Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

Oh, I didn't make this post in the other thread (I didn't even post there), so a bit ot: There is a genetic component to aggression, but this doesn't mean you can "remove" aggression from someone, that the genes responsible for what we call "aggression" are needed for nothing else, and that it doesn't have a social component. A lot of people just seemed to think of "aggression" as some single module that you can "unplug", which probably isn't the case (apart from some other valid points made in the thread).

That other thread was really about an interesting scenario - what humanity would be like without one of its primary traits. I know that there is a complex interplay going on at a genetic level and that it's practically impossible to just remove aggression and violence from human beings.

There's so much sci-fi that some of it does actually hit the mark, but this does not, in any way, mean that you can discuss things like this based on nothing but sci-fi. Suggesting that you have no clue because you got all your information from sci-fi is not "just silly", it's just rational. You're not even aware of the real problems.

But I haven't gotten my information from sci-fi, I've only been inspired by certain sci-fi authors just as other people are inspired by books or movies. It's also worth mentioning that I like good sci-fi authors and dislike silly sci-fi with no basis in reality.

It really doesn't matter where the inspiration comes from as my ideas on this sterilization scheme comes from having read some articles on how cheap and easy to use these new sterilization treatments/birth control methods are.

And as for the population question, I don't really see any flaws in that sort of reasoning. In an equal society people would have more natural resources for themselves the smaller the global population was. Emphasis on "equal society". Just as communist utopia might be better for people, yet not be realistically achievable, I too understand that a drastically reduced world population that benefits the individual might also not be realistically achievable - it's just a neat idea and a future I'd love.

 

[BigDug13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmlr7i4fVE&sns=em

 

[LaserBuddha]

It’s an injection that hardens to create a plug in the duct carrying sperm. To reverse it, a health worker injects a solvent that dissolves the plug.

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

 

[Zoe]

I haven't read up enough on these new technologies to know what the medical drawbacks are so I'd leave it to medical professionals to decide what the appropriate age and method would be. And teenagers are also receive mandatory vaccines (at least in this country) so I don't see how their free will and choice would affect this. I'm sure that most of them will love this as it means they can have as much sex as they want, and this holds true for a significant part of the population for PR-campaigns stressing this benefit among other to have an effect.

Ok, ignoring all medical implications since you clearly have no clue there, what are you going to do about people belonging to religions that don't believe in birth control?

And there's no such thing as a mandatory vaccine. Vaccinations may be a requirement to attend public schools, but even then there are waivers for people who do not believe in them.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Perhaps I should, but it's worth a short spreading these ideas here on Earth instead as I know that many would love a world where there are no unwanted or accidental pregnancies.
Like for an example anti-abortionists, as this would result in an effective end of millions of abortions every year - or millions of saved children that won't be killed.

Present it that way and I'm sure most of anti-abortion GAF will consider this.

LOL wut?

You do realize a significant portion of the anti-abortion group are also anti-birth control?

There are literally people that think contraception is denying gods will... how the fuck would you sell this to them? re-education camps?

 

[Mudkips]

You'll never get mass sterilization to happen.
War, famine, and disease work great though.

Gay marriage is irrelevant. The US Constitution's right to privacy, which makes access to abortion a constitutional right, makes any kind of forced sterilization unconstitutional.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. There should be.

Abortion is not a Constitutional right beyond "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the federal government being unable to prosecute you for such a thing since they don't have carte blanche access to your medical records. Indeed, many states have widely varying laws regarding abortion.

Forced sterilization is obviously unconstitutional, yet it is currently in use in many states, such as California.

 

[Shanadeus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmlr7i4fVE&sns=em

That's retarded.
Religion isn't genetic, so assuming that all born in a Muslim household will retain their parents religiosity is pretty silly.

The only thing you can say for sure is that the population will exhibit more traits that are commonly associated with that group of immigrants, which basically means that there will be more "coloreds" - and that's what people behind this video is afraid of.

 

[mantidor]

I don't know, didn't Nazi controlled Germany have a lot of success with this approach?

notsureifserious.gif

When I say end up badly I mean the consecuences are bad, sometimes horrible, not that the implementation doesn't work or is impossible. China has been succesful in implementing it's one child policy, however the consecuences like gender disparity are pretty problematic.

