the system without very severe hardship. Not wanting to sound like a surfer-dude anarchist, but it really is the systems fault. If the system were a little more...Robust is the word, then the underclass would just have to work to get a better life. Instead, to getter a better life they have to resign themselves to learning half the legal system so they can keep as many benefits as possible while they study. Hopefully to be a lawyer, and so help other people out of this "poverty trap" |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1146 Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
Um, who are you talking to? The quote is messed up and you're attributing posts to the wrong people. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 599 Joined: 14 Feb 2008  | foolishness. i say let em breed. you (the OP) have no more right to live on this planet than anyone else, including all the '3rd world' baby factorys, or the 'immigrants' in your own country. this idea aside from being nonsence in reguards to limiting the esence of what it means to be alive, is also arrogent and ignorant for you to presume that you should be able to dictate to anyone else how many children they have. im also single , 37, employed, and own my own home. i live in America where i see constiant example of people poping out children getting huge breaks that i dont, but its as much MY choice NOT to have kids as its THEIR choice TOO have them. and as i see it you get no 'moral points' for making your choice as you have any more than i do, or for that matter those that choose kids do. its not a moral question. the only question of morals here is how can you think that your idea of morals can possable be used to dictate to others their actions? i say nature governs breeding, and all the same basic controlls that are built into place by nature to control overpopulation in animals will work just fine for humans too. as i see it we will eventualy develope a society that will fit into our natural world or nature will eventualy kick our asses untill we do. any way you care to carve this up though, i ask this simple question, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone they can have kids or not? |
Copy Clerk Posts: 117 Joined: 30 Oct 2008 |
Classic example I heard from a friend (father is a Solicitor). A man of 40 years of age, lives with his Mother & has a young Daughter. He has unproven learning difficulties. He has never worked since leaving school, he gets £20,000 a year in benefits. How much do you think he could get if he applied for a job? Exactly. Would you apply for a job? Is this his fault or as my fellow poster above has stated, the fault of a broken system? My friends father came accross him when he applied for legal aid. This man has no incentive to work, to my eyes, through no fault of his own. |
On the Record Posts: 5175 Joined: 3 Mar 2008 |
It's the unfortunate truth. Too many people want what they want immediately, regardless of how it affects their future. People like this caused the The Great Depression and the rapidly rising oil prices. It's sad, and I've stopped fearing for humanity a while ago. When they find that all our resources have been depleted and our ozone layer has been completely destroyed, then it will be in our best interests. But it will be too late, for all of us. It's the end of the world that I predict, if the Americans don't hit the big red button first. P.S. You know those people who vote for a party because they will lower taxes? They go under the same category. It's a selfish and amoral world. |
Beat Writer Posts: 127 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 |
I don't think the point is whether or not people should be allowed to reproduce but whether the State should provide benefits to those that do. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2585 Joined: 27 Sep 2008 |
It tends to work that way. Seeing as it took them this long to only think about the resources we use, I doubt anything will happen before it is too late. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1394 Joined: 17 May 2008 |
@JMS, he was actually talking to me @Phil |
Paperboy Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Sep 2008 | Well, it's good to know I added something to this debate! Keep it up! I'm shattered. Just as a final note, so this isn't labelled as spam and what-not, the birth rates in most civilized countries are slowing down. The average in England is something like 1.7 now. It's a cultural, and financial thing. In the old days, you'd have big families so there'd always be someone to look after the weakest member of the group (Usually the eldest. But we don't live be these ideals any more; it's far to expensive to! Instead, we tend to have smaller families. Not only are they cheaper (From a cold financial view) But it's means a family can be geographically mobile, and thus move around more, thus get better jobs because they can move where the money is, more often. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 742 Joined: 2 Nov 2008   | Why should the government control people like that? |
On the Record Posts: 5175 Joined: 3 Mar 2008 |
I'm not going into it, because it's the wrong topic, and I seem to keep forgetting that The Escapist is an american site. But I will say that of all the countries bearing nuclear weapons, America is the most stubborn and expansionist of them all. And the sheer amount of warheads they have goes to show that if they do hit the button, they are the most likely to successfully destroy everything. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 68 Joined: 6 Jun 2008  |
If the person you quoted meant state as "the group of people within an area" then yes, he could be classified as a moral relativist. If he meant state as "government" then he's just wrong. As for your idea, there is no objective "right" in such a scenario so your idea is completely invalid. Moral relativism simply recognizes morality as a construct of humans and not of universal truths. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 117 Joined: 30 Oct 2008 |
Sorry to both of you, something went v wrong with the quote bit lol. Too much wine I think. Seems this debate got us both rather heated,. I am going to unwind with some Little Big Planet. Peace & Prosperity people. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
Absolutely. Restricting the choice of people to have children is the first step towards a totilitarian society.