Eugenics, Mandatory Birth Control, and Other Such Things

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Lo, all. I have been thinking recently about the horrible and unsustainable growth of population that plagues human society. I do not think we are being responsible with our rate of reproduction, for if we do not do something to curb population growth, eventually there will be so many humans and so much competition for resources that we will all suffer. E.g., look at the overpopulation problems of countries like India and China. I also think that when it comes to making more humans, it is best to focus on quality rather than quantity. I would much prefer to have one intelligent person than ten imbeciles fit only for unskilled labor or even ten Joe-averages.

It is for this reason I support the two causes of eugenics and government mandated birth control. I believe that in order to promote and sustain a healthy population, there should first be a limit on how many children a couple can have. This limit should be dynamic; low at first to allow the population to fall to a more sustainable level, then adjusted to maintain that level. On the issue of quality, it seems to me that we are content to let any sort of people procreate regardless of the quality of offspring they can produce, either from genetics or the sort of up-bringing they are capable of providing. It is for this reason I think that those people with detrimental or harmful genetic medical conditions, mental or physical, should be barred from procreation. This should also apply to people too poor to support children. Inversely, perhaps the reproduction of exceptionally intelligent people should be subsidized.

My two biggest concerns, however, are how to define "detrimental or harmful genetic medical conditions." That term is open to abuse, particularly if the government mistakes Asperger's Syndrome as one and bans those with it from procreation. I speak from firsthand experience when I say that it is most certainly not detrimental or harmful. Second, the "imbeciles fit only for unskilled labor" do have some importance by doing the jobs that less desperate people find unsavory. Naturally, by breeding them out, we shall need a replacement. I suppose we could conscript prisoners into laboring for us, maybe prisoners of war as well. This could tide us over until we have made a more permanent solution, like more thoroughly mechanizing the work force.

There you have my thoughts on the subject. Discuss them, I urge you.

i am somewhat divided when it comes the matter of eugenics and forced birth control. I would advocate increased family planning education over enforced birth control. these ideas are extreamly unlikely to be introduced anywhere especially with the nazi connections drawn from eugenics.

KingGolem:
I do not think we are being responsible with our rate of reproduction

And that's where you're wrong, actually. Birthrates are lowering throughout the developed and developing worlds, and everywhere else has the accompanying deathrate. And yes, that includes China and India. For the latter, their birthrate is actually lowering drastically, but it's harder to notice when you start from such a large base. I don't have a clue why you brought up China, since their population stabilized a while ago.

This is a problem that solves itself, really.

I think the most humane course of action would be to induce a 'Europe effect' in the rest of the world by making everyone rich enough to be able to afford not to have kids.

image

We're stage 4. They're stage 2-3, afaik.

KingGolem:

This should also apply to people too poor to support children.

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

Mmm, wonder why it never comes up to, you know, provide better education? If you're so willing to impose such limits on a quite obviously unwilling populace, why not actually start small, well, relatively so, by fixing or indeed perfecting the world's educational systems?

If the population at large is educated, in a well rounded manner that includes knowing how to plan for a child, shouldn't the lower birthrates come about as a natural outcome of that? In this way, we don't -need- to messy our hands with frankly lunatic birth control programs.

But no, -that's- far too difficult, birth limits for all it is! Right?

As for eugenics, performed with ethical considerations I have no problem with trying to blot out damaging or debilitating genetic conditions. Even tentatively, ones such as Down's Syndrome and Aspergers, this is not to say that people who suffer from these conditions should be treated badly or being prevented from procreating because of such traits (myself suffering (loosely of course) from the latter), but rather, creating methods by which these problems simply don't occur in the first place.

Overall, you seem to want the world to be like Metropolis, with the elite, intellectual higher-ups, and the lower, unintelligent labourers. You really should watch it if you haven't, see how it turns out. ;P

Hellz_Barz:

KingGolem:

This should also apply to people too poor to support children.

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

ehh, actually people tend to be physically hardier when they grow up with proper nutrition and solid medical care. Which most third world countries dont have. American health issues tend to be more long term issues and first world problems like obesity and diabetes.

And mentally hardy? what are you trying to mark here? intelligence/education? Your not going to be getting anything close to what developed countries have to offer from places that barely can manage running water or literacy.

Struggle doesnt actually make you any stronger or smarter. At best its motivation to better your situation but for every story of someone "pulling themselves up by thier bootstraps" there is a thousand of people simply not being able to dig out of the hole they where born in.

