[/QUOTE]
And there's one supporter for my moon colony already, woot! We'll have android Moon Mother bitches, and they'll tell us when and how the pop needs to be raised *nods and winks*
ing master race here, just trying to make sure that people who can't handle kids don't have them.
This would be the very definition of negative eugenics.All I'm proposing is that people be examined first to determine parental fitness. That would include examining income, whether there is a record of domestic violence, hell throw credit history into the mix too since it's used in nearly everything else. I'm not talking about biological fitness, I'm not trying to create some
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/negative eugenics
You are blatantly calling for people to have to have a license to have kids. This is negative eugenics. Negative eugenics was must popularly enforced in Nazi Germany, and the United States in the first half of the 1900's. People who were seen as unfit to have children were sterilized, so they couldn't have children. Same concept as yours, only yours has an economic concept.
Oh, I'm sorry poor person. You can't have children. You're too poor.
ing retarded. I'm talking incoherent babbling , drool running down your chin retarded. Eugenics deals with genetics you idiot, I specifically said i'm not talking about any biological requirement. I'm not talking about improving genetics here (as I already said). If you consider taking a person's personal responsibility into account when considering children to be eugenics, than I guess you can call me herr doktor. I guess you think it's wrong that brothers can't marry their sisters too (alright, in Kentucky). 
ing retarded. I'm talking incoherent babbling , drool running down your chin retarded. [/QUOTE]No, but you are talking about a economic requirement, and call it what you want to; I call it eugenics, as you are trying to prevent a group of people from reproducing, because of the factors they cannot easily control. Effectively, you are still trying to take away the very basic human rights of those people you consider undesirable, which I think is morally reprehensible. How many people on this board would not have been born if your ideas were in place?
False equivalency much?I guess you think it's wrong that brothers can't marry their sisters too (alright, in Kentucky
Are you denying that the Nazis stopped undesirables from having children? Are you denying that you want to stop those that you find to be undesirables from having children? Do you see the comparison?
For every Octomom type, there are many more people who decide not to have children, or to have only one.
Humans are supposed to have the capacity to reason. If you can't control your biological urges, then you are no better than an animal, and you become an animal control problem.
A few points here. For one, I don't consider reproduction as some super-special psychological requirement for human happiness. That sort of propaganda got pushed in the 1950s when the powers that be decided we "needed" a consumerist culture (i.e. more mouths to feed, to compete against each other to drive the inequality engine).
See, now this is where we get into Malthusian territory. Sir Thomas Malthus said that our problems would be solved if we just increased the mortality rate of the poor, and thereby got rid of them. That's not how it works though. If all the poor people suddenly disappeared, there would simply be a new poor class to replace them. The gap between the rich and the poor is the highest it has ever been. One in six people have their income coming entirely from the government.
The solution is not to stop these people from having children, as for many, their poverty is not their fault. Rather it is to get back a productive capacity, one which can give well paying jobs to people, instead of these bullshit "service economy" jobs that pay minimum wage. Repeal these free trade agreements that exploit Americans, and people in third world countries, while only helping the ultra rich.
I believe it is someone's fundamental right as a human being to decide for themselves whether they would like to have children. That is all.
The fertility rate in the US is currently below replacement, at 2.06 children per woman. Other industrialized countries, such as Japan (1.20), Italy (1.32) and Canada (1.58), have fertility rates well below replacement. When a country industrializes, its population growth rate starts to decline, and its population starts to decline. If you allow countries to industrialize (and you know, not screw them over through the IMF and World Bank), their populations will stabilize, and start to go down.
If that happened, the population of this country would collapse, and go into terminal decline. A 0.3 fertility rate would put us in a huge population crisis. Social Security and Medicare would be bankrupted, there would be a huge need for people to care for the elderly, which could not be met. It would probably mean the collapse of this country. If it were done around the world, it would mean a terminal decline in human population. If it were continued from generation to generation, it could end up making humans extinct, after not that many generations. After three generations of this, there would be 23.6 million people. (7 billion people*(.15^3)) After 11 generations, humanity would cease to exist.
It doesn't matter if you have 10 kids or 0 kids, in that situation you are still going to be poor.
The death of that many people did not cause the Renaissance, and to suggest so is absurd. Advancements in technology and thought caused the Renaissance. The rise in wages, and social changes are characteristics of any major time of prosperity. Many of these same things happened during the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, or the American Revolution. There was no mass die off before those events, however.
Let's read from the article:
Proportion. proportion. proportion. More people=more demand for goods and services. This means more people are employed to provide these goods and services. The fact is, having less children does not equal more economic success. Look at Japan. They have one of the lowest birth rates in the world, but are stuck in a kind of stagflation. Look at Russia, where they have to pay people to have children. Their economy is on shaky ground. The problems that we face in this country are not caused by some kind of mass breeding mentality. Our health care problems are not caused because there are too many people, but rather because health care has become unaffordable. There is not a growing gap between the rich and the poor because of population, but rather because the poor and middle class have been getting shafted by the ultra rich.
That's hardly a factor in every country other than the US that I pointed out.
No, actually it will be quite soon.
Those damn ragheads! Why isn't the Middle East a giant glass parking lot yet?!!?!?!
Oh they have. It's called social security.
And you would plan on doing this how? Killing everything that moves in the third world, and killing a large amount of the first world? Just sterilization wouldn't be fast enough for you, so culling is the ideal, right?
The Industrial Revolution happened when European countries were doing a great deal of colonization, meaning that you did have people living in previously uninhabited or low population areas. Once you had the option of leaving the rigid social structures of overpopulated Europe, you have the freedom to innovate.
I'm guessing this only works if you judge economic health based on consumption and not on costs of resources consumed (human effort as well, for it can be excellent for the construction industry for a hurricane to wipe out New Orleans, it "stimulates" a certain economy, but from the perspective of whole economics you just lost something and now you have to expend resources and manpower to replace it. Resources and manpower that could go into another project). We might have 6 billion people on the planet, but who's to say whether 80% of them are even doing work that's worthwhile? They might be working to feed and clothe some unnecessary excess of population, some crooked politician might be looking for new ways to steal money, etc. How much economic work is crass maintenance of the lumbering behemoth rather than an effort to move forward, real progress in short?
Here I thought a lot of the EU countries with low birthrates have a Muslim problem...now I wonder if that have anything to do with the jackass notion that immigrants are needed to keep health care and retirement benefits afloat?
Great! Maybe one day they won't be overpopulated
It could have something to do with living in a desert, and they do have quite a bit of warfare down there.
That isn't personal responsibility. That's giving your money to a Mafia-style organization who will put an I.O.U. in the cookie jar and rough up some of your neighbors down the street so you can get a fraction of the protection money you put in.
My plan involves me personally not having children and informing others that this choice is possible for them. As you have pointed out in your rebuttal, what I see as the shouldering of personal responsibility in order to build a better society...you see as the Devil. I'm offering an alternative to war and the struggle for limited resources...whether or not you agree with me, humans are already displaced when their neighbors encroach, wars happen and people die.
I didn't ask you for dollar signs, what I was asking you was the number of unemployed people who are able to work, versus people who have ordinary reasons to transition out of work. For instance, if you're not an early retiree, then you shouldn't be considered as one of the new unwashed masses when you do retire. My point is there's a number of ways statistics can be skewed, and the article is rather poor in providing in-depth demographic details. Who's to say that the requirements for getting food stamps weren't simply relaxed so more people could qualify than ever before?
You say that like you're so certain. However, I'm much more certain that if you have a pound of cornmeal between you and your wife, zero children is much better than having calories wasted on the infant corpse you've got on the dirt floor. It's called exasperating the situation. Maybe instead of being a poor peasant with no hope, one could kill other humans, not only obtaining the nutrition from their flesh, but obtaining better local economic opportunities in the deal. Really, what is there to lose?
But we also had a huge population influx. That should have turned us into a wasteland, right? As you say, more people makes things worse.
Where does this come from again? I don't recall calling for disasters to stimulate the economy.
Do you get any more nihilistic?
Well, considering that those benefits rely completely on population growth, or a stable population, in order to pay for them, I'd say immigrants are pretty important, if your country has a low fertility rate.
I suppose you support austerity in the US, then?
You haven't argued for personal responsibility, though. You have argued for forced population control measures.
Strawman.
World War 2 was about the rise of a new nationalism, and that force attempting to set up a world government ruled by them. The same idea had been thought of by petty dictators for thousands of years. Are you going to tell me the world was overpopulated in the time of the Romans?
May 2010:
Because that's exactly what is causing the rise in usage of food stamps. Of course it couldn't be the economic collapse.
YEAH LET'S ALL BE AMORALISTIC ANARCHISTS KILL AND EAT EACH OTHER! Are you seriously suggesting that malnourished people just eat each other? Do you not know of a thing called morality? Are you a sociopath?
