Infantile Lottery Sterilization

Giliell

New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
Mapp said:
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.
So, three cheers for forcefully sterilizing inmigrants while natives will be forced to have at least 2 children so we can keep our pretty white society :roll:
 

Mapp

New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
Mapp said:
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.

This is exactly what I mean when I said the sterilization argument is imperialist, and let's add reactionary, fascist and nationalistic to the list too. All groups? What are we talking about here, races nations, sects? They're not synonymous as your examples demonstrate. Let's deal with your examples and see why they're fallacious.

The Shakers were not "replaced by a more vibrant society" they went extinct because their religion specifically forbade reproduction. This is a non sequitur, as nobody here is talking about ending reproduction altogether. We're talking about limiting reproduction. Neither were the Shakers not "vibrant." Their culture is well documented, and was admired by their neighbors. Their communities were economically viable, thanks to the mass production of high quality furniture, and indenture documents from their communities demonstrate that they often served as a place of refuge for battered wives and abused children. They died out because they stopped proselytizing. This has nothing to do with your other examples, and serves you poorly.

The Roman Empire was a political organization not tied to nationality, or ethnic identity. It spanned hundreds of proto-ethnic groups from the Picts to the Greeks, to the Judeans. It's destruction was a process that took place over hundreds of years that involved among other things, a mini-ice age in the west, decades of civil war between barracks Emperors who used military power to seize the capital, the partitioning of the Empire by Diocletian, miss-management by the bureaucracy, and the increased use of foreign mercenaries in the army, which were ill-trained, but more expedient than actual legions which were difficult to replace. You'd have to get so far down the list to get to lack of sexual reproduction by the Italians that it wouldn't even be a factor, and I suspect it's completely chimerical in the first place. Also Rome was not "replaced" it lived on in the East for centuries more, and in the West, it's imperial traditions survived in the Church. This idea of Rome being destroyed by "outsiders" is a reactionary narrative that has no bearing on reality, nor could anyone call the society that replaced Rome in the west, the feudal system "more vibrant." By the time the Germanic tribes sacked Rome, there was nothing of the Roman Empire left in the West, and while an Emperor technically sat on the throne, he was a weak puppet. By the time the Turks sacked Constantinople, the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium was similarly a shadow of its former grandeur, mostly because the city had already been destroyed once by fellow Christians. Nor did Byzantine society get "replaced by a more vibrant culture." Rather, the two cultures merged into a new Empire that retained Eastern Orthodoxy alongside the new Muslim Imperial structure.

Now let's take the example of Spain. Spain is again, a nation, so this notion of it fitting into a "group" when it encompasses so many differing nationalities already is bizarre. Nations are imagined communities that were largely constructed during the 17th and 18th century (see Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm). So what are we talking about here, ethnic Spaniards? Sorry, but I'm not concerned with racial purity. This racial narrative has played out again and again and it's always been wrong. Nativists have always panicked when new ethnic groups enter the country. They were wrong in the U.S. when the Irish came, when the Italians came, when the Jews and Germans came, when the Chinese came and when the Eastern Europeans came and they will be wrong with the Mexicans as well. These groups, though an increasingly large minority still represent a minority. The historic trends show that minority groups, by the second and third generation, acclimate to the surrounding culture. Spain has a strong educational system, and better access to health care, which will counter the increased population growth of immigrant populations. The idea that these immigrants, especially immigrants from East Africa and the Orient can not assimilate is part of a larger racist orientalist narrative that's been around for a long time (see Edward Said's Orientalism). It's simply untrue. You can not extrapolate current trends in birth rates decades into the future and be able to make predictions. If you could, Malthaus would have been right and we'd be wracked by world-wide famines by now.

