BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Should having children be regulated?

  
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Torquemada
21:41 / 27.10.02
Kit-cat - Open to accusation of racism?

Discussions about stuff that affects the world *has* to take into account all the differences that make up the races/creeds/colours. If you jump on someone for making an obsrvation about a race, you cannot make *any* observations for fear of bias.
For instance, do you like black music? no? Well seeing as you don't then you musn't like black people either. Get out of here, you nasty man you. Now I'm sure that's not Haus's opinion, but that's the sort of 'intuitive' jumps about people that Haus can make (which of course, is gonna make people angry). Then in spite of a refute, he refers back to the same misconceptions of his about the poster *in other threads* where people might not get the 'joke' (if it is one) and really assume that the person is a bigot/racist/whatever.

Heh, the brainless-teens thing? Well, I get your point about how things can be misconstrued, but on that one I was fairly serious - the borough next to where I live has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe, so you tell me...:-)

Although (as discussed) the third-world would be a lot harder to persuade to take on such a radical move as forced population control, if it wasn't implemented worldwide then you'd have a situation similar to the Irish flying over to England for quickie abortions (Still illegal in Ireland, I think). People would keep coming back off of holiday with babies. And just like the Irish problem, you can't penalize someone for doing something that's illegal at home but legal in another country, so you 'get away with it'. Therefore to be worth it's salt, any control of breeding has to be done on a planetary scale, otherwise we're back to the 'who gets to' question - in this case, whoever can afford to fly to Brazil.

If money wasn't the decider, I don't think medical profiling would come into it either, as we are only a (relative) few years away from genetic filtering - the fixing of all those 'bad' combinations that mean you may get cancer, etc. - meaning (hopefully) that there will eventually be no such thing as a 'perfect specimen' once the 'treatment' is worldwide and free (back to utopia again, but I like to believe it will happen, as is happening with the AIDS drugs now). It also ensures we will never see a repeat of the sort of ethnic cleansing by medical sterilisation that went on in Sweden (I think it was) to the gypsies and mentally disabled a few decades back.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
21:59 / 27.10.02
Going to answer some of that in a PM, Torquemada...

But about the 'brainless teens' thing - don't you think it's perhaps less that they're brainless than that they're poorly educated? I read aomething in today's Observer, written by a schoolgirl of (I think) fourteen, in which she said that she had believed that it is impossible to get pregnant either during first sexual intercourse or while standing up... Education, education, education. Not to mention issues of grinding poverty, poor levels of general education and expectation, and so on.

People would keep coming back off of holiday with babies.

Because in the areas where people have large families owing to poverty, they can afford to go on holiday? Don't think so... as you say yourself, the people who could afford it would be able to get around it, and how many of them are there? Really not very many.

No, the solution isn't any kind of programme which has to be imposed on people, because a certain number of people will always try/want to get around it. I believe that it's generally the case that, as income levels rise, health and education levels rise. This makes it more possible to teach people about birth control methods, and any benefits they may have; and also reduces the risk of children dying, which means that families need to have fewer to ensure that some at least survive. Sometimes it may even out gender bias (where this exists) though obviously cultural factors are harder to pin down and shouldn't really be imposed on people. Unfortunately, raising income levels is not easy in any place or at any time...

There is absolutely no easy solution to this which is not authoritarian and distasteful even to think about.
 
 
Torquemada
23:13 / 27.10.02
Kit Kat Club - Sorry, I was using the babies example in terms of how people in the rich countries would get around any restrictions. in America, the ones with money would be flying off to countries where they could have as many offspring as they liked. That's why any such control would *have* to be worldwide. Hopefully we'll have 'sorted out' the poorer countries (or they'll have 'sorted out' themselves) by the time population becomes an issue - I say hopefully, 'cos my cyncial side says no...

You're right about the Education, it's what Cherry Bomb was talking about. There *is* a fair amount of education already (perhaps at too late a stage?), but it seems to follow a curious pattern similar to smoking. More girls take up smoking than boys during their teen years, and 20 years of videos in class showing horribly blackened lungs still doesn't stop a frighteningly large percentage of them from taking up the dreaded weed.

I fully agree that *any* enforced solution is indeed horrific. Images come to mind of Soylent Green and the like (in terms of a burgeoning population)....time's running out, we're in it not for our own 'race' but for the species, boys & girls, and unless we can expand off the planet fast (or come up with some other solution), we're going to have some hard choices to make.

