Infantile Lottery Sterilization

Giliell

New Member
OK, for some quick facts:
Overpopulation and population growth is hardly happening in the first world, where you would have the government, the infrastructure and the administration to carry out ANY such plan.
On the contrary, Europe is sufferin g from dangerously low birth rates which gives people a lot of worries becaus you can hardly run a country that's composed of 80% of people being over 60.
Overpopulation, with all its negative effects happens in the third world, mostly.
On the other hand, those people use hardly any resources at all. One western baby probably equals 20 African baby in terms of energy/food use.
In those countries where cutting the birth rates would really be a blessing, there is no infrastructure. People hardly have clean water, not to mention access to contraception.
Believe it or not, but most women don't want to have 10+ children. They even less want to give birth to 10+ children and to see half of them die.
History suggest that whenever women had the right and possibility to decide when they want to have children as well as an almost equal share in society, possibility to get an education and a job, birthrates drop dramatically.
So, instead of going for LESS freedom and LESS democracy by deciding via a dictatorship who can have children and when, why not fight for MORE freedom and MORE democracy, enabling women, educating them, giving them a chance to decide responsibly when to have how many children?

And if you really want to read it, I'll copypasta what I've written about "licensing" before
 

amorrow

New Member
I would say that slopping up to 9 billion by 2050 is hardly a plan. What I see is the industrialized countries (at least, the least religious ones), working on decent sterilizing pharmaceuticals for a decade or two and giving ISL a try at a very low rate for a decade (perhaps only doubling untreatable infertility over the background rate). Once the poor countries see that it does not result in social disorder, they will give it a try because they are ones that are going be suffering worst with crowding. If mature, wise people lead in this respect (not toe self-die out but rather to lead others), then it will eventually occur to most people to collectively care at all about the several next few generations.
 
This proposition of lotery is just pure Evil! What the hell where you thinking, deciding the misery of fortune of a person (without a say in the matter) with the roll of the dice. That would make the world greatly unfair because some people would have to live meaningless lives (perhaps having to adopt from unfit mothers) while others get to pop out as many kids as they want. I mean hve you really given any taught to this. Did you know that it takes 2 people to make babies, and each couple could have 2 kids and still the population numbers would go down? If we ever requiered to use such methods why not sterilize the mothers who have had more than 1 or 2 kids an that way everyone is happy? (they can all be parents and life is fair an equal for everyone).
Besides Unwardil as put it, in developed countries population is going down, only in less developed countries population is growing (and becoming an increasing problem) except for perhaps India and China. China because over population is already a problem even if the demographics isn't growing, and in India because demographics is indeed growing and it is a big problem.
What we have now is sort of negative form of eugenics, people of more developed countries are being replaced by people from more reproduceable less developed countries and so in effct there is an increase inthe number of people who are more keen be worst of in life (same goes for fertility treatment for infertile couples who have more kids than normal couples, among other problems). It doesn't seem to make much impact but it is going to be a major problem with the future and I do worry about that.
But I do no agree with Unwardil, I think over population is a problem now, because right now we are living beyound self sustainable levels, the comparison with other species is quite falacious because other species have no technology and are bounded by stable environmental factors that is selecting for indiviual who aremore suited to more efficiently gathering and using ressources (requiering much less of it making it easier to be replenished making this correlation more stable) however this does not happen to humans, if we are short on something we simply expand our territory and get more and if we still don't enough we can adapt our environment to extract unreplenishable ressources (which is boud to fuck up sooner or later almost without warning and with grave consequences).
We can simply drive ourselfs to extintion before there is any time to adapt.
Just to put things into context, gobal warming (which is caused by us and allot of us) is now the our major threat to our own existance, and this problem isn't just limited to floods in the winter and longer summers, we are starting to get seriously fucked up by our crops and our ability to produce food is going down due to inapropriate climate. Plus we are very dependent on fossil ressource based fertilizers (which we alredy know will not last long).
On the next decade we will start to see food crisis (more than now) that will start of as a minor problem and then excalate really fast in the proceeding decade. In a couple of years you can call me the messiah because my prediction as come true (and if you get people to send me money I will be much apreciated), which in all seriousness who didn't saw that one comming?
 

amorrow

New Member
A lottery is somewhat objectifying, but it has a grand tradition, such as in difficult military decisions where getting the short stick matters. Again, I think it is important to get the technical and legal obstacles knocked/eroded down so that when serious ILS programs get implemented, society and individuals will have acclimated to the idea. Try not to take such an emotional approach. The infertile have already won the lottery of Life! How is it that many people deliberately choose childlessness for themselves and yet lead meaningful lives?
 

