Infantile Lottery Sterilization

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
It would be a matter of public education until at least a majority agreed that action is required.

Ok, but I think a lot hangs on the seemingly minor word 'until'.

Your idea here is predicated on the need for urgent, immediate action.

I can't envision a global wide education program that would encourage people to volunteer to have their children randomly sterilized. I expect that most people would - quite reasonably - imagine that there are superior ways to achieve the same desired end which don't involve infringing so dramatically on peoples' liberty.

However, let's imagine that over time people come to accept that it's necessary, but this means we're failing to address the key motivation supposedly justifying the infringement on peoples' freedom - the urgency of the need. How long would it take until a majority agrees? Generations? Isn't that contradictory to the urgency?


I agree that depriving only the selected of reproduction seems harsh, but how else can world population be fairly reduced to a sustainable level?

It's not that it's 'harsh' that's really the problem: it's that it's intrinsically unjust.

The word 'sacrifice' is quite insightful here.

On the one hand, if you believed strongly that you were helping others and elected to give up something important to yourself that it might benefit others, then your sacrifice is of the noble kind.

On the other, if you believe strongly that the need is sufficiently urgent to insist other people give up something important to them in order to benefit others, then the sacrifice therein is of the 'throwing human offerings into the volcano to appease the Lava God' kind.

Of course, as I've already pointed out - the idea that there is no other plausible means of addressing humanity's impact on the climate other than forcibly sterilizing random newborns is completely unwarranted - you have not remotely established that there are no alternatives, and I've just explained that there are already forces at play which could be harnessed, supported, and built on which don't involve battering a sub-section of humanity into compliance, but actually elevating them out of crushing poverty.

We need there to be less humans, but the way we get to that outcome is just as important as achieving it.


The traditional method is violence in the form of warfare or genocide or something chaotic like that.

Well, that's Malthusian. There's also pandemic, of course. The 4 Horsemen have long helped keep our numbers in check, but we're overcoming all of them to one degree or other. Our successes have contributed to the problem we're facing, but the bright side is that now we are aware of the impact we're having. Even a hundred years ago, we wouldn't have been having this conversation - people still believed that the Earth was basically boundless in resources and exploiting them was a noble pursuit, and that more children were a sign of divine favour. There are populations all over the world today who have reversed these ideas and their populations have plateaued or are in decline.


Letting a random number generator will at least give everyone a fair chance.

I don't conceive of your idea as having even so much as a modicum of 'fairness' to it. Quite the contrary.

Firstly, it entails forcing other people to take part in a system where they only stand to individually lose (what do they individually gain from partaking?), forcibly mutilating newborn infants who are unable to advocate for their own beliefs but who are having their lives decided for them before they even yet know what life is, deciding that a single idea which involves other peoples' sacrifice is the only idea without considering other less rash ideas... none of these are 'fair'. If I forced you at gunpoint to take part in a race where everyone but the winner would be murdered, I couldn't call it 'fair' just because the race conditions were the same for everyone.

Secondly, it employs a 'random number generator' presumably under the faulty assumption that random = fair. Random is not 'fair'. Fairness implies a sense of consideration, of weighing up the stakes involved and attempting to find a just outcome. Random is random, and is totally uncaring of any of the factors involved - it's abstracted outside of the problem. Random may well be impartial, but would that really be fair? For example, imagine that, by sheer chance, the last remaining members of an ancient tribe all happened to be randomly drawn, and thereby have their cultural and genetic lineage snuffed out. That could happen randomly, but I can't imagine how anyone would consider such an outcome 'fair'.

I find no means by which you could portray this idea as fair. I think it is intrinsically unjust. I think you could still argue that it's necessary, and that need justifies unjust actions, but then we're back to wondering how exactly this plan is meant to actually work without some form of mass tyranny.


Of course, you would probably have a one child policy for those who are not sterilized.

I think you'd need dozens of pages of rules to cover all the loopholes, for example the rich paying off poor people to give up their reproductive ticket and carry the wealthy parents' additional offspring.

But that's by the by. If you can enact a global one child policy, there'd be no need whatsoever for mass obligatory infant sterilization anyway. If everyone in the world were to, from today, only parent 1 child then the population would drop precipitously, halving it within a couple of generations. However, if we can't convince the world's population to have only 1 child, what's the chance of convincing them to allow the state to draw lottery on whether their 1 offspring gets to reproduce?


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

Well, let's be clear: if you're prepared to commit violence to oblige people to conform to your idea, then you're bordering on a kind of belief that is typically reserved for the religious, so the chance of me being able to say anything that changes your mind is minimal. However, I can of course point out that I've already addressed your false dichotomy before, and explained that there are numerous other ways - vastly more rational ways at that - to change population demographics in order to preserve the environment.

Of course though, there's a damn sight more to it than just population. Consumption patterns are also vital to take into account here. At present rate, to get the same outcome with your sterilization lottery, you'd probably need to sterilize about 6 to 8 Africans compared to 1 American with respect to how many resources they consume. It wouldn't be much good if we killed off 6 billion people only to find that the remaining 1 billion were all selfish, greedy arsehats who felt the need to own 18 cars, 12 bedroom houses with swimming pools etc - couldn't we just have kept the 6 billion people whose consumption levels weren't anywhere near as threatening to the environment?

But I suppose we're circling back to the dysfunctional notion contended of 'fairness' there, where we should really be looking at real world solutions.

 
Last edited:

amorrow2

Member
Ok, but I think a lot hangs on the seemingly minor word 'until'.

Your idea here is predicated on the need for urgent, immediate action.

I can't envision a global wide education program that would encourage people to volunteer to have their children randomly sterilized. I expect that most people would - quite reasonably - imagine that there are superior ways to achieve the same desired end which don't involve infringing so dramatically on peoples' liberty.

However, let's imagine that over time people come to accept that it's necessary, but this means we're failing to address the key motivation supposedly justifying the infringement on peoples' freedom - the urgency of the need. How long would it take until a majority agrees? Generations? Isn't that contradictory to the urgency?




It's not that it's 'harsh' that's really the problem: it's that it's intrinsically unjust.

The word 'sacrifice' is quite insightful here.

On the one hand, if you believed strongly that you were helping others and elected to give up something important to yourself that it might benefit others, then your sacrifice is of the noble kind.

On the other, if you believe strongly that the need is sufficiently urgent to insist other people give up something important to them in order to benefit others, then the sacrifice therein is of the 'throwing human offerings into the volcano to appease the Lava God' kind.

Of course, as I've already pointed out - the idea that there is no other plausible means of addressing humanity's impact on the climate other than forcibly sterilizing random newborns is completely unwarranted - you have not remotely established that there are no alternatives, and I've just explained that there are already forces at play which could be harnessed, supported, and built on which don't involve battering a sub-section of humanity into compliance, but actually elevating them out of crushing poverty.

We need there to be less humans, but the way we get to that outcome is just as important as achieving it.




Well, that's Malthusian. There's also pandemic, of course. The 4 Horsemen have long helped keep our numbers in check, but we're overcoming all of them to one degree or other. Our successes have contributed to the problem we're facing, but the bright side is that now we are aware of the impact we're having. Even a hundred years ago, we wouldn't have been having this conversation - people still believed that the Earth was basically boundless in resources and exploiting them was a noble pursuit, and that more children were a sign of divine favour. There are populations all over the world today who have reversed these ideas and their populations have plateaued or are in decline.




I don't conceive of your idea as having even so much as a modicum of 'fairness' to it. Quite the contrary.

Firstly, it entails forcing other people to take part in a system where they only stand to individually lose (what do they individually gain from partaking?), forcibly mutilating newborn infants who are unable to advocate for their own beliefs but who are having their lives decided for them before they even yet know what life is, deciding that a single idea which involves other peoples' sacrifice is the only idea without considering other less rash ideas... none of these are 'fair'. If I forced you at gunpoint to take part in a race where everyone but the winner would be murdered, I couldn't call it 'fair' just because the race conditions were the same for everyone.

Secondly, it employs a 'random number generator' presumably under the faulty assumption that random = fair. Random is not 'fair'. Fairness implies a sense of consideration, of weighing up the stakes involved and attempting to find a just outcome. Random is random, and is totally uncaring of any of the factors involved - it's abstracted outside of the problem. Random may well be impartial, but would that really be fair? For example, imagine that, by sheer chance, the last remaining members of an ancient tribe all happened to be randomly drawn, and thereby have their cultural and genetic lineage snuffed out. That could happen randomly, but I can't imagine how anyone would consider such an outcome 'fair'.

I find no means by which you could portray this idea as fair. I think it is intrinsically unjust. I think you could still argue that it's necessary, and that need justifies unjust actions, but then we're back to wondering how exactly this plan is meant to actually work without some form of mass tyranny.




I think you'd need dozens of pages of rules to cover all the loopholes, for example the rich paying off poor people to give up their reproductive ticket and carry the wealthy parents' additional offspring.

But that's by the by. If you can enact a global one child policy, there'd be no need whatsoever for mass obligatory infant sterilization anyway. If everyone in the world were to, from today, only parent 1 child then the population would drop precipitously, halving it within a couple of generations. However, if we can't convince the world's population to have only 1 child, what's the chance of convincing them to allow the state to draw lottery on whether their 1 offspring gets to reproduce?




Well, let's be clear: if you're prepared to commit violence to oblige people to conform to your idea, then you're bordering on a kind of belief that is typically reserved for the religious, so the chance of me being able to say anything that changes your mind is minimal. However, I can of course point out that I've already addressed your false dichotomy before, and explained that there are numerous other ways - vastly more rational ways at that - to change population demographics in order to preserve the environment.

Of course though, there's a damn sight more to it than just population. Consumption patterns are also vital to take into account here. At present rate, to get the same outcome with your sterilization lottery, you'd probably need to sterilize about 6 to 8 Africans compared to 1 American with respect to how many resources they consume. It wouldn't be much good if we killed off 6 billion people only to find that the remaining 1 billion were all selfish, greedy arsehats who felt the need to own 18 cars, 12 bedroom houses with swimming pools etc - couldn't we just have kept the 6 billion people whose consumption levels weren't anywhere near as threatening to the environment?

But I suppose we're circling back to the dysfunctional notion contended of 'fairness' there, where we should really be looking at real world solutions.

Maybe I am suffering from an idea fixe that sustainable World population is around a billion people (or maybe less). It is just an instinct on my part that we have already reached an unsustainable level of over 7 billion. We have had no plan and almost no population control and we seem on track to use up every drop of petroleum within a mile of the Earth's surface within the next few centuries. There are other non-renewable resources, but we will really miss petroleum because we use it in so very many applications.

I realize that my ideas do not have equal outcomes for everyone and that they seem like tyranny, but I am doing my best with my current expectations on when real, irreversible shortages will occur. I am trying to base my ideas on off-the-shelf technologies (except for CRISPR breakthroughs to modify the human genome to limit fertility). I anticipate that by the time the shortages lead to violent conflicts, it will be too late. I feel that the situation requires foresight and plans now or in the next several decades.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think we should have a damn sight higher standard than just instinct and feelings before proposing the global removal of individual liberty and the primacy of the state over our bodies.

Again you contend that there's no other plan than this. Again, I point out that this is a textbook false dichotomy.


A false dilemma (sometimes also referred to as a false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy, which occurs when a limited number of options are incorrectly presented as being mutually exclusive to one another or as being the only options that exist, in a situation where that isn’t the case. For example, a false dilemma occurs in a situation where someone says that we must choose between options A or B, without mentioning that option C also exists.

The situation here is not either 1) global governmental infringement of peoples' liberty through forced mass sterilization of infants or 2) the destruction of the Earth's environment. There is a massive amount of middle ground there which covers numerous more rational, more effective, more humane, and less ethically outrageous options we can employ.

From my perspective, if I had such a terrible conviction that made me believe that there was justification for infringing on other peoples' liberty and then discovered there were plausible other ways to address my concern without tyranny, I'd be a little more interested in talking about them rather than dismissing them.

Additionally, I am not sure why we're waiting on genome modification when chemistry or surgery can already ensure sterility in a patient.


However, the one thing I do agree with you on here is that the human population coupled with our resource usage has grown beyond the Earth's carrying capacity - we are on an unsustainable trajectory. Worse is that while we artificially prop up our societies through the mass exploitation of resources, the environment is creaking and collapsing under the strain, but we are cocooned thanks to our exploitation from the most immediate effects. It will take many decades before we see the true fruit of our labours and the shit really hits the fan - even if we could put the brakes on today and acted as custodians of our world, it will take an awfully long time for the environment to recover.

But there are positive elements to be sought and acknowledged here too. The mere fact that you and I - despite undoubtedly being on opposite sides of the planet - are aware of the ravages humanity is causing to the world shows just how widely this is beginning to be understood and accepted. Knowledge is disseminating and changes are occurring, but humanity has a lag time of a few decades before its societies can react and modify their behavior... I think we're actually doing incredibly well in many respects, it's just that we were doing so badly before that starts us out in a bad position. Tens of thousands of workers and experts all over the world are united in combating our species destruction of the natural world, and tens of millions more people support them politically and economically. There are many large problems, but the fact that we know about them rather than continuing to blindly, ignorantly destroy is a major advancement. Find me an area of concern in terms of habitation destruction, pollution, or climate change, and I can cite you the work of hundreds of experts dedicated to solving those problems.

My suggestion, and I appreciate that this is borne of ignorance of what you do and what you're involved with, is to envisage what you and yours can best do to help, what you can give to combat this problem. Don't waste time contriving how you can force other people to do it on your behalf as that's completely useless pie-in-the-sky nonsense abstracted from reality, and doesn't even amount to a serious plan even if ethics were abandoned. Find a smaller patch in which you can effect real concrete change.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Oh and this topic really needs to be considered from an ethical perspective first to divine a just series of actions, not a political one first then deal with the destruction of ethics later.

 

amorrow2

Member
Condemning someone to childlessness is different than condemning someone to death. You are taking away "something" short of taking away life itself. I happen to think that China's population control efforts make it in certain ways more advanced than much of the rest of the world because they have any multi-generational plan at all.

Think about a young couple about to get married today. You wish them happiness and success in their marriage but do you offer them any advice about having children? How about "Reproduce sustainably!" Most well-wishers might just say "Have as many children as you feel like." letting short-term impulses override any long-term considerations for future generations and such.

If everyone just had to be treated equally, then a universal one child policy would be a start, but even that in China for 40 years never produced a period of population shrinkage because of "population momentum" and such. My vision of long-term planning involves reducing world population by 90% in 100 years which even a one child policy will not achieve. It involves forcing some (maybe a lot of) people to have zero children. Childless people can still live fulfilling lives and be leaders and write books and such. This attitude that everyone must be able to have more children will lead us to a universal poverty that might lead eventually to World War III with nukes and all that. That is the bad outcome I am trying to avoid via long-range planning now.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Condemning someone to childlessness is different than condemning someone to death. You are taking away "something" short of taking away life itself. I happen to think that China's population control efforts make it in certain ways more advanced than much of the rest of the world because they have any multi-generational plan at all.

You seem a little enamored of totalitarian decree to solve issues. I don't believe it's the only way to get things done. I also point out that China has extremely high levels of income disparity and affected the poor much more than the rich, and the policy was open wide to corruption and resulted in the murder of an unknowable number of female infants. Also, of course, China abandoned the policy when it became clear that it was resulting in extremely undesirable and eminently predictable demographic problems, including making it the most gender imbalanced nation in the world (thanks to all the female infants being murdered) and such a huge ageing cohort that insufficient funds would be available to be recouped through young worker taxes to pay for social necessities.

And I absolutely reject any assertion that tyrannical decree represents a higher water mark of civilization. An elite with the power over life and death of the masses is not something to idealize. You're actually painting a dystopia, as far as I am concerned, and it should be something we fight against, not welcome in the name of some other desired end.


Think about a young couple about to get married today. You wish them happiness and success in their marriage but do you offer them any advice about having children? How about "Reproduce sustainably!" Most well-wishers might just say "Have as many children as you feel like." letting short-term impulses override any long-term considerations for future generations and such.

I don't really think that married couples make their decisions about child-raising based on what greetings were offered to them at their wedding ceremony.


If everyone just had to be treated equally, then a universal one child policy would be a start,...

Yet as I've already pointed out, the chance of such a policy being equal is completely abstracted from reality, and China provides an extensive object example of this.


... but even that in China for 40 years never produced a period of population shrinkage because of "population momentum" and such.

That's because the policy didn't actually stop people from having more than 1 child - it just economically incentivized 1 child, and made having more than 1 incur a financial penalty. Once again, you end up with Pay to Play, which of course, is not just in the slightest.


My vision of long-term planning involves reducing world population by 90% in 100 years which even a one child policy will not achieve.

Let's be honest, amorrow2 - your vision isn't very well developed. You don't really appear willing to engage in any of the problematic components of your ideas or to consider the array of alternatives, but the consolation for me is that you lack any power to effect the kind of vision you claim to have.


It involves forcing some (maybe a lot of) people to have zero children.

After you.

Childless people can still live fulfilling lives and be leaders and write books and such.

That's nice of you to tell them that. Will that also be part of your vision: having people chant how lucky and fulfilled they are living under your regime? Maybe there are other tools of repression you can look to borrow from tyrannical governments like China.


This attitude that everyone must be able to have more children will lead us to a universal poverty that might lead eventually to World War III with nukes and all that. That is the bad outcome I am trying to avoid via long-range planning now.

Dramatic, but rather lacking in logical substance. There's a consistent pattern here.
 

amorrow2

Member
"Doing anything" about population control is not a very good strategy for winning popularity contests. I admire China for doing anything at all. Of course, China's implementation is far from perfect but they have greatly slowed their population growth.

Without getting into Prof. Sandel's expertise into the structure of philosophy of law and justice (and I note that he never provides any judgements as to the proper outcomes of any of the puzzles he presents) I think that it is logical to worry about future generations that may live centuries into the future. It is easy to just shake hands and kiss babies and say "vote for me!" but what I am trying to say is: if we decide as a species to reduce world population, how can we do so in an orderly fashion where it does not devolve into eugenics or some other Darwinian struggle? Letting a random number generator decide what newborns to be sterilized is the best I have come up with so far.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
"Doing anything" about population control is not a very good strategy for winning popularity contests. I admire China for doing anything at all. Of course, China's implementation is far from perfect but they have greatly slowed their population growth.

I've already replied to the above points previously.

i) I cannot join you in applauding tyranny.
ii) Being prepared to enforce your idea on others is zealotry - something I consider antithetical to reason.
iii) As it occurred in China, corruption and elitism will mean that the poor bear the actual cost while the rich simply pay their way out.

Without getting into Prof. Sandel's expertise into the structure of philosophy of law and justice (and I note that he never provides any judgements as to the proper outcomes of any of the puzzles he presents)...

That's because the entire purpose of his activity is to get his audience to start exercising their reasoning faculties to engage frankly with questions of justice.


I think that it is logical to worry about future generations that may live centuries into the future.

That's not been challenged.


It is easy to just shake hands and kiss babies and say "vote for me!" but what I am trying to say is: if we decide as a species to reduce world population, how can we do so in an orderly fashion where it does not devolve into eugenics or some other Darwinian struggle?

You could, as I've already pointed out several times - although you seem unwilling to discuss these facts - look to enshrine the right of women to be educated, ensure the acceptance and availability of contraceptives, and try to bring the standard of living up for the poorest so that no one is locked into abject poverty. These factors combined have been shown empirically time and time and time again to result in a dramatic and sustained reduction in population while simultaneously lifting people up rather than squashing them with the apparatus of the state.


Letting a random number generator decide what newborns to be sterilized is the best I have come up with so far.

Which I've already addressed and challenged as being as removed from justice as is possible to be.

My assumption at this point is that you haven't ever given any other ideas any due consideration. From my observations, you're thinking about this topic simplistically, which is why you're offering a simplistic solution. But the step where it goes truly wrong is that you've latched onto the idea, as if it's something you cherish, and consequently you're not interested in addressing the failings of that proposed solution. None of this seems reason-driven to me.

But like I said: the consolation here is that this amounts to nothing more than some words on an electronic page, and you don't actually possess the power necessary to enact the harm you envision as being necessary.
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

Apart from the ethical, and moral, questions behind the topic, bearing in mind the old adage, "prevention is better than cure", surely contraception is better than abortion?

Rather than wasting energy on this idea, why not actively oppose the Church's, and other religious conservatives anti-contraception attitudes/policies?

What you are suggesting, as others have pointed out, AMorrow, is neo-colonialistic: developed (white) countries telling developing (non-white) countries how to live.

As for unsustainability, things may not be as bad as one thinks.

Kindest regards,

James
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Humanity's only really even grasped the concept of our destructive impact on the world in the last 50 years; the general public perhaps only in the last 10 - 20. Individual greed is unarguably slowing things down, but the developments that are happening are optimistic.

According to this data, for example, annual renewable energy generation has grown by 440% in the last 20 years.


We're definitely up against the clock and human greed and ignorance, but I think we know enough now to also have an obligation: if we fuck up then it's a mistake we'll have to adapt to and learn from. I don't think it warrants changing the freedoms of all humans across the world and empowering states to have such power over the individual.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Undoubtedly it's not good, but unfortunately/fortunately, it won't be humans that suffer the worst of our impact - not for a long time. Even with a dramatic loss in biodiversity, we can still feed and clothe ourselves: business as usual.
 

We are Borg

Administrator
Staff member
Well lets lose the bees and see how good where going to do. There parts in the US where they need to bring bees in to pollinate the trees/plants else there are not enough bees in that area. This was a documentary a few years back it was either Discovery or PBS.
 

amorrow2

Member
I lived in Sacramento, CA for about a year and I contacted my local city council member about the idea that Sacramento should declare an ideal city population for itself. I suggested 700K. The current population is about 500K. Not for implementing population control or for evicting the homeless, but just for having any forward-looking number at all for city planners and such. I had a vision that I could take a copy of that city proclamation and engage the homeless that are gathered in Ceasar Chavez Plaza near city hall with it, I could say "See? The city has a plan. They have settled on a number. They have a plan. Now you should have a plan. Go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army and get some decent clothes. Write that resume. Get that job. Have an apartment. A roof and a bed to sleep in. Make a plan and then execute on that plan."

I feel that population control is a part of our future. Maybe it will not involve performing surgery on newborns. Maybe it will just involve a lottery for the newborn where, if they are selected, the law will be that if they are not supposed to have children, there will be financial penalties for breaking those laws. The "tyranny" is that humanity surrenders to the mindless, heartless, soulless machine of the random number generator on this emotion-laden aspect of their lives. Addressing the crisis of world population requires logic. Plans and logic. It requires enterprise resource managers and executives. It requires law enforcement. It requires researchers who are willing to do the extrapolations with the off-the-shelf technology and provide warning: "If we keep going along as we have, then there are going to be serious problems." World population is just a number. Engineers and other people who take mathematics seriously know that numbers matter. It is a complicated task to decide on an ideal world population but it is a task worth doing. It will not result in paradise, but it may result in sustainability and longevity for the entire human race on Earth.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Maybe it will just involve a lottery for the newborn where, if they are selected, the law will be that if they are not supposed to have children, there will be financial penalties for breaking those laws..

Same problem: inequitable laws just legislate an underclass. I cant see that the way out of our man-made troubles is through injustice.
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

I lived in Sacramento, CA for about a year and I contacted my local city council member about the idea that Sacramento should declare an ideal city population for itself. I suggested 700K. The current population is about 500K. Not for implementing population control or for evicting the homeless, but just for having any forward-looking number at all for city planners and such. I had a vision that I could take a copy of that city proclamation and engage the homeless that are gathered in Ceasar Chavez Plaza near city hall with it, I could say "See? The city has a plan. They have settled on a number. They have a plan. Now you should have a plan. Go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army and get some decent clothes. Write that resume. Get that job. Have an apartment. A roof and a bed to sleep in. Make a plan and then execute on that plan."

I feel that population control is a part of our future. Maybe it will not involve performing surgery on newborns. Maybe it will just involve a lottery for the newborn where, if they are selected, the law will be that if they are not supposed to have children, there will be financial penalties for breaking those laws. The "tyranny" is that humanity surrenders to the mindless, heartless, soulless machine of the random number generator on this emotion-laden aspect of their lives. Addressing the crisis of world population requires logic. Plans and logic. It requires enterprise resource managers and executives. It requires law enforcement. It requires researchers who are willing to do the extrapolations with the off-the-shelf technology and provide warning: "If we keep going along as we have, then there are going to be serious problems." World population is just a number. Engineers and other people who take mathematics seriously know that numbers matter. It is a complicated task to decide on an ideal world population but it is a task worth doing. It will not result in paradise, but it may result in sustainability and longevity for the entire human race on Earth.
A number of states have found that providing free housing to the homeless is more economic than having social services, etc, trawling the streets to find them. [1] With a roof over their heads, HHS know where they are - not to mention that it's healthier for those unfortunates, many of whom have mental health issues, and are unable to find work.

That's a plan.

But to return to the topic: why not campaign for global contraception, rather than global sterilisation?

Kindest regards,

James
 

amorrow2

Member
I have thought about this for a few days and I realize what I am. I am an eco-fascist. Sustainability is really important.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
I was stuck indoors with monsoon rains and Netflix made me watch Inferno - the bad guy, Bertrand Zobrist, has a monologue near the start which would be right up your alley, amorrow2 - forced sterilizations and engineered infertility.
 
Top