 

[Davidion]

And as for the population question, I don't really see any flaws in that sort of reasoning. In an equal society people would have more natural resources for themselves the smaller the global population was. Emphasis on "equal society". Just as communist utopia might be better for people, yet not be realistically achievable, I too understand that a drastically reduced world population that benefits the individual might also not be realistically achievable - it's just a neat idea and a future I'd love.

So you're basically proposing completely imaginary and unimplementable plans based off the completely dream-like idea of the egalitarian society without considering the impact of decreasing population, all the while completely not compensating for perpetual human instincts including but not exclusive to the desire to procreate and striving for achievement and power as well as group dynamics and egocentric/ethnocentric tendencies.

Gotcha.

 

[WanderingWind]

Ok, ignoring all medical implications since you clearly have no clue there, what are you going to do about people belonging to religions that don't believe in birth control?

And there's no such thing as a mandatory vaccine. Vaccinations may be a requirement to attend public schools, but even then there are waivers for people who do not believe in them.

Also, not being able to get pregnant isn't the only deterrent to this...

I'm sure that most of them will love this as it means they can have as much sex as they want, and this holds true for a significant part of the population

 

[Medalion]

All the sex you want without the risk of getting pregnant?

HELL YEAH!!!

 

[BattleMonkey]

All the sex you want without the risk of getting pregnant?

HELL YEAH!!!

You just discovered contraceptives?

 

[Shanadeus]

So you're basically proposing completely imaginary and unimplementable plans based off the completely dream-like idea of the egalitarian society without considering the impact of decreasing population, all the while completely not compensating for perpetual human instincts including but not exclusive to the desire to procreate and striving for achievement and power as well as group dynamics and egocentric/ethnocentric tendencies.

Gotcha.

No, that was a response to his questions regarding my asimovian-ideas on why a smaller population was good.

I believe that mass sterilizations, that are reversible, should be implemented for the reasons I outlined in my first post.

Ok, ignoring all medical implications since you clearly have no clue there, what are you going to do about people belonging to religions that don't believe in birth control?

And there's no such thing as a mandatory vaccine. Vaccinations may be a requirement to attend public schools, but even then there are waivers for people who do not believe in them.

People belonging to religions can believe or not believe in plenty of things without the rest of society having to accept it.

I'm actually not that sure of how mandatory vaccines are, this seems to suggest that it is mandatory but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, whether these things are mandatory or not isn't the primary reason I brought mandatory vaccination up (though I do believe there should be such a thing as mandatory vaccination) - it was to illustrate that we have a system in place that inject stuff into everyone in an efficient manner.

The rate of vaccination for one vaccine here in Sweden is for an example 98%, and I'm sure there are similar numbers in other western countries.

 

[GordonGecko]

Wouldn't it be much cheaper to promote oral and anal sex?!:lol

 

[JoeBoy101]

All the sex you want without a condom?

HELL YEAH!!!

Fixed. But STDs might want to have a word with you.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

WTF is up with GAF's obsession with population control? We get a thread like this every month.

Bunch of weirdos.

 

[Shanadeus]

Wouldn't it be much cheaper to promote oral and anal sex?!:lol

It totally would.
But a couple of billions here and there is surely worth the safety of knowing that there is no way you can ever accidentally get pregnant or impregnate someone?

 

[Davidion]

No, that was a response to his questions regarding my asimovian-ideas on why a smaller population was good.

I believe that mass sterilizations, that are reversible, should be implemented for the reasons I outlined in my first post.

Mass fucking sterilization! That's all that needs to be said. Say it again, mass sterilization!

The idea that people are going to be willing to give up their reproductive rights (not abortions, literally the rights and capacity to bear child) and hand over the controls over to someone, anyone, is absolutely insane. The number of cultural and social barriers are incalculable.

This is such a myopic perspective; you do realize that a considerable amount of the world doesn't treat childbirth and sex as westerners do, and from their perspective this would literally be giving the control over their ancestry over to someone else?

 

[Zoe]

People belonging to religions can believe or not believe in plenty of things without the rest of society having to accept it.

The freedom to practice the religion of your choice is one of the reasons people came to America.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Why would we have to sterilize everyone though?

We could do all males or all females for half the cost!

As a male I vote for females to be sterilized. :lol

 

[WanderingWind]

It totally would.
But a couple of billions here and there is surely worth the safety of knowing that there is no way you can ever accidentally get pregnant or impregnate someone?

