General Question

HolographicUniverse's avatar

Should we have regulated reproduction?

Asked by HolographicUniverse (1665 points ) February 6th, 2013

That is the moderation of birth, regulation of contraception and determination of abortion.
Should we establish this as a legal practice and should it be state or federally mandated?
Or is it impractical in your opinion?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

157 Answers

josie's avatar

Great idea- As long as I get to be on the board or commission who decides who gets to give birth or not. Otherwise, impractical in my opinion.

Seek's avatar

No. But I do support voluntary population control incentives. For example, how about a federally funded elective sterilization program. Done having kids? Never want to? No problem, the vasectomy/tubal ligation appointment is paid for. Thanks for not adding to the welfare/child support crisis.

JLeslie's avatar

I am assuming you mean in America?

My answer is no. I agree with @Seek_Kolinahr about having the government pay for voluntary sterilization.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie yes America haha
@Seek_Kolinahr good idea yet I think that’s only alleviating part of the problem
A prominent factor that comes to mind is unfit parents reproducing, that is citizens who are not suitable to birth. These types of individuals are more than likely oblivious to the fact that they should not conceive, rather than voluntarily declining (these will be the same people who put children up for adoption or try to support them despite not being able to)
Voluntarily sterilization is voluntary, what percentage of people will actually choose this if they dont use contraception or abortion currently? Simply an unnrcessary expense

poisonedantidote's avatar

The idea is not for me, if you are ok with it, then you kind of have to be ok with genetic manipulation, eugenics, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Find a way to colonize outer space. Otherwise, breed and breed until there is not enough food for everyone, and let the fittest survive.

The responsibility to reproduce or not should fall on those who do so, however their right to do so has to be left alone, and the decision up to them.

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse We have had the government decide who should be sterilized in the past, sometimes not even letting the woman know it was being done to her. It was pretty horrific.

How are you going to punish women who go ahead and get pregnant and have babies?

I am for reducing the amount of money a woman gets from welfare if she has a baby while collecting any food stamps, medicaid, etc. A way to incent them not to have another child.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@poisonedantidote
The first portion is somewhat strawman, eugenics, genetic engineering and the like is not immediately linked to this
The second and third paragraph stands out to me
You say colonize the moon or let the fittest survive then you go on and say should be up to the people.
You do realize that on a planet of limited resource and capacity the people, in general, don’t really concern themselves with conservation?
If left up to the people the same tactless reproduction will continue without intervention (which has several consequences)

El_Cadejo's avatar

Cause that has worked out so well in the other countries that have tried it…

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
Good question
Remember that action would be illegal
While you’re for reducing welfare i’m for developing a reasonable, but stern, punishment for those who do not abide by the established guidelines (as well as the practitioners who are an accessory to the birth) This punishment can range from fines to jailtime, the child can be put up for adoption or a capable family member.
This is a rather tongue in cheek repercussion.
The downside I can see to this is the classic butcher shop births when abortion itself was illegal.

By establishing this concept we can actually cutback foodstamps and welfare, of course we can’t stop caring for the lower class but this helps to try and eliminate it as a whole

@uberbatman
Haha I think it wasn’t done effectively.

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse My goal is to reduce the births not take money away from the children. The money would be rerouted for services for children. Once they are born we can’t let them go hungry. I just would not give the money or stamps to the mother.

You would take a baby out of the arms of the mother and give it up for adoption? What if the mother is loving and not abusive in any way? Steal the baby basically. That makes me sick.

FutureMemory's avatar

I think people should have to apply for permission to have kids; a license, so to speak.

We have to take classes and apply to get a driver’s license, but any fool with a working reproductive system can have a child? insanity.

Also I think women should be sterilized after having 3 kids. There’s no reason to have more than that.

JLeslie's avatar

In China they now have a disporportionate amount of men due to the one baby rule.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@FutureMemory
We actually agree on something? That is a sign of the 2013 apocalypse.
I agree 100%
There should be criterion for who can have kids, but to be lenient we make childcare classes available and encourage individuals who fall below the criteria to meet standards in order to reproduce.
Again, I agree
@JLeslie
You said what if the mother birthed without permission, taking it away was simply tongue in cheek… Sure we can provide funding and allow her to keep it but this really encourages more of similar behavior, which ultimately defeats the purpose.
Noone is letting them go hungry, we’re trying to prevent them from being put in the situation to.be hungry

Children should not have to be born into unsuitable environments and what this does is somewhat delays their birth until they are given a proper context in which to thrive… Rather than being thrust into a world where they are at the mercy of their abysmal parent(s)

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Right now a mother gets more money if she has a child, I am saying give her less. I think a few people might think twice about having another baby if they will get less money on food stamps in their hands.

The best solution is to have less poverty and more opportunity for people. What about the working poor? Maybe we should raise minimum wage so they can support themselves instead of needing help from the government. Government programs like welfare and food stamps subsidize companies who pay crap. They get more profit and taxpayers make up the difference so the people can live. Many poor people don’t even think about family planning, you need a change in the culture of the communities. Ripping their children out of their arms is inhumane. Also, if they are minorities the children are harder to get adopted. What are you going to do? Fund orphanages? That is more expensive.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@HolographicUniverse I don’t see how you don’t see the link to eugenics. If we regulate breeding, you will be influencing who is born and who is not. This kind of breeding license would obviously favor the rich, and those best able to care for a child withing the rules of society. So, you would inevitably end up favoring the genetics of the rich, whatever they may be.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that this could lead to things such as passive genocide of races with lower incomes, and all other kinds of problems. It could even leave us open to pandemics, from having less genetic diversity.

If you regulate birth, you set criteria for DNA to be passed on, this effects the evolution of our species. If you are ok with having an effect on evolution, then you are also logically ok with outright editing DNA, and all that other stuff.

As for the part were I say colonize space or let the problem get out of control and let the fittest survive. Colonizing space would allow us to just keep breeding, and if we let it just get out of control and let the weak die off, at least we will still just be doing what we have always been doing, and evolving in favor of the fittest, not those with more wealth.

Sure, people, if left to decide by themselves, they will probably just choose to keep breeding until the living are forced to eat the dead as food, and even then not stop. However, I would argue, that as a species, if we can’t fix the problem without intervention and regulation, then maybe it is best if we do all breed until we have mass global hunger, just another evolutionary dead end. Why bother saving people that is too stupid to solve their problems on their own.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
” Also, if they are minorities the children are harder to get adopted. What are you going to do? Fund orphanages? That is more expensive”
Ironic, I use that argument against pro lifers haha

Anywho
That’s the thing, if we penalize mothers for birthing without permission this lowers the chances of them doing this. In addition, as I mentioned, regulated contraception lowers the potential for these sorts of illegal births thus ultimately lowering the percentage of children being taken away or aborted.
I agree, let’s develop ways to change the lower class, to somehow achieve social stratification and allows the lower class to thrive in the middle, but that is of a different discussion. All this does is prevents them from reproducing, letting them birth will prompt successive generations to remain at this level
Providing more opportunities and reducing poverty takes time and progress, but in the meantime let’s allow them to wait until this goal is accomplished before permitting them the chance to birth when they’re not ready.

What I think is inhumane is completely incompetent individuals having children unprepared, without being stable, without being fit, therefore burdening the child with their mistakes

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Penalize (discourage) mothers, but let’s not penalize the children. Ripping them from their mother is horrific.

My grandfather was put in an orphanage because his family was so poor they could not afford all the children. Disgusting in my opinion. Separated from his parents and siblings. Until, thank goodness, when his uncle made way for them to immigrate to America all the children came over at once, including my grandfather.

Do you have children? Spend a second putting yourself in their place. Poor, culturally they don’t practice family planning, and then their government is going to take their children? Many of them religious so they won’t abort. We can better our programs for giving out free contraceptives.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@poisonedantidote
Well I find a few things wrong with your post, but now I see where you connected it.
First I think you have the wrong idea of “survival.of the fittest” and evolution in this regard, I also think your desire for space colonization is misplaced. The fittest doesn’t mean we kill off the weak but those most suited for survival will survive, technically if we do this we will only be reproducing more intelligently.. In favor of either superior genes (THAT would be genetic engineering, eugenics etc) or in favor of healthy environments. How we’ve reproduced or how much hasn’t really intertwined with our evolution as a species (as far as we know)
Colonizing the moon is a long term goal and, like mining asteroids, should be done for potential resources and as an alternative to living here, but again that’s long term.

Some may argue favoring the genes of the rich is beneficial but it’s not that simple and that is not what I suggest because the rich aren’t wealthy due to some mystical genetic material
So as for the first portion I think you misinterpret the proposition
It’s simply to reduce unreasonable births, not to weed out the traits of these people or perpetuate a single race.

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

It depends on where you live. If you live in the US I think it would be against peoples freedom, after all do you not see how some people are acting about gun control? Imagine if you took away their right to have kids. Man some people are ready to riot because Piers Morgan wants to take away their right to bear arms. Ask Ted Nugent, or Alex Jones or even Jesse Ventura their opinion.

The one child policy is even controversial in China.

So it is my opinion that yes it is very impractical.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I see where you’re coming from
Look it’s only done to provide a better home for the children (this isnt penalizing the children, this is giving them an alternative life) This is why social workers remove children from their parents daily or why that happened with your.grandfather. I know I sound insensitive but I understand that there are many loving parents who live low class because they’re not afforded better opportunities and I fully support what you’re saying but can the children really afford such a gamble?
By doing this we control the situations the child is being born to beforehand.
This saves the heartache of the baby being “stolen” or the baby having unhealthy development

How can this possibly sound inhumane?

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Most poor children do not need to be removed by social services.

And, again, better homes? Many might wind up in orphanages.

