Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

Hi Op and All,

Gore's right, Gore's wrong. USA needs Men both highly educated, and highly motivated meaning Military. 265 Million vs. China's existing Billions--see what I'm getting at. Gore's wrong to possibly suggest self-restriction on New Borns in the USA. Canada needs to expand it's growth of peoples by a large percentage.

Decoy

Well as a suggestion it really only kind of make sense at least until we can teach ourselves to manage our waste and our excess better and further more...

Al Gore said it?

Sorry.

This is nothing but Liberal, socialist, hypocrite pablum.

reply to post by Gorman91


I must agree with you as there are different parenting styles, but I do believe that it behooves us all in the long run to keep our population at manageable levels...Yes, technology can be a problem by itself, but compound the damage with more people wanting more technology and it gets out of hand soon. I still think that there should be some way to prove you can take care of a child before you can have it...You can't adopt a pet from a shelter without having to show you can provide it with a good home and meet all of its other needs. I think children deserve the same care.

reply to post by ReluctantBlossom


Pets are not capable of caring for themselves due to our forced evolution of them into a dependent species. Humans are not. We can take care of ourselves, at least as an adult.

There is no way to guarantee you are fit for a child or not, nor is there any manageable way to control the population. It's that simple. The legal BS that gets involved with such things are impossible to deal with in a free country. What happens when people don't listen? Force them to have an abortion? They'll sooner kill you. Tax/find them? Then how do they pay for their kids? Take the kid away? You've got no guarantee the child won't suffer irreparable mental damage from being forced out of their household. You may end up growing a generation of children wanting revenge on the government.

The simple fact is this. People have a right to their bodies, and what they do with them. When life is the result of that action, that life has a right. When people desire to create a life, they have a right to create that life. Not destroy it.

Morals are not legal terms. Morals are a lie. Created to indoctrinate people. So you cannot argue that parenting styles of certain people are wrong, because it is your moral-based opinion, and therefore not legally binding.

You can't do anything about it. People will breed when they want to. People will not listen to governments when their laws are stupid. People will do what they want and there's nothing you can do about it. The only place government has is to be a wall to prevent people from pushing their desire to do what they want into other people
s lives, which violates the right to the self.


There is no management system available for humanity because humans are not manageable. This is why governments fall, revolutions rise, and no system lasts forever. We are a free people, cursed with the inability to be stable. The damages that we do on this planet are just that. Damages. No different than a child breaking priceless china. It will happen, because that's what children do. Humans are no different.

The only solution, therefore, is to leave. Leave the planet and spread elsewhere. This is the only way.

reply to post by Gorman91

When people desire to create a life, they have a right to create that life.

I strongly disagree. I admit it may be difficult to enforce in practice, but from an ideological standpoint, there is no such right. Unless you can take care of the resulting life, you have no right to reproduce, period.

reply to post by Maslo


Your opinion. An opinion that 4.5 billion years of evolution goes against. Don't try to go against evolution, it only leads to extinction.

But by all means. You've got an idea to enforce it? Do tell.

Cause the fundamental right of sentient beings is the right to make more of thy self.

reply to post by Gorman91

Your opinion. An opinion that 4.5 billion years of evolution goes against. Don't try to go against evolution, it only leads to extinction.

Saving the sick goes against evolution, too. And there is no guarantee that purely natural evolution is any better than such artificially influenced one would be. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.

But by all means. You've got an idea to enforce it? Do tell.

Like we enforce other laws + maybe forced sterilizations for repeatable offenders (they could still have kids in vitro). Chinese managed to prevent up to 400 million births, population control programs could be viable in practice, IMHO.

Cause the fundamental right of sentient beings is the right to make more of thy self.

Thats BS. Can you support it by something? And no, arguments about evolution and nature does not cut it. There is no correlation between what is natural and what is ethical.

reply to post by Maslo

Saving the sick goes against evolution, too. And there is no guarantee that purely natural evolution is any better than such artificially influenced one would be. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.

Saving the sick lets them get better, integrate an immunity, and improve herd immunity. It also enables increased diversity of the gene pool, and as a social species, increased security and strength.