The only thing that can control birth-rates, as has happened across Europe, the United States, and increasingly in Asia is the emancipation and education of women. This is what the evidence bears out. Racial panic is an obstacle to be overcome, not something to be celebrated. It reduces an otherwise sound idea to, "we need to control those people's breeding over there. Meanwhile, we need to have more kids so we can keep ruling those people over there and telling them how to breed." It's a self-destructive, imperialist idea that actually makes the situation worse, because it puts breeding into the realm of political power and encourages the exact opposite of population control.
 

ArthurWilborn

New Member
So, three cheers for forcefully sterilizing inmigrants while natives will be forced to have at least 2 children so we can keep our pretty white society :roll:

Certainly not; I was merely pointing out that Mapp was being hopelessly naive. Also; it's interesting that I never mentioned race or nationality (and I'm not baiting here, I honestly don't care about those things); but you and Mapp both reflexively introduced them.

Mapp, perhaps you mistook my meaning. Rome and the Shakers were replaced by more vibrant societies in that they stopped existing and more viable and stable (at the time) arrangements were reached.

A nation is a group; that is partly arbitrary does not disqualify it from that notation.

I hate to break it to you, but breeding is about political power. Catholicism has waned in power as its members stopped following its teaching of unrestricted reproduction. Creeds that advocate control of women grow faster then more staid and modern interpretations. People know this; this is why more modern women are so reviled by such regimes. A society which stops growing will eventually be overwhelmed by one that continues to grow. Hoping the everyone accepts your culture in order to stop this is impossibly optimistic.
 

Mapp

New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
So, three cheers for forcefully sterilizing inmigrants while natives will be forced to have at least 2 children so we can keep our pretty white society :roll:

Certainly not; I was merely pointing out that Mapp was being hopelessly naive. Also; it's interesting that I never mentioned race or nationality (and I'm not baiting here, I honestly don't care about those things); but you and Mapp both reflexively introduced them.

Mapp, perhaps you mistook my meaning. Rome and the Shakers were replaced by more vibrant societies in that they stopped existing and more viable and stable (at the time) arrangements were reached.

A nation is a group; that is partly arbitrary does not disqualify it from that notation.

I hate to break it to you, but breeding is about political power. Catholicism has waned in power as its members stopped following its teaching of unrestricted reproduction. Creeds that advocate control of women grow faster then more staid and modern interpretations. People know this; this is why more modern women are so reviled by such regimes. A society which stops growing will eventually be overwhelmed by one that continues to grow. Hoping the everyone accepts your culture in order to stop this is impossibly optimistic.

Really? I don't think I mistook your meaning, unless you were being hopelessly unclear. When you said vibrant, I thought you meant what vibrant actually means, but apparently you meant breeding more, so maybe you should have said fecund. As I thoroughly explained breeding doesn't even begin to apply to the fall of Rome, nor did Rome entirely stop existing, which you seem to know since you mentioned the Catholic Church. It would have been nice if you'd actually read my post and responded to my points rather than restating your discredited case. If you had, you would have seen that the Shakers are disqualified from a discussion about selective sterilization because they explicitly did not breed at all. Nor were the Shakers "replaced" they simply ended. Nobody usurped the Shaker's communes. How does that even begin to apply to this situation? Also, a nation is a form of categorization, true, but I was trying to point out the total ambiguity of your use of the word "group." Since you seemed to mean ethnic identity in some cases, and religious affiliation in others. I pointed out that thinking in national terms when dealing with breeding is inapplicable because nations can, but do not necessarily have anything to do with ethnic identity, and they certainly aren't entirely synonymous with religious affiliation. Nationhood is a horizontal identification that cuts across class, gender and ethnic lines. It's why ethnic minorities still have no problem identifying themselves as British, or American.

