It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should society consider mandatory sterilization?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:05 PM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

There was a thread about sterilized mosquito's in Brazil that start to spread deadly disease.

So what would happen if you sterile 99% of population. That be doomsday.

But elites would never sterilize by IQ because they need idiots to work stupid jobs so filthy rich cows can buy another Ferrari. So that sterilization won't happen.

But they would gladly sterilize people that make them no good. I think Gates started something like that in Africa or I mussread something.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:14 PM

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Should society consider mandatory sterilization? Is this the way to control population? Stop passing on genetic code that produces lower IQ people? Stop mental retard and other known diseases and illness that get passed onto their offspring? ...

...Like Bill Burr says 80% of the worlds population should walk into the ocean - meaning dumb people keep making dumb children. Now this was HIS joke but if you closely look at it from a different angle WITHOUT killing off the population by having them walk into the ocean but instead use sterilization..... it makes sense. Those who are considered to have genetic defects that have offspring with low IQ's (under 70) and those who have gene defects would not be able to reproduce and could live out their life as they wish.

It’s this part of your OP that interests me. In fact it makes very little sense to me and in fact you scare me to be honest.

In my own family, on both my mothers and fathers side we have both some very intelligent family members and family members who are developmentally disabled and have very low IQ’s. On my mother’s side is one well known genius that you would probably recognize if I mentioned the name and on my father’s side one who at one time was one of the youngest ever Professors at a very prestigious university. High IQ’s are common in both my parents’ families.

The thing is that both sides also have a few very challenged individuals. Family members who would meet your suggestion of who should be sterilized and in one case both a genius and mentally challenged person came from the same parents.

To me that suggests that at best the decision who to sterilize would be a coin toss and a guess. So you would take away a person’s right to reproduce by force, based on an assumption made by a panel of people who would have dictatorial powers over them? That this idea would even be put forward sends chills up and down my spine. The world has seen this exact same logic used before.

As to overpopulation, that is a myth put forward by radical activists who also in the 1970’s predicted we would be starving to death years ago, when in fact we produce too much food and it’s only due to infrastructure and bad governments that anyone is hungry. We only populate a tiny portion of the habitable land. Education is the key to controlling population, not forced sterilization enforced by people who think they are from a superior gene pool.

I’m not surprised there are people who consider themselves to be elite who would put forward this idea, but I’d hope most of us are capable of seeing through the smoke screen to the truth. History has taught us hard lessons about this.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:42 PM
a reply to: Blaine91555

This scares me as well, mentally retarded people can live full, capable happy lives, sometimes happier than "normal" or "elite" lives.

To even suggest this is pompous, ignorant and says a lot more about the OP than anything.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:56 PM
For those asking for a solution to 'over population' here's one. STOP BUYING INTO IT.

We're not swarming this blue marble as you seem to insinuate. In fact there's a LOT of space on this rock for many, many more people. The problem is, as I mentioned earlier, resource distribution and the way we deal with very precious resources like food and water.

If I wanted to, I could withdraw all my money from my account and buy a whole shelf of bread, say 400 loaves, and throw them into the ocean. I could do it as easily as you walk down the road. I wont be punished either as it's 'mine' that bread which is now floating in the ocean could have easily fed 400 people, but now it lies in the ocean., a gesture of a selfish desire to own it all.... This is our problem! We're not even one iota concerned about our wasteful use of resources and food or even our clean water.

I'm not proposing here that arbitrary restrictions go into place to restrict people's access. What I'm HOPING for is a cultural revolution that sets aside this notion that things are 'replaceable'. A culture that venerates scarcity and instead of selfishly hoarding the abundance, figures out a way to intelligently share it with others, teaching them along the way how to create even more abundance.

I'm not talking about politics either so don't call me a 'socialist' 'communist'. I'm speaking to you human to human, politics be damned. If I can I will and do share. We've had people living in our home with us for some time RENT FREE because we give not to receive but because we CAN (and we're what most people would consider poor)...... Do you? If not, you're the problem. If you can't help then that's okay, as long as you're aware that others are in your position too. Not everyone has disposable incomes, though sometimes that's BECAUSE of the problem I outlined.

It pains to say that but you are (the keyboard warriors and apathetic sympathy garners), in actual fact, the problem. And YOU need sorting out. Not low intelligence people.

The solution really is to just love your fellow man as you want to be loved and SHARE.
edit on 11/10/2012 by Joneselius because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/10/2012 by Joneselius because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 05:04 PM
a reply to: DeathSlayer

This doesn't work.

Humans are social and hierarchical. We also compete with each other for resources. We want our offspring to have the best chance on an instinctive level. Those at the top of the social hierarchy would be ultimately making these decisions; and those decisions would benefit them and their offspring, not most of the population nor would those decisions be conducive to actually advancing the human race as a whole.