But, for the purpose of this thread, let's assume that we have no way out, no way off the planet, and something has to be done about managing ourselves.

One stumbling block for education would be religion. One religion may say it's a sin not to reproduce, but hey, they only just apologised to Galileo last year (as one example). Trying something like this on them would be like trying to get Archimedes to program in C - it's just too far advanced.
Anyway, you cannot (and tell me if I'm wrong on this) argue someone out of their religious convictions using logic (if it was that easy, you could just say 'prove it'). It's one of the things that can make religion so dangerous. You could say that religious faith is in some ways the opposite of logic (hence, 'blind faith'). A suspicious number of religions and Gods demand exactly that - blind faith ('Blessed are those who have not seen and believe', and so on).

What we have to do is figure out a way of selling such an idea to these sort of religions in a way that interferes as little as possible with (or incorporates) their ideals, because simplying spelling out the numbers won't work - they will either believe that their God would not allow this to happen or that their God will save them (or, I suppose, 'well that is what God will want to happen then').

Then once the shit hits the fan, their options are reduced to 'their God has adandoned them', or to completely abandoning their faith, and admit to themselves that generations of devotion was pointless.

I'm sure I don't need evidence to suggest that forcing people to make choices such as those could make them....violent (consider the extraordinary amount of fighting there has been - and still is - just over the *style* of worship). I suppose if such 'edicts' came from religious *leaders*, then they could adapt their beliefs over time, but given the usual rate of development in religion, how long would that take? Do we have enough time, considering the birth rate?

I know I've generalised there, all religions are different to some extent, but I think most of them would still face quite similar harsh choices. I'm also not specifically taking easy shots at religion - these are hard truths which would (will?) have to be dealt with. Everyone believes in something - I (as an example) like to believe in the natural goodness in people (no, really). Now if you *knew* I was wrong, and you forced me to accept the 'truth', I couldn't honestly say I'd be happier for the knowing.
 
 
Pepsi Max
08:57 / 28.10.02
Torque>

One stumbling block for education would be religion.

I think it's important to note that most religions can be fairly flexible. E.g. not all catholics have families of 50. Not all protestants bomb abortion clinics.

From experiences in India and Asia generally, I would say that improving the access to education and healthcare, social and political involvement for women, etc. are all more important for decreasing birth rates than getting bogged down in religious dogma.

As you say, you may have to tailor your message to your audience though. But it shouldn't be too hard, and is already happening.

It's a minor issue, frankly.

However, this isn't...

I don't think medical profiling would come into it either, as we are only a (relative) few years away from genetic filtering - the fixing of all those 'bad' combinations that mean you may get cancer, etc. - meaning (hopefully) that there will eventually be no such thing as a 'perfect specimen' once the 'treatment' is worldwide and free (back to utopia again, but I like to believe it will happen, as is happening with the AIDS drugs now).

Don't follow yer logic here. Why should genetic filtering remove the (obnoxious) idea of a 'perfect specimen'?

We did alright with smallpox but we have yet to eliminate many other infectious diseases. This is due to both the variable nature of the diseases and a lack of resources/willpower on the part of governments. I think it unlikely that genetic filtering will be found in the developing world anytime soon. They're still getting to grips with Multi-Drug Resistant TB and Leprosy in India - which kill and maim millions each year.
 
 
Pepsi Max
09:15 / 28.10.02
Thought experiment in Jonathan Swift-type vein.

Human Beings are bascially pollutants. Therefore we need some kind of population control equivalent to the Kyoto Accords. Each nation has a fixed population growth rate decided internationally. PG Credits if you will. Now, poor countries tend to have high population growth but low carbon emissions per head. They can trade one for the other.
 
 
Pepsi Max
09:27 / 28.10.02
In fact, nationalism more than religion may become an issue. See this paper for loads of intriguing info.
 
 
Torquemada
10:16 / 28.10.02
Pepsi - mmm indeed Religion *can* be a minor point - but some are also fierce defenders of their way of life. That is a good, optimistic point you make about education - it does help people overthrow their traditional hang-ups (on lots of levels, not just reproduction).