S
T
D
s

 

[Shanadeus]

Mass fucking sterilization! That's all that needs to be said. Say it again, mass sterilization!

The idea that people are going to be willing to give up their reproductive rights (not abortions, literally the rights and capacity to bear child) and hand over the controls over to someone, anyone, is absolutely insane. The number of cultural and social barriers are incalculable.

Reproduction shouldn't really be considered a right, it's really just a state of fact due to our biology, but you wouldn't be giving your reproductive rights up - only temporarily disable your reproductive ability. The right is still right there and ready to be utilized, it doesn't disappear just because you need to make an active decision to become fertile.

Also, if you look at what the World Health Organisation says about reproductive rights:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

This would if anything strengthen couples and individuals ability to responsibly decide the number, spacing and timing of their children as they would no longer be affected by accidental pregnancies.

This is such a myopic perspective; you do realize that a considerable amount of the world doesn't treat childbirth and sex as westerners do, and from their perspective this would literally be giving the control over their ancestry over to someone else?

I'm sure that plenty of cultures around the world would find this to be a pretty alright idea actually - there's a pretty significant amount of people in many developing countries that would gladly accept these solutions if it meant that they wouldn't have to watch their children starve to death.

The freedom to practice the religion of your choice is one of the reasons people came to America.

Yes, but it wouldn't matter if those practices came in conflict with laws - which this would presumably be.

Why would we have to sterilize everyone though?

We could do all males or all females for half the cost!

As a male I vote for females to be sterilized. :lol

Because I'm sure that there wouldn't be a 100% coverage if only females or males were infertile. To make absolutely sure, and to make things fair, it should apply to both males and females.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

We need to start a religion that promotes having 2 kids at most. Call it Analism or something.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Steps to complete the OPs plan:

1. Someone becomes dictator of a country with a huge military
2. Dictator goes to war to force this plan down the throat of 3rd world countries
3. ...
4. Less people eventually


Yeah sounds like a great fucking idea!

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Ender's Game reference belongs here. Third!

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I'm for some type of eugenics. Our current situation is far from "natural" nor is it healthy or sustainable or useful to humanity as a whole. The only way we can improve the human race is to remove the bad self destructive measures in all of us through breeding or genetic engineering or some combination of the two.

 

[ampere]

I think that the only measures that could control population growth and distribution would be widely rejected by most of the world. I think we'll learn the hard way what happens when you outgrow your resources.

I'd be all in favour of reversible castrations, administered at birth and then removed after mental health and means testing.

Shit man :lol
I mean, yeah sometimes I want to prevent stupid or nutzo people from having kids too, but tagging everyone at birth?!
That's a pretty bleak future, no? :lol

Might as well be machines at that point

 

[JoeBoy101]

We need to start a religion that promotes having 2 kids at most. Call it Analism or something.

I'm listening.

 

[Chet Rippo]

There are better things to waste money on.

Yes, but it wouldn't matter if those practices came in conflict with laws - which this would presumably be.

Did you even read what he wrote?

 

[Shanadeus]

S
T
D
s

Wear a condom then, you'd still want to know that there's no way that condom might fail and cause you to accidentally impregnate someone or get accidentally pregnant.

There are better things to waste money on.

And there are also worse things money is wasted on. This is a pretty cheap solution that'd probably pay itself off and bring plenty of benefits to society.

Did you even read what he wrote?

The freedom to practice the religion of your choice is one of the reasons people came to America.

If their practices involve the breaking of the law then I see no reason why you'd have to accept the law-breaking part of the religious practice.

 

[WanderingWind]

Reproduction shouldn't really be considered a right, it's really just a state of fact due to our biology.

All natural rights are due to the facts of our existence.

 

[Shanadeus]

All natural rights are due to the facts of our existence.

Well I'm no philosopher and I don't believe in moral universalism so I firmly believe that rights are relative.

 

[Zoe]

If their practices involve the breaking of the law then I see no reason why you'd have to accept the law-breaking part of the religious practice.

It would never even have a chance at becoming a law because it would be against so many religions.

 

[Shanadeus]

It would never even have a chance at becoming a law because it would be against so many religions.

I'm not so sure about that, I'm sure that you could find scriptural support for something like this.