You sound like a pro-lifer. I never would have given up my child. It would have to be such an extremely desperate situation; the Nazi’s would have to be on their way to take me to the chambers for me to give my child to someone else for safe keeping. Who are you to decide to take my child because another family has more money? Seriously, your idea is flawed. I want fewer children born into poverty also, but not by taking babies out of the hands of their mothers. Are you going to be the one in the hospital taking the babies? Mother begging you not to take it? Now you need money to pay all these people performing this task for the government.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
Very imaginative name ;-)
Haha I can imagine the public outrage so it might be safer without it but it doesn’t mean safe is rational.
You made me laugh with the piers Morgan comment, Alex Jones was ready to decapitate him for advocating the “confiscation” of our weapons.

P.s. I dont like the China one child policy, highly flawed

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

Btw, im a bipolar mother, I havent had money always and at some times I have had to live in the worse places, wondering where my daughters next meal was coming from, I got pregnant with her when I was 17, and I was on birth control go figure. Ask my daughter if she would exchange me in for a better home a better parent figure, and she will tell you no. My daughter who is 18 now is well adjusted and just started dating her first boyfriend. She is atheletic, and graduating with honors from her high school, and she has been offered a psycology scholarship for a well known university.

Now think about the cotribution to society she will be making and because of my mental illness think about how much harder she will work at it, because she already has somewhat worked at it and understands it.

And now think about the contribution she may or may not have made had we had this regulated reproduction, she may not be here or she could be a totally different kid and not willing to work for a buck or a living because well she never had to.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I think you ignored many of my points above, you’re neglecting to acknowledge that I mentioned regulated birth control and determination abortion, not many children will be taken from their mothers and put into orphanages anyway.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
I am being honest when I say that crossed my mind, what about all of the great minds of the future, people who still prosper from these situations, people who will contribute to society.. You can’t trace these things and say “oh this sperm will grow to solve the Navier Stokes” or “this person will be the first female president” because excellence is not consistent in one area. I think this is part of the reason why it would not be supported but again i’m referring to the large percentage of the population where this isn’t the case, to the mothers who aren’t as loving as you and to th children who aren’t always privileged enough to prosper

JLeslie's avatar

I was agreeing with you about your contraception point you made at the top. You sound prolife because you sound like all those people who talk about giving up a baby so it has a better life. That is seemingly drilled into the pro-lifers. It is almost normal to them I think. Back in the day the Catholics shipped the pregnant girls off to have their babies in secret and basically forced to give away their children. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is incredibly selfless for a mother to give up her child so it has a better life. Although, I do know more than one girl who has given up a baby because they were teen mothers who had been adopted themselves. The cycle repeats. I think it helps them feel better about their own biomoms having given them up.

I never would have done it. Giving away a baby was never talked about in my family, if I got pregnant the expectation would have been to abort. I also was expected not to get pregnant in the first place. I would never sleep again knowing my child was out there somewhere hopefully being raised well.

Back in American history at times slave owners would remove babies born to slaves from their mothers. It’s so not what America is supposed to be. People were treated as property, which is basically what you are saying. Don’t you think a parent has some rights to their children?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
Only if that parent can appreciate those rights

If they’re too irresponsible to use contraception or too unaware to understand they are not prepared to have a child then they should not have rights to it.. They’re not property, they’re humans but don’t we always do what’s best for our newborn citizens in the event that their parents can not?
No perceived rights can account for unsuitable development

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse I don’t think you answered one of my questions. Do you have children?

I’m also curious, how old are you?

What are you going to tell these children? You were taken from your mother who was irresponsible? She wanted you, but the government took you and gave you to your wonderful new parents? You don’t think that might negatively affect a child psychologically?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
Does it affect them negatively now when they’re old enough to inquire about their biological parents? I’m sure they will be gracious, most anyway (I wouldn’t put it quite as blunt but rather we put you in a new home until mommy could better support you)

No I do not have children, i’m unsure how age would matter in this context (enlighten me)

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

Im lost. I dont get it :/ @HolographicUniverse You cant just write some parents and children off based on a whim. Regardless of percentages great contributing people do prosper out of these horrific situations because we were born to survive. If you want to allieviate it then you need to alleviate the idea that there are “levels” in a society rich are no better than poor and white are no better than black. Frankly I find the whole idea a little racist. :/

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
Not whim, statistics and consistency
Do you agree that a child needs reasonable accommodations in order to grow and succeed rather than to live and survive? Based on this principle we should establish a criteria to reproduce, that simple… Sure there are discrepancies but for the most part, without reasonable accommodation it puts more pressure and burden on the child than it should be. That being said EVERYONE should not be permitted to birth (based on the aforementioned, and non mentioned reasons)
You two sound highly idealistic as if you do not realize that many unfit individuals are reproducing and it’s having a negative impact in different aspects of society (including the child’s lives) do you take into account the psychological trauma involved in poverty stricken homes where starvation prompts criminal activity? Or where kids commit suicide due to their situations? Or the kid who was born to a teenager so wasn’t really instilled with proper principles and guidance? This isn’t racism because this happens across all demographics and this does not pertain to the rich (though would you not desire that more of the intelligent reproduce?)

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Better support you? So, the arrangement is just temporary? If the mother becomes fnancially able you are going to give the child back to the bio mom?

I ask your age because usually as people get older they begin to understand better the parent child bond. Even if they don’t have children. Unless you had a very bad childhood, then that would affect how you perceive it possibly.

The government does not get to decide who is worthy of being a parent before they have even been a parent. It’s like convicting someone of a crime before they committed it.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I believe I mentioned that above, along with “that is just a tongue in cheek punishment” though it has merit

The parent child bond is not a difficult concept to grasp my friend. What do you make of step parenting and adoptees? The bond can be just as strong as it would be with the biological parents, you make it sound as though it’s unfathomable to remove the child or that it is detrimental to the survival of it to remain with the biological mother.

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Not at all. I believe an adoptive parent can have as strong a bond with a child as biologically related parent and child.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
Then I dont see why you’re finding in with taking away the child

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Do you care at all about the bio mom? Again, put yourself in her position. Are you sure you want that to be the law? There but for the grace of God go I. Plus, I know of more than one adopted adult who always felt something missing. I don’t know the stats on that, but not every adoptive situation is all rainbows and sunshine.

You didn’t answer my other question. Are you giving the baby back if the mom is doing financially better a year later?

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

@HolographicUniverse

“You two sound highly idealistic as if you do not realize that many unfit individuals are reproducing and it’s having a negative impact in different aspects of society (including the child’s lives) do you take into account the psychological trauma involved in poverty stricken homes where starvation prompts criminal activity?”

My daughter and I might as well be poster children for that paragraph. My daughter was raised in a poverty stricken home by a underage bipolar mother.

When I was saying racist I wasnt meaning by color. I see racism happening here on the idea that you need to be of some certain monetary level & perhaps hold a position of high authority of sorts.

Home is where you make it. Your idea is flawed. If you want to save children then you better think about all the other ways that could make the world perfect, because this idea will not even put a dent on helping to save the world. If our civilization ends then it ends, good luck to the next!

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
Yes, I would hope the baby was able to go with the mom of she’s doing better (not just financially either) but I would also hope that this was only with stipulations in place and through a list of qualifications (remember that that would mean potentially taking it from a loving home, as opposed to orphanage, so we would want to make sure this progress does not decline once the child is back with the bio mom) I do care about her, this would be done with both their interests in mind

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Above you spoke of less trauma for the baby if she is taken when born rather than later in life. Now you are ok with moving the child back to the mom?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsgirl
Not put a dent? Not put a dent? We’re helping the children to be born to suitable environments therefore increasing the probability of them living productive lives (moreso than now where there’s only a slight possibility of individuals who emerge from these situations unscathed like your daughter) Also take into account population control, conservation, the ability to accommodate a population (sustainable growth)
This is a step in the right direction to saving the world from ourselves

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

Btw, you do also understand how much work would be involved in your idea, and I see a deficit with all the work that would be involved in a program such as this.

Suitable lives? Well sorry but its time to get off your high horse, because who died and made you queen? How do you know what is suitable based on a finances or illness? And if you are talking about children who are abused or neglected I believe we already have a program for that called CAS.

JLeslie's avatar

My father was raised extremely poor. His father was paranoid schizophrenic. My dad has a PhD from an ivy league school.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
Highly aware, though not as difficult as one thinks. I wouldn’t call it a deficit considering the reward, just a difficult transition. The work involved isn’t really that strenuous but developing the ramifications of such an idea would take a bit of time

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I’m aware of your point… You think I say this without identifying with what you’re saying? I’m not saying many great people dont arise from adversity, i’m saying I think it’s a favor to them to have lived without it… I’m sure your father would have still went regardless

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

@HolographicUniverse
“I’m not saying many great people dont arise from adversity, i’m saying I think it’s a favor to them to have lived without it… I’m sure your father would have still went regardless

I dont believe that. Think of ALL the women who have had breast cancer, if only one woman had the disease it would’nt of driven millions of women and men to be united. Because out of adversity, unity was created, not segragation.

AshLeigh's avatar

You should not reproduce.
No.

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse And his parents? Didn’t his father suffer enough. Living in an antisemitic country, extremely poor, given to an orphanage, emigrated when he was 14 with his siblings to a country with a different language. Worked since being a teenager in a factory. Paranoid schizophrenic, which I believe was probably partly brought on by his horrible childhood, he also was a little hard of hearing. He worked every day to support himself, took the NY subway to work even though he was somewhat paranoid, and now you want to remove his children that he and his wife produced as a married couple? Holy shit. How cruel does life have to be? Luckily NYC at the time had decent public schools and free tuition for the top students who applied to Hunter College. An excellent city college known as the poor man’s Harvard back then, I don’t know the reputation now. Later he went to Wharton on a scholarship for grad school. Maybe instead of taking babies from their parents we improve our infrastructure for the children so they live in safe environments with opportunity to excell.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse

I think you’re looking at everything backwards. You’re focusing on how to fix the problem instead of focusing on fixing what causes the problem. What causes the problem are social safety nets such as welfare. This article link should sum up the problem and obvious solution. The article continues on page 2.

seekingwolf's avatar

I have a better, cheaper solution.