NeutralDrow:

KingGolem:
I do not think we are being responsible with our rate of reproduction

And that's where you're wrong, actually. Birthrates are lowering throughout the developed and developing worlds, and everywhere else has the accompanying deathrate. And yes, that includes China and India. For the latter, their birthrate is actually lowering drastically, but it's harder to notice when you start from such a large base. I don't have a clue why you brought up China, since their population stabilized a while ago.

This is a problem that solves itself, really.

Really, now? I did not know that... Nevertheless, the large base still exists, and we could do to tidy things up. Letting the problem "solve itself" is not, I think, the most precise, reliable, or efficient way of doing so. It also doesn't address the "quality vs. quantity" issue, and I say that could do with our attention.

Hellz_Barz:

KingGolem:

This should also apply to people too poor to support children.

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

You may have a point, there, but I still think that being able to afford a first rate education is preferable to growing up in lousy conditions. Much preferable, actually.

GothmogII:
Mmm, wonder why it never comes up to, you know, provide better education? If you're so willing to impose such limits on a quite obviously unwilling populace, why not actually start small, well, relatively so, by fixing or indeed perfecting the world's educational systems?

I suspect that would be much easier to do if there were less children to educate.

GothmogII:
Overall, you seem to want the world to be like Metropolis, with the elite, intellectual higher-ups, and the lower, unintelligent labourers. You really should watch it if you haven't, see how it turns out. ;P

Not exactly. I want to maximize the number of the "elite, intellectual higher-ups" through lowering the population, improving education, and having some quality control, for once. I also want as few lower, unintelligent laborers around as possible by replacing them with mechanization and the conscripted labor of prisoners, as well as anything else we can do to tide us over into maximum mechanization.

Danny Ocean:
I think the most humane course of action would be to induce a 'Europe effect' in the rest of the world by making everyone rich enough to be able to afford not to have kids.

image

We're stage 4. They're stage 2-3, afaik.

If I'm interpreting that graph correctly, then yes, it would seem that stage 3 is ideal. What I do not understand is "making everyone rich enough to be able to afford not to have kids." That does not make sense to me; if you were poor and struggle to feed yourself, wouldn't it be most logical to NOT have kids to support? Also, if you were rich, or at least successful, it would make more sense to have the kids so you could provide for them properly.

KingGolem:
If I'm interpreting that graph correctly, then yes, it would seem that stage 3 is ideal. What I do not understand is "making everyone rich enough to be able to afford not to have kids." That does not make sense to me; if you were poor and struggle to feed yourself, wouldn't it be most logical to NOT have kids to support?

Poor people often have limited access to family planning services. Another thing to consider is the high rate of mortality in impoverished nations.

Genetic diversity is a healthy thing. Our species isn't threatened and human suffering from genetic diseases can be prevented by early testing, genetic counseling and abortion. I think it would be a good thing to expand and socialize family planning services and education, and I think that would help a great deal.

burnt.hair:

Hellz_Barz:

KingGolem:

This should also apply to people too poor to support children.

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

ehh, actually people tend to be physically hardier when they grow up with proper nutrition and solid medical care. Which most third world countries dont have. American health issues tend to be more long term issues and first world problems like obesity and diabetes.

And mentally hardy? what are you trying to mark here? intelligence/education? Your not going to be getting anything close to what developed countries have to offer from places that barely can manage running water or literacy.

Struggle doesnt actually make you any stronger or smarter. At best its motivation to better your situation but for every story of someone "pulling themselves up by thier bootstraps" there is a thousand of people simply not being able to dig out of the hole they where born in.

Well how many of these kids do you think are fat and lazy like westerners? You've got me on nutrition cause i don't know enough about diets in third world countries. but alot start jobs involving hard labour at young ages. growing up in these strenuous conditions makes them them tough.

I meant mentally hardy as in what we consider a hard day would be nothing to them. tragedy is an everyday reality cause they grow up with it. These people don't get depressed and quit when shits hard cause they know they cant afford it. they die if they don't work, they aint got no welfare. I wasn't talking about education or intelligence.

KingGolem:

Hellz_Barz:

KingGolem:

This should also apply to people too poor to support children.

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

You may have a point, there, but I still think that being able to afford a first rate education is preferable to growing up in lousy conditions. Much preferable, actually.

Yeah but being able to afford something doesn't really make someone genetically superior though.

I find it telling that the OP wants to protect those with an obvious genetic abnormality that does make them less productive citizens just because either he has it or someone close to him does. It is very telling both of the close mindedness of the OP and the problem with any eugenics program.

Eugenics programs are bad ideas. Very bad. Racists and/or self interested dictator types are pretty much always behind them.

KingGolem:
I do not think we are being responsible with our rate of reproduction

Swap out "reproduction" with "consumption" and you'd be on to something. We can reasonably support this population of ours if we could do with less stuff. I think, anyway.