Like we enforce other laws + maybe forced sterilizations for repeatable offenders (they could still have kids in vitro)

This is the equivalent of cutting someone's hand off because they don't follow government orders to keep it down, or cut of a tongue because they talked against the government's will. Sure, an artificial voice or arm can replace it. It's no different than vitro. Such tactics can be done, but good luck getting your government to last more than a few months. Might you have any intelligent methods?

Chinese managed to prevent up to 400 million births, population control programs could be viable in practice, IMHO.

At the cost of a huge population swell between the young and old which is now beginning to bring down their government.

Thats BS. Can you support it by something? And no, arguments about evolution and nature does not cut it. There is no correlation between what is natural and what is ethical.

Ethics do not exist. Neither do morals. They're societal creations. Not legally bound. BTW, your laws are morally based, and therefore not sound.

Can I support it? Two people will themselves to make a company, they have the right. Two people will themselves to make art, they have the right. Two people will themselves to write a book, they have a right. Two people will themselves to create life, they have a right.

Hey, want to know why little I care about ethics? The right of two people to create life also goes for the right of two people to create life through science, the right of two gays to create their child by converting one of their sperm/egg into the other. And the right for a single man to make a manbearpig.

Take your morality and leave it at the door. In the land of the free, we have the right to create.

reply to post by Gorman91

Such tactics can be done, but good luck getting your government to last more than a few months.

The chinese government did not collapse after a few months after enacting one-child policy, in fact it is widely supported by the public according to official statistics. There are also other people here on ATS that agree with my thoughts against reproduction anarchy. I dont think it is unrealistic to implement this on a large scale at all, if there would be a will.

And yes, I dont agree with their methods, if anything, they should at least raise the limit to 2 (its bad for the child to be single) and stop with late term abortions.
But I also dont agree with the other extreme - considering procreation a fundamental right which cannot be restricted under any circumstances, especially when its going to harm the child. That in fact defeats the whole purpose of procreation - to raise children which will have a good life, and are able to contribute to the advancement of humanity. So there is no reason to not restrict it in such cases even from evolutionary, not just moral standpoint.


You have contradicted yourself:

Ethics do not exist. Neither do morals.

Two people will themselves to make a company, they have the right.

You cant have rights or laws without morality. Rights (laws) are based on moral systems, they are defined by it.

en.wikipedia.org...

As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

The basic tenet of morality and resulting law (and rights) is that behaviour which harms third person without his/her consent is forbidden. Creating life without caring of it is such case, and thus its not a right.

Dont confuse right with ability.
I have a natural ability to kill, steal, rape or drive recklessly. I dont have a right to do it. Why? because it harms or threatens to harm another, third person. The same with unresponsible procreation - it harms third person - either the child itself (never existing, which is neutral, is better than having a life of suffering, which is bad), or others who must take care of it if parents are unable to. In all cases, someone who did not agree with the creation of another life in bad conditions would be negatively affected.

They're societal creations.

Our society evolved from our nature. You are making sort of artificial divide there.
Also, I dont see any reason why would that make them less relevant even of they were purely societal creations. You are engaging in both kinds of naturalistic fallacy - implying that natural=good, artificial=bad, and trying to derive ought from is.

Two people will themselves to make a company, they have the right. Two people will themselves to make art, they have the right. Two people will themselves to write a book, they have a right. Two people will themselves to create life, they have a right.

In the first three instances, there are only those two persons affected. In the last, there is also another, third person affected, deeply affected, without giving consent. Apples and oranges.

reply to post by Gorman91

At the cost of a huge population swell between the young and old which is now beginning to bring down their government.

I dont think so at all. Their demographics look good, and it is the last thing that will bring their government down. If anything can endanger Chinese government, it is their oppresive methods. Not demographics.

reply to post by Maslo

The chinese government did not collapse after a few months after enacting one-child policy.

The Chinese government is beginning to collapse the more as time goes on. And I certainly would not favor living under China's styled government. If, however, you attempted to bring their policies over to a free nation like America, then it would not last more than a few months. These are two separate points that you are mixing.

And yes, I dont agree with their methods, if anything, they should at least raise the limit to 2 (its bad for the child to be single) and stop with late term abortions.

Ambiguities make for lousy laws.

But I also dont agree with the other extreme - considering procreation a fundamental right which cannot be restricted under any circumstances, especially when its going to harm the child.

This is an assumption. It is impossible to predict the outcome of a parenting style, be it punishment with the belt, which I don't see much wrong with, or be it appeasing the little cretin. We can make likelihoods, but likelihoods are not absolutes, and therefore not governing laws.

That in fact defeats the whole purpose of procreation - to raise children which will have a good life, and are able to contribute to the advancement of humanity

This is your opinion, based on morals. I think the point of having a kid is for help and passing on your personality traits. Nothing more. I really don't care if my kid ends up having a crap life and contribute nothing to society. Just so long he's happy. And having a crap life is not a guarantee to unhappiness in life.

Ergo, making laws off of opinions is flawed.

So there is no reason to not restrict it in such cases even from evolutionary, not just moral standpoint.

Like I said above, this is from your opinion of what having kids is about. From an evolutionary standpoint, having kids serves no other purpose than to pass on your traits.

You have contradicted yourself. You cant have rights or laws without morality. Rights (laws) are based on moral systems, they are defined by it.

Sure you can. If felt like it. This isn't based off morality nor anything. nor is so-called "natural law". Also, the description of natural law is actually:

described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal

Morals are not universal. Ergo, natural law cannot be derived from morals. Morals can produce the same as natural law. But because morals change per society, they are not universal. Ergo, universal laws cannot be a product of non-universal means.

Do try to understand subjective vs objective. Morality is subjective. Common Sense is objective.

The basic tenet of morality and resulting law (and rights) is that behaviour which harms third person without his/her consent is forbidden. Creating life without caring of it is such case, and thus its not a right.

Again, your morality. Not mine. Nor everyone's. Not a legal binding.

Dont confuse right with ability. I have a natural ability to kill, steal, rape or drive recklessly. I dont have a right to do it. Why? because it harms or threatens to harm another, third person.

Rights are rights of the individual. Rights cannot extend beyond the individuality. You have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the law of the land. When you use your rights to stop that right of another, it violates that person's rights. Alas, this means wrong is not subjective. Wrong is both subjective and objective. Picking your nose is a subjective wrong. Murder is an objective wrong.

Ergo, the right to create life, an act of both liberty and happiness, the life derived gets the same rights. This is nor morality. This is logic, and a universal constant. It is fact. Ergo, leave your morality at the door. People have the right to create life.

The same with unresponsible procreation

Morality. responsibility is a subjective clause.

- it harms third person

Only if you believe it is so. The probability of this harm creating good or bad is purely chance. Smacking your kid for being an idiot creates harm. This harm can either straighten the child out, or make him a rebel.

Not universal. Not legally bounding.

You might be wondering if therefore you have a right to harm someone? Only adults get to play that game. Children are under their parental care until their right to life is seen to be getting violated. Life is the only constant able to be legally binded. Happiness and liberty are both non-constants at childhood, for only an adult can fully express happiness and use their liberty correctly. Therefore children cannot be excepted to have anything but their lives as a right.

In all cases, someone who did not agree with the creation of another life in bad conditions would be negatively affected.

Sucks to be them. Doesn't matter though. Logic dictates a child doesn't know what's good or bad for them yet.

Our society evolved from our nature. You are making sort of artificial divide there. Also, I dont see any reason why would that make them less relevant even of they were purely societal creations. You are engaging in both kinds of naturalistic fallacy - implying that natural=good, artificial=bad, and trying to derive ought from is.

No, because I don't believe anything humanity does is natural. We build our own environmental because we are incapable of living in the ones here before us. Natural is not an applicable term to humanity. It is a contrast. We are not natural creatures. We are in contrast to everything that has been here before us, and continue to be contrasted with us.

While our nature created our society, it is a fact our nature is not compatible with logic, hence why we are not applicable to natural. Morality, which is derived from our nature (or derived contrasting our nature), is therefor not universal.

In the first three instances, there are only those two persons affected. In the last, there is also another, third person affected, deeply affected, without giving consent. Apples and oranges.

It is people creating. They have their right to create. If life is the product of the creative will, it has a right to live. Unless it willingly decides it does not wish to live, you have no right to say it should end or not. In addition, you have no right to say the creators did not have the right to make it.

