The first thought that came to my mind when I read your OP was:

We make people take a test BEFORE allowing them to drive a car. But we allow them to procreate as long as they have mastered the art of fucking.

Even a porcupine can do that...and there is a lot more danger involved.

Under what circumstances or conditions do people believe that procreation should be regulated; or do they believe in completely unregulated procreation. — IvoryBlackBishop

Well first of all it would have to be possible to regulate it in a manner that doesn't cause massive followup problems. China's one child policy is a cautionary tale here.

The second condition would have to be that it's strictly necessary for survival, as in the resources are clearly so limited that only a specific population size can survive. Technically, this is the case for earth, but since technology is constantly changing the number it cannot be established.

Educated children in America seem to choose to run fewer and lesser risks than their less intellectually stimulated and informed classmates. Smoking being an example of this. Not an answer in itself, but a gesture, imo, in the right direction.

Well first of all it would have to be possible to regulate it in a manner that doesn't cause massive followup problems. China's one child policy is a cautionary tale here. — Echarmion

Could always remove all reproductive material (eggs) from females at birth and put them in cold storage until a license is issued. Would be difficult (storage), and could present unique problems (storage failure is bound to occur), among other moral concerns, but it is not entirely infeasible, and under the right conditions could be a viable alternative (like say, when the global population reaches upward of 15-20 billion).

It would be much better to take sperm samples and sterilise men. Less invasive, easier to store, and insemination, when required, more certain and safer. and young sperm would be lees liable to produce birth defects. Surprised you didn't suggest it yourself.

the popular myth merely unilateral or blanket statements based on some silly and highly questionable pop cultural myth or axiom accepted or taken for granted on the basis of faith, nonsensical circular reasoning and rote regurgitation outdated 19th century myths and archaisms archaic and highly debatable or questionable or easily disprovable and contradictroy — IvoryBlackBishop

↪SonOfAGun It would be much better to take sperm samples and sterilise men. Less invasive, easier to store, and insemination, when required, more certain and safer. and young sperm would be lees liable to produce birth defects. Surprised you didn't suggest it yourself. — unenlightened

Yes you are right, "storage would be difficult", but the alternative is even less viable. Once you release the males into the wild, it will be far more difficult to get them back, and the moral concerns will be far more pronounced, and revolt far more likely. As far as storage difficulties go, I also know that we have a projected eighty years before the population of earth reaches 15b. By the time we get there, we may not be talking about cold storage at all, but storage in some form of nutrient rich synthetic bio fluid. As you know, under such conditions, human female eggs can last up to around forty years.

As you know, under such conditions, human female eggs can last up to around forty years. — SonOfAGun

No, if you sterilise the men, you can leave the eggs where they are, and they will also last 40 years or so.

No, if you sterilise the men, you can leave the eggs where they are, and they will also last 40 years or so. — unenlightened

But you can't sterilize the men at birth you need sperm first, which doesn't even get produced until midway through puberty.

Well, you'd just have to lock them up from the beginning of puberty until you have a sufficient sample, or better still, just pick a few of the best for that program, and sterilise the rest at birth.

The way you concoct difficulties, it almost looks like you have a gender bias.

↪SonOfAGun Well, you'd just have to lock them up from the beginning of puberty until you have a sufficient sample, or better still, just pick a few of the best for that program, and sterilise the rest at birth. — unenlightened

Lol, yah that is not a Recipe for civil revolt.

Lol, yah that is not a Recipe for civil revolt. — SonOfAGun

There's always going to be some resistance to this sort of program until it becomes traditional.

There's always going to be some resistance to this sort of program until it becomes traditional. — unenlightened

Well, I guess we'll just have to see how things shake out then. I'll bet on my approach you can bet on yours.

Yeah we could do that.

Or we could stop being total pricks and decide it's a deeply repugnant and immoral idea in the first place. :vomit:

Or we could stop being total pricks and decide it's a deeply repugnant and immoral idea in the first place. :vomit: — unenlightened

Not concerned with the morality of the question only the feasibility. But I do have a question for you: is it more moral to let people starve to death when one could do something to stabilize the problem? You know that we are not talking about an if but when right?

Not concerned with the morality of the question only the feasibility. — SonOfAGun

Oh good. Well I can confirm that it is much much cheaper and safer to sterilise men than women. And of course the puberty problem applies to both sexes equally. One solution would be to make sterilisation voluntary, but to confine unsterilised men and allow them access to women only as the population requirements arise. If you are not opposed to abortion, you could also selectively abort most of the male foetuses and reduce the crime levels at the same time.

Have you read Brave New World?

is it more moral to let people starve to death when one could do something to stabilize the problem? You know that we are not talking about an if but when right? — SonOfAGun

It rather depends what one would do. Feed them would be good, Nuke them would be bad. But that's just my opinion...

Oh good. Well I can confirm that it is much much cheaper and safer to sterilise men than women. And of course the puberty problem applies to both sexes equally. One solution would be to make sterilisation voluntary, but to confine unsterilised men and allow them access to women only as the population requirements arise. If you are not opposed to abortion, you could also selectively abort most of the male foetuses and reduce the crime levels at the same time. — unenlightened

You seem to be very emotionally attached to this question. My comments are not prescriptive. It is a thought experiment.

Females are born with all of the eggs they will ever produce. so no, it is not a question of puberty where females are concerned.

What I have proposed is the most morally soft thing I could think of that society as a whole might actually accept under the right conditions (like massive food shortages in the face of an out of control population growth rate). What you are suggesting is just nonsensical.

The bigger problem, in my opinion, would be to figure out a system that determines who can procreate and when, without causing unintended shifts in either the genepool or the culture.