Also, diversity propels evolution. Much of our human evolution has to do with complex adaptations for social cooperation. If you clamp down on breeding eventually you will get generationally increasing stagnation.

Not to mention, such a "policy" would only be used as a way to manipulate the population with a big heaping side effect of massive suffering. This idiotic idea keeps popping up in every generation and it usually really appeals to the lower middle class, who have just enough material wealth to see the poor or disadvantaged as threats to that wealth, and not quite enough education to understand the ramifications of what is basically eugenics.

If you think that this is a good idea you do know that you would likely be in the "shouldn't breed" category right? The irony is great fun though. I'm sure you won't mind taking one for the team.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 05:13 PM

You know who else liked this idea? ... Hitler

as did many of the great minds of the early 20th century.
you shouldnt stop logical debate because of one person.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 05:36 PM
Not at all. I'd like to think we're approaching a point in time where technology can offset the demand for resources making it a moot issue. Malthus has been proved wrong on several occasions and the kinds of devastation we've inflicted upon ourselves following his ideas are a shameful blight on our history.

Besides, it's not any of us that would be involved in the decision making process anyway and I typically view the elite as the weakest of our species. They tend to not possess any greater intelligence, aptitude for survival or physical superiority so genetic preservation alone isn't a valid reason.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 05:45 PM

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Blaine91555

This scares me as well, mentally retarded people can live full, capable happy lives, sometimes happier than "normal" or "elite" lives.

I know a guy that is a supervisor with a local natural gas company that is mentally retarded by diagnosis. They call him "high functioning"....but he seems like just another guy to me. Has a little less insight than most folks I know. But he drives a brand new Jeep, has his wife in a brand new Challenger. Maintains a household with his 2 kids and her 3, and keeps them fed and living like anyone else that they would know.

Simple person? Sure. But a solid contributor to society, and a solid provider for his family.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 06:06 PM
How do we get rid of people that can do this without destroying our own potential? How do we even have the nerve to think of them as less than us? I really can't get my head around it.

We should be trying to work out how the hell they can do it, not thinking of the best way to herd them into ovens so we can consume more.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They call him "high functioning"....but he seems like just another guy to me.

All of my brothers waited until they were in there late 30s early 40s, before marrying and having children. I have 9 siblings, all, except 3, only have 1 or 2 children. I have a nephew that has Downs Syndrome, they label him high functioning Mosaic. He attended college, and he has more commonsense that your average genius. He thinks in a very logistical manner. He can just look at something and figure out the most likely way to make it work.

I can't tell you how many times he has made people feel foolish when he shows them a quicker or easier way to do something they have been doing. His handicap? He thinks that everyone is his friend, and he trusts everyone. His mind has trouble processing that there are bad people in the world, or that anyone would want to hurt him, for no reason, except they are just mean and evil..

He has 3 brothers, 2 are in advanced classes in school. His older brother was in advanced classes and got a full academic scholarship and a scholarship for art.

It would have done the world a huge disservice to have forced his mother to abort and be sterilized because her child was diagnosis with Downs Syndrome.

We are not Gods and we are not psychics. We have no right to force or encourage people into sterilization. That is a decision that should be totally and completely up to each individual without interference from any entity.

You never know what beautiful mind you are erasing in the process.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:55 PM

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
How do we get rid of people that can do this without destroying our own potential? How do we even have the nerve to think of them as less than us? I really can't get my head around it.

We should be trying to work out how the hell they can do it, not thinking of the best way to herd them into ovens so we can consume more.

The ironic part is that there's no guarantee the survivors would even be able to consume more. It's not like the corporations, trade groups, and government factions around the world would suddenly become benevolent & start sharing with everyone else. Even right now, when industries have an overabundance of something, they usually try to create artificial "shortages" in order to jack up the prices. It's not like they're going to throw out their time tested techniques or their desires to accumulate wealth just because there are fewer poor people.

On that note, I still haven't seen anyone explain why "overpopulation" is a bad thing. I outlined in an earlier post why I don't believe anything would change even with a smaller population. The same people who create scarcity now would exist with a smaller population. And the same people who make crappy laws, encourage more wars, and control the organizations & infrastructures that compete over resources would still exist. Unless people think they'd put themselves, their families, and their friends on those mandatory sterilization lists (lol yeah right).

Even in jurisdictions with limited water supplies or power shortages, the real problem is urban development, logistics, and government (and business) priorities. Nigeria, for example, is a large oil producing nation. But their crappy oil refinery system & power distribution infrastructure are what create their national power shortages. I think right now they have to export the raw crude, let the powerful refiners refine it, then import the refined fuel at steep markups. Decreasing the population won't change that; changing that crooked system will change it.

A lower population does not equal nicer & more sharing people.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:29 PM
The problem with this idea is that eventually there would be no people left.

The law of probability dictates that at some point in everyone`s family tree that there is going to be one generation that would qualify to be sterilized.If a program of forced sterilization were continued indefinitely then at some point there would be no people left.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:03 PM
i dont know why people take such offence here..

1. smart people don’t want kids .. current trend

2. below average intelligence people breed like rabbits .. live of welfare they receive from gov for their kids ..
and it is easier to give your best to 1 or 2 children .. attention and education

3. even doctors suggest you to abort if they detect birth defect in fetus ..

Anyway alternative to sterilisation

contraception for men

It effectively blocks the production of sperm by the testes, and lacks the adverse effects of previously researched hormonal contraceptives for men.

i will stand by the fact people who cant feed their child should not have them .. thats kind of cruel and selfish

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:47 PM
a reply to: Layaly

So, we will sterilize/force contraceptives on those of low intelligence meanwhile all of the intelligent people who are "too smart to want children" will choose to refrain from producing children.. Sounds like a great way to eliminate humans in general.

Unless you FORCE those of high intelligence to breed and I doubt THEY'LL appreciate being forced to subject themselves to someone else's idea of what they should be doing with their reproductive status.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:18 PM
a reply to: MaryaNoxx

Even more important, why should "people with low intelligence" no longer exist or be able to have families in the first place? Some of the vilest people the world's ever produced have been highly educated. In fact, even most of our politicians today are highly educated. And the people who control our banking system, MIC, corporations, and trade groups are all highly educated too. Many of them have mastered fields, concepts, and trade policies that I've never even seen mentioned on ATS before. So to be completely honest, those people would all qualify for exemptions for these hypothetical lists, even though most of us would agree that they can be pretty horrible as human beings.

I'd take a room fool of poor & "slow" people over a room full of rich & highly educated d-bags any day. Perceived intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with morality, kindness, personality, or sense of humor (which are all qualities I rate much higher than intelligence & the size of a bank account).

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:22 PM
Aborting a 'defective fetus" is a personal matter that has implications no matter what you do.

But on the matter of sterilizing low IQ people to promote the health of "the race" (or humanity, or whatever)....intelligence is influenced by genes, but not controlled. There is no science to support "culling the herd" of its more dimwitted members will produce a better species when you use intelligence as the yard stick.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:41 PM
a reply to: MaryaNoxx

no that's not what I said .. But all I see here is bunch of people just wanting to argue about something ..

This mandatory and forced sterilization is bs we all know it .. It's not going to happen

just a thread on a forum .. but what I am reading from op is .. raising standard of living and quality of life not quantity ..

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:47 PM
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

intelligence depends on if you don't have worry about food and where you are going to sleep at night or if someone is about to hurt you .. and if you have resources available to grow on an intellectual level but that only happens if your basic human needs are fulfilled .. we are not talking about prodigies neither do I believe iq anyhow depends on genes

also intelligence is such a bias term

Iq is as important as eq and self development

We should strive for every individual being everything they can be not just: eat, sleep, pee, work like a dog and die and that's it

additionally defects

most are linked to eg. As with a vitamin B12 deficiency, a lack of folate can also affect an unborn baby's growth and development in the womb ...

women who have the opportunity take a pregnancy vit
edit on 20-1-2016 by Layaly because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:21 AM
If the concern is now overpopulation then eugenics is not the solution.
Nations in the 1st world have been noticing a downward trend in population growth for sometime now. The reason being to my thinking is because we have grown somewhat self-absorbed.
We have videogames, movies we want to go watch, shopping malls to go to, amusement parks, night clubs and as a general rule we have money to take trips and vacations. All of these things the majority of people would rather do by themselves or with other people in their age group to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Mostly no one wants to try to go out on the town with a 4 year old in tow. As a result so we tend to put off having children till we get our social-life fill.

Now if we look at countries in the second and third world we see something different.
We see people having children more often. They have had a history of high infant mortality rates, starvation, and local warfare that culls the population. Electricity and running water is still touch and go in many locations.

However what we have done in the 1st world is open clinics to help with their ills which give them a greater life expectancy. and send them food supply's to keep them from all starving to death, we have in essence increased their the life expectancy of their children. However what we have not done is the most important thing.
While we have helped them to live longer, and increased the chances of their children surviving into adulthood, we have not given them a reason to not WANT to have children.

If we want to stop or slow population growth, then the fix is to allow those in the third world to build, more power plants, and become industrialized. In short, help them to become a first world nation and the amount of children they have will decrease as human nature asserts itself.

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:37 AM
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Um, no! Sorry, but who decided who is defective, and thus in need of sterilization? Who sets those rules!? Better yet, who make sure they don't change? What next, people of some color we don't like, or from some place, or whose ancestors mostly have this or that belief system?

Just no.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in