Genetic filtering - not of people, but of illness and the like. I know I'm probably in Uptopia-land here, but I hope that the eventual 'genetic wash and brush up' that leaves an individual free from risks of various diseases and such would leave a population who cannot be discriminated against because of health. Each one could arguably be called a 'perfect specimen' - any discrimination after that could only be based on race...which is (thankfully) being tolerated less as the years go by. Now to begin with, it'll be rich billionaires having this treatment, but hopefully (Like the cheap HIV drugs) it'll eventually be a standard medical procedure, like immunisation.

The JSwift thing - mmmm would sound like a way forward, but you would have to make sure everyone was singing from the same prayersheet. It also throw up a few (perhaps not insurmountable) problems, such as enforcement. How would you get a 'renegade' country to comply? Also you may allow poorer countries more kids, but what if these are the same countries that are starving? (although I suppose that's a seperate issue of food/ resource management and the like).
 
 
Jack Fear
12:46 / 28.10.02
Can't speak for Haus, but I have no interest in playing with the children on this one: I'm interested in what the grown-ups have to say.

Buh-bye.
 
 
Torquemada
12:55 / 28.10.02
Mmm I wonder what if something similar would happen on a world stage.

You could say we're seeing it in a microcosm here - 'don't agree with my opnion? Don't like my assumptions and insults? Fine, I'm off'.

Sadly, this won't be an option when the time comes. Better hope your area of the world isn't represented by a Jack or a Haus (or so it would seem).
 
 
gridley
16:57 / 28.10.02
Two ideas:

1) The UN needs to expand their school lunch program in third world countries. This will cost a ton of money, but it's benefits are amazing. In many of these countries, families don't bother to send their daughters to school. Education is "wasted" on them. It's better if they're put to work. However, this program has found that when free school lunches are offered, people actually do send their daughters to school, and almost instantly, the number of teenage pregnancies drops dramatically. The reasons are fairly obvious.

2) All right, this one is my idea, and probably only required in the USA: Felons should be sterilized. It's fairly fascist, granted. But think about it, whether it's genetics or environment that makes us the way we are, statistics show that the children of a felon and far more likely to committ a felony than those who aren't. Plus, it might even serve as a deterrent in a lot of cases.
 
 
Rev. Orr
23:03 / 28.10.02
Since far more crimes are committed by people over seventeen than under, why not forcibly sterilize everyone on their seventeenth birthday? There simply isn't time to overpopulate, crime is reduced, semi-noncery becomes socially acceptable and nobody victimises underage mums because they are all deferring their high school diplomas to drop a sprog.

It's only slightly fascist.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
00:50 / 29.10.02
Hey guys, I don't want to sterilize anybody. All I'm saying is that it would be ideal if you couldn't have kids unless you made a conscious decision to have children. That's all. The interview would consist of "Do you want to have a child?" "Uhm, yes." "OK, go ahead."

That's it. That's all. Who decides? The person having the kid.

Or maybe even having a kind of birth control in the water, that people have to drink so much a day for it to be effective. I'm positive a lot of people would jump at this.
 
 
Torquemada
01:18 / 29.10.02
Gridly - school lunch solution - I like it! Very sneaky.

Jack - Putting it as 'Free contraception for all' does make it seem a lot more palatable than 'we are taking away your ability to reproduce'. And if it works, why not? I'd use it. It would save a lot of teens (hell, it would save all sorts) from themselves. It's sort of along the lines of donor cards - you'd think it would work better in reverse. Why not insist that people carry a card saying 'I *don't* want my organs used to save lives, even though I'm dead'? Then the surgeons wouldn't keep running out of bits.

If the world moves as a whole towards repro-management, then that could be a first-stage. If it doesn't work (or doesn't work well enough), then I suppose the rules will change from 'just ask' to 'just apply' - by which time, people hopefully will see it as a necessary evil and not an infringment on personal liberties as they would now.
 
 
Rev. Orr
07:45 / 29.10.02
So it's not oppressive and heavy-handed if we spin it right? I think the answer is greater free and de-stigmatised access to contraception. I don't see why we need these grandiose plans to spike the water supply. [California will slowly depopulate over time unless you pay me on meeeeeeeelion dollars] Leaving aside the theoretical, moral or political implications placing a hormone-based contraceptive in the water supply would be disasterous on a practical level. How do you regulate the levels to provide effective cover and prevent accidental overdose? What would the environmental impact be of such a radical change to the water-table? Given that many women have a strong adverse physical reaction (and/or moral, philosophical or political objections) to a 'pill' based contraceptive, how can we make the municipal water supply untouchable for them? Do you provide bottled water for all pregnant women? What are the medical implications for men ingesting these levels of hormones? Why bother when no contraception is 100% safe? Why is your solution predicated on controlling women's fertility?

