Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Overpopulation Nation
Suppose there is a society that knows without a doubt it is coming close to dangerous overpopulation. If something is not done, there is no doubt that people will die from lack of resources within a generation. Suppose that society begins a mandatory sterilization program. What is your opinion of such a thing?
What if the society instead made sterilization voluntary and paid people to do it? What if the society targeted the disabled with an ad campaign to convince them to choose sterilization?
What if the society went further and paid people to commit suicide? The money would go to the family, of course. What would you think of that?
What if the society instead made sterilization voluntary and paid people to do it? What if the society targeted the disabled with an ad campaign to convince them to choose sterilization?
What if the society went further and paid people to commit suicide? The money would go to the family, of course. What would you think of that?
Comments
Also, overpopulation is a myth. We have plenty of space to fit all the people. We can all live in individual mansions that will all fit within the state of Texas. With big lawns, industrial, commercial and public space, every person could fit in the US easily. Also, we produce enough food for more than everyone on earth to eat healthily. There are also enough resources to maintain a fair standard of living for every person currently on earth. The only problem is poor distribution of resources. If we all decided to move to just one place, distribution would no longer be an issue.
Also, are you suggesting that there is no such phenomenon as overpopulation? Whether or not you believe that humanity will need to deal with overpopulation in real life, you surely must admit that the condition can occur. Source. Source. Source.
I would do a voluntary sterilization with cash or other benefits... with perhaps a higher bonus for genetically disabled/diseased peoples (those with severe arthritis and other genetic disorders). I do not believe in things being mandatory, like conscription.
In my mind, the main people who would go have sterilization would probably be those low on cash (poverty stricken people) or those who need money for drugs of some sort. *
For those who wish to actually raise children, I'd encourage them to adopt by dropping the prices (to adopt) and give benefits, even for healthy children.**
* - Reading this over, I think this might be a little bit of nasty from me... I despise drugs/alcohol because of the effects it has on a lot of people, and it's really hammered home when I talk to one friend who is, in my opinion, throwing her life way for a bit of partying.
** - As far as I understand, in Canada at least, to adopt healthy children you must pay a rather large sum of money. If you adopt a special needs child (whether that ranges from severe disability to hunger-stricken children or just the medically/mentally disabled, I'm unsure...) you receive money from the government. Again, unsure.
If they accepted the money, they would be in better financial shape, and their potential children might be spared suffering and misery. So would that be a good policy?
If they accepted the money, they would be in better financial shape, and their potential children might be spared suffering and misery. So would that be a good policy?
I see no moral problems with eugenics or population control that is 100% voluntary. My only worry is that many people might make short-sighted decisions for a quick buck, but find themselves wanting children later. Of course, those people probably shouldn't be having children anyway if they're so short-sighted, but still...
The key word is voluntary.
Though a population program does make sense I fear that the minorities of the world would be against it simply because they would see it as the "rich white guy" trying to keep them down. If you were only allowed to have one kid then population levels would remain constant and a minority would forever be a minority. There would be some variance for mixed race relationships.
The other problem is that the poor tend to make more babies based on the old "farm" mentality. The more kids you have the more income producers you have in the family. The poor look at a kid and see a potential income producer while the rich see it as a potential income drain.
Why do I say this? A rich child is far more likely to go to college and require expensive things while growing up. A poor child will go without more things because they have never known the same level of comfort a rich kid has.
Example: I have an only child who is spoiled (by my reckoning) and gets more "stuff" than she needs. I have a friend with 5 kids and those kids are lucky to get anything. Most of the things they get are hand-me-downs or fall under group ownership rules.
Growing up my family had one Atari 2600 for the whole family. Each of us kids got one game when we got the system and if we were lucky we would get one game on our birthday, but that was it. Today we have a Wii in the house and 10+ games. My daughter has a ton of DS games and can wrangle about one a month out of her mother.
I never turn the AC on in my car, I just roll down the windows. My wife ALWAYS uses the AC.
Because of these realities it costs far more money to raise a rich kid than a poor kid. In turn a poor kid becomes a "profit center" at a much earlier age than a rich kid. Tell me Scrym, are all of your college loans paid off? Joe, how long after you got out of school did it take to pay off your college loans? What about that "poor" kid doing landscaping for $15 an hour?
Didn't India have a "vasectomy for a transistor radio" program years ago?
The problem with China's policy is that it's not voluntary. Dictating what people do with their bodies among consenting peers, be that making a child or otherwise, should never be restricted. It can and often should, however, be subject to voluntary encouragement.
Even though there are other lands in existence you have no way of getting people to them in great enough quantities to put a dent in your population.
China selling prisoner organs
Remember Baron Karza's Body Banks?
Local overpopulation occurs not because a population CAN'T move, but rather occurs because they don't HAVE to move. Only when a person's survival is threatened will they consider leaving their surroundings, and humans have quite a knack for figuring out how to survive in many different situations. In other words, a population will figure out a way to survive where it is before it tries somewhere else; if someone can survive somewhere, someone WILL survive there, period, irrespective of how terrible the rest of us may consider that existence to be.