Just to scare people, I've run into quite a few men's rights people who think lowering birthrates are a horrible problem (and yes, they use it to bitch about feminism).

On topic, there are parts where we need to spread wealth and women's rights to stabilize their populations, but as has been demonstrated in this thread and my human geography class, the problem tends to sort itself out.

Wow, a completely ignorant thread about limiting other people's freedoms and punishing people for the way they were born! Absolutely amazing.

Yeah, I don't think any group of people would appreciate being written out of existence, regardless of who they are.

Hellz_Barz:

burnt.hair:

Hellz_Barz:

KingGolem:

This should also apply to people too poor to support children.

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

ehh, actually people tend to be physically hardier when they grow up with proper nutrition and solid medical care. Which most third world countries dont have. American health issues tend to be more long term issues and first world problems like obesity and diabetes.

And mentally hardy? what are you trying to mark here? intelligence/education? Your not going to be getting anything close to what developed countries have to offer from places that barely can manage running water or literacy.

Struggle doesnt actually make you any stronger or smarter. At best its motivation to better your situation but for every story of someone "pulling themselves up by thier bootstraps" there is a thousand of people simply not being able to dig out of the hole they where born in.

Well how many of these kids do you think are fat and lazy like westerners? You've got me on nutrition cause i don't know enough about diets in third world countries. but alot start jobs involving hard labour at young ages. growing up in these strenuous conditions makes them them tough.

I meant mentally hardy as in what we consider a hard day would be nothing to them. tragedy is an everyday reality cause they grow up with it. These people don't get depressed and quit when shits hard cause they know they cant afford it. they die if they don't work, they aint got no welfare. I wasn't talking about education or intelligence.

fat and lazy tends to be preferable to diseased and malnurished. Overall health and quality of life is far worse, even if they are "thin and hard working". As far as the difference in work ethic, even if they work "harder" , laborers in developed contries tend to do more work with less effort through working smarter, doing more skilled labor, and taking advantage of the advancements that come out of a society that values education over brute force. Compare a ethopian group of works making a sod structure vs an american carpenter raising a house. More labor goes into the sod building but it is far inferior to the work of the carpenter.

And trust me, there is plenty of depression and suffering in those contries. not every man is some sort of sun hardened shell of a man. Just not as serious when a suicide or murder takes place in those areas because the story doesnt travel like it does in western media.

A random person:
Just to scare people, I've run into quite a few men's rights people who think lowering birthrates are a horrible problem (and yes, they use it to bitch about feminism).

It's not a problem of feminism. It's a problem of mindless consumerism and the general lack of value with which our culture views children. And declining birth rates are absolutely a problem; we are on the verge of a demographic crisis because of the increasing ratio of retirees to productive workers. Japan is in the midst of such a demographic crisis.

Wardnath:
Yeah, I don't think any group of people would appreciate being written out of existence, regardless of who they are.

They don't have to appreciate it. If you're worried about whether or not they'll appreciate it, you're missing the point.

Developed nations have lower birthrates anyway, what we need is to get some sort of global socio-economic standards is all.
And yes, I know this is far more difficult than I make it sound but seeing as I'm all about individual freedoms, I think this approach is better than forcing governments to force people not to have too many children.

burnt.hair:

fat and lazy tends to be preferable to diseased and malnurished. Overall health and quality of life is far worse, even if they are "thin and hard working". As far as the difference in work ethic, even if they work "harder" , laborers in developed contries tend to do more work with less effort through working smarter, doing more skilled labor, and taking advantage of the advancements that come out of a society that values education over brute force. Compare a ethopian group of works making a sod structure vs an american carpenter raising a house. More labor goes into the sod building but it is far inferior to the work of the carpenter.

And trust me, there is plenty of depression and suffering in those contries. not every man is some sort of sun hardened shell of a man. Just not as serious when a suicide or murder takes place in those areas because the story doesnt travel like it does in western media.

first post was rejected for some reason so I'll try again

I'm not talking about work ethic, and trade skills certain countries possess over others. I'm saying by comparison their lives are harder and therefore they are hardier then us because our lives are pretty cushy.

Hellz_Barz:

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

No it doesn't.

If you've suffered malnutrition from the day you were born you're going to be sicker than anybody else. Even after removing yourself from said conditions that were the cause of your malnutrition later in life.

The Human body doesn't just 'get over' decades of abuse.

As for the topic, the Earth lost it's ability to sustain human populations ages ago. But let's say if populations began to drop right now. I mean drop too, not just stabilize but actually drop. We'd still be 'riding the wave' so to speak of the 70's-80's boom for the next 40 years.