Anyone who wants to get sterilized under the age of 45 gets $5,000. (Or some sum of money).

Reversals are expensive and would not be covered by insurance.

Many short-sighted, money-desperate people would have the surgery to get the money for whatever. Many would probably use it for drugs or other frivolous pursuits.

Would they regret it? Who knows and I don’t really care. Short-sighted people have no business having kids. It’s cheaper to pay them to remove themselves from the gene pool than to deal with their offspring that is improperly cared for.

JLeslie's avatar

@seekingwolf I’m ok with the extra lump sum of money too. I have also proposed previously giving high school girls $1,000 if they make it to graduation without being pregnant or having a baby.

Seek's avatar

I’d just like to know who’s going to round up all the women for @HolographicUniverse‘s Involuntary Depo Shot Program. That sounds like government-mandated assault.

I’d also like to know their criteria for “fit parenthood”. Is it income? IQ? moral stance? All of the above? If one must pass a test, who will write, and later administer it? Who grades the tests? What margin of error is allowable, and is there an appeals process?

Would @HolographicUniverse qualify as a fit parent under their own criteria? If not, would they volunteer for sterilization?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
So we need adversity as a means to unite with our fellow man? Then what is your opinion on the users here that conclude welfare is bad by way of darwinian nature?
I was called inhumane yet avaeve’s link says let’s weed out their weak traits (is that not “racism” to you?)

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
Viewing the issue backwards? Not quite as the statements made in that article mirror what has been said here, i’m simply proposing a different solution.
In addition that is only one factor of the problem itself, you’re saying let’s discontinue welfare and other government funded aid, am I to assume charities and philanthropy as well?, in order to filter out the gene pool… Good idea but how do we achieve this specifically? What happens to the people already on it? Do we leave them to fend for themselves? What happens, currently, to people who don’t have welfare? Do you think a significant portion of these people will stop having children because of the change? (Remember alot of the lower class and people with weak genes aren’t getting government assistance, in addition just because they’re on welfare doesn’t necessarily mean they have undesirable genes)
Your idea sounds as inhumane as mine.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@seekingwolf
I quite like the idea, I think what happened here is that many users thinks my post revolves around a single idea when in fact it can apply to concepts such as yours and jleslie’s (regulated birth control, sterilization)
I like the idea of voluntary sterilization but you’re offering services that many won’t be responsible or intelligent enough to capitalize upon (some may find the idea of not having children again for a small amount of money immoral)

P.s. @avaeve I also find the idea that we are “reversing” natural selection detestable, evolution isn’t playing favorites by intelligence so the social darwinist view is rather flawed in my opinion. You must understand that inequality has been a part of society, as a necessity, for centuries, the diversity in our gene pool has significant benefits and by trying to aid these people we are moralistic(ally) making up for their disadvantages

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
Ah yes, I was hoping someone would ask (the always do)
The criteria should be of basic necessities for providing a stable and loving home for the theoretical child. Which includes, but not limited to, financial stability, mental evaluation, parenting skills, healthy relationship between parents or otherwise ability to support independently, educational planning etc. In an extreme case yes, level of IQ (isn’t this part of the strong reproducing? ;-) ) If tests were created to determine qualification, they would consist of the aforementioned, and unmentioned, principles that serve as a summation of a “fit parent”

Who would round the women up? We make it mandatory like vaccination, or better yet the same way the govt will take your assault rifles.
As for qualifying under my own criterion, it would be ironic otherwise, then again I never planned on parenting as I doubt I will be any good.

@JLeslie
How cruel? You’re amongst people who want to let people die because they aren’t strong enough to survive… I’m simply stopping the issue at it’s roots… Delay birth, develop the lower class, reproduce within reasonable means

JLeslie's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Not strong enough to survive? What are you talking about?

Seek's avatar

Logical fallacy. The government is not taking anyone’s assault rifles, and vaccinations are not mandatory.

So you support procreation only by the extremely wealthy and well-educated, both of whom are more likely to have their children raised by under-paid nannies who were raised by lower-income families. Now that is irony. When you add in requirements for pristine mental health and “parenting skills” (a fluid term at best), you’re talking about the decimation of the human race based on the simple fact that there will be no one left allowed to breed.

Even if we ignore the fact that your idea is completely morally corrupt not to mention unenforceable, the logic behind your requirements is unsound. Isaac Newton was raised by a single mother, who eventually remarried and abandoned him at his grandmother’s house. Yes, anecdotal evidence for bad parenting raising good people, but the simple fact is that there are a good many brilliant, good parents with little money, as well as a great number of rich people who raise nothing but entitled idiots (see Paris Hilton).

Frankly, not interested in a race of Paris Hiltons.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
I see I need to be a bit more serious.
Search mandatory vaccination and the ideas being shifted for.gun control (also look up the definition for logical fallacy)

The fallacy is in asserting that this favors the rich when many of the rich themselves would not qualify ( I stated above desirable genes do not solely exist in the wealthy and that excellence is not consistent in one area, if you read you will have noticed this)
In addition to this, the latter portion of your post echos the thoughts @JLeslie has already expressed and in that regard opposes what you seemed to be supporting in the beginning of the discussion.
If many unwealthy, and poor, individuals raise men like Newton ,and many others, why would you cut government funding that supports their growth?

Also, like you did on another discussion thread, you grossly misinterpret the implications of these ideas, we use mental evaluation as a means to insure that the guardians are psychologically fit to raise children (not necessarily brilliant themselves) Parenting skills are literally taught nowadays so that shouldn’t be of that much shock to you. Not everyone poor man is an Isaac Newton just as every rich girl is not a Paris Hilton, so enough with the extremities in favor of disagreement.
” You’re talking about the decimation of the human race based on the simple fact that there will be no one left allowed to breed”
Honestly one of the most foolish, and dramatic, statements I have ever read

JLeslie's avatar

I second what @Seek_Kolinahr wrote, plus will add being poor and even having some psychological issues does not always add up to being a bad parent. And, where are we drawing the line for mentally ill anyway? Depression? Schizophrenic? OCD? A lot of America takes antidepressants. My grandfather was Schizophrenic and a sister of his severaly mentally disabled, another brother committed suicide, but none of the next generation or grandchildren are mentally ill like they were. It is another reason to emphasize we can improve our population by improving the environment they live in.

Children need love, attention, stability and safety in their families and where they live. We have schools to educate them. My mom basically told me once I got past 5th grade math she couldn’t help me. It was school that taught me math, not my parents. Immigrant children have parents who don’t read and write English, school teaches them the skills. It is the unsafe environment of our ghettos that worry me most. Children growing up in war zones practically. It is dispicable in such a wealthy country. The issue of trying to forceably control births is not the solution.

I never talked about cutting government funding.

Seek's avatar

Many rich do not qualify under your requirements, but absolutely no poor would. So my argument stands.

I do not support cutting government funding for low-income-support programs. I do support adding programs that allow people of low incomes to volunteer to bear fewer children if they desire. It is your stance that poor people are too ignorant to take advantage of these programs. While I will agree that some fervently religious people choose not to limit their breeding, I hardly think that is a good reason to implement a reproduction control policy that is reminiscent of an Ayn Rand novel.

Again, ignoring that your argument is both morally corrupt and unenforceable, you seem to have very vague notions of what it is you want. Do you want children being raised in homes of rich, mentally healthy geniuses only, or is the occasional poor, clinically depressed person of limited intellect allowed to slip through the cracks? How about rich schizophrenics with no living family support? Poor people with large families? Bipolars with clingy mothers and a trust fund?

Since you’re clearly not a parent yourself, what would you define as acceptable “parenting skills”? Is a helicopter parent preferable to one who raises “free range” children? Is homeschooling acceptable for religious reasons? how about for educational reasons? Should people who have guns in the home be encouraged or shunned? What about parents who teach abstinence to their teens vs. parents who discuss STDs prevention and contraception?

I don’t think you really know what you want. Except perhaps control over the decisions of others.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
How did you deduce that i’m indecisive on implementation when you are just beginning to inquire about specificity?
It’s really this simple.
We want children to be born into a stable environment, “stable” meaning within reasonable boundaries of normalcy. The ideal would be modeled after upper class and middle class families because they appear to have the most stability therefore we will reproduce within those lines. The issue with this is that we would blackball minority births which, as stated above, there are several issues with that since you can’t trace which sperm has potential. What we will do, however, is postpone their reproduction until proper standards are met (if they want to have children they have to be prepared to do so) Rich schizophrenics are not exempt, the bi polar mother may still be able to care for her child because many disorders have no effect on intelligence and key areas associated with caring for the child.
Just like any other tests the individual does not need to score perfect but they need to be within sensible bounds. A depressive mother with a qualified husband, decent income or a background in childcare would be more ideal than say a brilliant mother with no support.
So again this isn’t a vague concept, it just doesn’t revolve around a SINGLE concept, nor does it apply to a single practice.

Definition of parenting skills, as I mentioned above, it’s simply a collection of basic values necessary for the development of the child (you can find many online)
Things like life planning, value of an education, essence of frugality, teaching manners, sense of morality, responsibility etc are all essential in conditioning the child.
We’re not trying to create a one dimensional nation so of course there is plenty of room for diversity but we don’t want to continue the trend of kids being born to unfit homes
(which can also be rich families) There are some gray areas that need fine tuning but by all means it’s not uneforceable, just universally underdeveloped.

Seek's avatar

“The ideal would be modeled after upper class and middle class families because they appear to have the most stability therefore we will reproduce within those lines.”
We’ll need support for that statement. What kind of “stability”? Financial? Obviously. But mental? emotional? You’ll have to back that up.

“We’re not trying to create a one dimensional nation so of course there is plenty of room for diversity but we don’t want to continue the trend of kids being born to unfit homes”

But there’s the problem: You’re trying to determine a one-size-fits-all definition of a “fit” home and taking away the basic biological freedoms of the human race.

By your definitions, would a working-class married couple with no family support, IQs in the mid to upper 140s, liberal political views, no religious ties, no criminal record, and a family history of clinical depression and asthma qualify under your “I swear this isn’t eugenics” program?

Seek's avatar

And before you argue back again that you’re not trying to find a one-size fits all definition of a fit home, bear in mind that in order for there to be a meaningful test, there has to be a standard by which to judge the applicants.

JLeslie's avatar

What about poor people who live and work their own farm and are able to feed and shelter themselves sufficiently? There are all types of poor. Farm families might do better with larger families to help work the farm. We tend to think about the urban poor and along with that drop out rates and welfare. Being poor is not a crime.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr i’m typing to you right after I respond to J

@JLeslie
That’s the thing, forcibly controlling birth has but one goal and that is to stop perpetuating the issues you keep referring to.
I fully agree with reconstructing communities and developing strategies to alleviate social issues and inequality
What controlled birth does is simply stops us from reproducing citizens back into these positions, by allowing them to birth freely we’re allowing the cycle to continue.
Until we have sound strategies to fix,.say, classism.

Mentally ill
We have a firm understanding of what mental conditions are suitable for raising children, we can judge based on those understandings (though these “understandings” are not 100% accurate, as you know)

Seek's avatar

We’re going to fix classism by classifying people as “breeders” and “neuters”?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
Haha i’m not denying that, I quite agree but I do not agree that it is “wrong”
One size fits all in this case is only a minor principle, that’s why I keep saying “basic”, every licensee does not need to be a Nascar driver to obtain a license, they just need to know the basic rules of the road (yes I know I can’t compare the two)
The idea is simply meeting this basic standard, not everyone should be provided this biological freedom. Excuse the misspellings as i’m typing this from a phone.

Seek's avatar

Yeah, but if someone doesn’t qualify for a driver’s licence, we don’t chop off their legs and chain them to their house.

As of yet, you don’t have a standard. You have several vague notions of what might constitute an acceptable household, but nothing you can put a finger on.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I think the common misconception is this suggests something sinister

I am NOT saying only allow the wealthy to reproduce, i’m not ignoring that many great people come from poor families (arguably the greatest people do) What I am saying is that reproduction is a privilege, or it should be. It should be planned, it should be supported and as long as the parents abide by the guidelines in which forces them to raise the child correctly, I have no issue with it. Where things like mental evaluation, parenting skills etc come in is that we don’t want ANYONE reproducing and we don’t want meaningless breeding. We want to set a standard of living for the children that the parent either A) has or B) is willing to achieve

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
“As of yet, you don’t have a standard. You have several vague notions of what might constitute an acceptable household, but nothing you can put a finger on.”

Do me a favor? Elaborate on how you’ve reached that conclusion

Seek's avatar

The fact that I keep asking you what your standard is, and you keep telling me that there are many acceptable types of “fit” family. Which is exactly the point I’m trying to make. So thank you.

JLeslie's avatar

Huh? People will not just be obedient in the US. The land of the free, created equal. Are you American? Born here? How many generations back have you been here? I am just curious.

Who has a firm understanding of what mental illnesses are ok for parenting? Are you going to trust the government to decide? Based on a diagnosis or judgement of their social class? The government has fucked it up in the past royally.

I don’t like the cycle of poverty either, but people need to come to decisions to plan children themselves. I firmly believe controlling fertility is a huge factor in the prosperity of individuals, communities and nations. It is a generalization, but overall I think it to be true. But, not by the government controlling and enforcing it. Women desire control over their fertility as a way to have control over their bodies and their own personal independence.

Also, consider this. We need people to do all sorts of jobs in our society. Some people with lower IQ’s might be better suited and happy doing more redundant jobs, or simply jobs that require less IQ. It is not a judgement, everyone who works hard and with integrity deserves respect, I don’t care what job they do. My beef is they are underpaid and live in bad conditions. Our society would be safer and more peaceful overall if people at the “lower” levels did not have such extreme economic disparity from everyone else. Everyone is important and every job is important. I appreciate the person who cleans the bathrooms at a store as much as the manager who runs the department. Same with the waiter who gives me good service to the owner of the food chain. As a society we need to better respect all positions in society. I think society looking down on the poor and not appreciating their skills and desire to work when they demonstrate it is a big miss. I think it further increases hiring immigrants from other coutries too. But, that is a different topic.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
A standard can be
Make X amount of dollars, have an IQ over 130, dont have any mental disabilities, have strong ethical values and a highly active temporal lobe. That is specific but that is unacceptable and is not “basic” (like I have been emphasizing)
Something a bit more reductive.
Have X amount of income, X amount of family support, good relationship with the father of the child otherwise the capability of raising by yourself, test of parental abilities (administered test) IQ over 100, have an already developed college plan, have a plan in the event of your premature passing, live in a neighborhood of low crime
Should you not meet these requirements breed with someone who does or attempt to meet them.
And this is just throwing ideas out there with a more liberal approach to the second paragraph. The standard I desire is A.S., an acceptable standard for all is rather universal and common sense.

Seek's avatar

Well, there goes my kid.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I like the latter portion of your post, if you notice in my response to avaeve I mentioned that inequality had benefits and it’s just like you pointed out, many “lower class” citizens are responsible for the labor of America, I don’t look down on them and in fact many aren’t on welfare.

Disorders like major depression, severe schizophrenia etc aren’t really “good” for raising children, not because of them passing it on but because they are not mentally stable enough to support the child.

I know I know, a woman’s body is her perogative but I think in the case where they are too irresponsible to have planned births, they lose that control. Just like people who abuse gun rights, freedom of expression etc, they lose those rights. If she is too short sighted to reproduce reasonably then she isn’t sensible enough to have a child.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “What happens to the people already on it? Do we leave them to fend for themselves?”

Yes. It’s either them fending for themselves or everyone fending for themselves overtime. The fending is inevitable.

@HolographicUniverse “What happens, currently, to people who don’t have welfare? Do you think a significant portion of these people will stop having children because of the change? Remember alot of the lower class and people with weak genes aren’t getting government assistance, ”

It doesn’t matter if they continue having children or not because once you remove welfare, the problem resolves itself through natural selection (adapt or die). This mechanism is your self-regulator.

@HolographicUniverse “evolution isn’t playing favorites by intelligence”

Nature doesn’t give a shit. The only known cause for natural selection is adaption, but it’s not the only cause for evolution. There are other causes like mutation and genetic drift.

Seek's avatar

How are you going to determine who is responsible enough to plan, without allowing anyone the option of planning? How do you determine who is an irresponsible parent before they have displayed irresponsibility?

You’re literally wanting to punish everyone – to take away all reproductive choice – because you think a small group of people are irresponsibly breeding out of control just for shits and giggles?

Do you know what it takes to bear a child? Of course you don’t.

And of course, what you’re talking about is widespread discrimination on the federal level, against people who through no fault of their own do not qualify for a “parenting license”. And these people may be amazing parents. Perhaps better than many, since it is those who have had a hard life that can appreciate how to live through hell and come out shining on the other side.

You know what happens to a species that never had it hard? When the rats come off the boat, their eggs get eaten and they go extinct. Let’s breed a race of polite, attractive, wealthy dodo birds, so we can have our Utopia of American royalty and subsequently get wiped out by anyone who’s ever had to fight for their dinner.

JLeslie's avatar

IQ over 130? Good God. That is your line for what is acceptable or not? That is ridiculous and offensive.

Have to have a college plan? Not everyone has to go to college to be successful in life.

The decision, planning, or absence of planning for bringing a baby into the world is not as simple as thinking everything through logically and deciding under ideal conditions. Things happen. Young people don’t understand consequence, religious people don’t use birth control, women are forced into situations, things are looking good and then something tragic happens while already pregnant, life is messy.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse

BTW, Darwin himself wrote about this problem.

“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”

His mistake though is assuming we can bear the bad affects indefinitely. We can’t. The article I linked to explains that. He saved himself with hoped than expected.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
Haha and i’m the one being cruel here? I think the issue with your proposition, not saying that I disagree though, is the same issue as mine except you’re a bit more extreme by explanation of “evolution”
First off i’m not a fan of social darwinism, leaving them to fend for themselves is rather immoral but besides that
What do you think happens if we eliminate welfare? You think they’re not going to do whatever it takes to survive (which includes civil war), robbery, murder, public protest your proposition can get ugly in a heartbeat if we ever tried it. Secondly alot of the labor, that is needed for us to function as a machine, is carried out by the people you suggest we affect. I think cutting back on welfare is a damned good idea in theory and motivation, but practically hectic.

I think Darwin viewed this as simple as we view this, we don’t just aid the weak out of sympathy, the weak play a part in society and the ones who don’t do not have as much of an impact as their counterparts.
I support the concept of a more substantial civilization but substantial by means of intellect and qualities best suited for success in society (this would mean superior beings reproducing over the inferior) but that’s not the main concern in this case
The main goal is population control (or sustainable growth)

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
I believe that responsible parents fit this mold in some form or another, just like successful business owners fit a basic mold, good teachers, responsible gun owners and the like.

Like I said the “standard” can be flexible depending upon case but does not stray too far away from basic principles

So in other words we are forcing people to follow fellow citizens who already fit these standards (who have planned births, who have a sound home, who exhibit acceptable parenting skills etc) You see these people everyday honey, this isn’t some new concept, responsible parents meet this criteria daily because it’s common sense

Just like we have laws to govern behavior in a nation (that responsible citizens never break) this would be a law to govern reproducton.

No I don’t know what’s it’s like to birth but I think I may have hit a nerve with you?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@JLeslie
I said that the “IQ over 130” was unacceptable, it was used as a specific example, I would require an IQ over 100.

I am aware of these things, I mentioned there being gray areas that would need fine tuning as nothing is ever decided by one man.

Ideal conditions are not always successful just as unsuitable conditions do not always produce failure but the former would increase the probability of consistent success.

Remember i’m not the one suggesting they get sterilized, but that they try to get on par in order to increase their chances of success with the child (which would delay their childbirth until under the right circumstances)

Seek's avatar

You have absolutely hit a nerve.

Let’s get personal if you want to get personal. I don’t care.

I have a four year old son. We planned to have him when my husband’s business was doing well and we were on top of the world. He is homeschooled. He has a first grade reading level, is working on learning addition and subtraction of double digits and single-digit multiplication. He likes to learn about space and volcanoes, and figure out which real-life animals his favourite Pokemon are based on. He likes soccer and painting. He plays the harmonica like a natural. When his hands are a little bigger he’ll start on guitar.

Your standards suggest that I am an unfit parent. Does that sound like unfit parenting? I am the first live birth from a mother who never wanted to be a parent. Mother was abusive, father was clinically depressed. Divorce. Extreme religion. Abusive stepfather. Finally cut family ties – no current family support. My husband? pretty much the same story: mental health in the family has issues, no close family ties. Business failed, I work full time now. Struggling income. Not the best neighborhood. Lost our house in the ‘08 crash. I am dyscalculic. Hubby has asthma. High IQ, sure, but no college background.

You do not have the right to decide who is a fit parent. You are not god. Nor is anyone else.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
I see
The thing is… If we went by the aforementioned criteria, you yourself would certainly pass but i’m unsure if your mother would (i’m unsure if my parent would have)
I am not GOD, i’m not trying to do his bidding, i’m trying to give the unborn the power they don’t have, sure you are a good parent but what about the many who aren’t when put in your situation? (I would be as so bold to say for every 1 of you there are 3 of them)
I personally don’t favor the concept of experimentation where we throw caution to the wind and hope that these children will turn out fine.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “What do you think happens if we eliminate welfare? You think they’re not going to do whatever it takes to survive (which includes civil war), robbery, murder, public protest your proposition can get ugly in a heartbeat if we ever tried it.”

This process of fending for ourselves is unavoidable. If we don’t end welfare now (social Darwinism) then it will end later through the collapse of it and we will have to go through this process anyway.

@HolographicUniverse “The main goal is population control (or sustainable growth)”

I agree, but your way isn’t efficient because it doesn’t deal with what causes the problem, it deals with solving the problem. Also, you depend on bureaucracy to solve problems which has been historically and currently proven to be bullshit. My opinion (natural selection) deals with the cause of the problem and it’s far more efficient and effective than any bureaucracy filled with a bunch of meatheads.

Seek's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Those people have the right to choose as well. Those children may well grow up to be brilliant.

Your concept of eugenics is nothing but an experiment on a massive scale. You have no evidence that supports the idea that restricting breeding practices will improve public life. In fact, it would most likely start an enormous revolt, an underground fertility program, and the death of anyone with a parenting license.

In fact, I’m getting a great idea for a sci-fi novel.

Seek's avatar

And how do I pass? No money, no family support, no college, abysmal genes. Do I skate by on good looks and IQ alone?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
The thing is I don’t disagree entirely, I just think it’s a rather brutal solution my friend.. Could it be more effective? hmm I am actually interested in how you concluded that it can be (can you specify the collapse of welfare at a later date?)
I think it’s more brutal than we need to be, social darwinism in itself is an improper application of evolutionary theory.
You’re basically proposing we let people die off (not a good idea in the least)
Whereas i’m proposing we forcibly hault new births while solving the issue that welfare is trying to alleviate (which ultimately does away with welfare, or decreases the amount of people on it anyway)

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse

I find it hilarious to watch people say they accept evolution as a fact only to then create policies that are anti-nature. They say humans/governments should not be allowed to decide who is unfit or fit, yet they (humans) create welfare which is a policy that allows everyone to be fit. By their logic, they’re the one’s who took on the role of the gods. It’s hypocrisy anyway you slice it.

Seek's avatar

^ We are products of nature. We are not bound to worship its heartless decisions. We have evolved a pre-frontal cortex and thus we are able to act against our baser instincts. Social Darwinism is heartless and cruel. We, as the human race, are better than that.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
What is the main goal of financial management? What is the purpose of childcare classes? What is the purpose of career planning? To prepare these people for upcoming situations.

The same principle applies, this isn’t eugenics! This is regulated reproduction based on reasonable standards
An enormous revolt is unlikely.considering the necessary conditions to have a healthy childbirth is in the context of a hospital.

In the case of your qualification, well if you put it that way I would.definitely advise that you WAIT to have a child… No not sterilize you, just wait until a suitable time

Seek's avatar

Your standards are not reasonable.

Do you know why they aren’t reasonable?

Because they assume that people do not have the right to breed unless given the right to do so.

This isn’t a driver’s license. It’s biology. Next do we start a regulated food distribution program until people know to choose healthy food for themselves?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
Well, surprisingly,I think @Seek_Kolinahr summed it up nicely
I disagree with the basic implication of social darwinism, there are many benefits to the existence of the lower class… I’m unsure what the specific “benefits” of welfare are, however, considering many of the people on it are unproductive

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
Haha actually that could work quite nicely for a healthier nation, we stop producing junk food ;-)

But no people dont have the right to breed if they abuse that right

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “Could it be more effective?”

It’s more effective because it’s inevitable. If parents cannot sustain themselves, they die. If they can sustain themselves, but not their kids, then their kids die. Those who can sustain themselves and their kids, live. It’s a constant struggle of survival. If there are too much adaptive people and not enough food, they either adapt by producing more food, or they or their kids die. The gene pool is constantly being regulated. The most adaptive traits will be the most common in a population, the maladaptive one’s die out (natural selection).

@HolographicUniverse “can you specify the collapse of welfare at a later date?)”

I cannot, only that it’s inevitable.

@HolographicUniverse “there are many benefits to the existence of the lower class… ”

The lower class can survive under nature. I never said they cannot. You have a food chain, do you not? Each one maintains survival.

avaeve's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr You do not have the right to decide who is a fit parent. You are not god. Nor is anyone else.

Then you write @Seek_Kolinahr “Social Darwinism is heartless and cruel. We, as the human race, are better than that.”

So I have to ask. If we’re not gods to decide who is unfit, what gives you the right to decide that everyone is fit? Seems like you’re playing the roles of the gods to me.

avaeve's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr “We have evolved a pre-frontal cortex and thus we are able to act against our baser instincts. Social Darwinism is heartless and cruel. We, as the human race, are better than that.”

Also, your heartless and cruel comment indicates your pre-frontal cortex triggered an emotional response, not a logical one and that’s why we have problems. Our social safety nets are based on emotions.

Seek's avatar

@avaeve That’s silly.

Yes, we are emotional creatures.

No, it is not playing god to allow people to live.

This is not even a discussion worth having.

Seek's avatar

@HolographicUniverse
AGAIN, you cannot assume someone has “abused” the right to breed (whatever that means) until after they have done so. And at that point, the milk has been spilled.

We already have means in place to protect children from harmful homes. Is it perfect? no, but it’s the best we can do at this point, considering the tiny number of people willing to take in foster children, or adopt anything older than a newborn.

Perhaps we should start offering incentives for adopting older children, but then we’d run into the problem of people literally collecting teenagers for slave labor or worse.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
Are you aware that we are reaching capsize for the amount of sustainable life on Earth? Our resources are in jeopardy, our capacity limit is being reached and population growth shows no signs of slowing.
Add that to the fact the poverty level is growing, the people with undesirable traits are reproducing over the desirable, add to that meaningless breeding and you have a cocktail of a highly flawed society.

I do not assume, based on the parents themselves you can determine who will be suitable. We force people to take birth control and ask permission to have a child (BEFORE conceiving) Rather than letting them get pregnant and determining afterwards

Seek's avatar

Offer incentives to make good choices and let life punish them for bad ones. That’s fine.

Mandated birth control is a violation of a person’s sovereign right to control their own body. I feel the same way about recreational drug law. If you want to OD on heroin, that’s your prerogative.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
That’s the thing, these are conscious animals, I doubt they’re going to sit idly by while their means of survival is taken away.

If we never would have developed welfare and govt assistance, remeber that the founding fathers are behind govt aid,these people will find any means of survival. This isn’t Africa.

Also I want to clarify something you, evidently, have not realized.

You do understand that you’re proposing national famine, increase in homelessness, increase in crime, increase in annual deaths all because you’re trying to apply a biological principle to a sociopolitical issue?
It’s not as simple as “let the weak die”, besides that would take time, you have to also realize that every living human has the necessary traits to survive by way of evolution.. What we would be doing is artificial selection in favor of certain traits (Such as intellect, money, social status)

It’s not a fruitful concept

Seek's avatar

Besides, under @avaeve‘s regime, no one would be allowed eyeglasses, penicillin, or air conditioning.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr

Then I must respectfully disagree

We can’t afford to let life punish them, has that seemed to work so far? How about offer incentive for good decisions and punishment for the bad?

