Infantile Lottery Sterilization

[Mithcoriel]

So wait, you're suggesting we just sterilize a random group of people against their will?
Don't you see a moral problem with that at all? Don't you think these people, if they want to have kids when they're grownup, will end up feeling totally miserable??? (While others who didn't "win" the lottery might not want any kids) And then they have to watch others in what they perceive to be the bliss of having children, unable to have any themselves.
As I read through the thread I was kind of baffled to see how you kept discussing the administrative issues of how to technically accomplish this in detail, and didn't actually talk much about whether this is morally okay to begin with.

Yes, I agree, having kids isn't the most important thing in the world. A person can have a great and meaningful life without kids. I, and it seems you as well, would be perfectly happy to never have any kids. But not everyone feels that way. You can't just generalize your own feelings on others, that would be bigoted. There are some people who would love nothing more than to have a child. This would be like suggesting we ban a certain food, cause you happen to hate it, completely ignoring the fact that there's people who absolutely love this food.

Like I said, this lottery-system doesn't make a lot of sense to me cause it's random and doesn't depend on people's choice. You could end up sterilizing someone who actually wants to have children and not sterilizing someone who doesn't. If anything, why not make sterilization a free service you can get from the state, when you're adult and choose to do so. If the state can't afford to sterilize everyone who asks, they can still do the lottery system, but you have to actually chose to enter it.

 

[lrkun]

So wait, you're suggesting we just sterilize a random group of people against their will?
Don't you see a moral problem with that at all? Don't you think these people, if they want to have kids when they're grownup, will end up feeling totally miserable??? (While others who didn't "win" the lottery might not want any kids) And then they have to watch others in what they perceive to be the bliss of having children, unable to have any themselves.
As I read through the thread I was kind of baffled to see how you kept discussing the administrative issues of how to technically accomplish this in detail, and didn't actually talk much about whether this is morally okay to begin with.

Yes, I agree, having kids isn't the most important thing in the world. A person can have a great and meaningful life without kids. I, and it seems you as well, would be perfectly happy to never have any kids. But not everyone feels that way. You can't just generalize your own feelings on others, that would be bigoted. There are some people who would love nothing more than to have a child. This would be like suggesting we ban a certain food, cause you happen to hate it, completely ignoring the fact that there's people who absolutely love this food.

Like I said, this lottery-system doesn't make a lot of sense to me cause it's random and doesn't depend on people's choice. You could end up sterilizing someone who actually wants to have children and not sterilizing someone who doesn't. If anything, why not make sterilization a free service you can get from the state, when you're adult and choose to do so. If the state can't afford to sterilize everyone who asks, they can still do the lottery system, but you have to actually chose to enter it.

Playing the devil's advocate:

This must be done for the greater good.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This must be done for the greater good.

Of who?

I don't know what the hell are you people thinking, I have already forward a solution that is better in every aspect and rendering this absurdity completly obsolte and vile. This is like slaming your fingers on he door and being faced with 2 options:
1. Open the door and recover hand
2. Amputate the harm
And I can't consider anyone of you to be one least bit sane when you argue for number 2. I'm sory this is just incredibly absurd.

 

[lrkun]

This must be done for the greater good.

Of who?

I don't know what the hell are you people thinking, I have already forward a solution that is better in every aspect and rendering this absurdity completly obsolte and vile. This is like slaming your fingers on he door and being faced with 2 options:
1. Open the door and recover hand
2. Amputate the harm
And I can't consider anyone of you to be one least bit sane when you argue for number 2. I'm sory this is just incredibly absurd.

Playing the devil's advocate:

For everyone.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

For everyone.

How could it be for everyone when everyone that got the short end of the stick have to be face the negative consequences of a decision that was imposed on to them? Since when creating a social barriers improves society? Why some have to be sacrificed over others while those consequences need not exist in the first place?
Can you really justify any of this?
Why should I cut my harm instead of taking my fingers of the door?

 

[lrkun]

For everyone.

How could it be for everyone when everyone that got the short end of the stick have to be face the negative consequences of a decision that was imposed on to them? Since when creating a social barriers improves society? Why some have to be sacrificed over others while those consequences need not exist in the first place?
Can you really justify any of this?
Why should I cut my harm instead of taking my fingers of the door?

Devil's advocate:
There is a need to sacrifice the few for the many.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

There is a need to sacrifice the few for the many.

Why few when you can do none? I will not be contempt on selling dignity for such a cheap price. There is no point in playing devils advocate, the position is fundamentaly bankrupt, and I'm personaly not interested in vacuous arguments.

 

[lrkun]

There is a need to sacrifice the few for the many.

Why few when you can do none? I will not be contempt on selling dignity for such a cheap price. There is no point in playing devils advocate, the position is fundamentaly bankrupt, and I'm personaly not interested in vacuous arguments.

Playing the devil's advocate:

Idealism is fine and dandy, but reality is different. It is not perfect, and not everything goes according to plan. Therefore, there is a need to make difficult decisions.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have said that I am not interested in vacuous arguments. If there are no real arguments, this topic dies here for me.

 

[Giliell]

The thing is: All advocates for mandatory birth control are always very keen on sacrificing the rights of other people for what is important to them.
Apart from all those scenarios being ridiculous science fiction in the way that they want to apply meassurements that are only possible in countries with first world administration and resources to third world country problems, they always seem to be proposed be people who don't have and don't want children.
So for them there wouldn't be any "real" sacrifice. It's like a non-smoker sacrificing the right to smoke by making smoking ilegal.
I have not seen any plausible, non discriminating proposal for any kind of mandatory birth control that would tackle the problem where it is actually happening and that would result in greater overall happiness than a combination of voluntary birth control, education and social systems that take the responsibility for feeding the old ones from the children to society.

 

[lrkun]

The thing is: All advocates for mandatory birth control are always very keen on sacrificing the rights of other people for what is important to them.
Apart from all those scenarios being ridiculous science fiction in the way that they want to apply meassurements that are only possible in countries with first world administration and resources to third world country problems, they always seem to be proposed be people who don't have and don't want children.
So for them there wouldn't be any "real" sacrifice. It's like a non-smoker sacrificing the right to smoke by making smoking ilegal.
I have not seen any plausible, non discriminating proposal for any kind of mandatory birth control that would tackle the problem where it is actually happening and that would result in greater overall happiness than a combination of voluntary birth control, education and social systems that take the responsibility for feeding the old ones from the children to society.

This is one way of looking at it.

 

[Giliell]

This is one way of looking at it.

And the other one is, please?
So far, your posts have added nothing new to the discussion

 

[Andiferous]

Well honestly, we over here have a vast amount of land, a negative birth rate, and a very generous immigration policy. I think perhaps at this time, emigrating might be a preferable solution to enforced sterilization. To start controlling population this way in only some places can have dodgy implications.

 

[lrkun]

This is one way of looking at it.

And the other one is, please?
So far, your posts have added nothing new to the discussion

That is your opinion.

To address the issue of whether or not Infantile Lottery Steriliztion as an option, it is necessary to see the position contrary to your own. Of course, you advocate the other side, while I play the devils advocate, wherein I advocate for the infantile lottery sterilization, a position not many take because it is not moral but rational.

I think, when there is no more available options which a man can take to limit population, this is a good option. Although, I'd prefer that people get educated instead or get rid of religion (which is almost impossible) or atleast update a religion's holy text to meet the present (like a country's constitution).

Since, no one is really defending the thread title's title, I tool the liberty to do so.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Infantile lotery sterelization is neither moral or logical, unlike parent sterelization which treats everyone equaly, everyone gets to have the joy of being a parent (except for those who already wouldn't), it wouldn't be to much trouble to take the procedure, it would effectively control populations as a drastic meajurment (on the countrary of the solution the OP proposed), it isn't moraly objectionable, everyone wins. (that I have already mentioned more than once on this thread but aparently nobody reads)
Why would anyone argue for infatile lotery sterelization, which descriminates people, makes people unhapy, it brings complications in procedures and it wouldn't even ensure the reduction of the population, is INSANE! It is not only vile and obsolete, but it is unecessarily so. I would file this idea under the "who the fuck in their right mind would do it?"

 

[lrkun]

Who will implement such a thing? I don't know. Will it work? It hasn't been tested yet. Will it provide results? Time will tell.

 

[Nemesiah]

Why not 1 child policy? (yeah!, I know of the attrocities in China, but that has to do more with idiotic traditions thatn the policy itself) . That way everybody can experience the "joy" of kiiling over some ungratefull brat that will resent them for the one toy they didn,´t buy them and you start to slowly decrease population equaly across all sectors, races and countries. t would be very hard to implement forcibly but with enough education people do seem to get that less is more when it comes to children. And you don,´t mess with anyones ability to pass on to the next generation.

 

[lrkun]

Why not 1 child policy? (yeah!, I know of the attrocities in China, but that has to do more with idiotic traditions thatn the policy itself) . That way everybody can experience the "joy" of kiiling over some ungratefull brat that will resent them for the one toy they didn,´t buy them and you start to slowly decrease population equaly across all sectors, races and countries. t would be very hard to implement forcibly but with enough education people do seem to get that less is more when it comes to children. And you don,´t mess with anyones ability to pass on to the next generation.

Thailand came up with a nice solution with respect to a related issue.

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5929

 

[Mapp]

Forced sterilization is inhumane, imperialist and most of all completely unnecessary. In every case where living conditions improve, where women are educated and given access to birth control, and allowed to control their own reproduction birth rates have dropped considerably. This is axiomatic, and it is why that fascist and reactionary forces first thrust for control is always, always aimed at restricting birth control and glorifying motherhood. Emancipate and educate women, and the problem will work itself out.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Forced sterilization is inhumane, imperialist and most of all completely unnecessary. In every case where living conditions improve, where women are educated and given access to birth control, and allowed to control their own reproduction birth rates have dropped considerably. This is axiomatic, and it is why that fascist and reactionary forces first thrust for control is always, always aimed at restricting birth control and glorifying motherhood. Emancipate and educate women, and the problem will work itself out.

The problem is, of course, that this philosophy is inherently self-defeating. Historically, all groups which have by accident or design reduce their fertility rates have eventually been supplanted. Romans or Shakers, more vibrant societies grow to replace them. You can already see this process happening in Spain where the slowly reproducing locals are being replaced by faster reproducing migrants. The approach of the fundamentalist, limiting yourself and destroying others, is at least a stable arrangement.