Given that world populations are still rising that wave were riding is going to be atleast 50-60 more years ... and that's if we wisen up right now.

KingGolem:

If I'm interpreting that graph correctly, then yes, it would seem that stage 3 is ideal. What I do not understand is "making everyone rich enough to be able to afford not to have kids." That does not make sense to me; if you were poor and struggle to feed yourself, wouldn't it be most logical to NOT have kids to support? Also, if you were rich, or at least successful, it would make more sense to have the kids so you could provide for them properly.

They have kids so that they can send them to work and because they don't know about/have access birth control.

Basically, judging by your points, you want to make people rich by lowering the population. I want to lower the population by making everyone rich.

PaulH:

Hellz_Barz:

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

No it doesn't.

If you've suffered malnutrition from the day you were born you're going to be sicker than anybody else. Even after removing yourself from said conditions that were the cause of your malnutrition later in life.

The Human body doesn't just 'get over' decades of abuse.

if your sick and malnourished in that part of the world you generally die. if all the weak are dropping off whats left?

Hellz_Barz:

PaulH:

Hellz_Barz:

You understand children growing up in third-world countries will be physically and mentally hardier then yours because of such poor conditions. Struggle is what excels humans to be stronger and smarter.

No it doesn't.

If you've suffered malnutrition from the day you were born you're going to be sicker than anybody else. Even after removing yourself from said conditions that were the cause of your malnutrition later in life.

The Human body doesn't just 'get over' decades of abuse.

if your sick and malnourished in that part of the world you generally die. if all the weak are dropping off whats left?

The violent, the rich and the sickly people just barely holding on.

Hellz_Barz:
if your sick and malnourished in that part of the world you generally die. if all the weak are dropping off whats left?

Sickle-cell heterozygotes for one. Which is not really healthier than, well, healthy people under normal circumstances.

---

Let me make another example:
You have staphylococcus aureus and you have MRSA. Well, the former is ubiquitous while the latter exists primarily in hospitals or old people's homes and so on. Why is that?
Well, MRSA is "more powerful" in that it can defend itself against a large number of antibiotics whereas normal staph cannot. This is why under hospital conditions, MRSA is selected for, it gets to survive. But outside in the normal world where antibiotics aren't applied as commonly as inside a hospital, you find almost exclusively normal types of staph (almost because there are cases of community-acquired MRSA every now and then).
Now, why is that? It's actually rather simple. MRSA needs to produce enzymes and all sorts of things to counter-act antibiotics and antiseptics and so on. These things are costly. They require a lot of energy. Outside in the normal world, MRSA is therefore not as competitive as normal staph is. Even the rare cases of community-acquired MRSA are attributed to a hybrid between normal staph and MRSA, not directly hospital-strains of staph.
So you see, there is no such thing as objectively stronger in Evolution. There is only well-adapted to current circumstances. If those circumstances change, a "strong" germ such as MRSA may be driven out by its "weaker" cousins. I.e., "strong" and "weak" in that sense don't exist. There's only well-adapted.

PaulH:

The violent, the rich and the sickly people just barely holding on.

Close your supposed to say the "the strong?". But not all of em turn to violence as a means for more income and then food. Always gonna be rich exploiting the situation that's a given.
And even though the sick are physically weak you wouldn't call them mentally weak for doing all they can to hold on?

Hellz_Barz:

Close, you're supposed to say the "the strong?".

Only if I was an idiot. Malnutrition, disease and physical abuse doesn't make people 'hardier'. It makes them desperate. Desperate enough to kill and steal.

Desperacy =/= 'strength' ...

Skeleon:

Hellz_Barz:
if your sick and malnourished in that part of the world you generally die. if all the weak are dropping off whats left?

Sickle-cell heterozygotes for one. Which is not really healthier than, well, healthy people under normal circumstances.

Had to use me dictionary for this one. Diverse eggs made of curved cells?
could you please translate that for the kids who ain't that bright (i.e. me)

Hellz_Barz:

Skeleon:

Hellz_Barz:
if your sick and malnourished in that part of the world you generally die. if all the weak are dropping off whats left?

Sickle-cell heterozygotes for one. Which is not really healthier than, well, healthy people under normal circumstances.