Breeding is only about political power if you see the world in terms of the models of eugenicists and racial purists, people who see culture as products of nature, rather than societal interaction and discourse. It's a bankrupt mindset. Culture is not passed down like eye or hair color, it is constantly being redefined as power structures change. Nor is it a matter of "accepting your culture" as in applying a culture on someone whole-sale. That kind of assimilation was tried against American Indians and it failed. Cultures are mutable, and aspects survive based on their viability as ideas. It's why the Irish are now considered white, and why women now qualify for citizenship, and why those of African descent are considered fully human. None of these were a part of the culture of the 18th century. It's why the United States started identifying itself as Judeo-Christian in the 50s instead of just Anglo-Protestant. It's why the homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy developed in the 19th and 20th century. These are social constructs that don't get passed down or overwhelmed by breeding. As I pointed out in the post you didn't read, Nativists have a long history of race panic around breeding that has never panned out. Instead, cultures are generally enriched and changed by immigration, and as the immigrants themselves become more prosperous, more urbane and join the larger education system, their birth rates stabilize. Again and again, history has demonstrated that you can not take current birth trends and extrapolate them into the future and expect anything like accuracy.

And thank you for making my point for me at the end. This is why I argue that emancipation of women and access to abortion and birth control are the only factors that can lead to sustained control of the population. Official sterilization programs do not work. They serve only to elevate fecundity to the level of political resistance, which exacerbates the problem. Worse yet, as China has already begun discovering, when combined with sexism, they lead to a shortage of female children which will lead ultimately to a population dearth. All of this is unnecessary. Once women can control when and how many children they have, they will make the necessary decisions about how many children they should have. Once a family has access to the wealth and stability necessary to eliminate grueling poverty induced labor that requires as many hands as possible, having tons of children is no longer an economic necessity. It has played out in every developed nation in the world, and there's no reason to think that will change just because scary dark skinned people are migrating to your area. This has nothing to do with race panic, or some misguided argument for protecting society through preventing miscegenation, it's demonstrable.
 

ArthurWilborn

New Member
I used vague terms because I knew that you would devolve the conversation into race-baiting, which is precisely what you did. Since if I talk about any actual ethnicity you'll inevitably scream "racist" and insult me further, I see no point in talking with you any more.
 

Andiferous

New Member
Nemesiah said:
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.

Well... not even addressing the question of necessity, this program has problems of its own. As an example, if you are only allowed one child, some parents choose to abort all female fetus'. It's a bit Mengal gender-selection really. And you can have more than one child, but you are faced with a heavy fine; so wealthy families can afford to multiply en mass but poor people cannot. So yes, this policy tends to discriminate against both women and poor people.

People are so ridiculous - they can emigrate. Silly people. :)

Oh and are we recommending the sterilisation of men or women here... ? You do realise that sterilising men may be more statistically effective. If this is your plan. Right? ;)

I still find the idea of this excessive and highly immoral.
 

Mapp

New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
I used vague terms because I knew that you would devolve the conversation into race-baiting, which is precisely what you did. Since if I talk about any actual ethnicity you'll inevitably scream "racist" and insult me further, I see no point in talking with you any more.

As you clearly have nothing to add to the conversation besides reactionary nonsense, bowing out when you did is probably a good idea.
 

amorrow

New Member
I have simplified some of my ideas into a more concise and practical approach.

http://www.thermo4thermo.org/pls_biotech.pdf

http://www.thermo4thermo.org/

I am really looking for people who see what I see. Please forward to some who you think might be open-minded about reading just 10 pages.

I see this as a part of our inevitable future.
 

amorrow

New Member
Re: Perinatal Lottery Sterilization

I have since changed the name to "Perinatal" since I am considering the aspect of performing the sterilization in utero.
 
Wrong ideas stays wrong even if you put them in paper. Now it is not only wong, but you have also atested that you are wrong in a document. (not to say something more harsh).
And ruining peoples life for no good reason before they are born is stil ruining peoples life for no good reason. You are an ethical nighmare.

Perhaps you should take initiative in improving the world to you own acord by sterelizing yourself.
 

aMarshall

New Member
As has been already pointed out, the more capable a society would be to enact a lottery system for forced sterilization, the less in danger it is of an overpopulation crisis. This is on account of many, many factors related to high industrialization and management ability that lead to lower population growth rates.

