Trump signs executive order to stop family separations at border

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xenogears

A child tax?
So the rich can have more kids. That will ensure an improvement of the race.

I think I said it before. You're scary. And on ATS, that means something.

Will add, that the stagnant salaries, the rising cost of education, and the added cost of modern amenities, rising cost of housing, etc in their totality are basically a child tax, it makes those that want to provide more for their children less able too, disincentivizing them from reproducing, thus the reduction in fertility rate.

At the same time the guarantees of welfare, ever higher per additional child, makes those that don't care about the quality of their child's lives, the quality of their education or providing a decent home, decent amenities, decent neighborhood, it incentivises them to reproduce more.

Reproduction must be regulated globally. This century, this need may become evident due to technological progress.

Unrestrained migration from rapidly reproducing external sources presents the same threats to the sustainability of the state as does uncontrolled internal reproduction.

Being fit does not mean that you can have unlimited reproduction. The resources remain finite. And assuming there were more people entering the higher STEM fields, the trades, etc. The increase, first there are quotas, so it will make it more luck dependent, and assuming you somehow could get unlimited high paying jobs for all.

Money is merely a token, a means, of bartering for access to the finite resource pool. If everyone is a multimillionaire, a million all of a sudden is worth far far less, inflation occurs, and most despite higher training are not that much better off.

a reply to: Xenogears

So what's your feelings on your own kids? Or are you in the group that's allowed to have a family?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xenogears

So what's your feelings on your own kids? Or are you in the group that's allowed to have a family?

Look I said sub replacement reproduction. The population needs to be reduced. If you want more, there's a lot of children in need of adoption. This could incentivize adoption if people are limited in the number of children they can have.

a reply to: Xenogears

No, you've also argued that low IQ people are incapable of proper parenting. If your theory is accurate, then giving a kid to a subpar parent will only result in that kid failing to thrive.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xenogears

No, you've also argued that low IQ people are incapable of proper parenting. If your theory is accurate, then giving a kid to a subpar parent will only result in that kid failing to thrive.

There has to be limits on IQ too. Obviously say someone in is in diapers, drooling, obviously they can't have a child in their care.

Also, allow sufficient education from the government, adequate education not the current mess, and proper development is possible, with those within a reasonable IQ range.

Any case the reality of finite resources cannot be denied.

a reply to: Xenogears

Respectfully the Nazis made the same argument and actually implemented it. The T-4 program was the test run for the holocaust.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Xenogears

Respectfully the Nazis made the same argument and actually implemented it. The T-4 program was the test run for the holocaust.

The nazis did many things. Eating, drinking, some may have indirectly lead to the holocaust, but unless the actions IN AND OF THEMSELVES are wrong, then it does not follow.

It is like "the end justifies the means", many disagree with that. A good end does not necessarily justify any and all means. Likewise a bad end does not necessarily condemn any and all preceding historical acts.

The reality is finite resources are fact. Evolution is fact.

Incentivizing the less fit to breed the most while disincentivizing the fittest. That is a path towards collapse.

The state cannot escape finite resources, in a human body you see what happens when the finite resources are distributed and a few cells reproduce in an unregulated manner, the body dies. The only thing that allows the state to continue functioning is that no fraction however small with an inheritable tendency to vigorous reproduction, while not functioning properly in society, appears. Welfare collapses if such a fraction appears, as it will grow and faster than the rest until it taxes the system beyond capacity.

Newborns, are made by machines, molecular machines, they deserve the right to be born with adequate genetics, adequate environments, health, education, food, housing, etc.

Again what do you propose we do, we cannot take welfare away from starving children. Even if the parents have horrible environments, we can't stop them from producing a dozen children to be taken away one after another by child protection.

What exactly stops the population dependent on welfare from growing and growing? I mean, the reality is if it isn't growing, even if a small fraction reproduces vigorously in an inheritable way given time the system collapses, as it would grow from a small beginning. We need to help those in need, but limited resources means there is a limited capacity to how many we can help, and if exceeded either the system collapses or many will starve to death.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And we don't let nearly enough in through legal methods. Demand for legal immigration far outpaces the supply of visas.