Had to use me dictionary for this one. Diverse eggs made of curved cells?
could you please translate that for the kids who ain't that bright (i.e. me)

Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic ailment common in Western Africa in particular. It's recessive, that means you have to have the gene for it on both of your corresponding chromosomes for it to make symptoms. Homozygotes are people who have both of them, heterozygotes are people who have it on only one of them. Homozygotes die younger because of the symptoms while heterozygotes are selected for in Africa, they survive better than the general population.
Sickle-cell anemia deforms your red blood cells and makes them less stable. In Africa Malaria is rather common. Malaria reproduces inside your red blood cells. Now, if your red blood cells are rather unstable, they go pop before the Malaria parasites had enough time to reproduce properly. That's why people who have the sickle-cell anemia mutation are practically immune against Malaria. Under normal circumstances, this mutation is a disadvantage, though. Only because of Malaria is it selected for.

Please also read the paragraph I wrote about MRSA in the above post, I edited it in afterwards.

PaulH:

Hellz_Barz:

Close, you're supposed to say the "the strong?".

Only if I was an idiot. Malnutrition, disease and physical abuse doesn't make people 'hardier'. It makes them desperate. Desperate enough to kill and steal.

Desperacy =/= 'strength' ...

first part was a joke mate so don't take it too seriously. some turn to crime no doubt but some don't and work ridiculous physical jobs to make sure they get the nourishment they need and take care of themselves. i think at this point were just gonna have to agree to disagree, cause i cant be bothered arguing any more.

I reckon one quick way to slow the birth rate world wide is to close off certain countries to immigration :P Don't worry I realize how ridiculous that idea is, but really it isn't the first world countries with this problem, despite their growing populations. It is the 3rd/2nd world countries breeding and then immigrating to a 1st world country.

Eh, the OP has the wrong ideas about over-population.

Firstly, in the developed world it isn't a problem. European and western fertility rates are low, and in some cases western populations are only growing because of immigration. In others, like in Germany and Japan, they arn't growing at all.

Secondly, overpopulation is a relative term and is related to how many resources a population can sustain itself on. The UK population is nearly 70 million i think, in the middle ages Britain would have been way over-crowded. But today we are not because we have more efficient and productive farm techniques, as well as import food from all other the world.

Given the resources available to many Africans, Africa has been overpopulated for many decades now, and it's the same with a number of other third world countries. Once infant morality falls in these countries, there will be an initial spike in population before familes adjust to having smaller families, but then hopefully populations in the developing world will stabilise.

So, really you need to step up aid efforts to the developing world and help them bring down birth rates. Economic prosperity and improved farming methods wouldn't go amiss- that's what the West should do to help those people.

Nickolai77:
Eh, the OP has the wrong ideas about over-population.

That's pretty much a given once Eugenics of all things is brought into play. A "science" in which is of utter disregard to the true understanding of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and Natural Selection, no less.

Korimyr the Rat:

A random person:
Just to scare people, I've run into quite a few men's rights people who think lowering birthrates are a horrible problem (and yes, they use it to bitch about feminism).

It's not a problem of feminism. It's a problem of mindless consumerism and the general lack of value with which our culture views children. And declining birth rates are absolutely a problem; we are on the verge of a demographic crisis because of the increasing ratio of retirees to productive workers. Japan is in the midst of such a demographic crisis.

I'd consider Japan an example of what happens when you have a large baby boom in a relatively small country; lots of kids are born, becoming the current retirees. People later have fewer kids because of the resulting population explosion/density, feeling (wisely) that the population needs to get lower, not higher (there are other cultural factors like their work ethic, sure, but population heavily determines reproductive choices). Essentially, Japan flew too high, and is now tumbling down to the opposite extreme of population problems (I believe they can recover, but it will be a rough ride). They wouldn't have as much of this problem if they had fewer kids over a longer period of time instead of a post-war baby boom.

As for birth rates in other countries, while you could argue that much of western Europe might need to pick it up, the possibility of India exceeding China is not something to brag about. Besides, contrary to certain people I've run into who claim "it's a population pyramid, but it's not pyramid shaped now. Feminism is killing us" (yes, I've been to depressing corners of the internet), going back to a pyramid-shaped age-demographic structure would be massively unsustainable; you'd have an ever-growing glut of dependency-ratio babies, and if for whatever reason the birth-rate rose significantly from that (religious tendencies, post-war baby booms, etc.), the situation would become nightmarish, only being resolved when the next generation has fewer babies, which of course leads to the problem Japan's having.

Just for the record. If any government (in the US) tries to employ the eugenics techniques (ie forced birth-control, sterilization, ect) on me, my family, my friends, or my church; I will initiate my plans to assist western Kansas (and surrounding counties) in succession from the Union, by force if need be. And this comes from a state that fought on the side of the North during the Civil war.

I am very paranoid, and I grow more paranoid about this kind of stuff yearly.

Luckily, the odds of forced Eugenics are very remote because the government knows that most of the militia would rebel. (say in deep, dramatic tone) Militia, the final Check and Balance.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked