Regulating procreation
I'm curious what people's thoughts are on this; obviously this is a very senstive and touchy subject, regardless I'm interested in it.
Under what circumstances or conditions do people believe that procreation should be regulated; or do they believe in completely unregulated procreation.
As far as history goes, the popular myth that reguation of procreation is solely associated with "fascism, racial eugenics" and so forth is false; most societies, ancient and modern have had some form or measure of "population control"; ideally something which takes into account population relative to one's means, rather than merely unilateral or blanket statements about "too little" or "too many" children, based on some silly and highly questionable pop cultural myth or axiom accepted or taken for granted on the basis of faith, nonsensical circular reasoning and rote regurgitation rather than facts, logic, critical thinking, or anything else beyond outdated 19th century myths and archaisms in theory and in practice (e.x. archaic and highly debatable or questionable or easily disprovable and contradictroy philosophies or philosophical axioms of Malthus, Hobbes, and others).
Under what circumstances or conditions do people believe that procreation should be regulated; or do they believe in completely unregulated procreation.
As far as history goes, the popular myth that reguation of procreation is solely associated with "fascism, racial eugenics" and so forth is false; most societies, ancient and modern have had some form or measure of "population control"; ideally something which takes into account population relative to one's means, rather than merely unilateral or blanket statements about "too little" or "too many" children, based on some silly and highly questionable pop cultural myth or axiom accepted or taken for granted on the basis of faith, nonsensical circular reasoning and rote regurgitation rather than facts, logic, critical thinking, or anything else beyond outdated 19th century myths and archaisms in theory and in practice (e.x. archaic and highly debatable or questionable or easily disprovable and contradictroy philosophies or philosophical axioms of Malthus, Hobbes, and others).
Comments (95)
We make people take a test BEFORE allowing them to drive a car. But we allow them to procreate as long as they have mastered the art of fucking.
Even a porcupine can do that...and there is a lot more danger involved.
Well first of all it would have to be possible to regulate it in a manner that doesn't cause massive followup problems. China's one child policy is a cautionary tale here.
The second condition would have to be that it's strictly necessary for survival, as in the resources are clearly so limited that only a specific population size can survive. Technically, this is the case for earth, but since technology is constantly changing the number it cannot be established.
Could always remove all reproductive material (eggs) from females at birth and put them in cold storage until a license is issued. Would be difficult (storage), and could present unique problems (storage failure is bound to occur), among other moral concerns, but it is not entirely infeasible, and under the right conditions could be a viable alternative (like say, when the global population reaches upward of 15-20 billion).
Yes you are right, "storage would be difficult", but the alternative is even less viable. Once you release the males into the wild, it will be far more difficult to get them back, and the moral concerns will be far more pronounced, and revolt far more likely. As far as storage difficulties go, I also know that we have a projected eighty years before the population of earth reaches 15b. By the time we get there, we may not be talking about cold storage at all, but storage in some form of nutrient rich synthetic bio fluid. As you know, under such conditions, human female eggs can last up to around forty years.
No, if you sterilise the men, you can leave the eggs where they are, and they will also last 40 years or so.
But you can't sterilize the men at birth you need sperm first, which doesn't even get produced until midway through puberty.
The way you concoct difficulties, it almost looks like you have a gender bias.
Lol, yah that is not a Recipe for civil revolt.
There's always going to be some resistance to this sort of program until it becomes traditional.
Well, I guess we'll just have to see how things shake out then. I'll bet on my approach you can bet on yours.
Or we could stop being total pricks and decide it's a deeply repugnant and immoral idea in the first place. :vomit:
Not concerned with the morality of the question only the feasibility. But I do have a question for you: is it more moral to let people starve to death when one could do something to stabilize the problem? You know that we are not talking about an if but when right?
Oh good. Well I can confirm that it is much much cheaper and safer to sterilise men than women. And of course the puberty problem applies to both sexes equally. One solution would be to make sterilisation voluntary, but to confine unsterilised men and allow them access to women only as the population requirements arise. If you are not opposed to abortion, you could also selectively abort most of the male foetuses and reduce the crime levels at the same time.
Have you read Brave New World?
It rather depends what one would do. Feed them would be good, Nuke them would be bad. But that's just my opinion...
You seem to be very emotionally attached to this question. My comments are not prescriptive. It is a thought experiment.
Females are born with all of the eggs they will ever produce. so no, it is not a question of puberty where females are concerned.
What I have proposed is the most morally soft thing I could think of that society as a whole might actually accept under the right conditions (like massive food shortages in the face of an out of control population growth rate). What you are suggesting is just nonsensical.
And if you don't have the option to feed them what then. If there is the option to feed them, this conversation is moot anyway.
Survival of the fittest has always been the way. I don't see any reason to change that. Those who can afford to feed their children will be granted licenses.
Do I? I think I am being quite rational about the most feasible form of population control.
Quoting SonOfAGun
Indeed, but those eggs are immature, and will mature usually one at a time from puberty. If there is an artificial way to mature eggs, I am not familiar with it. Normally, eggs are harvested from a female by stimulating with hormones to mature several eggs at once; I'm not sure that would be even possible with a pre-pubescant girl.
Quoting SonOfAGun
What you have proposed is that other people, women, the poor, anyone but you and your kind should face interventions and restrictions.
Quoting SonOfAGun
There is no wealth gene. On the contrary, wealth being inherited leads to unwarranted survival and so weakens the gene pool. Which explains a deal of idiocy and ugliness.
The eggs can be reintroduced for maturation.
Quoting unenlightened
You are incorrect here, I have no attachment to my own sex in this matter, if I thought that the most viable rout to success would be through males I would not hesitate, but I don't and so here we are.
Quoting unenlightened
Yup, you are correct which is why I added the caveat "I am sure that it is more complicated than that however." in the message below the one you quoted. For instance, What are we to do with the children of parents who can no longer afford to take of them? Yes you are correct there are still many moral concerns to be worked out, but do you have suggestion that do not involve some form of "survival of the fittest?"
Should have responded to this part. You extract all eggs at birth then reintroduce them as needed.
The talk in the comments of forced sterilization and selective abortion should show you where the other path leads to: straight down into the rabbit hole
How to make people refrain from procreation voluntarily?
First, stop promoting the idea that everybody should have children, or that children are a fundamental part of leading a fulfilling life. Instead, present them as equally valid choices, and let people figure out what suits them best. Currently, I think the societal norm is heavily skewed towards having children. Not having children is sometimes seen as sad or weird. That's a problem, because it creates external pressures in people who perhaps otherwise would not have chosen to have children.
Second, educate people thoroughly on the responsibilities of a parent and the implications of putting another human being on this Earth. This should bring people to the realization that simply "because I want to" is not a sufficient basis for having children and that they should heavily weigh the interest of their (future) child. Furthermore, it should discourage people with a history of substance abuse, crime, mental disorder or genetic deficiencies from having children by confronting them with the possible consequences of such a choice.
Bad parenting is the cause of much grief in this world. However, two wrongs don't (and can never) make a right. Draconian laws can never be the answer.
So your idea is moral hand waving? And when this doesn't work (because it wont) what then?
I'd like to see some report of that. Google tells me that immature eggs have been matured outside the body experimentally, but I don't see anything about immature eggs being reintroduced.
But why do you focus on female fertility when male fertility is so much easier to control?
You would be surprised at what solutions people will accept when the problem gets bad enough.
because males are also far less likely to not want to do what the are being asked to do. that is including adult males and their pubescent children that they don't want to be sterilized. You will never get all males to voluntarily/forcibly come in to be sterilized. Now if you could do this to males a birth through the passage of laws, you would still face initial problem but it would be something that could be over come. But that is not something that can be done with males. So not possible. With females on the other hand, technically it would be possible even if the technology does not exist today, it is not far down the road.
It will not work the way you are suggesting it. There would be revolt. And depending on the circumstances there might even be revolt my way.
So this DIRECTLY gets at points I'm making in my thread about society being an ideology. Why do you think SOME people should procreate in the first place? I get the fact that this hypothetical thought experiment is about reckless parenting, basically. We want "responsible" parents rather than bad ones to ensure a "better" upbringing. Now I am going to question why ANY parent should procreate a child in the first place. What are "we" (collectively as humans), trying to do by having MORE people in the first place? We know that life has suffering. We know that a lot of it is tedium. We know that we basically survive due to certain instincts. What do we really want new people to GET OUT OF life? It seems pointless to keep continuing more people and making decisions that they should live on THEIR BEHALF. If you think life is so precious and great.. go live it yourself (and then see experience all the downsides too you don't even consider in you Pollyanna math about hope and society getting better, etc.).. But DON'T make the bad move to then think that YOUR evaluation DESERVES to affect OTHER PEOPLE by procreating them thus making THEM DEAL WITH life because of YOUR decision.
Did you know that during the Chinese one child possibly, baby girls where sold, aborted, and is some cases killed postnatal. it is called female infanticide. Solution to only having one child = try until you have a boy.
I don't think that. No obligation being projected by me. I don't think my children will procreate, and I'm fine with that. Perhaps they would be persuaded by your arguments, or perhaps they have their own different reasons. I'd rather it was their own decision though than that of some fuckwitted philosopher or politician.
Why would there be revolt? Do you think people would find it an unacceptable curtailment of their freedom? Why is it acceptable for women but not men?
not if you remove the option.
That I agree with. I am not for Draconian measures that other people force. It is up to the person, not the state. However, you realize the irony that this particular decision affects a WHOLE other person's life (literally, in the strongest most literal way possible). That is almost a Catch-22.
I agree, and again I don't think it should be forced. But as I said to unenlightened, ironically, not forcing a ban on procreation lets some people force other people into living life (and dealing with it). The parent is making that decision for a new person, lest they kill themselves if they don't like it. The big assumption here is that living is either good, necessary, or preferable for another person under the right circumstances as long as a person already living thinks it is so. Is that really the right assumption to have though?
No I do not find it to be acceptable, but I am also not faced with mass food shortages and starvation. It is not about me, it is about what is possible, feasible, and achievable practically.
Quoting unenlightened
It is not about what I think is acceptable. It is about what I think will be accepted.
As I have already said, it has nothing to do with what "I" want to be done, only what is likely to be done and acceptable.
It's far more serious than that. There are potentially uncountable generations of future off-spring, one of whom might be the fuckwit politician that sterilises the planet. But there is no escape from the responsibility, because not procreating can deprive the world of that planet sterilising fuckwit, and result in a thousand more generations of suffering humanity. Life is a risky business.
Quoting SonOfAGun
No. you are proposing , not predicting. And you are being disingenuous and irresponsible. You have been exposed.
And now you are a mind reader.
I think you are agreeing then. It is a choice to not procreate, thus choosing to not have a possible fuckwit politician that might force people not to procreate :razz:. But anyways, the point is, even the non-Draconian, individual way we do things is a Draconian decision made on ANOTHER person's behalf. It is saying "I think such and such, therefore another person should live out such and such". That's not great either. Then, we think that it's just people's individual decisions. We worship at the alter of personal decision-making. We don't factor in our procreational decision-making ourselves that the progeny will also likely make poor decisions. But I get it, you can always say it's THEIR FAULT. But if you know BEFOREHAND that poor decisions is a possible (even likely?) factor in the progeny's life, why wouldn't that be considered as well instead of post-facto blaming the person who made the bad decision? We can prevent it full stop.
For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given.
But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong.
What are the alternatives?
No we cannot. You can maintain your personal innocence, that's all. Whatever bad happens won't happen to your descendants, if you don't have any.
How is it we cannot? In your next sentence you just said how we can prevent the next generation's bad decisions by not having them.
What I assume is that there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of whatever system is in place. I don't see the downfall of capitalism coming anytime soon, it is more efficient than any other currently known/demonstrated system.
Quoting Echarmion
No this is not what that means, because it would not be only the "rich" that would be allowed birth rights. you would never be able to sell something like that to society as a whole, and if you were to emplement it over time it would eventually be revolted against. You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there.
Why should anyone have children? It is all Draconian- making decisions on others behalf. If you say because some hypothetical "majority" like it.. I will have words.
talk to me again when you and everyone you know are starving to death.
Okay, so we both agree government-sponsered antinatalist policies would be immoral. We both seem to agree that a personal decision to prevent one's own progeny will prevent suffering for one's own descendants. You are correct that it won't prevent a whole "generation" because that would include all people's progeny. However, antinatalism can be at the margins as well. More people who don't procreate means at least those descendants are spared life (bad-decision making, suffering, etc.). So the more people who don't, the more is spared (the alternative of suffering, possible bad-decisions, and dealing with life, etc.).
The descendants lives are spared any suffering by not being born. The people who are living have to deal with it, not use people, and break the very cycle of suffering they themselves are dealing with by being born themselves.
That is not how it is going to play out man. People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices. And no amount of moral hand waving is going to change that. Come on man reality is just one step further. it is better over here.
Will they? I've been debating this for a while. People are not like other animals- we CAN deliberate. Some people due to personality, culture, and maybe genetic predisposition PREFER a certain outcome, but that does not mean they MUST follow-through and do it. In fact, even the very preference itself can be probably replaced with another one, being that it is in fact a preference, not a biological necessity. Going to the bathroom is indeed instinctual, physical pleasure is instinctual, feeling scared with a sudden fall is instinctual. However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference, like wanting a car. I know it sounds weird because we have reified preference into biology because it seems like procreation itself is a biological drive, but it is not. We are playing pop-science and using other animals as examples, that is not our condition.
I am glad you at least find them interesting :smile: .
Quoting Tzeentch
This raises a good point that philosopher David Benatar has also raised. The negative aspects of life is where the moral issue lies, not the good aspects. So that is actually the basis perhaps where most conflict regarding antinatalism lies- how much weight to put on negative experiences?
Benatar's argument (which I agree with mainly), says that preventing a negative is always a good thing, even if there is no one there to know it. However, not experiencing a positive is only a bad thing if there is actually a person who exists that is being deprived of that good thing. One thought experiment he uses is aliens. If we learned that aliens on Mars lived tortuous, sad lives, we most likely would pity them and feel bad. If we learned that aliens don't exist at all on Mars, we don't really feel devastated or empathetic about all the happiness the non-existent aliens are missing. So, that intuition can tell us that there is greater moral weight on preventing negative (it is always good), and not good or bad if there is no person who actually exists to feel good.
"All species of animals have an innate urge to create offspring. If not they would have died out. 2. As a result, all normal adult human beings feel the inner need to bring forth children them-selves."
https://personal.eur.nl/veenhoven/Pub1970s/75c-full.pdf
Are you kidding? That whole article is saying that the idea that there is an innate instinct to procreate is actually wrong. Actually, thank you for providing this.. More evidence that procreation is not an instinct. Look at what the article actually says :lol: :
He says right here:
[quote=IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN? Ruut Veenhoven European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501]
Why this theory is wrong
This theory seems plausible at first glance, but looking at it more closely we can see that it is
based on simplifications and that its predictions turn out to be faulty. We will examine the
propositions mentioned above successively.
3.1 Animals have no 'desire for offspring'
It is true that almost all animals produce offspring, but it is probably not true that this behavior is
determined by an innate desire for offspring. It is highly improbable that animals are motivated
by such conscious wishes for long-term effects. It is far more probable that the reproduction
behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual
drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal
behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced
as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational
characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and
can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.
These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are
governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for
offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation.
3.2 Neither have human beings an innate need for children
Contrary to animals, human beings are capable of pursuing conscious long-term goals. Many
human beings are conscious of a desire for children and work to have them, but this behavior is
not necessarily dictated by an innate need. Human behavior is seldom directly governed by
instincts. Again and again the ever-present influence of environmental circumstances and
learning has been demonstrated. It is improbable that they would not influence the procreation
behavior. In addition human instincts are seldom linked to such specific patterns of behavior. As
far as instinctual tendencies in human beings may be assumed they pertain to vague preferences
which are manifested in very different forms of behavior. Reasoning along this line we could
hypothesize that human beings have instinctual needs for security, love, esteem and
meaningfulness (Maslow, 1964). These needs might be realized in parenthood as well as in a
cloister life, in a political career as well as in an intimate interaction with friends, etc.
The specific form in which the individual chooses to realize his instinctual needs is
probably highly affected by his experience and by the alternatives the socio-cultural environment
offers him. It makes more sense to look at parenthood as one of these alternatives than to
postulate an innate and compelling desire for children.
The idea of an instinctual desire for children is not only a theoretical simplification but
also fails to meet empirical support. If there were such a built-in need the desire for children
should be universal, but this prediction is not confirmed by facts. Millions of people decide
spontaneously for voluntary childlessness. In Canada 5 % of all married couples opt for
childlessness (Veevers, 1973). In the Netherlands 15 % of the couples married in the last few
years intend to forego parenthood (NIDI, 1974). This is not a temporary modern whim, but a
Ruut Veenhoven 2 Is there an innate need for children?
phenomenon that has also been observed in earlier times, In medieval Western European society,
for example, a major part of the population remained childless.
These facts, however, offer no decisive evidence against the procreation-instinct theory. It
could be agreed that all these childless people pay a heavy price for their choice, that the
violation of such a compelling need makes people unhappy -- in any case less happy than people
who follow this need. Here we arrive at propositions 4, 5 and 6 mentioned earlier. To test these
propositions a secondary analysis was made of the data from an investigation concerning the
health and the life circumstances among a representative sample of the adult population of the
Netherlands, As we will see below these data give no support to the predictions of the
procreation-instinct theory.[/quote]
[quote= IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN? Ruut Veenhoven European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501]
3.2.1 Parents are not happier than non-parents
All respondents rated their general feelings of happiness on a seven-point scale. Comparison of
the scores of couples with children and of couples without children revealed no striking
differences. Non-parents seem slightly happier, but the difference fails to meet the 95 % level of
significance (see Table 1).
One could object that this outcome is possibly influenced by a tendency of childless
respondents to rate more happiness than they really feel. We checked this objection by testing the
hypothesis that happy non-parents show a higher score on the General Index of Complaints (see
below) than happy parents do. This check is based on the assumption that frustration of a
fundamental human need gives rise to both feelings of unhappiness and psychosomatic disorders,
the avowal of which is more susceptible to rationalizations by the respondent in the first case than
in the latter. This control hypothesis was rejected; the happiness scores of non-parents turned out
to be no less liable than those of the parents.
3.2.2 Parents do not have fewer psychosomatic complaints than non-parents
The same holds for psychosomatic complaints. The questionnaire contained 85 questions
concerning various complaints such as headache. nervousness, frequent diarrhea, feelings of
being unnatural, depression, etc. On the basis of these questions a General Index of Complaints
was constructed which turned out to be highly related to the clinical diagnose of neurasthenia.
This index was compared for parents and non-parents, but a statistical relationship could not be
demonstrated.
3.2.3 Parents feel less healthy than non-parents do
The questionnaire also contained a rating scale for subjective health feeling. Contrary to the
predictions of the procreation-instinct theory parents turn out to feel less healthy than non-parents
(see Table 1). More than the fulfillment of an undeniable need, parenthood seems to be a tiring
job.
3.2.4 Non-parents do not face a poorer life when growing older
The relation between childlessness and happiness is not affected by age. The same holds for the
relationship between childlessness and psychosomatic complaints. Age does affect the relation
with subjective health feeling: Non-parents in the age of 55 to 65 are feeling significantly better
than parents.
Ruut Veenhoven 3 Is there an innate need for children?
3.2.5 Non-parents report no more doubts about the meaning of their life than parents
Analysis of the answers to a question about the meaningfulness of one's life did not reveal a
difference between parents and non-parents. No relationship could be found within the different
age groups, nor could a stronger tendency towards such a relation be demonstrated in the older
age groups.
The same holds for anxiety about old age and death. Non-parents do not seem to expect a
more problematic and lonesome end of their life. On the contrary, older parents report more
feelings of anxiety concerning this subject, though the difference hardly reaches the 95 % level of
significance. There is no evidence for the notion that non-parents feel more isolated in the later
years of life. Neither do non-parents report a lower degree of marital happiness nor show a higher
degree of problems in social interaction.
3.2.6 Procreation-instinct theory is applicable neither to men nor to women
On the basis of folk theory we might suppose that the results mentioned above hide a major
difference between men and women, with women being especially prone to negative effects of
childlessness. This hypothesis was tested, but it received little support. Childless married women
revealed no less happiness than mothers and reported neither more psychosomatic complaints.
nor more doubt about meaning of life. Likewise they reported neither less subjective health
feeling, nor more anxiety about old age and dying. They did not report less marital satisfaction. In
all age groups a tendency for non-parents to report a higher state of well-being could be observed,
but none of them reached the 95 % level of significance. For men they did in two instances,
Married male non-parents feel more healthy and report a higher level of marital satisfaction.
Finally we might suppose in the basis of the procreation-instinct theory that pregnant
married women are happier than non-pregnant married women. pregnancy being at least partial
gratification of the maternal urge. Twenty-two married respondents were pregnant at the time of
the interview. They were less happy than non-pregnant married female respondents. This result
fits in with the findings of Klein et al. (1950) and Tobin (1957). Again, a derivation from the
procreation-instinct theory fails to find empirical support. [/quote]
Yah I just looked at the excerpt from google and posted it. I should have looked at the article. Not saying I agree though. looking for other information, something more current, but there isn't much on the subject so far. But I definitely don't agree that procreation is not instinctual.
:rofl:
You're not going to find much because it's not true.. But thank you for helping me prove my point. It is a common misconception though if it is any consolation. That article really dissected that well too, how people perceive things that way.
Since I cannot find any other material, We'll Just have to analyze the material we do have.
"It is far more probable that the reproduction behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.
These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation."
See I got into this mess because I relied one your wording. Human beings do have an innate sexual drive. Whether or not humans have an "innate need for children" is made entirely irrelevant by the fact that they have an innate sexual drive. One may literally choose not to have children yet still be carried over that threshold by their sexual drive. This is simply nothing more than word games. Yes human beings do not have an "innate need for CHILDREN" but they still have a sex drive that gets them their all the same.
So stupid.
Okay, now you are getting a bit better. No, it is not about wording. We were explicitly talking about procreation, not sex. While I agree sex is pleasurable, physical affection feels nice, and certain cultural (and perhaps biological) triggers enable us to be attracted to certain people, we can nevertheless choose to prevent that from leading to birth. We can even prevent sex itself even if we like it too. However, I will agree, reckless abandonment to what feels good could lead to these consequences (accidental births), it is not like other animals who cannot deliberate. We can still decide that making a life that suffers is worse off than the joy of one's own particular moment. Because we are such flexible animals we can do that. The structures are already in place to allow it for Western/modern societies- birth control, etc.
As I said before "People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices." The statisticians seem to agree with me, as they are projecting that the world populations will reach 15 billion at around 2100 AD.
So again, How is your moral hand waving going to change this?
Also I am not getting bitter, I knew I was in the right all along. which is why I went and looked into things.
But here's the thing.. I DON'T think most births today are accidental in modern societies. It can be drastically reduced, but people PREFER/WANT to have children. There is where the ideological debate can lie. As for accidents, that's just a matter of education and behavioral changes. If it was purely accidental, that population would be way down.
Quoting SonOfAGun
Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian. For example, vegans very well may be in the right. We are harming animals for no reason..However, to force people to stop is too strong a measure. Being something seen on the fringe, it is going to be one person at a time, or maybe as a media campaign, but not as a mandated thing. Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated.
Yah I don, see it happening man. you go ask the people in India, Africa, and china how well education solves the birthrate problem.
"Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian."
I am going to go ahead and assume you mean "forcing others to do what you want is totalitarian" because I don't understand the alternative. And I would not disagree with you. Only the things that I described are not a prescription from me. They are how I think the problem will actually be solved.
"For example, vegans very well may be in the right."
Yah, I highly doubt that that is the truth.
"Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated."
Whether or not they should is irrelevant to whether or not they will be.
It's actually proven..look at any statistic, that the more women are educated, the less likely they are to have a lot of children. Look at any birth rate of countries that have been more educated over time. India is a great example actually.
As I said, go ask how well education is working in those countries. This is a physical problem not theoretical.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/birth-rate
And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.
https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion
I agree but sometimes the principle itself makes the consequence not worth it. We have a completely different idea of things..
With your model you are saying: Life is worth procreating and living as long as the world is not populated.
With mine it is: Life is not worth procreating and certainly not worth making others deal with it on their behalf. No amount of procreation would be acceptable in that case.
So this is where our paths cross. The project for you is living in certain boundaries, mine is to prevent suffering for a next generation.
This is wrong. I am trying to be objective. My own desires are irrelevant .
I feel compelled to point out that this is a complete non-sequitur
How exactly do statistics not follow.
I think I know what you are trying to say... So you are saying the only course of action to prevent overpopulation is eventually to instill government control and not making a value statement. You may be right there, but I guess I'm getting at if that is morally the "right" thing for government to be involved with.
See here's the thing, government population control measures just show you how much people are a commodity for society.. They are numbers to be culled and enculturated or not. This actually goes right into my ideas that society itself is an ideology. People are "pressed" into life/society and enculturated on various levels in order to maintain the current situation or to mitigate past situations. People should not be used as such.
Efficient at creating growth and thus wealth, certainly. But there are situations where one wouldn't choose it. Like if you were embarking on a long journey on limited resources, which is one case where there might actually be a reason to regulate procreation.
Quoting SonOfAGun
That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth.
It is what it is, and will be what it will be whether or not I am right.
Your statement is not connected to the post you were replying to.
"Birth rates in India are going down"
"The population will probably reach X in year Y"
Those are separate. There is a topical connection, but no logical one.
Ok, that is fine I'll just stick with the statistics.
These are all things that would need to be worked out by law scholars and philosophers of that time.
Did you read my initial proposal?
I'm talking about eugenics here.
That said, the impression I get from people is that eugenics is immoral; this is probably related in some way to our maternal/paternal instincts whereby positive feelings develop towards the "ugly", the unfit, and we, instead of letting nature do its thing and cull the herd, exert ourselves in ensuring not only a life for the "ugly" but also fulfillment in such a life (which may involve having a family of one's own). It seems people are Kantian in this regard because a person's value transcends faers utility to society - people are ends in themselves. I maybe wrong though.
That's a good point; the fact that people have to demonstrate more responsibility or competence to get a driver's license than to have a child is somewhat disturbing.
I think it's a good idea in principle, if you can find equitable policies to do the job -- especially in technologically advanced global societies facing grave problems of distribution, depletion, and pollution.
:-)
With modernized building codes (as well as zoning laws to some degree) adjusted for globalized factory material production saturation, we could have a much higher population in the U.S. than we do. Obviously when populations get to be like in Japan (as opposed to the current U.S. population), there will have to be more creative solutions to deal with dense populations and the economy.
Canada, Siberia and even currently the U.S. have plenty of land and cold temperatures to handle a more dense population. Global warming isn't a problem in some parts of the world. Having an effective economy with the desire for a free market is possible if land is properly used.
Electric trike lanes are great for a free market and some people claim for whatever reason that it is good for the environment.
There is no need for population control in many countries through out the world.