Random Sterilization

[MishMish]

Can't say I've won many converts to the idea, and certainly there are practical problems to be hashed out, but seems to me random sterilization, say of every third kid, would be one fine (and non-eugenic, just to forestall) way to stabilize the population...

[blike]

It might be an effective way to stabilize the population, but getting the population to accept the idea would be the biggest block. Generally speaking, most people feel its an inherent right to be able to reproduce, and we are taking that right away from someone. Indeed, there are other means of parenthood, but for reasons I cannot seem to understand, I'd be pissed if I couldn't pass on my genes. I'm on the 'close your legs and be smart' and 'if you can't pay your rent, don't have a kid' side of the argument. That will cut down on the unexpected children, which probably account for a fourth of all births in the US these days.

[blike]

What about something like reversibly sterilizing everyone at birth. Then, when they want to have children, they need to undergo a series of tests to determine their mental and financial capacity to have children. That would most certainly cut down the population, especially since most of the children [in the US] are being pumped out by financially incapable minorities. I'm sure I'll be called a racist bigot by some who read that statement, but the truth is colorblind.

 

The whole idea may seem very discriminatory, and indeed, it is. However, I tend to like that idea rather than sterilizing every third child because it will not only control the population, but control the environment in which kids are born into.

[MishMish]

Am with you on both the close your legs & be smart comment & the but for some reason want to pass on my genes. I don't have kids, but not by positive choice, just don't see it as responsible given my circumstances and at this point don't expect it to happen, but would without hesitation if circumstances allowed.

 

As for targetted (or some means test for allowing one to have kids) am uncomfortable with that myself. I don't pass my personal means test, I guess is what it comes down to, but I am not sure what criteria one could establish that really would correlate to qualified parenting. If I thought that could be objectively established I might change my mind, but see too many not only personal variables but situational ones. Am also uncomfortable with how well we could predict which criteria would be beneficial, in the sense of designer children, which is the other direction that scenario would lead

 

The primary objection as you note is this sense of entitlement to unrestricted reproduction. Am not quite sure where that comes from. If the, not sure which word to use here but let's say insitnct, is for sex and kids are just a consequence, seems to me random sterilization should not much interfere with either any "rights" or with the gene pool in the form of unintended consequences

[Sayonara]

The simple fact is that we will very soon - as a species - have to grow up and be responsible for the number of offspring we produce, as the alternative is global catastrophe.

 

People will obviously whine that their divine rights to have babies are being infringed, but it's really going to be a case of "tough luck".

[alt_f13]

Pretty damn communist sounding... or is it socialist... or is it...

 

Well my grandparents had two kids, my parents had two kids... I sure has hell don't want more than two kids. Problem is, we gast too many a persons who gasts too many damn chillins.

 

Maybe if the poor uneducaed folk were sterilized, the rest of the planet would survive. -or- If we killed all the current governments that squander money (in Canada these are the same morons who dont do sh*t about the homeless and promote "safe injection" sites rather than dealing with the problem at hand. I pay for this sh*t; tranq the bastards and hold them in cold storage until they go off the drugs cold turkey. It's bloody illegal in the first place, for a reason.) and start a new government based on IMPROVEMENT rather than making the politicians money, we might actually get a globe wide education system going and phase overpopulation out.

 

Imagine every squandered dollar on the planet going towards education. Too bad smart, honest people don't go in to politics, or else they do and get turned to the dark side mid-process ( I hate to soil the name of an honest force evil force ). I blame the East Coast universities. Business and law. Why in god's name isn't it science and saving the damn planet, or psychology and running the planet like we know what democracy means.

 

 

Post edited to remove undesirable subject matter.

[Skye]

We don't have a population problem, we have a consumption problem.

[Sayonara]

It's not just food we have to worry about, it's all the matter, energy and space required to "run" a person for their entire life.

 

There is such a strong link between population and consumption that to treat them as separate factors is foolhardy.

 

alt_f13 said in post #6 :

Pretty damn communist sounding... or is it socialist... or is it...

That just tells me you know nothing of communism or socialism.

 

Maybe if the poor uneducaed folk were sterilized, the rest of the planet would survive

Think about that. That's the part of the population with the lowest material requirements.

[blike]

What about a screening system simliar to the one used for background checks on gun purchases in the US. Instead of a set of positive criteria one must have, there is a set of negative criteria one must not have. These criteria could be relatively simple: a source of income below the poverty level, recent felonies, recent history of abuse, history of molestation or sexual abuse, no health insurance.

 

Even though I'm proposing the system, I'd still be very wary of letting the government control the reproduction of the population. I would be more apt to letting them regulate the population than control who is allowed to reproduce. However, as we all know, letting the government regulate things isn't always smart.

 

I guess the main issue I have with random sterilization is that potential responsible parents who are capable of supporting their child would not be able to do so because of the 'luck of the draw'. Yet, by the same chance, a poor family who earns under $10,000/year accidentally has two or three children, thereby compounding their poverty issue.

[Skye]

I wasn't suggesting there's no link between the two, but that the thing need to control is consumption, and while population control is one necessary step, it's not the only one.

[Sayonara]

I said that treating them as separate factors is foolhardy, not that you ignored a link. I was just emphasising the importance of the fact that the two are inextricably related ;-)

 

Population control is possibly the most important factor, because as long as there are too many people, the demands on the planet's resources will be too great, no matter where we get our energy. There is a certain minimum material input required to run a civilisation , and with 6 billion + humans, we're exceeding that.

[MishMish]

A negative means test sounds more acceptable than a positive one, while what makes for a competent parent seems hard to identify for me, is easier to identify certain factors that would make for a poor one. Would not use income as an absolute basis, however, though if it would throw anyone onto public assistance seems a reasonable disqualification.

 

The "unfairness" of random sterilization really doesn't bother me, biological factors already do that to some extent, and I expect enough people would be reasonably adequate parents that for the level of population reduction required some of them would have to forego anyway. Which also means the negative means testing idea may not be adequate to the situation.

 

In addition, this would really have to be implemented globally to be effective, though because of the consumption factor reducing in the industrialized world would still have some impact, should think

[blike]

MishMish said in post #12 :

A negative means test sounds more acceptable than a positive one, while what makes for a competent parent seems hard to identify for me, is easier to identify certain factors that would make for a poor one. Would not use income as an absolute basis, however, though if it would throw anyone onto public assistance seems a reasonable disqualification.

 

The "unfairness" of random sterilization really doesn't bother me, biological factors already do that to some extent, and I expect enough people would be reasonably adequate parents that for the level of population reduction required some of them would have to forego anyway. Which also means the negative means testing idea may not be adequate to the situation.

 

In addition, this would really have to be implemented globally to be effective, though because of the consumption factor reducing in the industrialized world would still have some impact, should think

 

Global implementation would be nearly impossible for any of the ideas discussed. There would need to be some sort of global exchange of information regarding births. Also, the method for sterilization would need to be refined to something like an injection, rather than some sort of surgical procedure, which would most certainly be impractical.

 

You're right in the fact that a negative-testing idea would probably not reduce population growth to desirable rates, but it would take a chunk out of the lower class reproducing at uncontrollable rates, which is most often the case.

[Aegir]

My idea to reducing population has always been to implement a "two parents, one child" policy. The problem with this, like most other ideas is that it would be necessary to implement the program internationaly, somthing I don't think is very likely in the near future. None the less I imagine that there are few arguments against it. It allows everyone to pass on their genes equally but prevents rampent population growth. As for preventing people from having more than one child two routes could be followed. One; people could be sterilized after they have a child, or Two; there would simply be taxes imposed on families that had more than one child as is the case in China where they already practice this system. I don';t really know how effective the system has been in CHina, but it is by far the most rational system I have ever seen considerd.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The problem is, what about all the doctors that would fix it? You would start an underground sterility doctor group. That would be a problem.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think that this whol idea is sick and immoral. THe world is not yet full, and not that close. There is still much country out there. People starve not becasue there is not enough food for so many poeple, there's plenty of food for everyone. It's just they can't distribute it well.

[Aegir]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I think that this whol idea is sick and immoral. THe world is not yet full, and not that close. There is still much country out there. People starve not becasue there is not enough food for so many poeple, there's plenty of food for everyone. It's just they can't distribute it well.

 

If that is indeed the case then why is the population rising so rapidly ? The population of the world was realatively stable until about 1900.(1) It isn't like we have had plenty of room for the last 2000 years so we will have plenty of room for the next 2000... Even if the world population is withinbg the Earth's capacity of food production now it certainly wont be in 20 years if nothing is done to control population growth.

 

On the other hand acording to the article which the graph cited above comes from (2) this isnt really an issue in countries like the United States and Great Britain but rather in poor developing countries were it would be even harder to implement many of these systems because people are so spread out with no real central authority.

 

Really it is a moot point because if there aree to many people for the amount of food produced eventually people will starve to death untill the population is at a sustainable level. I guess that is a rather cynical spin on it, but it is none the less true.

[blike]

Aegir said in post # :

My idea to reducing population has always been to implement a "two parents, one child" policy. ....as is the case in China where they already practice this system. I don';t really know how effective the system has been in CHina, but it is by far the most rational system I have ever seen considerd.

 

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

[Glider]

Yep, but in any international agreement limiting 'offspring output', the US would probably circumvent it by buying the 'offspring quotas' of a few poorer countries.

[MishMish]

National outrage aside, have decided the one child proposal is better as well, and agree whatever proposal is adopted (not to say I expect any to be any time soon) needs to be international

 

Demosthenes, distribution of resources is definitely a factor, but even if that were to be rectified I believe that overpopulation of itself remains the most serious threat. I factor in not only the current population and not only humans but future generations and other species

[atinymonkey]

Income based child allowance. If your income is below the national allowance, you can have one child. On or above get two children (double 3 etc).

 

That way parents don't have children they can't fully support and don't rely on state handouts. A family of low income would find it hard to support more than one child without detracting from the childs wellbeing.

[YT2095]

I see offering financial incentives not to have any more kids than say maybe 2, as a perfectly workable idea, surgical intervention would be a human rights violation to descent citizens.

[-Demosthenes-]

When will this becaome a problem?? Not for a long time. Colonization of other planets will be available eventually. People can live in antartica if they have to!

At an inpersonal piont of view, The people with the most risk of passing on heretitary problems to their children should be the first barred from having children. People could maybe adopt a child. There are many children that are waiting to be adopted, and lots never do.

But personally I think that the idea is very wrong and corrupt.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is a problem in China!

[atinymonkey]

Demosthenes just happens to live in an area of the world that isn't as effected as others. China has had a population control program in place since 1973.