It could easily become a law with a successful PR-campaign touting the benefits and lives it'd save, how abortions would no longer be necessary and how each and every child would be born out of a desire and conscious choice to give something back to God's world.

 

[Zoe]

There's nothing "easy" about passing a law.

 

[Shanadeus]

There's nothing "easy" about passing a law.

With "easily" I'm not referring to the actual process of implementing this law but rather gaining the support required to pass it.

If the public was behind it then it would be relatively easy to pass a law.

 

[WanderingWind]

Well I'm no philosopher and I don't believe in moral universalism so I firmly believe that rights are relative.

Fantastic. And who decides what rights are necessary, and which ones are expendable? All odd mental games aside, the fact that you believe that a little fascism is fine as long it nets the goals you personally believe are ideal is worrisome. It's that exact mentality that has caused the worst atrocities in human history. It's never the person who knows they're doing evil. It's the person who believes they're serving a greater good. Whether that greater good is "God" or "humankind" is irrelevant.

 

[Chet Rippo]

I'm not so sure about that, I'm sure that you could find scriptural support for something like this.

It could easily become a law with a successful PR-campaign touting the benefits and lives it'd save, how abortions would no longer be necessary and how each and every child would be born out of a desire and conscious choice to give something back to God's world.

And there would be PR-campaign that would say otherwise, there is nothing easy about it.

With "easily" I'm not referring to the actual process of implementing this law but rather gaining the support required to pass it.

If the public was behind it then it would be relatively easy to pass a law.

There is no easy way here, at all.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Because I'm sure that there wouldn't be a 100% coverage if only females or males were infertile. To make absolutely sure, and to make things fair, it should apply to both males and females.

Seems like a redundant waste of precious medical resources. Isn't your whole argument for population control based on scarcity of resources?

 

[mre]

Fantastic. And who decides what rights are necessary, and which ones are expendable? All odd mental games aside, the fact that you believe that a little fascism is fine as long it nets the goals you personally believe are ideal is worrisome. It's that exact mentality that has caused the worst atrocities in human history. It's never the person who knows they're doing evil. It's the person who believes they're serving a greater good. Whether that greater good is "God" or "humankind" is irrelevant.

"Society as a whole."

 

[Jex]

Now entering the competition for the most crazy ideas brought up on GAF is...

 

[GraveRobberX]

I was watching 60 minutes, they had Bill Gates wife, and how she was in India saving 6,000,000 kids from polio, other viruses, etc.

First I was like wow, that woman is amazing saving that many lives with her husband + their foundation and changing the world

Then when the segment continued on, my mind flipped and went, wait a minute, now what?

You are saving these kids from polio, other diseases/viruses, but they're still living in these impoverished conditions, and there's no social program to keep them protected/safe

What I'm trying to imply is, great deed was accomplished, but now how do you go forward?
The repercussions can have huge outcomes.

So you save these kids from 1 misfortune but now you throw them into 10 new ones

I know I sound dumbfounded, and haven't written this elegantly to my point of view, but hopefully you understand why I'm trying to say

 

[bishoptl]

What percentage of the population do you consider to be "lower class"?

Just for starters.

 

[WanderingWind]

"Society as a whole."

Nope. Subsections of society, and subsections within those attempt to, but never quite succeed. And we all know how well those subsections agree on things, right?

 

[Shanadeus]

Fantastic. And who decides what rights are necessary, and which ones are expendable? All odd mental games aside, the fact that you believe that a little fascism is fine as long it nets the goals you personally believe are ideals is worrisome. It's that exact mentality that has caused the worst atrocities in human history. It's never the person who knows they're doing evil. It's the person who believes they're serving a greater good. Whether that greater good is "God" or "humankind" is irrelevant.

Rights are relative no matter how you put it as there are no convincing arguments for the existence of natural rights, making them in essence just as arbitrary as rights that are enforced with force.

Believing in the innate natural rights can give people just as strong reasons to commit atrocities, just look at the trouble certain anti-abortionists has caused because of their strong belief that the fetus has a natural right to life.

The only thing that matters in the end is what the ones with power enforce through with their power. And at the moment it looks like we have a democratically elected and enforced governments for most countries with democratically enforced rights (Including the US the constitution only remains valid for so long as people accept it and do not revolt to rewrite it. The rights are chosen by a small set of individuals in this case, and are enforced by the majority and modified by certain groups of people for various of reasons).