Right to control their body… May be but that’s a loophole to continue ignorant behavior, we have so many avenues for contraception that accidental and unplanned births shouldnt be an issue…. But they are. Every person with a reproductive organ should not have rights to withchild.

Seek's avatar

Our avenues for contraception are prohibitively expensive to those of lesser means.

Seek's avatar

Also, people of lesser means are more likely to be deeply religious. Which also leads to increased fertility.

What we need to do is make birth control available for free, and start educating people.

Also, it wouldn’t hurt if science could hurry up with the male birth control pill.

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

Wow I missed a lot. I fell asleep last night and had an extremly busy day today.

Ive tried to read as much of the postings as I can and I still say the idea of regulated reproduction sucks shit. I agree with everything @Seek_Kolinahr has said because she has said what I was trying to get at.

I find the entire idea almost like walking a thin line between modern slavery and war.

I do not agree with you stepping the conversation down to a demeaning level and calling @Seek_Kolinahr “honey”. I’m sorry without sounding nasty, I find your attitude hoity toity and the entire idea derrogatory. Go foster a child! And stop believing you know whats best for the world. If americans will not give up their right to bare arms then they certainly will not agree to this idea.

Btw, your idea that IQ raises good children is flawed, some of the most notorious serial murderers and rapists come in at genius level.

Also being raised by middle class, that is also flawed, I was raised in middle class, and the stats only say that teenage mothers come from poor families, not mothers with illness and all the others that would need to qualify if they wanted to. And that right there is the key word which makes this entire idea flawed and actually against the 13th amendment of the United States American constitution So im sorry as much as you want it to, it wont go over well.

Seek's avatar

The “honey” bit may or may not be because I inadvertently insulted him via PM. I don’t take it personally.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
I’m responding to you right after seek kolinahr.
Btw I wasn’t trying to be demeaning, to any one here, sorry if I have been.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
No excuse, contraception and abortion is less of an expense than having it.
Average birth control is roughly 62 a month (not including insurance and free clinics that exist) Also condoms are an effective alternative
In regards to free birth control, doubt it
That industry loses capital, the physicians will also have a considerably larger case load.
Male birth control, if possible (which I see issue with) would take too much time… We need a more rapid approach

Seek's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Have you ever been poor?
I mean really poor. Like, gas to get to work or food poor.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “That’s the thing, these are conscious animals, I doubt they’re going to sit idly by while their means of survival is taken away.”

They’re not going to sit idly by. They will go ape shit. Look at Greece. Once the government couldn’t give welfare to the weaker people, they started to riot. No more free lunch. Under normal conditions, they would need to learn how to adapt or die. In reality, the European Union saved them a bunch of times by pouring in billions of dollars, delaying the inevitable yet again. You will defend yourself from these people who feel they’re entitled to your fruits of your labor/investments without having to work for it. This is why it’s important to respect the second amendment. Hell, before all this welfare, regulation bullshit, you can set booby-traps/ landmines on your lawn. You can use any force once someone threatens your liberty. Now they make you run out of your own house in some states and confiscate any self-defensive weapons (gun-control garbage). It’s funny too because they say you’re innocent until proven guilty yet they’re either making it harder, taking your guns away, or limiting the amount of guns/ammos/weapons you can have even though you haven’t committed a crime yet. If this keeps up, you’ll have to end defending yourself with your hands. Learning how is your responsibility.

The only reason Africa remains the same shithole it was from the beginning is because the entire world continues to pour in billions of dollars of aid and other means of aid which again prevents natural selection from running its course.

@HolographicUniverse “You do understand that you’re proposing national famine, increase in homelessness, increase in crime, increase in annual deaths all because you’re trying to apply a biological principle to a sociopolitical issue?”

I understand, but do you understand that social safety nets are propping this up anyway? There is going to come a time when unproductive people reproduce more children than the productive people and the productive people will be too small to support all the unproductive. That is when you have exactly what you described – increased famine, homeless, crime, civil wars, death, etc.

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr lol! Well you and I have already discussed that due to my bipolar I tend to take things personally. :/ I really try not to.

@HolographicUniverse I actually wasnt meaning specifically demeaning people out here on fluther I think I was meaning that the idea itself is demeaning to different people. All I can say is if money, IQ and mental status were all factors in this idea, myself and my daughter would be two very unhappy ladies.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
That’s the thing, this isn’t some classist attitude, up above I fully acknowledged that we couldnt base this idea on those 3 things alone (it woul.be too single minded)

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse

USSR was a complete welfare state. It fell apart in 60 years. We’re a hybrid welfare state (government – “free market”). The welfare state started around the 1930’s/40’s. In my opinion, a collapse will take longer than it did in Russia because of how we deal with money now. Printing presses, borrowing from other countries with printing presses, etc.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
We actually agree on more points than not but we approach the issue differently.

Like I said I fully agree (the latter portion is one of the reasons why i’m such a strong advocate of this technique)
I just think that natural selection, in this case, is an unsophisticated solution.
You’re saying let’s speed up the inevitable, ok so that includes living in a rather disastrous society until the weak die off, considering it’s easier to survive in America for the weak, we can assume that they won’t die for years
How will they adapt if we take away welfare and govt funding? I think the ultimate benefit out of all the chaos involved is that they will no longer have children since they can’t support them (which is the same goal i’m trying to.achieve with a more invasive strategy) Dont let anyone die, but dont let anyone breed

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “considering it’s easier to survive in America for the weak, we can assume that they won’t die for years”

I would say it’s more difficult, given the amount of guns circulating this country. If would be easier for the weak only if the government disarms the productive members. They interviewed convicted felons about how they acquired guns and who do they target. They said they acquired guns off the streets, and they only targeted people they knew were unarmed, weak, defenseless. Easy targets. The risk is far too great for them if someone is armed, they said.

@HolographicUniverse “How will they adapt if we take away welfare and govt funding?”

Well here we’re assuming that anyone who is put into survival mode will automatically behave immorally. That’s true to an extent, but I would think a bunch would get a rude awakening and start to look for employment. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who don’t have much brains or labor skills – janitorial work, for example. Some might cross the border, others might die quietly because a lot of people on welfare have no self-esteem.

When I said adaption though, I meant anything. Stealing, killing, is a form of adaption for someone thrown into survival mode. This unproductive person feels he/she is entitled to the fruits of your labor/investments and will try and take it by force from you. You wouldn’t want such a scumbag breeding, so you won’t have a problem defending yourself against him/her.

@HolographicUniverse “Dont let anyone die, but dont let anyone breed”

You’d have to force abortions on people who can’t sustain themselves or the kids, and have people check in every so often to prove they’re not pregnant. About 50–80% of IQ is genetic so you would have to make people take aptitude and intelligence (IQ) tests and ban anyone with a low IQ from having kids. You’d have to monitor salaries whether the parents make enough to support a child.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
You’re basically suggesting the common misconception of darwinian evolution in regards to survival of the fittest (it does not mean you kill off the weak) Which is, in essence, what you’re saying we should do. Take away support and kill them if they try to survive (With the new gun control methods in plac, that would make us even more vulnerable)

Also finding a job is highly unlikely for them considering that not many are available anway (the current economy would not support them)

As for the latter portion, not monitor but to measure, they would ask permission to conceive and be punished for.conceiving under the radar. They have to meet the standards before.they even conceive as opposed to during pregnancy (the term parental license comes to mind)

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “Take away support and kill them if they try to survive”

Only if their survival entails them using violence on you. That’s not the only form of adaption though.

You keep making the mistake of thinking that everyone weak dies out. Sea hawk eats pike, pike eats perch, perch eats bleak, bleak eats shrimp. Do any of them go completely extinct? No.

@HolographicUniverse “Also finding a job is highly unlikely for them considering that not many are available anway (the current economy would not support them)”

Actually, I’ve witnessed this all too often. It’s not true. The problem is people don’t want to adapt to the environment. There are jobs, it’s just that people don’t want pay cuts and they don’t want to work demeaning jobs like janitorial work. The other types of jobs that are available, they don’t qualify for because they majored in something like women’s studies instead of what market demands most (sciences and math).

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

@HolographicUniverse Putting those things into account, what is it that you would like us to say? You asked the question so was this supposed to be based on a pondering notion? Because I must say just pondering the “what ifs” about your question it still wont work out.

Or lets say for entertainment purposes only we all agreed with this idea and we proposed to have it started, how do you plan on getting it past the 13th amendment? Or is this just a fairy tale idea (kind of like the idea of ALL people agreeing to this idea is a fairy tale) and in such a case, the amendments do not exist.

Forgive all the edits, spelling errors and so on, I am typing on a phone lol

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
Yes but we must not make the mistake of thinking everyone weak adapts. They are all on welfare for a reason, that reason doesn ‘t disappear because welfare is no longer available. It’s not necessarily “applying themselves” that’s the issue.
Many will adapt yes, but many will not survive.
I know of nobody on welfare who cant find a job because of a worthless major, but besides that take into account this
The amount of Americans on welfare now vs the amount of jobs available in the current economy, would there not be an overlap causing a shortage in available positions?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
You haven’t really indicated why it “won’t work”, it’s actually something to ponder and a real regulation I would push, if in the position to do so.

Furthermore this has no bearing on the th amendment, it doesn’t apply here.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “The amount of Americans on welfare now vs the amount of jobs available in the current economy, would there not be an overlap causing a shortage in available positions?”