What's really important is whether or not the quality of life is rising at a rate greater than or equal to the population growth rate. If it's lower, then the quality of life on average goes down. When it's trending towards a significant amount higher, you can expect vastly lowered population growth. Quality of life is dependent on the capacity of the Earth and its resources. But we've got a bit of a ways (arguably a huge ways) until we're there, and most studies predict that population growth will continue, but at increasingly lower and lower rates. This means that the difference between quality of life and population growth rates will increase further. Working towards increasing the quality of life in the poorest countries through technological/medical methods should be the primary concern (when talking about the issue of population control), but incentives for people not to breed as much (not forced) can be used as well.

I do agree it would be good of pharmaceutical companies to advance research into much safer/cheaper methods of sterilization that are both easy to initiate and reverse. But I think if such a product were available, a much better method of decreasing population growth would be to have the government give the drug/procedure for free to any individual who wanted to be sterile, and at any time in the future they can freely have it reversed. The reversing part being reliable and safe is of utmost importance so that people (including teenagers) would not be hesitant to take the drug/procedure.
amorrow said:
I am really looking for people who see what I see. Please forward to some who you think might be open-minded about reading just 10 pages.
Consider the open mindedness of this community and how that relates to the general public. If you can't convince people here, it's not gonna go over well elsewise.
 

amorrow2

Member
An even higher-technology approach would be to start a gene drive that limits human beings to one or two offspring.


The technology to limit human fertility does not yet exist but the CRISPR technology seems to promise that we will have human fertility limiting technology within the next half dozen decades or so. The gene drive will take several centuries to propagate through perhaps 75% of humanity so we will still need a sterilization program to get world population down to some sustainable amount.

As far as the ethics of GMO humans go, China already has three of them.


Hopefully we will not be making GMO humans for hunkier American football players. Sigh. We are a rather vain species that demands to be entertained.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Any suggestion that this will be top down, enforced on a population, just means it is doomed to failure. I fully accept that the human population of the world is just simply more than the planet can cope with - although the reality is that not all population segments are equal with respect to their consumption exploitation of resources and the poorest and least exploitative are the largest group - but that doesn't give a political elite license to take control over individuals' bodily integrity. Education, opportunities and availability of contraception is already resulting in a massive reduction in the rate of growth, I don't think we need to engage in tyranny to overcome this obstacle.
 

amorrow2

Member
Any suggestion that this will be top down, enforced on a population, just means it is doomed to failure. I fully accept that the human population of the world is just simply more than the planet can cope with - although the reality is that not all population segments are equal with respect to their consumption exploitation of resources and the poorest and least exploitative are the largest group - but that doesn't give a political elite license to take control over individuals' bodily integrity. Education, opportunities and availability of contraception is already resulting in a massive reduction in the rate of growth, I don't think we need to engage in tyranny to overcome this obstacle.
Some people want as many descendants as there are "stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach" or in other words as many as possible so that they will "endure forever" through those descendants or whatever. As a whole, people are driven by their individual drives and show little concern for their species as a whole. That is where "elite" leadership comes in. Leaders who actually do think about survival of the group as a whole. If you must, call it benevolent dictatorship. That is what good ideas are like. If I really thought that making everyone "wealthy" or females "equal" or "liberated" or whatever would reduce world population to a sustainable level, then I would advocate that, but that is not my expectation. I expect that randomly sterilizing newborns could achieve that sustainable World population and that modifying the human genome to reduce fertility rates could maintain that sustainable World population. It is compulsory control but it seems to me that zero leadership will lead to disaster even faster.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Some people want as many descendants as there are "stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach" or in other words as many as possible so that they will "endure forever" through those descendants or whatever. As a whole, people are driven by their individual drives and show little concern for their species as a whole. That is where "elite" leadership comes in. Leaders who actually do think about survival of the group as a whole. If you must, call it benevolent dictatorship.

Those in power can call it whatever they want, it still would be factually tyrannical. You can bet they're not the ones whose kids are sterilized.


That is what good ideas are like.

This is not a good idea from any perspective. Top down solutions favour the tiny minority contriving the solutions. If we want to solve a problem, it needs to engage the participation of the majority.

If I really thought that making everyone "wealthy" or females "equal" or "liberated" or whatever would reduce world population to a sustainable level, then I would advocate that, but that is not my expectation.

Yet factually, it is already happening. It's a well identified and documented phenomenon.

To take one well documented example from dozens: since 1972, life expectancy in Bangladesh has risen from under 50 to over 70 years expectancy. In the same period, the proportion of females who were educated tripled. In the same period, the number of average children per woman went from over 7.5 to around 2 per woman.

This pattern has occurred repeatedly. When women have access to education and to contraception, and the population's life expectancy is high, the number of children per couple drops dramatically. Generally, humans tend to have lots of babies when there's a low life expectancy, where their children are at risk of infant mortality, where they're uneducated and have few opportunities to advance in life.


I expect that randomly sterilizing newborns could achieve that sustainable World population and that modifying the human genome to reduce fertility rates could maintain that sustainable World population. It is compulsory control but it seems to me that zero leadership will lead to disaster even faster.

I expect that a policy of randomly sterilizing newborns would result in a revolution, and depending on who's in power, violence and death. That's not a serious plan, in my book.

Methinks there are many, many routes we can take that don't involve the loss of individual's bodily integrity to the state for the supposed 'good of the species' - it seems to me that history has already exemplified to an ample degree what that involves.
 
Last edited:

amorrow2

Member
Those in power can call it whatever they want, it still would be factually tyrannical. You can bet they're not the ones whose kids are sterilized.




This is not a good idea from any perspective. Top down solutions favour the tiny minority contriving the solutions. If we want to solve a problem, it needs to engage the participation of the majority.



Yet factually, it is already happening. It's a well identified and documented phenomenon.

To take one well documented example from dozens: since 1972, life expectancy in Bangladesh has risen from under 50 to over 70 years expectancy. In the same period, the proportion of females who were educated tripled. In the same period, the number of average children per woman went from over 7.5 to around 2 per woman.

This pattern has occurred repeatedly. When women have access to education and to contraception, and the population's life expectancy is high, the number of children per couple drops dramatically. Generally, humans tend to have lots of babies when there's a low life expectancy, where their children are at risk of infant mortality, where they're uneducated and have few opportunities to advance in life.




I expect that a policy of randomly sterilizing newborns would result in a revolution, and depending on who's in power, violence and death. That's not a serious plan, in my book.

Methinks there are many, many routes we can take that don't involve the loss of individual's bodily integrity to the state for the supposed 'good of the species' - it seems to me that history has already exemplified to an ample degree what that involves.
My vision of newborn sterilization is where all newborns would be subject to the lottery. If corruption or cheating occurred, hopefully it would be detected and punished.

Another, somewhat extreme example is that of Owen Coffin.


In that case, I do not know if there was an officer in charge and whether the officer was expected to draw a straw, but that is why you have officers: to stick around to lead the group with their better education and experience.

Sustainable World population is a problem if climate change, declining fish stocks and the depletion of non-renewable resources etc. are real problems. Yeah, we can just wait around for the problems to get even worse or we can use our foresight and take some action now.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
My vision of newborn sterilization is where all newborns would be subject to the lottery. If corruption or cheating occurred, hopefully it would be detected and punished.

I understand your idea, but the problem remains as to how a government would go about doing this. Forced sterilization has a very bad track record and has always and only ever been conducted by tyrannical governments absent any respect for the rights of the citizens.

In a democracy, presumably any party intending to pursue the above agenda would need first to be elected, so that would already make it a requirement that people voluntarily want to be part of the random infant sterilization lottery... but if they didn't, then they'd vote against that party. If it's going to be voluntary anyway? Why not just have a voluntary scheme in the first place?

But anyway, let's say that somehow governments all round the world find a means of pushing this agenda - the question is how they then go about it. Force? Do you envision police forcibly taking away newborn infants from their mothers to undergo obligatory sterilization? Would parents be imprisoned if they refused to take part? How does this scenario play out for you?

Further, what happens when those forcibly sterilized children grow up and realize that their state had robbed them of an essential liberty that other citizens continued to enjoy. Your solution has just created an entire class of people who intrinsically have inferior rights to other members of their society. That's contrary to any sense of justice. You're trading in the hard-won gains of the past for a future that I don't think sounds much more desirable than living in a world affected by rampant climate change.


Another, somewhat extreme example is that of Owen Coffin.


I'm not sure quite how it's relevant. The link between any single human's reproduction and the global population's impact on the environment are abstracted and far removed than in a scenario with an immediate threat of starvation that's already driven you to eat human corpses. Incidentally, I expect they'd be charged with murder today, regardless of their need to survive.


Sustainable World population is a problem if climate change, declining fish stocks and the depletion of non-renewable resources etc. are real problems. Yeah, we can just wait around for the problems to get even worse or we can use our foresight and take some action now.

I'd say you're excluding a wide array of vastly more rational, just, and efficient methods than global tyranny. It's a false dichotomy that we either have to forcibly sterilize infants or else we're just sitting around waiting for things to get worse.
 

amorrow2

Member
My vision of newborn sterilization is where all newborns would be subject to the lottery. If corruption or cheating occurred, hopefully it would be detected and punished.

Another, somewhat extreme example is that of Owen Coffin.


In that case, I do not know if there was an officer in charge and whether the officer was expected to draw a straw, but that is why you have officers: to stick around to lead the group with their better education and experience.

Sustainable World population is a problem if climate change, declining fish stocks and the depletion of non-renewable resources etc. are real problems. Yeah, we can just wait around for the problems to get even worse or we can use our foresight and take some action now.

I understand your idea, but the problem remains as to how a government would go about doing this. Forced sterilization has a very bad track record and has always and only ever been conducted by tyrannical governments absent any respect for the rights of the citizens.

In a democracy, presumably any party intending to pursue the above agenda would need first to be elected, so that would already make it a requirement that people voluntarily want to be part of the random infant sterilization lottery... but if they didn't, then they'd vote against that party. If it's going to be voluntary anyway? Why not just have a voluntary scheme in the first place?

But anyway, let's say that somehow governments all round the world find a means of pushing this agenda - the question is how they then go about it. Force? Do you envision police forcibly taking away newborn infants from their mothers to undergo obligatory sterilization? Would parents be imprisoned if they refused to take part? How does this scenario play out for you?

Further, what happens when those forcibly sterilized children grow up and realize that their state had robbed them of an essential liberty that other citizens continued to enjoy. Your solution has just created an entire class of people who intrinsically have inferior rights to other members of their society. That's contrary to any sense of justice. You're trading in the hard-won gains of the past for a future that I don't think sounds much more desirable than living in a world affected by rampant climate change.




I'm not sure quite how it's relevant. The link between any single human's reproduction and the global population's impact on the environment are abstracted and far removed than in a scenario with an immediate threat of starvation that's already driven you to eat human corpses. Incidentally, I expect they'd be charged with murder today, regardless of their need to survive.




I'd say you're excluding a wide array of vastly more rational, just, and efficient methods than global tyranny. It's a false dichotomy that we either have to forcibly sterilize infants or else we're just sitting around waiting for things to get worse.
It would be a matter of public education until at least a majority agreed that action is required. I agree that depriving only the selected of reproduction seems harsh, but how else can world population be fairly reduced to a sustainable level? The traditional method is violence in the form of warfare or genocide or something chaotic like that. Letting a random number generator will at least give everyone a fair chance. Of course, you would probably have a one child policy for those who are not sterilized.

I envision a sustainable World population of only one or two billion. How else can we possibly get there from here without violence?
 
Top