There is no set number that we 'should' allow in. Your subjective opinion that "we dont' let nearly enough in through legal methods" doesn't have objective weight to it.

I think that the major problem is that it's so expensive and time-consuming to go through legal means--we need to redesign the legal immigration process. I know that a lot of the hold-up depends on the individuals applying to come through legally, as the onus is on them to provide documents and proof of claims and all of that non-fun stuff, but it's readily apparent that the system itself could be streamlined and better managed.

But you ignored nearly everything of substance in my comment to complain about how you feel that we don't let enough people in legally.

This is why it's difficult to discuss this issue with you and others who do the same thing--ignore relative points and just redirect the argument.

While our rate of population increase in the US is declining, it's still hovering around .7% each year. That's about an additional 2.25-Million people just from birth, and that doesn't include immigration, legal or otherwise.

So, we are adding about the population of Houston to our nation every year, yet you think that we're not letting in enough other people? At which point are we letting in enough people, then? Do you have a number that you'd like to see reached? Because, remember, every human being has the potential to procreate, so when we let in one person, we are creating exponentially more people down the road.

So, again, when, in your subjective opinion, would we be letting in enough each year? In the last ten years alone, we've averaged about 1.1-Million legal immigrants per year, so when is enough, enough? 2 Million? 5 Million? 10 Million?

a reply to: Xenogears

Your argument is a slippery cliff with a sheer drop position.

Where is the line drawn? Who decides what conditions should be "exterminated"?

The problem then becomes what if the powers that be decide affiliation with a certain political group poses a mental health issue with no hope of redemption and therefore qualifies for extermination.

Using your position Stephen Hawking would have been exterminated and with that we would not be where we are today in terms of scientific research and discovery that benefits everyone.

Given humans are not all ethical and do not give a fig about others whom they believe are beneath them your position is fraught with the gravest of dangers.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Xenogears

Your argument is a slippery cliff with a sheer drop position.

Where is the line drawn? Who decides what conditions should be "exterminated"?

The problem then becomes what if the powers that be decide affiliation with a certain political group poses a mental health issue with no hope of redemption and therefore qualifies for extermination.

Using your position Stephen Hawking would have been exterminated and with that we would not be where we are today in terms of scientific research and discovery that benefits everyone.

Given humans are not all ethical and do not give a fig about others whom they believe are beneath them your position is fraught with the gravest of dangers.

Look, no one is talking about killing or exterminating. Stephen Hawking, if he has a good chance of transmitting his condition either needs to get preimplantation embryo diagnostic to prevent it, or he should refrain from reproducing.

The unborn, as in those not even conceived, they are not real people, stopping them from existing is not exterminating anything. You can't exterminate nothingness. If I have a bio 3d printer, and want to print a severely in pain severely deformed baby, prohibiting me from doing that does not exterminate anyone.

People have what in essence is '3d bio printer' manufacturing system.

Existing people can be provided and obviously an existing citizen has rights. The idea that maybe the number of citizens needs to be limited, an inevitable, unavoidable, consequence of limited resources, cannot be avoided. Regulating population size, need not involve any killing, given time the population decreases or increases merely by altering birth rate as it compares to death rate, given the inevitability of some natural death rate. You need not affect existing citizens by "exterminating" them which does not follow from regulating reproduction.

You either do nothing and the system collapses, millions starve to death, Or you regulate reproduction. In my eyes regulating reproduction is far better than systemic collapse or millions starving to death. That is the alternative.


Again someone is an alcoholic or drug addict. They get pregnant and do drugs or drink alcohol. Baby is taken away, maybe some years in jail, but may have intimate privilege visits with free partner outside jail. Any case gets pregnant again, another baby suffer. After another baby suffers.