Your opinion is one based off morality. Mine is one based off of simple common sense. You would have us bend to your opinion, which is based off morality and flawed. I would have us be free to do as we wish, not being bound by some overlord's opinion. Mine, therefore, is better, because it allows individuality to continue.

reply to post by Maslo


Right now the birth rate of men is swelling while the birth rate of women is not. This will create severe desperation for mates. 30 million men with no hope of a wife and family will start seeking something else, like freedoms, and they will fight. After all, they know their lives will end without anything they wanted. They don't care, so long they die trying.. In addition, when the generation of the population explosion reaches elderly years and the younger generations, vastly smaller, are required to support the, the same problems here will begin over there.

The policy is one that starts out decently well, even beneficial, but ends in a critical economic and social error. As swells of elderly need help, and fewer younger people are left to help, the elderly suffer.

Do tell, How our their lives any less important than the poor children you say suffer? Your policy simply shifts the pain to another generation. Like building a damn on a river gaining in height. You don't do that.

Originally posted by Maslo
The chinese government did not collapse after a few months after enacting one-child policy, in fact it is widely supported by the public according to official statistics.

My friend married a woman from China he met on the internet.

Talking to her is really interesting (except for her English).

Apparently - you have to apply for a license to have a child. You have to be married and you have to prove you can support raising a child (her daughter is now 18 - so I don't know if things have changed). Girl babies are still abandoned on the side of the road.

You have to plan the baby according to your work and vacation schedule. With so many people - missing work for any reason - could result in dismissal. If you are sick - you get a co-worker to cover for you - - and most employers turn a blind eye - - as long as the work gets done.

The father and his family have rights to the child. If there is a divorce - - the mother has very little rights. The paternal family raises the child. The maternal family has no rights and might never see the child again.

It is still a very male dominated society. She wanted a University Degree - - but she had an older brother and her parents full focus was on her brother. She studied independently and secretly under her bed blanket. She made an appointment to take the entrance exam - secretly. She had the highest score of anyone in the exam. Her parents could no longer deny her an education.

She was part of an upper class social group. He mother was employed by the government.

In China you can not move to a new location - just because you want to - - or get a different job. You have to get permission from the government to move to a different city.

reply to post by Annee


That, to me, is national socialism. Now I'm not saying its bad. I'm saying it is not acceptable to do that in America. We don't have the benefit of massive redundancies in people for workers, nor do we have the benefit of a government that at least tries to help. Nor do we have the benefit of a social elite group that are interested in managing the country responsibly. We also don't have the benefit of a population that cares about responsibility. Very simply put, it's a different culture. It works, barely, for them because that is their culture.

I like our culture in America. It's flawed, but its free.

reply to post by Gorman91

You have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the law of the land.

That is a gross oversimplification. The law of the land is much more complicated and restrictive.

When you use your rights to stop that right of another, it violates that person's rights.

So what are the persons rights? Why should an unlimited right to procreate be one of them?

Alas, this means wrong is not subjective. Wrong is both subjective and objective. Picking your nose is a subjective wrong. Murder is an objective wrong.

So now there is an objective wrong? I though you considered morals to be relative and created by society, there is no objective wrong then, not even murder. Or is it "objective" wrong according to your subjective morality?

Ergo, the right to create life, an act of both liberty and happiness, the life derived gets the same rights. This is nor morality. This is logic, and a universal constant. It is fact. Ergo, leave your morality at the door. People have the right to create life.

Again, this is just your subjective view, no universal constant. And it is quite immoral, IMHO.

Only if you believe it is so. The probability of this harm creating good or bad is purely chance.

I do. We have lots of laws based on chance. People without driving licences have bigger chance to harm someone, therefore it is illegal for them to drive on public roads. There are countless laws like this.

Therefore children cannot be excepted to have anything but their lives as a right.

Thats not true, there are many offenses a parent can commit in addition to killing their child. Children have right to not be abused psychologically or materially, they have right to education, right to healthcare, and I could go on and on..

Sucks to be them. Doesn't matter though. Logic dictates a child doesn't know what's good or bad for them yet.

And that is relevant how?

Morality, which is derived from our nature (or derived contrasting our nature), is therefor not universal.

Indeed. So any arguments about evolution or purpose of humans to procreate according to nature are empty.

Your opinion is one based off morality. Mine is one based off of simple common sense.

Nope, your opinion is also based on your own view on morality, and I dont think it makes much sense at all.

You would have us bend to your opinion, which is based off morality and flawed. I would have us be free to do as we wish, not being bound by some overlord's opinion. Mine, therefore, is better, because it allows individuality to continue.

If you are an anarchist, then OK. If you are not, then you already advocate the same thing as I do, restriction of freedoms. We differ only in the details.

As for America, I do not think the US needs population control much, it can afford not to have it. I am talking about poor third wolrd countries, where you see children dying of hunger and curable diseases.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

That, to me, is national socialism.

Just telling my story.

Not making commentary.

reply to post by Maslo

That is a gross oversimplification. The law of the land is much more complicated and restrictive.

Well there's your contradiction. The benefit of America IS that the law of the land is overly simplified. Why is that bad?

So now there is an objective wrong? I though you considered morals to be relative and created by society, there is no objective wrong then, not even murder. Or is it "objective" wrong according to your subjective morality?

Objective wrongs include murder. But under the right subjectivity, murder becomes not wrong. Objectively it is still wrong. But murdering, say, a rapist, is most certainly not wrong from a subjective point.

Again, this is just your subjective view, no universal constant. And it is quite immoral, IMHO.

Actually it's quite universal. Animals breed by their will, no other animal comes in and says "sorry, no you can't. I think you're baby lamb might be chased by wolves. You're not responsible enough to have that kid."

And like I said, benefit of not believing in morals is that immorality doesn't exist either.

I do. We have lots of laws based on chance. People without driving licences have bigger chance to harm someone, therefore it is illegal for them to drive on public roads. There are countless laws like this.

Actually a person without a drivers license is just as likely. Because the chances are they are young. And yes that is a chance. But then again, Driving isn't a right, its a privilege. New York's got that one for sure.

Thats not true, there are many offenses a parent can commit in addition to killing their child. Children have right to not be abused psychologically or materially, they have right to education, right to healthcare, and I could go on and on..

And that's why I don't believe in such laws. Also you are mixing right with mandatory there.

And that is relevant how?

Sucks to be the kid in a bad home. But that doesn't give someone the right to take them away.

Indeed. So any arguments about evolution or purpose of humans to procreate according to nature are empty.

Not really. We have our own evolution, as unnatural as it is.

Nope, your opinion is also based on your own view on morality, and I dont think it makes much sense at all.

it's not based off morality. That's why it makes quite good sense to those not bound to morals.

If you are an anarchist, then OK. If you are not, then you already advocate the same thing as I do, restriction of freedoms. We differ only in the details.

I'm not an anarchist. I just believe government is a necessary evil and it's only purpose of existence is shooting the person who tries to extend his rights over beyond himself. That includes the government itself. It's not so black and white like you put it. There is another way to look at it.

reply to post by Annee


And it's an interesting story. It shows the different mindset. I'm not saying they're wrong. Time will say that. I'm just saying, what they do over there is what they do over there. Gore and other politic ans trying to bring that over here don't realize the full package they are bringing over, and it don't really fly too well.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

That, to me, is national socialism. Now I'm not saying its bad. I'm saying it is not acceptable to do that in America. We don't have the benefit of massive redundancies in people for workers, nor do we have the benefit of a government that at least tries to help. Nor do we have the benefit of a social elite group that are interested in managing the country responsibly. We also don't have the benefit of a population that cares about responsibility. Very simply put, it's a different culture. It works, barely, for them because that is their culture.

I like our culture in America. It's flawed, but its free.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

I like our culture in America. It's flawed, but its free.

The Americaian culture which is now been westernizing eupore its destroying the euporean traditional culture which is alot more better then the american culture, lol your saying your Culture is free? no it isnt. free Gorman91

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


I think it's quite free. If you're talking about the tv media culture, that's something that's barely a few decades old, and I don't think anyone likes that.

I suppose in the grand scheme of things, the best culture wins. If Europeans want to sell out to another culture, that's their right and their choice. If America does it, I guess I'm moving to Europe.

I'm not a fan of "traditional culture". I'm not a fan of stagnation. Not a fan of static characters either. I guess I define "change we can believe in". In any case, I don't much have a problem with the death of a culture. I have my own ways of course, and they've changed quite a lot in my brief spark of existence. I don't expect it to stay the same and I don't want to try to make it stay the same.

Simply put, if a culture is old and getting replaced, let it die.