If that is indeed the case, yeah. I don’t believe it is. Either way, like I said earlier, natural selection still runs its course. If you’re right, then that means there are less productive people supporting a much larger unproductive population. If this keeps up, a collapse is on the horizon.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
Yes I agree, we just see the solution very differently, I think it’s dismissive to say “well fuck them, it’s do or die and if they can’t do, then oh well”
I favor the idea of stopping it at it’s source, hault birth until the weak CAN adapt (technically we could combine the two and say cut welfare and regulate reproduction, pushing them to adapt in order to have children)
Also what about the senior citizens? We also pay for their retirement and social security

avaeve's avatar

Well senior citizens paid into social security and medicare, so I wouldn’t know how to handle that. It definitely needs to end. It’s based on the same concept of helping the weak. Stupid people didn’t know how to manage money so they died when they reached old age. Government decides to manage the money for these stupid people. It doesn’t change their stupidity, it just insures that stupid people have money when they’re old.

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

@HolographicUniverse The way I understand the amendment I believe you are wrong. The 13th amendment I think you will have to read more in depth.

”*The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward
proclaimed it to have been adopted.*”

Requiring specific performance as a remedy for breach of personal services contracts has been viewed as a form of involuntary servitude by some scholars and courts, though other jurisdictions and scholars have rejected this argument; it is a popular rule in academia and many local jurisdictions, but has never been upheld by higher courts.[22]

Not to mention that if you want these people to work so they can have a better life for these chikdren that you decide they can have then you are forcing them to work…

Forced labor[23]
Labor or service obtained by:
threats of serious harm or physical restraint;
any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe they would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if they did not perform such labor or services:
the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

Ay, ay, ay working on a phone not good!

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
Yes but we’re not forcing them to do anything, if they don’t want to abide by the guidelines then they won’t have a child.

Second of all, read the second paragraph, it’s indecisive, I doubt the 13th amendment will be an issue.

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

Lol if you aren’t forcing them then they WILL have a child!! And you don’t think it will be an issue! Pardon my french, but WHAT THE FUCK¡ Just on fluther its been an issue! If there is a small riot, because you want to take peoples rights away you have a BIG problem!

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
Darling it’s like this.
We have an even BIGGER issue otherwise, read some of the discourse above… We have an impending problem that your fellow Americans, shit fellow humans, fail to realize. It’s up to world leaders to inform them, which I admit they have not, or if they do not listen, then force them (like children)
Would you let your daughter do drugs because it’s her body? Would you let her birth a child without a set plan? If so then, no offense, that’s idiotic.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
Where do we differentiate between stupid and uninformed?
I would say senior citizens are more deserving of assistance than their young counterparts who can be afforded the same opportunities if they adapt.
Then again the longer life expectancy of the modern age assures that the expense will exist for a longer time (but I mean come on, there’s no reason to really end it, they worked hard their whole life and deserve reasonable return)

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

We have more than one problem. And I hate to say “darling” but each persons idea of “idiotic” is completely different. I think its idiotic to eat meat but you dont see PETA and I governing a law that benefits each living breathing animal to never be harvested for the consumption of meat. Because America is about freedom, its about being ethical. And telling people who are born to carry their genes on, (it is why we are able to reproduce) that they are not allowed to, in the land of the free, is unethical. I think if you want that, you will have to go somewhere where it is more likely to be accepted, maybe China!

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “Where do we differentiate between stupid and uninformed?”

Is being uninformed a good excuse? It never holds up in court, why should we allow that as a valid excuse? Look how stupid the excuse sounds. After 65 years of living, it never occurred or it was never taught to John that he will need money saved up to sustain him/herself when he is too old/sick to work.

Let me put it this way. The reason why I would equate uninformed with stupidity is because before doing an action, or forcibly involved in an action, you have the ability to inform yourself of that action to know what it is you’re getting yourself into and what the consequences/benefits are in doing that action (action – reaction). Your action creates an automatic reaction. You’re responsible for creating that reaction because you created the action and since created the action, you’re responsible for preparing/preventing that reaction.

@HolographicUniverse “I would say senior citizens are more deserving of assistance than their young counterparts who can be afforded the same opportunities if they adapt. Then again the longer life expectancy of the modern age assures that the expense will exist for a longer time (but I mean come on, there’s no reason to really end it, they worked hard their whole life and deserve reasonable return)”

In this situation, I agree.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
I can’t argue with that, you are correct. So tell me more detail, we must also take into account that not everyone on welfare, or in poverty, are “weak” just underprivileged
Therefore would we afford them the opportunities in which they have been deprived? Do we eliminate inequality in the social infrastructure?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
You’re absolutely correct! You are, this is the land of the free! The issue is, ethics always interfere with logic, ethics won’t fix the issues we have, logical resolution will.

Eating meat has intrinsic qualities, I wouldn’t argue, though, if we developed and enforced a more nutritional diet for conservation and health benefits (but remember eating meat has several health advantages as well)

I’m pretty sure any rational, and ethical, individual will agree that mindless reproduction is idiotic my sweet.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “So tell me more detail, we must also take into account that not everyone on welfare, or in poverty, are “weak” just underprivileged.”

No, they’re all weak. They’re on welfare because of a lack (monetary/physical/mental abilities to adapt) which triggers a need. A lack is weakness.

Just because someone wasn’t born into wealth does not mean they’re entitled to the same opportunities as the wealthy. You have no rights when someone else is forced to pay for your services. People are not equal and opportunities are not equal. You cannot fix these problems.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
The only reason I don’t entirely agree is because you’re being rather reductive, you’re right to an extent but wrong in the assertion that they’re all weak (unless you’re referring solely to the people on welfare)
If you’re referring to the lower class in general there are many people with desirable traits amongst this demographic.
The thing is, we have constructed inequality, we have separate levels in society and many people aren’t afforded the privileges of the upper echelons… Is it because they are too weak to obtain them? Many are, but also because it’s almost impossible to obtain them, no opportunities exist at the lower level. Add to that a bludgeoning economy, there’s not much promise.

So again I agree a great deal, but many of the posts above have great indications of why we can’t just do away with a single percentage of our population (well at least in a practical sense)

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “but wrong in the assertion that they’re all weak (unless you’re referring solely to the people on welfare) If you’re referring to the lower class in general there are many people with desirable traits amongst this demographic.”

Weak means lacking abilities, does it not? If you end up on welfare, it means 1 of 2 things. Either you didn’t utilize your traits, or used them poorly, or your traits were not good to begin with which still doesn’t matter because jobs like janitorial work are there to accommodate. In either case, if you cannot adapt and you need assistance, that is weakness.

If you’re not on welfare, just lower class, it has nothing to do with the system. It still has everything to do with your traits and how you utilize them. You say they have good traits, well if they did, then the market would recognize it. It didn’t and that is why they get paid so little. You’re rewarded for your productivity. How intelligent, fast, strong you’re and punished for non-productivity. Option 2 is the they just didn’t utilize those traits, or use it properly. There are numerous examples of people reaching wealth status while starting out with nothing. It has nothing to do with systems. There are people who were very successful under the USSR regime (total shithole) and then after its collapse, they immigrated here to the U.S and attained the same wealthy/powerful status.

You’re a product of your past. Some people are born smart, some dumb, some strong, some weak, some wealthy, some poor. You cannot fix this. It’s innate. The guy with an 80 IQ is never going to be anything more more than a toilet scrubber, unless he has a good physical trait. That’s up to him to figure out.

What are you trying to suggest? That we need to help weaker/lower class people? Why?

What makes him/her more important than me/my family?

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
It’s not about them being important.
We’re actually in a sociological debate of people vs the system, many sociologist will inform you that the system is rigged in favor of desirable traits (traits that are not necessarily biological)
I agree with a great portion of your post except that you insist that people are failures because of intrinsic shortcomings. What about the pricetag on a decent education? The corruption of student debt? The limited resources available to people from low class families? There are decent humans, of all races, who either weren’t afforded the opportunity to capitalize upon their talents or the social context did not allow it.
I’m not saying this is the case for every one and that is where I agree with you. Many of these people are worthless and we’re rewarding their unproductivity but there’s no way to pinpoint those who don’t deserve assistance in the population.

We’re no longer talking about regulation of birth but, virtually, the collapse of the lower class by way of brute force. We still need people with the low IQ as laborers, people on welfare are still consumers, they’re not technically burdening us in that regard because the money is being recycled right back into the system.

You mentioned above that soon the unproductive will produce more than the productive causing us to pay for it, well this is why I suggested regulated reproduction rather than the removal of the welfare system.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “What about the pricetag on a decent education? The corruption of student debt? The limited resources available to people from low class families? ”

What comes to mind when you cannot afford (limited resources) a product or service? I need to work more jobs, more hours. I need to save more. I need to invest more and I need to spend a lot less. If you cannot afford education then that is what you need to do. The alternative is loans. If you take loans, you have to understand that you’re required to pay them back whether or not you find a job after graduation. That is the risk. You cannot complain about debts when you brought it upon yourself. Now if you want to be debt free, you focus on the former answer. You do this until you have enough money to put yourself through college.

You don’t need to be a genius to figure this out. Here’s how things should normally go. You should be already working since age 10 or younger depending on maturity. There are jobs that don’t require a legal age. You work all the way through high-school. After you graduate, you’re 18. You take time off to work to pay for college. It will take you 4/5 years or ¾ or ⅔ years to save up the money, all depending on what college you got into which depends on how well you used your traits in school. The speed at which you accumulate money will depend on your aggressiveness and discipline of the former answer (multiple jobs, more hours, spend less, save more, invest more) Again, all depending, you save up enough money by the time you hit age 20–23. You start school, and you graduate by 23–27 depending on how aggressive you’re with your classes and whether you take summer/winter classes. You graduate with a bachelor degree, debt free. You get a real job or go back to your previous aggressive working schedule to save up for a master degree. If you didn’t major in a bullshit degree, you have now landed a well-paying job with potential growth. The end.

@HolographicUniverse “There are decent humans, of all races, who either weren’t afforded the opportunity to capitalize upon their talents or the social context did not allow it.”

