Infantile Lottery Sterilization

[amorrow2]

I dunno. She published through Oxford University Press. That is fairly prestegious.

Here:

One Child

A compelling argument for the morality of limitations on procreation in lessening the harmful environmental effects of unchecked populationWe live in a world where a burgeoning global population has started to have a major and destructive environmental impact. The results, including climate...

global.oup.com

One Child​

Do We Have a Right to More?​

Sarah Conly​

• Argues that we have the right to one, and only one, child
• Examines the environmental costs of reproduction
• Proposes that some instances of governmental control over reproduction are acceptable

 

[amorrow2]

Allison Schrager is another female writer who wrote at least on column suggesting the same.

The US should have its own version of the one-child policy

qz.com

The US should have its own version of the one-child policy​

Schrader cites Conley's book.

 

[amorrow2]

I

Another moron navel-gazer pontificating and drawing conclusions.

Protip: if it's drawing conclusions, it isn't philosophy.

She's a particularly despicable example.

I agree with you. Conley is taking a side in a debate. She is presenting an argument for a position she is taking. I respect the fact that she did some research and she did some thinking. Oxford University Press demands that sort of stuff from its author's.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Oh my god! Subsidize! 1 year! Wwwwhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[Deleted member 619]

I dunno. She published through Oxford University Press. That is fairly prestegious.

Oh, dear. You think that her publication in a prestigious publication is an indication that she's correct? Seriously? Can you say argumentum ad verecundiam? I know you can.

Thank you for revealing the depth of your naïveté. It really is quite impressive.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oxford University Press demands that sort of stuff from its author's.

Really? Is that how you think this works? She publishes a book with a publisher, and that makes her an authority? Is that really how you think knowledge progresses? No wonder you've learned so little about the world. You really need to learn about how knowledge is garnered in a robust fashion, or you're going to continue ton be taken in by idiots who think that staring into their belly buttons constittes doing philosophy and that the lint they find therein constitutes wisdom.

FYIO, OUP has published oodles of ill-considered dreck because, as an educational establishment, Oxford University is interested in presenting different viewpoints, which is why the University of Toronto is happy to publish arch cunt and king of the incels Jordan Peterson. That they publish these anencephalic worms and the contents of their varied colons tells us exactly nothing about whether what they're saying is true or whether we should listen to the cortical excrement. It isn't peer-reviewed, and her rectal custard most definitely hasn't been/ She asserts, with no robust justification, a problem, and asserts her depraved and immoral notion that bodily autonomy is morally violable, which tells me she hasn't the first fucking clue of what morality is. Bodily autonomy IS morality. It's the foundation of ALL ethical thinking.

She's a dumb cunt, regardless of where she's post her diseased witterings.

And you really, desperately need to learn how logic works before you encounter something sharp and do yourself a mischief.

 

[amorrow2]

If this forum was about logic or perfect correctness, they would have used those words in the name of this forum. The words are reason and reasonable. That is a word that judges and lawyers use a lot such as in "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I am just in search of reasonable arguments on either side of the debate.

I now see that sterilizing newborns is an unreasonable idea. Still, I think that 100 years from now, it is reasonable to suggest that population control laws of some sort are going to be more widespread than just China. India comes to mind as a possible country that might do something in that direction. Maybe just financial incentives.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I ran across a book by an American who tries to make the argument that a one-child policy for the USA might be appropriate.

Let me try once again here, amorrow2.

Let's say she makes a fabulous and convincing case.

What happens next?

Your various threads seem to suggest that you believe that either a) everyone will acknowledge and accept the argument and simply change everything at the drop of a hat or b) that because you think it's a fabulous and convincing case that you, or others, would be justified in forcing everyone to conform.

But the reality is that what happens next is nothing. Nothing at all. The USA can't even manage agreement on limiting the amount of firepower available even when it routinely results in the death of numerous children, the USA can't even agree on providing universal healthcare for its citizenry, so why would you think that the USA is going to enact such a byzantine policy of social control? Neither main party stands for the kind of government that would do the above - well, at least to its white citizenry, anyway.

If you want to engage in reasonable discussion, then I think you need to also need to consider the distinction between an idea that works in an idealized conceptual space, and one which works in the real world - the two are rarely the same.

 

[amorrow2]

There are other changes in that direction that might be more feasible. For instance, the IRS still had a $2K deduction in taxes for each child. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the IRS eliminate that deduction. It is obsolete.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I disagree entirely; data suggests a strong negative correlation between household income and fertility rates. Improving the economic status of citizens seems to me to be an extremely reliable way to facilitate lower birth rates.

 

[Sparhafoc]

There are other changes in that direction that might be more feasible. For instance, the IRS still had a $2K deduction in taxes for each child. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the IRS eliminate that deduction. It is obsolete.

Fuck the poor!

 

[Sparhafoc]

I disagree entirely; data suggests a strong negative correlation between household income and fertility rates. Improving the economic status of citizens seems to me to be an extremely reliable way to facilitate lower birth rates.

Yup, this thread contains numerous attempts by me to introduce amorrow2 to an actual working model that has provably resulted in a drastic reduction in population growth rate, and that is helping people out of poverty, providing opportunities, ensuring education, and ubiquitously available contraceptives.

Taking away more money from poor people isn't going to stop them making babies. History shows us that poverty and excess childbirth are linked.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Yup, this thread contains numerous attempts by me to introduce amorrow2 to an actual working model that has provably resulted in a drastic reduction in population growth rate, and that is helping people out of poverty, providing opportunities, ensuring education, and ubiquitously available contraceptives.

Taking away more money from poor people isn't going to stop them making babies. History shows us that poverty and excess childbirth are linked.

I guess there's nothing to do but wait for the impuning of the welfare state and bootstrap memes.

 

[amorrow2]

Funny coincidence: I was just watching on TV the show "60 minutes" and the last segment focused on Sir David Attenborough. At the age of 95, his voice will soon be silenced. He was trying to sound the alarm that he has seen a lot of degradation in the environment in his lifetime. His message was: change is needed soon.

David Attenborough - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sparhafoc]

He's a national treasure and even more so since he's used his status to disseminate structural problems in our society to people that otherwise might have been unaware, but anyway about the bevacuumed spherical cows, amorrow2.

If you don't address criticisms to your ideas, then how can you continue to believe that those ideas are sound? Ideas are only valuable if they can withstand scrutiny. Good ideas survive scrutiny - that's how we sort the wheat from the chaff. Bad ideas don't survive scrutiny, and I strongly believe that it is in all our best interests always to be ready to toss out bad ideas as they don't deserve the portion of our limited and finite attention that they take up.

So why not kick the tyres and see, amorrrow2? You've either got nothing to lose, or you cherish your ideas too much.

 

[Deleted member 619]

If this forum was about logic or perfect correctness, they would have used those words in the name of this forum. The words are reason and reasonable. That is a word that judges and lawyers use a lot such as in "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Oh dear. You seem to be hung up on your interpretation of the forum title as if that's the whole shooting match.

Unfortunately, you're wrong, and here's why (and I know, because I was there when the forum was founded and I know why it's called that). The word 'reason' in the forum title refers to logic. It refers to reasoning (deductive, inductive and abductive) and modes of thought, not what seems to gel with your palsied view of the world. As in, output that is reasoned, not reasonable. Geddit?

Oh, and really, raising what goes on in courts is asinine. The standards of evidence for this forum are orders of magnitude more stringent than those of a court, not least because the judges, the lawyers and the police, not to mention the legislators, are all, to a first approximation, dumb as a box of rocks. We have higher standards here because that's what reasoning demands.

Clear now?

I am just in search of reasonable arguments on either side of the debate.

There is no debate, and you're not going to find anything that you find reasonable, because your expectations aren't reasonable, even by your own definition. You're certainly not presenting anything reasonable, or reasoned, just your puerile fantasies.

I now see that sterilizing newborns is an unreasonable idea. Still, I think that 100 years from now, it is reasonable to suggest that population control laws of some sort are going to be more widespread than just China.

I think you'll find that China will give up the ghost on this. Their population is likely to reduce in some measure in the coming years anyway, precisely because of their attempts at population control. There is no reasonable solution to this except reducing poverty. Poverty is the single biggest driver pf population increase, demonstrably. Focus your energy and effort there if you wahnt to slow population growth. There are no other reasonable routes.

India comes to mind as a possible country that might do something in that direction. Maybe just financial incentives.

Yes, we should give people money. Address poverty, and address the disparity in distribution of resources. If you want to actively reduce the population, institute a law that says anybody with over a certain amount of wealth is to be sterilised and all their wealth seized by the state and redistributed after their death.

This would be fair, because then they have a choice. They can relinquish their wealth down to the threshold to the community or choose to keep it and be subject to this law. That's their choice. As soon as you make something opt-out, you're on a winner and, more importantly, you haven't violated anybody's autonomy, because you've given them a choice.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think

I've yet to see any evidence of that.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

I guess there's nothing to do but wait for the impuning of the welfare state and bootstrap memes.

Naked man got no bootstraps.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Funny coincidence: I was just watching on TV the show "60 minutes" and the last segment focused on Sir David Attenborough. At the age of 95, his voice will soon be silenced. He was trying to sound the alarm that he has seen a lot of degradation in the environment in his lifetime. His message was: change is needed soon.

60 Minutes eh ...



2 possibilities here, either 60 minutes platforms a lot of bullshit, or I am too stupid to get the sheer genius of Pierce Morgan and his well thoughout points.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Piers Morgan is a fuckwit of the highest order, and a really quite despicable twat.

That has no bearing on the fact that Attenborough is correct.