Should society consider mandatory sterilization?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I imagine rather a few of the poor refugees from the numerous proxy wars we have in play, plus the future conflicts yet to pan out would be the main candidates for such camps.

Also other political dissidents of a more home grown variety. Then if the Eugenics thing comes back around or into play the mentally disabled and infirm. Not to mention anyone else they deem unacceptable.

And if it does happen it will do so under the guise of maintaining our security and way of life all very PC, diabolical as it may be.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

okay, we got a problem-- overpopulation in the world -- or at least that is the assumption. how do we control that problem? some seem to think that a suitable solution would be to sterialize those who they believe are a drain on society....

the fact is in reality, in the western countries where birth control is easily available, the birth rate has dropped, and to put it bluntly it has dropped in those groups that we would deem to be not so much a burden on society the most. because well what can I say, any intelligent women probably is too intelligent to have five or six, or more kids. There seems that at least in the western world, that maybe there is two problems.... overpopulation may be a problem in some groups....the poor, the mentally challanged, ect. but we also have a problem of under population when it comes to other groups. cutting the population raite in those lesser desired groups will just increase the problem of under population bringing it to all groups. It seems quite clear that increasing immigration isn't a solution that is liked by many in this country so I just assume that once they start forcibly sterializing people who they don't want breeding in order to control their birth rates, the next step would be to try to force people who they do want breeding to breed.

Even on a large organized international scale this would not work. There would likly be no cooperation from people if they are forced to take part. You would just have to kill them. But insted of doing that, the rich could just introduce some sort of super std.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Please do go and get sterilized then,

No need for dramatic statement .. but if you ask I am not planning having kids .. But fostering a bunch

Mass sterilization or killing of a subsection of society you believe to be below average, whether that's in intelligence, physical ability, work ethic, socio economic status, or anything else has one major flaw in it: If you eliminate the below average, you create a new baseline for average. And now those who were average before the purge, are now the lowest performers bringing society down. So they too must be purged.

This continues all the way to the top, and as you conduct these purges you are wiping your nation out of future bargaining power as it will now consist of far fewer customers, and far fewer people to join the military, and far fewer people to produce goods.

a reply to: Aazadan

far fewer people to produce goods.

I wouldn't really call this is an issue. Everything's being produced by machines with all the benefit going to a tiny sliver of people, anyway.

There are many problems with mass sterilisation (one of them being that it's useless for the purpose described, to say nothing of the moral issues) but a slightly lower population isn't one of them.

Not sure I would go for the global sterilisation programme but I do agree that something needs to be done to make it less lucrative to just pump out children. Sadly to some people children are simply a currency that is paid to them by the tax payers as part of their entitlement life style. We have a lady next door to us, when we moved in she had 2 kids, both autistic, her mother lives with her to help with the kids as the dad had cleared off. Now she has 5 kids, ALL autistic and she copes even less than she did with 2 kids (obviously) but she has zero wish to be with her kids ie she never takes them to the park and she only knows how to scream like a banshee at them, the problem is she's pregnant AGAIN, she does not work, never has, the only time she sees the dad is to have sex with him and all at the tax payers expense..

I wish we would finally take on a simple law that says that while you are benefits you have no more than two children, any further additions while on benefits will NOT be paid for and it will be compulsory for the father to be named and money deducted from him.

1984, possibly but the benefits system only has so much money, if this carries on then there will be no money for ANYONE..

And my second annoyance, again we have a second and third family in the next block, both are Muslim immigrants, and both are pumping out the kids based on the Religious pay ticket, both families have more than 5 children and ongoing, both have never worked since they got here which I know because they are in special accommodation but both families have been caught defrauding the benefit system yet they still keep pumping out the children.

Yet again at the expense of the tax payer....

If you work and support your kids yourself then its up to you how many you have but even then I wish people would consider the children, can they actually share themselves fairly to ALL the children they have?

Whatever the reason we have to start limiting birth rates, there's simply not the resources out there in schooling, NHS and housing and the funding is slipping constantly, the blatant abuse of the system by the welfare rabbits simply disgusts me as the children are often a 2nd thought behind the financial windfall, its the case in 2 of the 3 families I mentioned.

And lastly, the education factor in these families is almost zero, most of the families around here have an estate mentality where they believe as they come from an estate they will amount to little and the male children often end up in crime and poorly educated, I listen to the screeching from one neighbour at the children and its like those youtube video's of black welfare mama's in the states, its like this lady is modelling herself on these people, yes she's black but she's leading the stereotypical loads of kids no dad wanting to live the high life while here really lovely mother is left with the kids.

This sort of irrational child neglecting greed for money cannot be kept up indefinitely, cash will run out and then the children suffer because in most cases they will be unwanted as their profitability is gone, sound cynical but its the truth.

Maybe one day sterilisation will be the only way....

The planet is not overpopulated. The criteria by which this often echoed assertion is made is actually criteria that should first beckon one to consider more sustainable methods of living, no matter how restrictive, way before a human considers any draconian trains of thought. This is the only way to be truly scientific. The amount of uninhabited area now viable as a place to live, through modern methods/understanding of the science of human/ecological balance, dwarfs the currently inhabited, hyperdense city-samples that often underpin the assertion of overpopulation.

Sure you and everyone that thinks like you should volunteer and be the first to go!

A controversial topic that often elicits emotional knee-jerk reactions because we let emotions override our sense of reason and logic. Despite your beliefs towards the topic, the OP is brave for posting it knowing that he/she will be crucified by most people.

If we are to remove emotional reasoning from the equation, what the OP states does make sense if we truly want what's best for humanity. But that is the thing: do we want what's best or do we want what's "right"? They are not the same.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

And yet, if we are to remove emotional reasoning from the equation, we also come to the conclusion that any such system can and will be abused in a manner that defies its purpose. From a logical perspective, attempting to integrate such a system would doubtless cause large amounts of violence and sorrow, creating a negative net impact upon the world and our species. A logical perspective and an understanding of biology also tells you that eugenics is almost totally useless when it comes to eliminating recessive traits from the gene pool - as most diseases are - and that attempting to use it to "increase the IQ" of the population will not work. It is both more moral and more efficient to pursue other avenues and means of doing things such as reducing hereditary disease, such as genetic modification.

So what is "best" and what is "right" are, indeed, thankfully, the same.

Sure why not and while we're at it lets turn on the showers and fire the ovens because after all that's where we are heading right? Why stop at IQ why not sterilize those that don't have blue eyes and blonde hair?

We can euthanize all those people with Alzheimer's Parkinson's multiple sclerosis. Just think of how much society would save not having to treat these people. I doubt anyone has a genetic code as superior as yours OP.

Half the world can't read you have 3 billion people to practice on get to work.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Any system will be abused, including our current one, it is the human way. Many people today have too many children than they are able to financially and emotionally support. They might not intentionally do so, but the nature of the current system supports their decision to burden the state. That strikes down your first argument.

Integrating eugenics would cause initial high levels of pain, I agree. But these would be temporary and short-term, NOT creating a negative net impact on our species as you suggest. In the long-term, undesirable traits would be greatly reduced, while desirable traits would be more abundant.

You can't just lump together what you feel is right and what is actually best and conclude they are the same. That is not how philosophical discourse takes place.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I think Monsanto is already on that path . Mon-satan I mean Monsanto will do it for you.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.alternet.org...

and also Humans

agreenroad.blogspot.com...

doowansnewsandevents.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Please do go and get sterilized then,

No need for dramatic statement .. but if you ask I am not planning having kids .. But fostering a bunch

Please do get kids if you ever want to, iam sure your will make a great mother. But dont take the choise away from others, there is other solutions, the problem is not to many people, but the way we live in the west. We are wasting so much unnecessary ressources. Change the way we do things, and we dont have a problem anymore

Hitler tried to erradicate entire races, and it didnt work out. Exchange the word races with IQ lvls/Genes, and this is just the same proposal he made... think about that!

a reply to: DeathSlayer

No...

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

More to the point, expansion off world is a much better solution to the population problem, and an achievable one. However, it will not happen if cultural red herrings like the one dealt with in this thread, keep popping up to slow the progress of such things. The more people think like dystopians, the slower progress will be. These things have ripples, and those ripples turn into tides which hold back all manner of things. Social advancement for the poor, scientific pursuits.

It might not seem like it, but the advancement of the species starts with attitudes. If those attitudes are right, we get somewhere. If they aren't, we get screwed.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Which is why I have repeated a vast multitude of times that the issues our species face are societal ones, rather than biological or technical ones. Our problem is the box we have built as our cage, not what we are capable of.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: TrueBrit

Which is why I have repeated a vast multitude of times that the issues our species face are societal ones, rather than biological or technical ones. Our problem is the box we have built as our cage, not what we are capable of.

Curious how agreed upon, and frequently used as a basis for bizarre societal agendas, the unscientific assumption of overpopulation is. I read it on here so many times. "so-and-so is having too many kids and taxing our society" is a surface layer observation that only works when one is not willing to consider a more self-sustaining society. We can actually increase our population and footprint on this earth but we would have to throw away our throw away culture. No more band-aids...complete overhaul and we would owe this complete overhaul to the humans we would otherwise consider forcing to live one way or another.

Unlike overpopulation, this is not a theory. There are examples of humans living in almost complete balance with the environment. Please, please, please consider looking into these examples before repeating an assertion that we have calculated from the view our smog-stained windows looking out over extremely polluted and dense, but relatively small in terms of the earth's surface area, cities.

The only people who should be subjected to enforced sterilization are those who want to enforce it on others. Ditto those who want to cull the population, they should lead by example.