You have to understand that the rights of children even the rights to a healthy womb environment should go ABOVE AND BEYOND the rights of the parents. The child did not consent to come to the world, much less to be in an abusive perilous environment. We as a society can stop children from being subjected to damaging genetics, womb environments, and growing environments. Their rights should go above and beyond the rights of parents to try and manufacture children damaged and in damaging environments.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, again, when, in your subjective opinion, would we be letting in enough each year? In the last ten years alone, we've averaged about 1.1-Million legal immigrants per year, so when is enough, enough? 2 Million? 5 Million? 10 Million?

Anyone who wants in, and will obey our laws once here should be allowed to come.

Not that it would cause anyone to lose their livelyhood, but if that somehow caused someone to be unable to make a living here, they could always go to that immigrants country and work there instead. America would keep the most productive. That's called free market competition.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, again, when, in your subjective opinion, would we be letting in enough each year? In the last ten years alone, we've averaged about 1.1-Million legal immigrants per year, so when is enough, enough? 2 Million? 5 Million? 10 Million?

Anyone who wants in, and will obey our laws once here should be allowed to come.

Not that it would cause anyone to lose their livelyhood, but if that somehow caused someone to be unable to make a living here, they could always go to that immigrants country and work there instead. America would keep the most productive. That's called free market competition.

Or hundreds of millions move in, vote communist dictator in power, and game over. If not for the fact that why would they go back, at least not until the U.S. is just as bad or worse off than where they came from?

If you come from say Somalia, why go back, not until you've made the U.S as bad as Somalia or worse than Somalia. You simply have no reason to leave if you're let in with open borders.

Look there are plenty of homeless living in poverty in dangerous streets. What do you think happens if you let them all in into your house, even a fraction and you and your family are in danger.

Again for the same reason you yourself bar random homeless from coming into your home, we who understand the nature of the world, wish to bar those who will not contribute from our nation.

A city that is inundated by low iq individuals, they don't go away, the wellbeing of the native citizens collapses, the crime rate soars. Just like if you let them into your house en masse. It ain't pretty.

You cannot deny finite resources. Many americans are currently suffering from insufficient resources, adding a bunch of random low iq strangers, is only going to make the situation worse.

originally posted by: Xenogears
Or hundreds of millions move in, vote communist dictator in power, and game over. If not for the fact that why would they go back, at least not until the U.S. is just as bad or worse off than where they came from?

Fearing how people will vote in a democracy just means you don't believe in democracy.

Look there are plenty of homeless living in poverty in dangerous streets. What do you think happens if you let them all in into your house, even a fraction and you and your family are in danger.

I think that's ridiculous, because that logic can be applied to any group. A small fraction of all groups are criminals.

You cannot deny finite resources. Many americans are currently suffering from insufficient resources, adding a bunch of random low iq strangers, is only going to make the situation worse.

More workers means a greater supply of resources being produced.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xenogears


More workers means a greater supply of resources being produced.

More workers in an upcoming Era of automation isn't a great thing

originally posted by: pavil
More workers in an upcoming Era of automation isn't a great thing

I think that that's irrelevant. If there aren't enough jobs to go around, then how does adding even more employees change that fact. With or without those additional workers a UBI will be necessary, and since UBI is deficit neutral (as long as the money stays in the country) it doesn't matter how many people are on it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xenogears
Or hundreds of millions move in, vote communist dictator in power, and game over. If not for the fact that why would they go back, at least not until the U.S. is just as bad or worse off than where they came from?

Fearing how people will vote in a democracy just means you don't believe in democracy.

Neither did the founders.

Look at the white farmers in africa and the popular chants of kill the white man, whose very distant ancestors moved into a mostly empty part of south africa and improved it through technology allowing africans from the north to come in and join in their success.

Look there are plenty of homeless living in poverty in dangerous streets. What do you think happens if you let them all in into your house, even a fraction and you and your family are in danger.

I think that's ridiculous, because that logic can be applied to any group. A small fraction of all groups are criminals.

Look you can look at nations that have been poor in the past, their trajectory after that, the lower IQ populations and their nations have tended to go down and down, while those that were poor and had higher iq they recovered and improved their nation's wealth.

If a nation votes socialist dictator and their economy collapses, they go elsewhere and vote for the same.

Look at sanctuary state cali, it is getting worse and worse, the debt, the homelessness, the taxes, etc. They even enact stupid measures like making it legal to give hiv to another person knowingly, and then ask why is the rate of hiv rising.

There are plenty of cities that have been inundated with low iq, the entire U.S. would be inundated and just as bad if we let everyone in.

Go live in one of those cities with high crime rate, high unemployment, high poverty, if you want, just don't make my city into one of them.

You cannot deny finite resources. Many americans are currently suffering from insufficient resources, adding a bunch of random low iq strangers, is only going to make the situation worse.

More workers means a greater supply of resources being produced.

NO.

edit

You cannot produce more energy or minerals than there are in the ground, or coming from the sun. The available energy is limited, and energy limits the economic activity as each and every meaningful action takes energy, barring technological revolution in energy you can't reshape matter faster.

Most work, especially low skill is going into the service sector, they don't produce anything and are only doing busywork to slow down their breeding, because if they were paid for doing nothing they'd breed more. But what they do basically contributes little to nothing.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil
More workers in an upcoming Era of automation isn't a great thing

I think that that's irrelevant. If there aren't enough jobs to go around, then how does adding even more employees change that fact. With or without those additional workers a UBI will be necessary, and since UBI is deficit neutral (as long as the money stays in the country) it doesn't matter how many people are on it.

Yet if the U.S has UBI it will be an incentive for BILLIONS to come in especially with open borders. But UBI cannot sustain billions without better technology.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN IT? You live in la la land? The only way it wouldn't matter is if the currency devalued, through inflation, and you effectively paid less and less to everyone, until all starved.

Money is a fictional token, used to barter for finite resources. Creating more money does not create more resources. Energy limits each and every step of the economy. There isn't enough resources on earth for billions to live in the luxury of U.S. citizens, rumored estimates say it would take the resources from 4 PLANET earths to provide that.

You think say a Trillion people could magically be added to the U.S. and UBI would magically provide for all. IT WON'T, IT CAN'T.

originally posted by: Xenogears
The unborn, as in those not even conceived, they are not real people, stopping them from existing is not exterminating anything. You can't exterminate nothingness.

See your position is based on a morality question of when life begins. At birth or at conception.

Basing this type of position on how a person thinks / perceives is a non starter and will never work in the manner you think it will. Does it include perfectly healthy people who are in comas? Car accidents? Genetic disease that hit after 50 years of life?

The Nazis made the exact same argument in their Eugenics program and if we look solely at the thought process it started out specific and then branched out to suit the needs of the state to control the people. This started out as their T-4 program, which murdered people with mental disorders, genetic defects etc and spiraled into something that should never be repeated.

We fought 1 world war that cost the live of more than 50 million people, with a large chunk of that revolving around the murder of certain individuals whom the Nazi state decided were subhuman.

I am not the best person to debate this with as I vehemently oppose the ability of the state to decide who lives and who dies based solely the morality of people in power. Any argument to the contrary tells me we didnt learn a fu**ing thing from World War 2.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xenogears

No, you've also argued that low IQ people are incapable of proper parenting. If your theory is accurate, then giving a kid to a subpar parent will only result in that kid failing to thrive.

Another thing I forgot to add.

Have you not heard how some 17-18 year olds have the mental capacity of a 10 or 12 year old? Say you have a low iq and the mental capacity of a 9 year old, does this not create a problem in terms of the ability to give consent?

Although all persons with mental retardation have significantly impaired mental development, their intellectual level can vary considerably. An estimated 89 percent of all people with retardation have I.Q.s in the 51-70 range. An I.Q. in the 60 to 70 range is approximately the scholastic equivalent to the third grade.11 For the lay person or non-specialist, the significance of a low I.Q. is often best communicated through the imprecise but nonetheless descriptive reference to "mental age." When a person is said to have a mental age of six, this means he or she received the same number of correct responses on a standardized I.Q. test as the average six year old child.-hrw.org