Giliell

New Member
I love all those proposals for the good of humanity that would only work:
A) in the first world where overpopulation isn't happening
B) in a tyrany
It's always nice to see how quickly people are willing to fuck basic human rights if they think that they personally have the solution how to save mankind :roll:
 

amorrow

New Member
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
You haven't read anything I have said. Plus there is a significant differentbetween choosing the short end of the stick and being stuck with it.
If past experience is of any use: relying on volunteers for the short stick is rarely sufficient.
 

amorrow

New Member
Unwardil said:
To further the military analogy, good leaders provide incentives for brave men to volunteer.
You could give the sterilized elevated social status and subsidize their education. You know: try to encourage them to leave an intellectual legacy since leaving a genetic legacy is no longer an option.
 

lrkun

New Member
amorrow said:
Unwardil said:
To further the military analogy, good leaders provide incentives for brave men to volunteer.
You could give the sterilized elevated social status and subsidize their education. You know: try to encourage them to leave an intellectual legacy since leaving a genetic legacy is no longer an option.

What is your scientific basis for this conclusion?
 

Giliell

New Member
lrkun said:
Why not adult infertilization. :p
Which is what quite a lot of people in the western world opt for, you know, once they've reached the number of kids they want in their life.
 

lrkun

New Member
Giliell said:
lrkun said:
Why not adult infertilization. :p
Which is what quite a lot of people in the western world opt for, you know, once they've reached the number of kids they want in their life.

I mean if this were to be applied in the thread starter's idea. Adult lottery sterilization. ;)
 

amorrow

New Member
lrkun said:
Why not adult infertilization. :p
A useful goal might be to keep the sterilization program free of eugenics. Sterilizing parents who have had some number children might also help, but then you might as well just explicit adopt some version of China's one-child (or two- or three- ...) policy.
 

lrkun

New Member
amorrow said:
lrkun said:
Why not adult infertilization. :p
A useful goal might be to keep the sterilization program free of eugenics. Sterilizing parents who have had some number children might also help, but then you might as well just explicit adopt some version of China's one-child (or two- or three- ...) policy.

I think it's better to have a lot of alternatives rather than just one choice. Hehe. However, maybe, it is just too ideal.
 
amorrow said:
A useful goal might be to keep the sterilization program free of eugenics. Sterilizing parents who have had some number children might also help, but then you might as well just explicit adopt some version of China's one-child (or two- or three- ...) policy.
That is part of what I said, you have just decided to ignore me only to realise with a great admiration just now a very short part of what I have said.
Really how much does it hurt to listen to what I say?
 

Giliell

New Member
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
amorrow said:
A useful goal might be to keep the sterilization program free of eugenics. Sterilizing parents who have had some number children might also help, but then you might as well just explicit adopt some version of China's one-child (or two- or three- ...) policy.
That is part of what I said, you have just decided to ignore me only to realise with a great admiration just now a very short part of what I have said.
Really how much does it hurt to listen to what I say?
He could be forced to change his viewpoint ;)

Now, since we're talking about overpopulation in terms of shortage of food, energy, housing, resources, and since we're using most of them in the first world, so here's another proposal:

-Ban private cars and air conditioning
-A maximum of 50kgs of meat/fish per person per year
-A maximum of 20 square metres living space per person

Now, that would still mean that people in the third world could definetly raise their conditions quite a lot, while we would make room and share resources.
So, what's worth more: your personal luxery or a child's right to an intact body?
 
Giliell said:
-Ban private cars and air conditioning
-A maximum of 50kgs of meat/fish per person per year
-A maximum of 20 square metres living space per person

Now, that would still mean that people in the third world could definetly raise their conditions quite a lot, while we would make room and share resources.
So, what's worth more: your personal luxery or a child's right to an intact body?

Altough I sligthly agree with you, I do not "agree with you period" type. So let me expand on each topic one by one.

I don't think baning private cars and air conditioning period is something that we should strive for. Ok curret cars produce carbon lots of gree house gases and that air conditioning are big energy eating machines which in return puts more pressure on our current energy status quo which in the end will mean more global warming (with a modern airconditioner you don't have much to worry about toxic material being put into the iner workings of it). But this is more of an issue that we don't have a very good sustainable energy ressources, if we had globalized geotermal powerplants that would be able to provide clean energy for everyone in surplus I don't see why I couldn't have my own electric car or enjoy of a refresing airconditioner even tough perhaps investing on more efficient means of transportation that the current car which can also be comunal is something I would welcome very much. Don't get me wrong this not our current status quo and such comodities should be thrown over board if the ship is sinking, I personaly ride the bus or the subway to move arround the city rather than the car, it is cheaper than riding the car and you don't have to worry about getting a parking spot in the midle of a crowded city and I think everyone would win if they did the same (those who can afford to of course).


About restraining he ammount of meat and fish I would rather restrain the ammount of people eating them (not meaning that some people should get to starve so you can enjoy a nice steake dinner everyday like a fat prick but rather that there should be less people altogheter so there would be less mouths to feed). Meat comes from cows, pigs, horses and other animals that can suffer for being turned into food, I think that is bad and reducing the nedless sufering of animals soul also be strived for (that doesn't necessarily mean getting half the people in the world to starve because we have all turned into hippies), on the other hand I have no simpaty for fish (stupid fish *shakes fist*) but I guess if everyone started to eat fish then there would be the downside of that only happening once and not having more fish anymore. It would simply be better if meat would grown on trees, which probably isn't to far of now with the development of genetic science, if burgers would grow out of trees then there would be no grounds to raise any objections (unless trees start to smell).


I can live quite confortably with only 20 square meters of housing per person, the only problem is you need more than that to poduce your food an lively hoods, and that can still get quite shady when you have incresingly ammount of people on this planet demanding their 20 square meters, I would rather live in a planet where everyone could get 100 square meters but with a 1/10 of the people in it.

And I don't share of idea of sharing ressources with people whos countries that now don't have any. Not because I don't think we should end starvation in the world, but rather because we should do it trough other means other than "one part of the globe that ended out living in a sterile desert (due to dick political maneuvers) leaching of the hard work of others", like move them to a more fertile area where they can grow large ammounts of their own crops and raise their catle (a far more sustainable solution). Not that this is realistic in the near future but that is what I would rather have in the future even if I am dreaming today.

None of my solutions (and objections to why would they matter) involved any form of child sterilization, there are by far more resonable, more effective, less drastic and less moraly objectionable ways to do things that could be implemented if we did requier to go trough such measures.

Sumarizing my point here, I don't think we should get peoples life to suck more just because life sucks because there are way to many people in this party, because if we do that the party will suck for everyone and nobody gets to enjoy it, if we don't let so many people in maybe some of us can enjoy the party, everyone not in doesn't exist to know how much they are going to miss (if you unerstand my analogy here).
 

amorrow

New Member
I am still giving this much thought. I think it is important to "give ILS a chance". I realize that it is counter-intuitive because being forcibly sterilized seems to be making some people, at random, unequal. I would suggest that keeping it "at the ready" and to some degree in practice for the indefinite future is progress. It shows a level of maturity about where our world is going.

Our world is "probably" not going to Mars or anywhere else beyond this planet in the next century. By that, I mean that plans that include miraculous technological breakthroughs for resources such as energy are poor plans. I do not advocate ILS as a means to create a two-class society: it is to accept that the Earth might find the need to reduce population in a non-war fashion. I am still looking for a more flexible plan than China's simplistic "one-child" policy that attempts to be orderly. I think that it is important to not kid ourselves with lawyer-like language. In an abortion, Western society kills human life but have accepted such as not to be treated as murder. We also keep abortion a private matter (which I agree with). I still suggest that keeping a post-birth window open for sterilization is as good a plan as I have seen.

Let me admit that in some societies, such as some parts of Islam, female suicide terrorists tend to have a larger degree of being unable to bear children, but I suggest that such is a social effect that could be compensated for. If you honored those who were sterilized with elevated social status and perhaps economic compensation on matters. If such a world could provide more confidence in longevity, I suggest that keeping a real ILS program would inspire confidence that society can lead itself in a stable and adult fashion. It is scary, but let me suggest that excessive world population will be more scary (and discouraging and dangerous) for those future generations.
 

Giliell

New Member
I'm just making a short reply here:

Do you think that in a society where volutary contraception AND sexeducation are avaible, so where people can actually chose when and how many children they can have, that people would go for large numbers of children?
 
Top