Oh, I see. It was a special laser-powered, uni-sex, 100% guaranteed, nanobot contraceptive that's just about to come onto the market. Sorry.

If you are serious about reducing unwanted or accidental conception then the only way is to make contraception the societal norm. Flood the country with free, safe, reliable contraception of all types, suitable for all users. Plug it to fuck. Educate all our kids from an early age in all the ways that have been laid out above by other posters. Make the damn things so ubiquitous that the default assumption is non-reproductive sex. Everyone can afford them, everyone can get hold of them, no-one is embarrassed by them, but no-one is forced to breed or not against their will.

Utopian? Undoubtedly. It doesn't address deliberate population expansion (which wasn't the gist of the opening post) and will not stop unexpected conception entirely, but it is a direction that could be advocated, adopted and make a real impact to society.

Or, if you really must have a complicated, sci-fi scheme, whip out the queerificator ray gun. Turn those breeders. The bars of Heaven are crowded tonight...
 
 
Torquemada
11:03 / 29.10.02
Indeed, I did wonder to myself exactly whether it would be only one sex which was 'repro-disabled' or both, seeing as the debate over the pill 'tampering with womens' bodies' is still ongoing, and in the light of a 'male pill' being trialled right now...I do feel, however, that once you get past peoples' natural resistance to 'total' contraception, the mechanics of how it would affect individuals is (comparitively) a much easier task.

And remember that while some women still have concerns about the effects of the Pill, the overwhelming majority of women still take it - it may be far from perfect, but what are your alternatives? None are as convenient or as effective.

I suppose if it was limited to the US (for instance), it would have to cover both sexes - then it wouldn't matter where they flew to, they wouldn't be able to conceive. Would this give rise to some sort of underground nullifying-drug which would allow you to could illicitly conceive?

Sci-Fi? This is indeed moving towards Gattaca territory...speaking of which, I suppose one way to guarantee no ill-effect would be to alter genes at birth, then when the person's ready, switch 'em back again.

It would also be a good thing to be able to 'steer' society to the point where it's seen as socially unacceptable to reproduce either off-hand or at a rate of knots, and take some direct responsibility for oursleves. Now we've already had a period of this in our history, where (in the extremes) unwed mothers were locked up in mental institutes for life, or sent to the workhouse etc. simply for the 'crime' of getting pregnant - could the same general attitude (don't get pregnant without guaranteed support) be re-introduced without going down the same road?

Orr - Spin? Yes, it really is that simple. My local CCTV which means I can walk through the high street at 3am (still a novelty) was someone else's Big Brother when they were installed, and meant the end of civil liberties as we knew it (as far as they were concerned). There will *always* be those who would cry 'civil liberties' at any population-wide control, but in this case I'd have to reply 'liberty to do what?'

I do prefer your suggestion of (basically) making people responsible for themselves rather than taking the decision for them - but can we take that risk? (I fear I am a cynic, in this respect at least).

As for the mechanics, I'd imagine that we'd have to invent a contraceptive drug that builds up over time in the body, and is harmless above a cerain 'dose'. Or how about once-a-year injections, that keep you infertile? (Throw in a tax-break or something if you have one and I'm sure people would take it up, sort of like the school dinners idea).

Or nanobots - why not? They're building prototype ones already...why not release them generally with a sole mission to destroy human sperm? No (chemical, at any rate) side effects, and when you want to reproduce, you take an antidote for 3 weeks. Heh, makes it sound so simple, doesn't it?
 
 
Rev. Orr
12:00 / 29.10.02
Okay, so society is saved from progeny by untold billions of our magical nanobot pals (which are somehow cheaper than condoms as a solution). How do you propose to combat the huge rise in STDs as people are increasingly reluctant to use barrier contraception in addition to the infallible sperm-killers? [Transformers! Robots in your scrotum]

Why are all the solutions you favour based on imposition and coercion rather than education and enablement? People do not have accidental pregnancies deliberately.
 
 
gridley
12:35 / 29.10.02
Well, if you were going to go with mass sterilization (which just for the record I am against), you would have to sterilize the woman, not the men. Why? Because any system is going to have break down at some level. Some people are going to evade the system. Maybe they're hillbillies, maybe their a senator's son, maybe they're part of a cult. Maybe they're a reproduction terrorist. But someone's going to slip through the cracks, and in this case an unlicensed reproduction-crazed male (in a world of fertile woman) could do a lot more population damage than and unlicensed reproduction-crazed female (in a world full of fertile men).

Now, just to be fair, you could sterilize everybody (which would have the bonus of making unlicensed reproduction virtually impossible), but that's twice as expensive, isn't it?
 
 
Jack Denfeld
21:40 / 29.10.02
Well, 1st off I was thinking the water would effect both genders. The point is to have no unplanned pregnancies. And it's not coercion, everyone would know it was in the water. And there wouldn't be a law that you had to drink the water, people just would. Those people who didn't could have children. Actually, I like the way this idea is shaping up. We don't even need the review board anymore. Both parents would have to consciously get off the water for so many weeks to breed. That way you have the 2 consenting adults ready to be parents thing solved. I'm sure you have friends who are as educated about contraceptives and able to afford them as well as the next guy, but have had unprotected sex in the throes of passion. This would cut that out.
 
 
Torquemada
22:56 / 30.10.02
Jack - MMmm and thinking about it, it's not like you'd have the poor & underpriveliged saying 'it's not fair, only the rich can afford to reproduce', as water is not exactly expensive as it is....in the western world, at any rate.

Orr - I am for coercion (in this case at any rate) - but be wary of just how much people do 'by accident'.... you wouldn't think that people would drive their cars with no seat belts on - it's obvious what's going to happen if you crash - but they still had to make it law to make everyone do it. Actually cars are an excellent example - drink driving, speeding, the need for driving tests/ licenses...all had to be made law with harsh fines/ sentences in order for people to wise up. Hell, they've just had to make it illegal not to wear seat belts *in the back*, because people wouldn't do it.

Still, I think Jacks' development of the general idea is much more easily acheived - we've basically split this idea into 'Free Contraception for All' and 'Coerced Contraception on All as a later, enforced measure' Where the latter is only tried if the first fails to curb population growth. Perhaps the wording of the abstract put us on the Control path - Jacks' solution is firmly in the 'reproduction is a right' camp (contraception as an option rather than a control) - and it's more appealing (to me) as a population 'control' than taking away folks' liberties. It would also reveal what percentage of pregnancies had been accidental in previous years, which is important - what *is* the percentage of pregnancies that are accidental? (Anyone have figures on this?) Is it enough to keep the population down? If not, we're onto some of the crazier/ harsher solutions...

I would hope that STD's will eventually be neutralised via retro-viruses or something. Or why *not* nanobots? IBM've just built a computer with 7 atoms as a processor,- and it's one of the most powerful in the world. Nanobots are lterally around the corner. No, really. This year Mitsubishi (I think) built a car the size of a match head, complete with steering. So 10 years max for one to be developed. Add on 10 years for them to become cheap. Presto! Kill the need for condoms *and* the pill - a reason to party if ever I saw one! (We won't go into the dangers of racially targeted Nanobots, etc. - that would be enough for another thread!).

Condoms, for that matter, aren't as effective as you'd think - I remember visiting my Family Planning clinic with my then girlfriend (she wanted off the pill), and being given a chart of each contraceptions' effectiveness. Condoms came out at about 82% (the pill, of course, topped at 98%). I was shocked as I'd thought up until that point that they must be at least as effective as the Pill (why not?, it is a physical barrier after all, thought I). This was way *after* HIV/AIDS came along, and most of the Gov. blurb at the time seemed to suggest that if you used condoms you'd be OK - I don't call 82% OK! That's like, a 1 in 5 chance...so a more effective STD combatant would really be nice.

BTW I've always assumed that those percentages on condoms were the same for contraception and STD prevention (they only gave one figure) - if anyone can contradict my family-planning-leaflet info, please do, it would be quite a relief - it scared the pants off of me, with a past like mine....perhaps that was the idea.
 
 
Pepsi Max
08:33 / 31.10.02
It would seem your family planning clinic was right. About STDs at least.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:20 / 31.10.02
Just as a point of information - the pill offers, of course, no protection whatsoever against STDs. Which was probably why campaigns to prevent STDs rarely majored on the pill. Condoms may not be perfect, but they remain the most effective and convenient means of minimising risks of preganncy and infection. It does, however, remain a numbers game.
 
 
gridley
12:59 / 31.10.02
I think the problem with contraceptives in the drinking water is that people will stop drinking public water. Or at least limit their intake to a level that will keep them fertile. They'll just drink bottled water. Or coke. Or Juicey Juice.

I think if you really want to sterilize people, you have to do it when they're kids. Some kind of injection, I suppose. And if you want to keep costs down, just do it to girls.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:48 / 31.10.02
Oh, how ridiculous. I hope you're not serious about that. That's the second time you've said 'limit it to girls' and I'd like to point out that convenience doesn't make something *right*. It's not even palatable to contemplate it within the confines of this thread (which is, I hope, a talking shop for hypotheses rather than a forum for serious opinions on this topic).
 
 
Rev. Orr
16:56 / 31.10.02
I don't know. There seems to be a difference of opinion on that. Still, gotta remember that everything is now possible ........with NANOBOTS.
 
 
Torquemada
21:47 / 31.10.02
Hehehe well I suppose I *am* assuming that they become commonplace at the same time as our need to control populations. The possibilities are enormous. Still, what's the best estimate so far for our time-to-saturation? 100 years? 300?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:57 / 01.11.02
I resent having to do this, but...

I think we're wandering, or more precisely rambling, off the point - the ethics of reassigining reproductive control away from those doing the actual reproducing - here, in favour of a discussion of whether the world can be made a better place through nanotechnology.

So. Something Jack Denfeld changed his attitude to suddenly and without anyone apparently noticing was the depth of the "test period". At first he said that it should be a through and demanding set of tests, and subsequently modified this to say that it shoudl simply be a question of asking if the two people wanted to have children, and "turning on" their fertility if they answered in the affirmative.

This strikes me as representing a fairly fundamental shift. If the latter, then actually all one would have to do (excepting the astonishing medical implications) would be to offer a cure for the contraceptives in the water in local pharmacies. That way, even illegal immigrants woudl be able to breed, if they saved up the dinero to buy the over-the-counter antidote. In that case, we are just talking about minimising unplanned pregnancy, admittedly with methods that may be seen as far worse than the actual problem *of* unplanned pregnancy.

In the other scenario, we are talking instead about imposing a set of tests which people must pass before they are allowed to breed. Which begs the question of who would set the tests and with what agenda in mind. The idea that people are so ready to assign their right to breed to governmental fiat seems to me quite mind-mangling, possibly because one naturally assumes that the world will naturally want (ahem) more people like you.

So, what's it to be? And, assuming that we are just talking about a process that removes the risk of pregnancy unless people are making an effort to become pregnant, what are the implications for the control of STDs? Could one then introduce a virulent strain of syphillis that, through the agency of nanobots, only attacked people we think should not be a) reproducing or b) extant?

Also interested in Gridley's keenness only to sterilise the women, on the ground of, erm, cost. Are there motivations other than the economic to this proposition?

On a related topic, since nobody else seems likely to mention it, how about the last known experiment with the sterilisation of undesirables for their own good in the USA?

(And is everyone here still not getting the link between drinking bottled water and the wealthy, and thus the natural class bias within the idea of "a universal contraceptive in the drinking water"?
 
 
gridley
17:01 / 01.11.02
well, Haus (and Kit-Kat), it's about bring realism to the subject. If you want to sterialize a country (for whatever purposes), drinking water is not going to work (because it's the 21st century and the majority of people in America don't drink tapwater). So (unless you believe the government will be masters of nanobots), you're faced with some kind of injection or procedure at birth or shortly after. And if you're doing that, you're talking a massive expense, that I assume would be insurmountable. You can cut that cost in half without greatly limited your success rate by only doing so to women.

And since you don't seem to understand how these things work for whatever reason, I'll explain it to you. Women can only have one baby every nine months. Men can potentially have a thousand in that timespan. Thus if you're going to have a loose cannon (oh, the pun) out there making lots of babies, it's better that it be a woman than a man, because there's only so many babies she can make.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:19 / 01.11.02
Anybody choosing to speculate on the realism of performing surgery on the reproductive organs of neonates will, of course, be told off sharply.

We understand the idea of gestation, Gridley. We also, for whatever reason, seem to have a better handle on how people's bits work. One could just as easily argue that, since men are able to impregnate many women in the time it takes for one woman to bear a child to term, the priority should be on making the chances of a "loose cannon" negligible by putting extra special effort into sterilising all men, as they are the dangerous ones. And much easier to sterilise, of course. If we're being realistic.

Now please try to be a little more polite, or we won't get anywhere.
 
 
MJ-12
17:40 / 01.11.02
While I hesitate to tempt the wrath of Haus,

Assume a group of 1000 men and 1000 women.
If only one of the women is fertile, at the end of 9 months you can end up with one pregnancy.
If only one man is fertile, at the end of 9 months you could, theoretically, end up with 1000 pregnancies. And a tired man.

That being said, it is easier to surgically sterilize men than women, so it may well make more sense to do so in any realistic scenario, but offhand I don’t know how one would go about getting the numbers to make such an evaluation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:49 / 01.11.02
Quite. Point being that there are arguments for an against sterilising men, sterilising women, sterilising both men and women, and that at the moment, unless we get to cure death and pregnancy with the healing power of nanobots, these are all fantastic and largely unenforcable propositions.

And that we are meant to be talking about whether it would be ethical or advisable to act on a governmental level to limit the fertility of citizens. And that "the women/men would end up on the receiving end of the sterilisation" might be an argument in that discussion, but if you want to work out the best possible scientific method to limit conception, then got to the Laboratory. "Realistic" arguments can, at this level of exactitude, be offered for almsot any proposition.

Now, I've been pulled back into this morass by threadrot, and the sooner things settle down the sooner I can go home. Anyone care to talk about whether having children should be regulated?
 
 
gridley
18:07 / 01.11.02
Haus, at the risk of quoting you back at yourself, go back and read my posts. I never said I was in favor of sterilizing kids or putting stuff in the drinking water. I in fact said I was against it. I just chose to bring up a point that if you were going to try, here's a realistic method.

Your grasp on statistical mathematics and chaos theory seems pretty weak if you're assuming your system to sterilize only men is going to be be anywhere near as effect as my hypothetical plan to sterilize women. It's a matter of knowing you're not going to be 100% successful, so given that you can predict failure as inevitable, you have to choose the method that gives you the best success rate.

You're just having a knee-jerk reaction based on centuries on repression of women. And I don't blame you. The whole business of serilizing anyone is, as I've said before, facist and therefore unattractive. The fact that the most effective way to do it is inherantly sexist (as all reproductive biology is) is just a fact I'm pointing out. If you have a rational argument (such as proving that you could actually sterilize every single male in America, or even more laughable sterilize every person regardless of gender), then go for it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:20 / 01.11.02
I. Am. Starting. A. Thread. On. The. Most. Efficient. Way. To. Engineer. Zero. Unplanned. Pregnancies. In. The. Laboratory.

This. Is. The. Head. Shop.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:30 / 01.11.02
New thread here.

On the ethical side, assuming that a state wishes to make its population infertile but also wants to save money, is it mere practicality to sterilise only the women (if that's the path you take), or is this in itself such an apalling invasion of women's bodies by the state that it must either abandon the plan altogether or grit its teeth and indulge in comparatively unprofitable sterilisation of the men also?
 
 
gridley
13:39 / 02.11.02
It's tough to say. Despite having grown up in an ultra-densely populated state like New Jersey, I still have trouble imagining the severe kind of overpopulation issues that would force America to take such a radical viewpoint. Given that legal abortion and sex education are still such unpopular ideas, govt-mandated sterilization (which is far more controversial on virtually every level) probably isn't going to happen until things get really damn bad.

What would it take? A 50% unemployment rate? Decades of food rationing? People starving in suburban streets in front of television cameras? Constant riots in the inner cities?

It would take a lot. At this point, I just don't see it happening...
 
 
John Adlin
10:01 / 24.11.02
I remeber seeing somewhere on Television that the population growth suggests that more femails are being bron that males, its a slow evlooutinary prosess and studies were being done to decide wether it was naturall or a man made abnormailty (IE more estrogen in the water suppplly). This Idea was used as the concept for that crappy BBC1 Sci Fi drama whoe's name escpaes me-The Univited I think) If you think its is far fetched-remeber the story that naturall blondes are dying out that made the rounds in the media a couple of months ago.

The Other Point I wanted to make was that Genetic Diversity is a also used as a protection method to perpetuate ehe human race as a whole. If everoyone was Gatttaca-Perfect then we could all be wiped out by a virus such as the common cold.
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply