D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Yeah, like I said.
Listen to the historian.
Listen to the historian.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Infantile Lottery Sterilization
- Thread starter amorrow
- Start date
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
I still don't see the reason why we can't sustain a population of 10.9 billion. It seems we are already close to producing enough food to feed that amount.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
There is no reason we cant ... we are already producing enough food to sustain that easily.
Could even go for double than that without too many problems, just gotta adapt modern farming techniques, like algae farms, hydroponics, underground mushroom farms, indoor and high rise farming etc.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Greetings,
Universal access to birth control is all that's needed.
Let women decide for themselves whether they want to get pregnant every time they have sex or not.
The term "population control" conjures up images of hordes of people being herded into gas chambers. It doesn't have to be draconian.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
I'm glad that you've finally realised this.
Universal access to birth control is all that's needed.
Let women decide for themselves whether they want to get pregnant every time they have sex or not.
The term "population control" conjures up images of hordes of people being herded into gas chambers. It doesn't have to be draconian.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Indeed, the stats have always been quite clear that increasing survival rates of children is an effective means of reducing population growth. It's why people in developed countries have consistently lower birth rates than developing nations. Access to good reproductive healthcare, including abortion, free at point of service to all, working toward eradicating poverty (I'm a big fan of UBI)...
These are the reasonable means of population control. I'd add redistribution of wealth, but I'm not nearly naïve enough to think humans will ever go for that, at least not without being forced to.
These are the reasonable means of population control. I'd add redistribution of wealth, but I'm not nearly naïve enough to think humans will ever go for that, at least not without being forced to.
Something that David Attenborough mentioned in his TV spot was that he felt that there has been a shift away from international cooperation. I guess he is right. We have Brexit, the Trump presidency, the expectation that the International Space Station is scheduled to be shut down around 2030 and that China and Russia plan to construct national space stations.
These treads I have started are about world problems that seem to require international cooperation. It makes me worry a little about what the rest of the century has in store for humanity.
These treads I have started are about world problems that seem to require international cooperation. It makes me worry a little about what the rest of the century has in store for humanity.
Attenborough main suggestion for change is to stop using fossils fuels. A previous post on this thread suggested that fusion energy was close to being practical and I suggested otherwise. I note this news item that China just got an experimental fusion reactor to sustain it's reaction for almost 100 seconds. Kinda impressive.
Amorrow2; if you're not prepared to engage with the criticism of your ideas, then do you really expect people to continue engaging with your ideas?
It's either a 2 way street, or it's a blog. I'd suggest getting a blog if your interest is in declaiming; discussion fora are best used for discussion, and in this case, to have ideas challenged.
It's either a 2 way street, or it's a blog. I'd suggest getting a blog if your interest is in declaiming; discussion fora are best used for discussion, and in this case, to have ideas challenged.
To respond to your previous post Sparhafoc: actually implementing population control in the USA would probably require the a rate and very difficult task be accomplished: an amendment to the US Constitution. Heck, we could not even get the rather reasonable Equal Rights Amendment ratified back in the 1970s and we have not tried again on that one. The two major parties are highly polarized so I do not anticipate change in my limited lifetime.
Change had to start somewhere. Talk. Books. Information on the web. I really value the feedback that you guys have given me. If I have not directly responded to all your feedback, then please interpret that as me conceding the point. I am still thinking about my ideas and researching.
You are right: I like Newborn Random Sterilization (NRS) because I thought it up on my own. I realize that it is not brilliant. The two things that I currently think make it unreasonable are:
1. There are not enough surgeons in third world countries to perform the sterilizations.
2. The sterilized would require lifelong support to cope with the reality that they were born fertile and that the government had taken that fertility away.
My current vision of NRS is that you would not even hold a regular lottery among multiple births. You would still use a lottery machine but you would just generate a random number. You would then have some criteria of the number to decide if the newborn is selected (and this sterilized) or not. E.g. if the number is an even number then the newborn is selected and sterilized.
It is really the juxtaposition of the newborn with the random number that I find to be so instructive. I feel empowered by that juxtaposition. It tells me: "Yes, this is a world-class problem where not much progress was made in amorrow2's lifetime, but there are ways (perhaps cruel ones) to get to and maintain a sustainable world population without war. I even make analogies between the lottery of the USA military draft of the Vietnam War and the random number of NRS. In both cases, important decisions are made in the relatively peaceful environment of the lottery machine chamber rather than on the chaos and violence of the battlefield.