Yet the validity of these rights are dependent on the power exerted by those desiring these rights to remain in force - this power taking the shape of propaganda, rhetorics and some times even brute force depending on what situation you're looking at.

"Society as a whole."

Nope. Subsections of society, and subsections within those attempt to, but never quite succeed. And we all know how well those subsections agree on things, right?

I'd just say individual people, society as a whole or subsections of society.

You cannot enforce a right if a large enough subsection of society do not agree with the enforcement of the right - you need at the very least a sizable military and police force to make sure that people follow these rights in the event that a sizable portion of society do not agree with those rights. But that's just brute force, there are more subtle forms of power that are used to enforce rights - such as indoctrination and propaganda.

So yeah, it's individuals, subsections of society and/or society as a whole that decides what rights we should have or not.

 

[mre]

Nope. Subsections of society, and subsections within those attempt to, but never quite succeed. And we all know how well those subsections agree on things, right?

Read the thread; there's a reason that phrase was in quotes. I 100% agree with you.

 

[Flachmatuch]

And there are also worse things money is wasted on.

Worse than this? Not many. Even considering the Middle Eastern wars.

This is a pretty cheap solution that'd probably pay itself off and bring plenty of benefits to society.

Solution to WHAT EXACTLY? Overuse of resources? How long does it take you to understand that overuse of resources DOES NOT COME FROM OVERPOPULATION? It's America and Europe and Japan, the places that don't exactly have significant overpopulation problems, that consume the most (and a lot of our consumption is exported to other countries, in the shape of our imported luxury foods, exported pollution and waste or just directly "owning" resources in other countries). The problem is NOT too many people (it might be later, but not right now). It's that the resources are used up by too few people, are used in an unsustainable fashion and often for non-productive or downright destructive purposes. Like, you know, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stuff that lets you kill people, year after year.

Stopping using cars would help. Compulsory mass sterilisation would only help Bill and co shape the world the way they want.

Seriously, what you don't seem to get is that this (while it might become a much more real problem in the future) is not something that requires immediate solution. It's the poor who have loads of kids, and, you know, they don't consume too much BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR - but of course this compulsory mass sterilisation fantasy would impact them mostly.

Reduce individual consumption and stop things that waste resources that could go to people to have better lives. After that, we can start thinking about population control.

 

[Shanadeus]

Worse than this? Not many. Even considering the Middle Eastern wars.

Well, aside from the middle eastern wars which could probably fun this for decades to come, there's still $782 billions spent on defense. I'm sure that you could take $82 billions right there to fund this in the US.

Solution to WHAT EXACTLY? Overuse of resources? How long does it take you to understand that overuse of resources DOES NOT COME FROM OVERPOPULATION? It's America and Europe and Japan, the countries that don't exactly have significant overpopulation problems.

Stopping using cars would help. Compulsory mass sterilisation would only help Bill and co shape the world the way they want.

Seriously, what you don't seem to get is that this (while it might become a much more real problem in the future) is not something that requires immediate solution. It's the poor who have loads of kids, and, you know, they don't consume too much BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR - but of course this compulsory mass sterilisation fantasy would impact them mostly.

Reduce individual consumption and stop things that waste resources that could go to people to have better lives. After that, we can start thinking about population control.

I never did suggest this as an attempt to curb overpopulation in western nations, as I already know that we have no overpopulation to speak of. Besides, I do not see how one can reduce the use of resources in the west in order to make life better for those in countries plagued with reduced resources. A better solution would be to reduce the number of people overall, in both the first world and third world countries, so that everyone could drive around cars and live luxuriously rather than try to lower our standards of living.

It's anyhow a solution to the problem of accidental and unwanted pregnancies, possibly completely removing the abortion debate as there'd no longer be any abortions if this was mandatory throughout western civilization, while it'd also be beneficial in developing countries as effective and simple birth control - which is already given out there today.

 

[Haly]

Starting world war 3 would be a more plausible and effective solution for overpopulation than these ideas, Shanadeus.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Assuming most of the people on GAF live in a developed country, this is a double edged sword: birthrates are dropping. Japan is in the negative as is Germany and other European countries.

For developing countries this would solve so many issues.