It rather depends what one would do. Feed them would be good, Nuke them would be bad. But that's just my opinion... — unenlightened

And if you don't have the option to feed them what then. If there is the option to feed them, this conversation is moot anyway.

↪SonOfAGun The bigger problem, in my opinion, would be to figure out a system that determines who can procreate and when, without causing unintended shifts in either the genepool or the culture. — Echarmion

Survival of the fittest has always been the way. I don't see any reason to change that. Those who can afford to feed their children will be granted licenses.

^^^ I am sure that it is more complicated than that however.

You seem to be very emotionally attached to this question. — SonOfAGun

Do I? I think I am being quite rational about the most feasible form of population control.

Females are born with all of the eggs they will ever produce. so no, it is not a question of puberty where females are concerned. — SonOfAGun

Indeed, but those eggs are immature, and will mature usually one at a time from puberty. If there is an artificial way to mature eggs, I am not familiar with it. Normally, eggs are harvested from a female by stimulating with hormones to mature several eggs at once; I'm not sure that would be even possible with a pre-pubescant girl.

What I have proposed is the most morally soft thing I could think of — SonOfAGun

What you have proposed is that other people, women, the poor, anyone but you and your kind should face interventions and restrictions.

Survival of the fittest has always been the way. I don't see any reason to change that. Those who can afford to feed their children will be granted licenses. — SonOfAGun

There is no wealth gene. On the contrary, wealth being inherited leads to unwarranted survival and so weakens the gene pool. Which explains a deal of idiocy and ugliness.

Indeed, but those eggs are immature, and will mature usually one at a time from puberty. If there is an artificial way to mature eggs, I am not familiar with it. Normally, eggs are harvested from a female by stimulating with hormones to mature several eggs at once; I'm not sure that would be even possible with a pre-pubescant girl. — unenlightened

The eggs can be reintroduced for maturation.

What you have proposed is that other people, women, the poor, anyone but you and your kind should face interventions and restrictions. — unenlightened

You are incorrect here, I have no attachment to my own sex in this matter, if I thought that the most viable rout to success would be through males I would not hesitate, but I don't and so here we are.

There is no wealth gene. On the contrary, wealth being inherited leads to unwarranted survival and so weakens the gene pool. Which explains a deal of idiocy and ugliness. — unenlightened

Yup, you are correct which is why I added the caveat "I am sure that it is more complicated than that however." in the message below the one you quoted. For instance, What are we to do with the children of parents who can no longer afford to take of them? Yes you are correct there are still many moral concerns to be worked out, but do you have suggestion that do not involve some form of "survival of the fittest?"

I'm not sure that would be even possible with a pre-pubescant girl. — unenlightened

Should have responded to this part. You extract all eggs at birth then reintroduce them as needed.

There is one thing that I am pretty sure of, whatever rout is chosen (either male of female) if the process is not completed/finished in a hospital at birth, it will not take to society without some pretty heavy handed laws and enforcement which makes the whole thing likely to fall apart or be risen up against.

I think there's only one way to regulate population that doesn't risk jeopardizing the moral integrity of a society, and that is to make people refrain from procreation out of their own volition.

The talk in the comments of forced sterilization and selective abortion should show you where the other path leads to: straight down into the rabbit hole

How to make people refrain from procreation voluntarily?

First, stop promoting the idea that everybody should have children, or that children are a fundamental part of leading a fulfilling life. Instead, present them as equally valid choices, and let people figure out what suits them best. Currently, I think the societal norm is heavily skewed towards having children. Not having children is sometimes seen as sad or weird. That's a problem, because it creates external pressures in people who perhaps otherwise would not have chosen to have children.

Second, educate people thoroughly on the responsibilities of a parent and the implications of putting another human being on this Earth. This should bring people to the realization that simply "because I want to" is not a sufficient basis for having children and that they should heavily weigh the interest of their (future) child. Furthermore, it should discourage people with a history of substance abuse, crime, mental disorder or genetic deficiencies from having children by confronting them with the possible consequences of such a choice.

Bad parenting is the cause of much grief in this world. However, two wrongs don't (and can never) make a right. Draconian laws can never be the answer.

↪IvoryBlackBishop I think there's only one way to regulate population that doesn't risk jeopardizing the moral integrity of a society, and that is to make people refrain from procreation out of their own volition.

The talk in the comments of forced sterilization and selective abortion should show you where the other path leads to: straight down into the rabbit hole

How to make people refrain from procreation voluntarily?

First, stop promoting the idea that everybody should have children, or that children are a fundamental part of leading a fulfilling life. Instead, present them as equally valid choices, and let people figure out what suits them best. Currently, I think the societal norm is heavily skewed towards having children. Not having children is sometimes seen as sad or weird. That's a problem, because it creates external pressures in people who perhaps otherwise would not have chosen to have children.

Second, educate people thoroughly on the responsibilities of a parent and the implications of putting another human being on this Earth. This should bring people to the realization that simply "because I want to" is not a sufficient basis for having children and that they should heavily weigh the interest of their (future) child. Furthermore, it should discourage people with a history of substance abuse, crime, mental disorder or genetic deficiencies from having children by confronting them with the possible consequences of such a choice.

Bad parenting is the cause of much grief in this world. However, two wrongs don't (and can never) make a right. Draconian laws can never be the answer. — Tzeentch

So your idea is moral hand waving? And when this doesn't work (because it wont) what then?

You accept that there is no way to deal with the problem. Period.

The eggs can be reintroduced for maturation. — SonOfAGun

I'd like to see some report of that. Google tells me that immature eggs have been matured outside the body experimentally, but I don't see anything about immature eggs being reintroduced.

But why do you focus on female fertility when male fertility is so much easier to control?