The opportunity is there for everyone. You actually have to answer this question. Why is someone successful and someone isn’t even though both were born into the same positions in life, same limited resources, same environment? If it was the system, neither of them would make it.

@HolographicUniverse “We still need people with the low IQ as laborers, people on welfare are still consumers, they’re not technically burdening us in that regard because the money is being recycled right back into the system.”

People on welfare are not consumers. They’re receiving money from the private sector and then using that money to buy food. The private sector is not gaining anything. It’s actually losing because the money that was taken from them to feed the weak, could have been invested into the market. It could have been a new business or a new investment, or a new purchase which in turn expands the economy, raises the standard of living and allows more opportunity for work.

Is it better to have a broken glass that requires fixing, or keeping your glass unbroken and buying something new, or creating something new? Obviously the latter and not the former. The same idea with welfare. By giving, you’re losing.

People with low IQ will be laborers. Just not all. Not everyone goes extinct. See my food chain example.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@avaeve
The issue with your propositions is the same with your solution, they are harder than need be (really extremist, and quite unnecessary) Tell me, did you yourself follow said strategy?

First off a person shouldn’t have to work at the age of 10 and start college by the age of 23 just to graduate debt free, that’s ridiculous. By your logic the strong parents should have enough income to support their children, in addition a good paying career requires more than a bachelor’s degree (what is your strategy for graduate.school?) Student loans have the same goals as any other, not to help the student but to make a profit. The educational system, in regards to cost, is one of the biggest problems in America, for you to ignore this by implying an individual “brought it on themselves” is absurd (what about the bright children who’s parents can’t afford their education and when scholarships are scarce?)
Now I can agree that hard work and perseverance are the key to success and there is rarely an excuse otherwise (I myself worked two jobs to fund tuition)
But I also recognize that the weak can be unresourceful, the weak are often not confident, the weak are often minorities, the weak can barely breach the ceiling, the weak are simply viewed like you view them. Don’t just blame it on them though because it’ll be naive to act as if our system is equal (that applies to middle class and working class)
Welfare they buy food (food stamps and Snap I believe handle that) It goes right back into the food industry, that’s already funding workers. There are plenty of businesses already, not to mention SMBs and startups aren’t that secure so it would be experimental to take food from these people to throw at a project.

So what do you make of philanthropy, charities, people with records not being able to work, etc?

I really want to know your background as well ava.

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse “Tell me, did you yourself follow said strategy.”

I didn’t have to go through this strategy because I wasn’t born poor and everything was/is paid for. A friend of mine did after his dad told him he would not pay for his college. I have another friend who took the loan route. Both successfully adapted.

Who says things are expensive? Just because your salary, or your parents salary didn’t increase or wasn’t big to begin with, doesn’t mean things are expensive. You look at it as things are expensive; I look at it as you just don’t make enough money. Besides, there are different sectors in the market. Even if you feel something is expensive, it’s offset but another product or service in a different sector. Food price goes up, but house price goes down. Technological advancements in computers, yet the price remains the same. Etc.

This strategy is not ridiculous because it’s the main logical answer to your questions and the scenario of having limited resources. You shouldn’t have to do anything, but you cannot complain about the results of your life, or you can complain, but I and I’m sure many others do not care for the excuses. My answer covered a graduate degree too. Once you finish a bachelor degree, you may either find a job suited for your degree, and save up for graduate school, or go back to the same strategy that got you into college.

Parents are not obligated to pay for their kid’s college. At age 18, they’re not kids. Follow the strategy. If the parents cared so much about their kid’s education, they would of thought about this before they had kids. It’s not that difficult to calculate whether or not you can provide for your child based on your salary. You shouldn’t be having kids, if you cannot afford them and if you have them, and then stop complaining. You made your own bed. If kids still feel they need to complain, they should complain to the parents who brought them into this world.

@HolographicUniverse “Student loans have the same goals as any other, not to help the student but to make a profit.“

Now that is a ridiculous statement. The only reason you would say something like this is because you’re most likely surrounded or read/watched people who took loans and cannot pay it back because they cannot find a job. You ignore the successful half of the stories where people take loans, graduate, get a job, get married, and pay off the loans. No one is forcing anyone to take a loan. People take loans because they don’t like the only other option which is the strategy I wrote about.

@HolographicUniverse ”Welfare they buy food (food stamps and Snap I believe handle that) It goes right back into the food industry, that’s already funding workers. There are plenty of businesses already, not to mention SMBs and startups aren’t that secure so it would be experimental to take food from them to throw at a project.”

Do you not realize that the welfare money is coming from all tax payers, but welfare people spend it only on one sector of the market? And the food sectors taxes were given to the welfare guys, and the welfare guys went to buy food. Do you not see the problem here? One guy is digging a ditch, and the other guy is filling it up. You broke a glass on purpose, and then you fix it up. This is insanity. The taxes that were stripped from productive people could have been spent or invested into the market. Instead of it going to welfare, people would have bought new products and services (an increase in demand) which requires more work staff to handle that demand. Not only does it involve products and service, but people could have invested into the market, either buy opening up a new business, maybe even a new idea, or simply investing in companies which again gives companies capital to expand business which creates new job opportunity.

In your scenario, you’re literally promoting non-productivity and lowering/stagnating the standard of living.

@HolographicUniverse “So what do you make of philanthropy, charities?”

It’s the same problem as welfare. The only difference is that it’s voluntary.

Remember something important. It’s not the quantity that’s important, it’s the quality.

SuperMouse's avatar

This has got to be the single most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Who will decide whether parents are fit or not? What are the criteria to be used? Will my husband not be allowed to procreate because he is quadriplegic? My mother died of ovarian cancer, a disease that has been proven to sometimes have a genetic component, should I be forced to abort any female child because she might have a chance of having ovarian cancer and costing the system money? What if the father and/or mother of a child seem completely normal on the surface but ten years later one of them snaps and becomes a serial killer? Do we kidnap and kill the kids because they might do the same thing?

It is unethical, impractical and just plain ludicrous.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@SuperMouse
What I find ridiculous is you make a statement without regarding the above conversations, many of which address your questions.

@avaeve is a person who would suggest banning people with genetic ailments from having children so that we filter out those traits from the population… That’s not the basis for my implication.

If you are not fit enough to support a child, by acceptable standards, you should not have one (that simple)
It’s unethical to say someone can’t reproduce due to medical conditions, unless they’re incapable of doing so. It’s about sustainable development of the child, not artificial selection

SuperMouse's avatar

@HolographicUniverse go ahead and humor me by answering my questions. I am fairly certain that the specific issues I mention were not addressed. Go for it, sell your “brilliant” plan.

Out of curiosity, when you ask questions are interested in engaging in an actual dialog or are you just wanting to tell everyone else why they are wrong and you are right?

SuperMouse's avatar

@HolographicUniverse when all three of my kids were born I was financially fit enough to support them all. Then I was divorced and all that went out the window. What happens then? Do I lose my kids? Do I lose them temporarily until I get back on my feet? Am I blessed enough to get to keep them and given the chance to get back on my feet? Will some arbitrary person decide whether I have what it takes to get back on my feet? This is so completely subjective that it is unenforceable and nuts.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@SuperMouse

Out of genuine interest, sadly noone here, except the aforementioned user, are discussing this reasonably.

To your last comment, I would venture to say, depending upon your situation, you lose them until better circumstances (this happens with social work btw)

Not subjective, pretty much alot of situations can be analyzed objectively…

MIGHT I ad
This regulation would have to happen PRE birth, so people will ask permission to withchild. I didn’t really have post birth in mind as counselors already deal with those situations

SuperMouse's avatar

@HolographicUniverse well now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your idea is ridiculous and crazy. Anyone who would consider taking children from a household just because their parents have fallen on difficult financial times knows pretty much nothing about child development or even fiscal policy. Being able to analyze “a lot” of situations objectively is not enough. Plus you are fooling yourself if you believe that statement.

Seriously @HolographicUniverse it is nearly impossible to discuss such an unreasonable question reasonably. That could be why you seem to be running into so much trouble.

HolographicUniverse's avatar

@SuperMouse
You fail to state how/why it’s unreasonable, I want a detailed comment of why it won’t work. If you scroll up above you will see reasonable exchanges, the two users who found flaw simply did because they are emotional mothers.

What’s ridiculous is that you fail to realize that happens daily, why aren’t you ridiculing foster care? Adoption agencies, social workers? Fiscal policy, are you kidding?

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse ”@avaeve is a person who would suggest banning people with genetic ailments from having children so that we filter out those traits from the population”

Not ban. No bureaucracy. Nature decides whether this diseased person is fit or unfit, and by nature I mean natural selection.

I agree with @HolographicUniverse, that all the answers so far were based on emotions. Each answer pretty much stated how unethical/immoral this is, rather than stating is it illogical/logical (specifics).

You’re both are on different wave lengths. One is discussing right from wrong (logic)(@HolographicUniverse), and everyone else is discussing is this good or bad. (emotions)

nofurbelowsbatgirl's avatar

@SuperMouse You are so correct! I argue that no matter what the entire idea would fail because it is basically against the 13th amendment! Involuntary Servitude. And while this type has never really been challenged if there were enough people against it, I’m sure it would change in a jiffy.

“Some have also argued that, should Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, a constitutional right to abortion could still be sustained on the basis that denying it would subject women to involuntary servitude contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment.[5] However, no U.S. court has yet accepted such an argument.[6] Differing views have been expressed as to whether the argument is so unpersuasive as to be “frivolous”.[7] One major difficulty with the argument relates to the claim that pregnancy and child-bearing are within the scope of the term “servitude”.[8]

avaeve's avatar

@HolographicUniverse

Listen a little to a brief interview of the life of Dr. Benjamin Carson link

Keep your college and follow up questions and comments in mind as you listen.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther