enforced sterilization

[alice144]

Way back in the day, I was watching this vid of Chris Langan, purportedly the smartest man in the world.

He thinks that the world is overpopulated and that in order to counter this problem we should sterilize everyone under the age of ten in order to get the world's population under control.

Actually, I kind of agree with him. The world is overpopulated. We have too many people and not enough resources for all of them. Considering the lives some people lead, a lot of us might have been better off not having been born at all. Especially those kids whose moms are crack ho's and abandoned them at the age of three. A lot of supposedly normal people have kids for all the wrong reasons, and just thinking about all the bad parents out there makes me cringe.

The risk of this sort of policy is that it could turn into a eugenics program. In some ways, this is a good thing. There are people who quite clearly should be having children, and others who quite clearly should not. But how do you decide who reproduces and who doesn't? It seems like giving anyone that much power gives a lot of legroom for those making the decisions to bring their own, personal biases into play.

I kind of like the Chinese policy of 'one child per family'. Conceptually, it's non-predjudicial. Sure, it doesn't work out this way in practice -- what does? -- but it's not a bad idea.

Possibly a policy of 'forced sterilization' is inherently evil; having kids brings meaning to a lot of people's lives. Is this good? Is this bad? Discuss, please.

 

[moonlightam]

ouch ouch ouch... Please tell me this is a wind up? This planet can realistically feed and shelter about 20bn people. Theres enough for everyones need, but not for everyone's greed. There are enough resources, but we just arent using them properly. We waste resources that arent renewable to make crap that nobody really needs to survive, then replace that crap every year, because its made to break down eventually, so you would buy more, boosting the "economy" which, however deluded some are - is doomed to fail, because some idiot decided that it only works if it keeps growing. Nothing ever grows infinitely and indefinitely. We need to stop wasting resources to begin with, start producing durable appliances, start vertical farming, start using the 3d printers to the full capacity etc etc etc.... There goes my good mood...

 

[Sriracha]

Bad idea. However I do believe the government should provide free sterilization. I think you'd be surprised how many would take advantage of it.

 

[barbad0s]

lolol what do you think about this

[video=youtube;1OZkrqHKRGU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OZkrqHKRGU[/video]

 

[Billy]

Way back in the day, I was watching this vid of Chris Langan, purportedly the smartest man in the world.

He thinks that the world is overpopulated and that in order to counter this problem we should sterilize everyone under the age of ten in order to get the world's population under control.

Actually, I kind of agree with him. The world is overpopulated. We have too many people and not enough resources for all of them. Considering the lives some people lead, a lot of us might have been better off not having been born at all. Especially those kids whose moms are crack ho's and abandoned them at the age of three. A lot of supposedly normal people have kids for all the wrong reasons, and just thinking about all the bad parents out there makes me cringe.

The risk of this sort of policy is that it could turn into a eugenics program. In some ways, this is a good thing. There are people who quite clearly should be having children, and others who quite clearly should not. But how do you decide who reproduces and who doesn't? It seems like giving anyone that much power gives a lot of legroom for those making the decisions to bring their own, personal biases into play.

I kind of like the Chinese policy of 'one child per family'. Conceptually, it's non-predjudicial. Sure, it doesn't work out this way in practice -- what does? -- but it's not a bad idea.

Possibly a policy of 'forced sterilization' is inherently evil; having kids brings meaning to a lot of people's lives. Is this good? Is this bad? Discuss, please.

There are plenty of resources, just not enough for everyone to live like someone in the US or Western Europe. Maybe the West needs to go with less so everyone else can have a slice of pie too.

 

[MrDoobie]

The risk of this sort of policy is that it could turn into a eugenics program. In some ways, this is a good thing.

There is absolutely no historical or scientific precedent for eugenics ever being a good thing.

He thinks that the world is overpopulated and that in order to counter this problem we should sterilize everyone under the age of ten in order to get the world's population under control.

Yeah, that's not violating or invasive at all.

 

[barbad0s]

This planet can realistically feed and shelter about 20bn people.

Source please! Tried to google, but couldn't find anything. I've never heard that claim before.

Theres enough for everyones need, but not for everyone's greed. There are enough resources, but we just arent using them properly. We waste resources that arent renewable to make crap that nobody really needs to survive, then replace that crap every year, because its made to break down eventually, so you would buy more, boosting the "economy" which, however deluded some are - is doomed to fail, because some idiot decided that it only works if it keeps growing. Nothing ever grows infinitely and indefinitely. We need to stop wasting resources to begin with, start producing durable appliances, start vertical farming, start using the 3d printers to the full capacity etc etc etc.... There goes my good mood...

I agree with this for the most part. Forcing people to alter a significant part of their bodies is definitely unethical, but making babies is only one part of the big picture when it comes to the world living sustainably. Speculating about possible ethical, globalized, holisitc solutions becomes interesting though: If everyone was brought to a more standardized, humbler standard of living, presumably using the best of what technology has to offer to help with it all, we would be living in a very very different world from the one we're in now. I think most people would agree that wanting to attain more than what is bare minimum for survival is not "greed" and that where the line crosses into "greed" is subjective. In any case... it's a lot to think about.

 

[moonlightam]

Source please! Tried to google, but couldn't find anything. I've never heard that claim before.



I agree with this for the most part. Forcing people to alter a significant part of their bodies is definitely unethical, but making babies is only one part of the big picture when it comes to the world living sustainably. Speculating about possible ethical, globalized, holisitc solutions becomes interesting though: If everyone was brought to a more standardized, humbler standard of living, presumably using the best of what technology has to offer to help with it all, we would be living in a very very different world from the one we're in now. I think most people would agree that wanting to attain more than what is bare minimum for survival is not "greed" and that where the line crosses into "greed" is subjective. In any case... it's a lot to think about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo

 

[CindyLou]

The idea is completely unethical. I hate it.

 

[barbad0s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo

I watched the entire video and it didn't say anything about 20 billion people... some general ideas, but nothing to back any numbers like that up.

 

[Matt3737]

Here is a dissenting opinion.

 

[moonlightam]

I watched the entire video and it didn't say anything about 20 billion people... some general ideas, but nothing to back any numbers like that up.

I cant find it now, I confess about not keeping any list of quotes with links to where its stored or who said it, never had any reason to, but the evaluation of resources that are available on this planet is indicating towards supporting about 20 bn. Im pretty positive it was shown in one of the Jaques Fresco conferences, if I find it, i'll link it

 

[moonlightam]

but basically the idea is that, in order to survive, we need to evolve, not self-destruct.

 

[Matt3737]

The wikipedia article on overpopulation states:

Most estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred.

It does not list its sources for these estimates though I know they are out there because I've heard them before. The short answer is that we're not entirely sure.

 

[moonlightam]

The wikipedia article on overpopulation states:



It does not list its sources for these estimates though I know they are out there because I've heard them before. The short answer is that we're not entirely sure.

It also depends what is the estimate based on. Nobody has counted any Arctic/Antarctic potentials yet

 

[toska]

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

 

[CindyLou]

The wikipedia article on overpopulation states:



It does not list its sources for these estimates though I know they are out there because I've heard them before. The short answer is that we're not entirely sure.

I had read that somewhere too last year but couldn't remember the number.

 

[CindyLou]

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

This.

But, you would have to get rid of all safety net type of systems and have affordable birth control easily available. Basically people don't have kids they can't afford because they don't like to watch them starve.

 

[MrDoobie]

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

Not to mention that even if this program was instituted completely correctly and exactly the way the OP described with no corruption going on whatsoever it still would not be "non-prejudicial". Not even in concept. It would still be racist and classist. Developing nations, particularly those in Africa, already have unstable populations. To hit the fertility of developing nations so hard would stunt their progress and economic/technological growth for a generation. Meanwhile, developed countries like China and the United States who don't particularly need a large population to sustain their increasingly technologically driven economies wouldn't suffer.

 

[Soulful]

I've heard that phrase before: There's enough for everyone's not but not enough for everyone's greed. I think by greed (@niffer) the idea is truly superfluous and obscene ways of living, including unethical profiteering, etc. rather than someone wanting to make a decent living. At least that is my interpretation.

Overpopulation tends to occur in developing nations. The west is generally under-reproducing. And overpopulation has been described as a problem of uneven-development. It kind of makes sense that when you fuck with one aspect of people's lives and society in general, something else will backfire. Societies who have the means to live well into old age, with social security networks, available education, career opportunities, etc. are generally unlikely to have 8-12 kids per family because it's unsustainable and unrealistic for them. Families that rely on working hands as a means of substinence, and have high numbers of children in part because there's no guarantee that their existing young ones won't die from preventable problems, face a different reality. This is all very general and I'm applying a particular approach of development to it, so it's also biased, but hopefully it provides a clear example of some of the problems. Development in the global south doesn't have to mimick that of the west, but I'm not surprised we're facing population overgrowth if more than half of the world's population struggles with very basic issues of survival. (I pulled that statistic out of you know where, but I'm assuming it's at least as high as that, or around there.)

The dude's approach is an incredibly simplistic, ignorant, unjust, and poorly thought-out suggestion for what is an intricate and immense problem. It's also a human rights violation.