Maybe NRS will never happen. Not even in 500 years. It occurs to me that in 500 or 1000 years time, we might even just modify the human genome through a gene drive, to limit people to only being able to have zero, one or two children on average.
Change had to start somewhere. Talk. Books. Information on the web. I really value the feedback that you guys have given me. If I have not directly responded to all your feedback, then please interpret that as me conceding the point. I am still thinking about my ideas and researching.
You are right: I like Newborn Random Sterilization (NRS) because I thought it up on my own. I realize that it is not brilliant. The two things that I currently think make it unreasonable are:
1. There are not enough surgeons in third world countries to perform the sterilizations.
2. The sterilized would require lifelong support to cope with the reality that they were born fertile and that the government had taken that fertility away.
My current vision of NRS is that you would not even hold a regular lottery among multiple births. You would still use a lottery machine but you would just generate a random number. You would then have some criteria of the number to decide if the newborn is selected (and this sterilized) or not. E.g. if the number is an even number then the newborn is selected and sterilized.
It is really the juxtaposition of the newborn with the random number that I find to be so instructive. I feel empowered by that juxtaposition. It tells me: "Yes, this is a world-class problem where not much progress was made in amorrow2's lifetime, but there are ways (perhaps cruel ones) to get to and maintain a sustainable world population without war. I even make analogies between the lottery of the USA military draft of the Vietnam War and the random number of NRS. In both cases, important decisions are made in the relatively peaceful environment of the lottery machine chamber rather than on the chaos and violence of the battlefield.
Maybe NRS will never happen. Not even in 500 years. It occurs to me that in 500 or 1000 years time, we might even just modify the human genome through a gene drive, to limit people to only being able to have zero, one or two children on average.
As with the nuclear thread, there's a gap in your plan wherein you envisage people participating in these ideas willingly, even though there is no suggestion that anything like this would happen in reality. Your plan then ceases to actually be a simple, straightforward plan as it involves reams of extra explanations about how such a plan could even be instituted, let alone enforced.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
These are the problems? I have one; try it on me and I'll fucking kill you. Is that a problem?
Honestly, I'm beginning to think we should send the men in white coats to remove everything sharp from your vicinity and to make sure you never have any first-person contact with people, because you're fucking dangerous.
Seriously. I've encountered some howling lunatics in my travels on the net, including genuine murderers, paederasts, paedophiles, etc., but never anybody who I thought could genuinely constitute a danger to society as a whole. You need to seek professional help. Seriously. Not joking.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
I'm not gonna lie, one of the things that bugged me about this plan was the implementation of a random number generator when you have only two values to reference (Sterilize: Yes/No) and could literally just flip a coin.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
You'd acknowledged, in a earlier post, that you realised it was a bad idea - regardless of what you call it ("A onion by any other name...), yet you appear to be still trying to make it work.
All that's needed is universal access to birth control to allow women all over the world to choose whether they want to get pregnant every single time they have sex or not.
Another issue is your reliance on what you call a RNG.
The problem is .... there's no such thing.
Truly random events only occur in Nature - such as radioactive decay.
What pseudo-RNGs rely on is a algorithm to generate a sequence of unpredictable numbers - however, eventually the sequence starts to repeat. In your proposed program, this means that the RNG would start pointing to the same sequence of people that have already been sterilised.
The only other alternative is what's called a "quasi-RNG", which combines both the naturally stochastic (unpredictable event due to a unknown random factor, such as radioactive decay), and the pseudo-RNG in an attempt to get some sort of sequence of random numbers.
This still faces the same issue of the sequence eventually repeating, pointing back to the same babies who've already been sterilised.
IT won't work.
Kindest regards,
James
You seem to be back-sliding, AMorrow.
You'd acknowledged, in a earlier post, that you realised it was a bad idea - regardless of what you call it ("A onion by any other name...), yet you appear to be still trying to make it work.
All that's needed is universal access to birth control to allow women all over the world to choose whether they want to get pregnant every single time they have sex or not.
Another issue is your reliance on what you call a RNG.
The problem is .... there's no such thing.
Truly random events only occur in Nature - such as radioactive decay.
What pseudo-RNGs rely on is a algorithm to generate a sequence of unpredictable numbers - however, eventually the sequence starts to repeat. In your proposed program, this means that the RNG would start pointing to the same sequence of people that have already been sterilised.
The only other alternative is what's called a "quasi-RNG", which combines both the naturally stochastic (unpredictable event due to a unknown random factor, such as radioactive decay), and the pseudo-RNG in an attempt to get some sort of sequence of random numbers.
This still faces the same issue of the sequence eventually repeating, pointing back to the same babies who've already been sterilised.
IT won't work.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
You are correct. If you wanted a 50% selection rate, you could just flip a coin the way they do at the beginning of every American football game.
I was talking a few months ago to an older woman I had just met and I wanted to give her only a hint of my idea. I decided to simply mention this future possibility: armed police at every birth.
Wait a moment. You should Google TRNG. True Random Number Generator. It is a piece of commodity hardware. It has a tiny piece of radioactive material in it and it seeds the algorithm based on when or how many radioactive decays it counts with it's tiny ginger counter. TRNG.
RNG =/= just or fair, as I already explained to you very clearly.
I'll show you again - it does seem like it takes an awful lot of work to get you to understand the flaws in your argument.
Amorrow2's Random Sterilization of Infants Protocol is somehow implemented across the globe. (Let's ignore the litany of irreconcilable problems, just to address the farce you consider fair.)
Two neighboring newly-wed families.
Mr and Mrs Brown both come from a family in which they were the only child.
Mr and Mrs Green both both have 5 siblings.
Mr & Mrs Brown draw the random sterilization number, so with the forcible sterilization of their child, both their genetic lineages come to an abrupt end.
Mr & Mrs Green were lucky and didn't draw the random sterilization number, and by sheer chance, nor did any of their siblings' families.
Now tell me that's fair.
In the real world, something similar could play out between rich and poor, where the rich who happen to be responsible for consuming an order of magnitude more than the poor just get lucky and get to make another generation of high consumption lifestyle kids, whereas the poor family could have had 12 kids and STILL used less, but they got unlucky with RNGeezus.
Now don't you dare tell me that's fair.
And of course, we're still pretending that money won't be able to buy you luck, or poverty won't increase your chance of losing out.... because we like our ideas not to be burdened with the tedious little demands of reality.
I'll show you again - it does seem like it takes an awful lot of work to get you to understand the flaws in your argument.
Amorrow2's Random Sterilization of Infants Protocol is somehow implemented across the globe. (Let's ignore the litany of irreconcilable problems, just to address the farce you consider fair.)
Two neighboring newly-wed families.
Mr and Mrs Brown both come from a family in which they were the only child.
Mr and Mrs Green both both have 5 siblings.
Mr & Mrs Brown draw the random sterilization number, so with the forcible sterilization of their child, both their genetic lineages come to an abrupt end.
Mr & Mrs Green were lucky and didn't draw the random sterilization number, and by sheer chance, nor did any of their siblings' families.
Now tell me that's fair.
In the real world, something similar could play out between rich and poor, where the rich who happen to be responsible for consuming an order of magnitude more than the poor just get lucky and get to make another generation of high consumption lifestyle kids, whereas the poor family could have had 12 kids and STILL used less, but they got unlucky with RNGeezus.
Now don't you dare tell me that's fair.
And of course, we're still pretending that money won't be able to buy you luck, or poverty won't increase your chance of losing out.... because we like our ideas not to be burdened with the tedious little demands of reality.
Oh, and of course a traditional lottery machine machine can also be regarded as a true Random number generator. Think about how the State of California presents it's State Lottery for sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars based on those things. Of course, gambling for money is a vice so I do not approve of the State Lottery, but I think of the machine as a TRNG. People trust that the outcome is truly random and that the process is fair.
You can make a video recording of the machine with the pingpong balls bouncing around and give the recording to the parents of the sterilized newborn. When the newborn grows up, s/he can playback the video if the pingpong balls bouncing around. The government merely obeyed the machine and sterilized you. Oh, wait, no. GOD decided to sterilize you. Yeah, that is it. GOD decided to sterilize you!
You can make a video recording of the machine with the pingpong balls bouncing around and give the recording to the parents of the sterilized newborn. When the newborn grows up, s/he can playback the video if the pingpong balls bouncing around. The government merely obeyed the machine and sterilized you. Oh, wait, no. GOD decided to sterilize you. Yeah, that is it. GOD decided to sterilize you!