Infantile Lottery Sterilization

[amorrow]

It occurs to me that the important problem excessive World Population could be directly addressed via a national sterilization program for newborns based on a fair lottery. It could be operated free of eugenic goals as long as the lottery could be trusted as fair and random. If the technology were developed by our high-tech infrastructure to produce an effective pharmaceutical that could be injected, then all that would be needed is a modification of the laws to put newborns in a special legal status, perhaps as a "Fourth Trimester Person" until the pharmaceutical could be further developed and perhaps applied in utero.

I am trying to develop these ideas further to encourage citizens to consider the matter with calm reason rather than squeamishness. The USA has plenty of experience operating fair lotteries for large amounts of money that many accept as fair. The mammalian uterus operates much as a bingo box (in that that are 300 million spermatozoa and only one of them is you). It would probably be important to avoid situations where the lottery "win rate" (winning meaning where the infant is sterilized) low or even miniscule and promote the social and psychological effects of such a program. In some ways, it is an attempt to provide a more modern version of China's simplistic One-Child policy. The goal is the have an orderly and active program to help to limit and possibly gradually reduce world population to sustainable levels. Such a program is intended to be for the emotional comfort of this current (and possibly less mature) generation but for the stability and longevity of future generations who might deeply appreciate and quickly acclimate to such a program.

I develop this idea and some of my other ideas here:

http://thermo4thermo.org/

 

[RichardMNixon]

Looking at this from a purely practical standpoint, wannabe grandparents might have more children than they would have otherwise just to get some fertile ones. Could just exacerbate the problem.

 

[amorrow]

Looking at this from a purely practical standpoint, wannabe grandparents might have more children than they would have otherwise just to get some fertile ones. Could just exacerbate the problem.

One idea I have been playing with is to increase the "win rate" for second and later children. It point is to create a system that would effectively reduce how many grandchildren one has because it is intended to be a long-term effective measure. ILS is probably not the entire answer because people are too clever, but I suggest that it could be an important part of a real solution.

 

[Aught3]

Well if we're going to be sterilising people against their will we might as well go for eugenics. Isn't the sterilisation program the worst thing about eugenics?

 

[Giliell]

WFT?
I've heard a lot of nonsense from people who think they must save the world by implementing forced birth control that would take up a hell lot of resources instead of tackling uneducation and poverty in the third world where overpopulation is actually happening, but this is by far one of the worst, inhumane and cruel ones.

 

[Unwardil]

Oh, but it would be done globally of course. Obviously. For the good of humanity of course. I mean, some countries might be resistant though so naturally, it would have to be enforced by military power but, you, know, just to save them from themselves. That's not, you know, evil at all... Is it?

 

[Giliell]

Oh, but it would be done globally of course. Obviously. For the good of humanity of course. I mean, some countries might be resistant though so naturally, it would have to be enforced by military power but, you, know, just to save them from themselves. That's not, you know, evil at all... Is it?

You're so right, and the money would be so well spent

 

[amorrow]

Oh, but it would be done globally of course. Obviously. For the good of humanity of course. I mean, some countries might be resistant though so naturally, it would have to be enforced by military power but, you, know, just to save them from themselves. That's not, you know, evil at all... Is it?

No, it would have to be done on a national basis at first. The planet neither has the self-control to do it nor do we have any sort of effective (and admittedly dangerous) world government.

 

[amorrow]

Well if we're going to be sterilising people against their will we might as well go for eugenics. Isn't the sterilisation program the worst thing about eugenics?

Eugenics is a distinct goal that has already with approached with unsatisfactory results. In my opinion, there is no urgent need for eugenics but the planet has a real need for a mature form of population control within the next century.

 

[amorrow]

Oh, but it would be done globally of course. Obviously. For the good of humanity of course. I mean, some countries might be resistant though so naturally, it would have to be enforced by military power but, you, know, just to save them from themselves. That's not, you know, evil at all... Is it?

Part of my inspiration was watching George Schultz talk about a "nuclear-free world" at Stanford a few years ago. I did not ask a question during the Q&A session, but it occurred to me that a nuclear-free world would have to look a bit like fascism to avoid nuclear terrorism. It seems that an Infant Sterilization program alone could never accomplish the goals of effective world population control, but it might prove to be an essential part of one. Realistically, some countries would have to delve into it first and lead other countries towards it by example.

 

[lrkun]

This is a good idea. How do you wish to apply this in our generation's society?

 

[Yfelsung]

I am more in favour of controlled and licensed breeding.

Basically you create some way to reversibly sterilize EVERY child at birth.

When they're 18, if they wish to breed, they are given a full review to determine if they are in a mental, physical and financial state to raise a child successfully. They are allowed the single child and if they are able to demonstrate the ability to raise this child, they can have another one. I think two max is good, it's enough to keep developed countries at an equilibrium and poverty stricken countries at a decline until they hit a manageable population.

We also need to work on getting rid of the entire concept of countries and spreading the population of the earth out more evenly.

I live in the second biggest country on earth and we have no more people than the entire New York City metropolitan area.

That being said, I also think we need to centralize our population into large mega cities and allow nature to take over much of what we have destroyed.

Having a centralized population makes everything cheaper to run and maintain on a government level.

 

[lrkun]

I am more in favour of controlled and licensed breeding.

Basically you create some way to reversibly sterilize EVERY child at birth.

When they're 18, if they wish to breed, they are given a full review to determine if they are in a mental, physical and financial state to raise a child successfully. They are allowed the single child and if they are able to demonstrate the ability to raise this child, they can have another one. I think two max is good, it's enough to keep developed countries at an equilibrium and poverty stricken countries at a decline until they hit a manageable population.

We also need to work on getting rid of the entire concept of countries and spreading the population of the earth out more evenly.

I live in the second biggest country on earth and we have no more people than the entire New York City metropolitan area.

That being said, I also think we need to centralize our population into large mega cities and allow nature to take over much of what we have destroyed.

Having a centralized population makes everything cheaper to run and maintain on a government level.

I have a question, has this process been tried or tested? I likewise like this idea. However, how do we introduce this to our current generation?

 

[Yfelsung]

Probably couldn't have it implemented in this generation as we'd have to work out the sterilization process and what not.

 

[amorrow]

Probably couldn't have it implemented in this generation as we'd have to work out the sterilization process and what not.

One of the first steps is to get the high-tech pharma industry to recognize that research in human sterilization (probably injectable) is a legitimate long-term R&D investment. Another important issue is to get society to recognize the "Fourth Trimester Person" where is might be legal to sterilize a newborn as a legitimate viewpoint required for long-term planning.

 

[Unwardil]

It's so very tempting to just goad people on to see just what kind of Machiavellian atrocities they'd be willing to theorize in order to solve a non-existent problem in the most horrendous manner imaginable.

But hey, I might have been nominated several times but I have not, as such, actually won the award for "Biggest douche in the universe" so I'll just put it simply like this.

There is no population problem.

Or rather, there is, but it's one of distribution. When you have 2 people and only enough food to feed 1 of them, you have a food shortage. If you have 10 000 people and enough food to feed 20 000 people, but only enough transportation to get food for 1000 people a day then you have a food shortage.

There is no population inflation problem either. Every single g8 country, if you discount the boost from immigration, has a negative population growth.

Read that again and think about it . If every country in the world was a G8 nation, we'd be facing the very real problem of having a numerically declining population globally.

What you are proposing is a spanish inquisition. It is spending a lot of time and resources in order to do something both immoral and harmful in order to combat a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Yfelsung]

The problem is sustainability while also not encroaching on nature more than we have.

Our current growth rate is not sustainable, we need to prepare for the future where we will need to control the population or get off the planet.

 

[Unwardil]

See, no, no we do not.

To live is to 'encroach on nature'. What the hell is this romantic view of nature you have that makes you think we need to start killing babies in order to protect it? Nature is blood and violence and death and every species for it's self. You can blow smoke all you like about fragile ecosystems and the interdependence of life and the economy of the food chain and it's all BS.

The ecosystem is not fragile at all, it is in fact so robust and uncaring that life will continue regardless of how many species get wiped out. New ones will evolve to take their places or adapt to adjacent niches. When people talk about preserving the ecosystem, they are talking pure BS. The only way we could possibly protect an ecosystem is to put it in a zoo and take 100% control over the whole thing.

This talk about natural resources and protecting the food chain seems very familiar to me. It's the same argument used by slave owners to justify their trade. "Oh, the poor slaves couldn't possibly live by themselves, being too stupid and uneducated. We're doing them a favor". I'm sure nature doesn't need any favors from us.

Sustainability is also BS. There isn't a species on the planet that has ever managed to attain sustainability for any length of time. That's why evolution happens, because life isn't sustainable. Not in a static form anyway.

If you want to talk about the survival of the species, talk about ways of supporting a larger population. Talk about ways of expanding farming, of tapping new resources (especially space based resources which, for all conceivable purposes are unlimited) and exploiting new technology to maximize efficiency of current systems.

Most of all, talk about how to expedite the industrialization of the third world, because as it has been oft repeated, fully industrialized nations with large urban populations have negative population growth.


Edit: Getting off the planet would be a fantastic idea, but again, I see no reason why we'd need to enforce population control to achieve that goal.

 

[amorrow]

For the bulk of humanity, leaving planet Earth at all is simply not an option. Infant Sterilization does not, at first, seem to make sense but the problem with One-Child policy is that it is rather rigid. What if, for example, you really needed a 0.9 or a 1.1 child policy for a few decades. There is no easy way to implement it without again resorting to a lottery. The idea of having untreatable infertility imposed upon you as being a tragedy is simply false. It is a mirage and now-harmful baggage of earlier evolution.

 

[Unwardil]

Look, the fact that it wouldn't work is beside the point that it isn't necessary for it to work. Respond to the charge that urban populations have negative growth from reproduction. Why is it better to make people infertile against their will than it is to industrialize and urbanize poorer countries?

Defend the idea that, as it stands, this course of action you propose might be required to save society or even humanity generally.

Once you've defended that, then propose how you could ever get such an idea passed through a democratic system.

Once you've done that, explain how you would sell the idea to countries that have trouble feeding their citizens or providing running water.

In short, have you thought at all beyond the moral implications to the actual logistics of what you're proposing? Does it not immediately present you with the problem of "Holy, shit, we'd actually have to conquer everyone to make this work". How do you keep the system free of corruption? How do you stop the powerful few from exploiting the lottery system?

Basically, how could you ever enforce this without first creating a totalitarian system of government to implement it and how would your system actually be effective unless it was adopted by the entire world? I say it couldn't. The good news is, I'm arguing semantics, because there's no precedent to believe that it could ever happen and regimes that practice population control on their own people always fail in the end.