↪SonOfAGun You accept that there is no way to deal with the problem. Period. — Tzeentch

You would be surprised at what solutions people will accept when the problem gets bad enough.

I would be surprised? How?

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

because males are also far less likely to not want to do what the are being asked to do. that is including adult males and their pubescent children that they don't want to be sterilized. You will never get all males to voluntarily/forcibly come in to be sterilized. Now if you could do this to males a birth through the passage of laws, you would still face initial problem but it would be something that could be over come. But that is not something that can be done with males. So not possible. With females on the other hand, technically it would be possible even if the technology does not exist today, it is not far down the road.

It will not work the way you are suggesting it. There would be revolt. And depending on the circumstances there might even be revolt my way.

So this DIRECTLY gets at points I'm making in my thread about society being an ideology. Why do you think SOME people should procreate in the first place? I get the fact that this hypothetical thought experiment is about reckless parenting, basically. We want "responsible" parents rather than bad ones to ensure a "better" upbringing. Now I am going to question why ANY parent should procreate a child in the first place. What are "we" (collectively as humans), trying to do by having MORE people in the first place? We know that life has suffering. We know that a lot of it is tedium. We know that we basically survive due to certain instincts. What do we really want new people to GET OUT OF life? It seems pointless to keep continuing more people and making decisions that they should live on THEIR BEHALF. If you think life is so precious and great.. go live it yourself (and then see experience all the downsides too you don't even consider in you Pollyanna math about hope and society getting better, etc.).. But DON'T make the bad move to then think that YOUR evaluation DESERVES to affect OTHER PEOPLE by procreating them thus making THEM DEAL WITH life because of YOUR decision.

↪SonOfAGun I would be surprised? How? — Tzeentch

Did you know that during the Chinese one child possibly, baby girls where sold, aborted, and is some cases killed postnatal. it is called female infanticide. Solution to only having one child = try until you have a boy.

Yes, I am well-aware of that tragedy. Doesn't this confirm my suggestion that attempts at forceful control give rise to even worse situations?

Why do you think SOME people should procreate in the first place? — schopenhauer1

I don't think that. No obligation being projected by me. I don't think my children will procreate, and I'm fine with that. Perhaps they would be persuaded by your arguments, or perhaps they have their own different reasons. I'd rather it was their own decision though than that of some fuckwitted philosopher or politician.

Those are very interesting questions, and exactly the type of questions that should be asked when educating people on procreation. However, one must appreciate that people may come to different answers than you.

It will not work the way you are suggesting it. There would be revolt. — SonOfAGun

Why would there be revolt? Do you think people would find it an unacceptable curtailment of their freedom? Why is it acceptable for women but not men?

↪SonOfAGun Yes, I am well-aware of that tragedy. Doesn't this confirm my suggestion that attempts at forceful control give rise to even worse situations? — Tzeentch

not if you remove the option.

I'd rather it was their own decision though than that of some fuckwitted philosopher or politician. — unenlightened

That I agree with. I am not for Draconian measures that other people force. It is up to the person, not the state. However, you realize the irony that this particular decision affects a WHOLE other person's life (literally, in the strongest most literal way possible). That is almost a Catch-22.

Those are very interesting questions, and exactly the type of questions that should be asked when educating people on procreation. However, one must appreciate that people may come to different answers than you. — Tzeentch

I agree, and again I don't think it should be forced. But as I said to unenlightened, ironically, not forcing a ban on procreation lets some people force other people into living life (and dealing with it). The parent is making that decision for a new person, lest they kill themselves if they don't like it. The big assumption here is that living is either good, necessary, or preferable for another person under the right circumstances as long as a person already living thinks it is so. Is that really the right assumption to have though?

So you're suggesting to swap one immoral policy for another, which is possibly even worse? I think I've already made clear that I'm not in favor of that.

Why would there be revolt? Do you think people would find it an unacceptable curtailment of their freedom? — unenlightened

No I do not find it to be acceptable, but I am also not faced with mass food shortages and starvation. It is not about me, it is about what is possible, feasible, and achievable practically.

Why is it acceptable for women but not men? — unenlightened

It is not about what I think is acceptable. It is about what I think will be accepted.

↪SonOfAGun So you're suggesting to swap one immoral policy for another, which is possibly even worse? I think I've already made clear that I'm not in favor of that. — Tzeentch

As I have already said, it has nothing to do with what "I" want to be done, only what is likely to be done and acceptable.

However, you realize the irony that this particular decision affects a WHOLE other person's life (literally, in the strongest most literal way possible). That is almost a Catch-22. — schopenhauer1

It's far more serious than that. There are potentially uncountable generations of future off-spring, one of whom might be the fuckwit politician that sterilises the planet. But there is no escape from the responsibility, because not procreating can deprive the world of that planet sterilising fuckwit, and result in a thousand more generations of suffering humanity. Life is a risky business.

No I do not find it to be acceptable, but I am also not faced with mass food shortages and starvation. — SonOfAGun

As I have already said, it has nothing to do with what "I" want to be done, only what is likely to be done and acceptable. — SonOfAGun

No. you are proposing , not predicting. And you are being disingenuous and irresponsible. You have been exposed.

No. you are proposing , not predicting. And you are being disingenuous and irresponsible. You have been exposed. — unenlightened

And now you are a mind reader.

It's far more serious than that. There are potentially uncountable generations of future off-spring, one of whom might be the fuckwit politician that sterilises the planet. But there is no escape from the responsibility, because not procreating can deprive the world of that planet sterilising fuckwit, and result in a thousand more generations of suffering humanity. Life is a risky business. — unenlightened

I think you are agreeing then. It is a choice to not procreate, thus choosing to not have a possible fuckwit politician that might force people not to procreate :razz:. But anyways, the point is, even the non-Draconian, individual way we do things is a Draconian decision made on ANOTHER person's behalf. It is saying "I think such and such, therefore another person should live out such and such". That's not great either. Then, we think that it's just people's individual decisions. We worship at the alter of personal decision-making. We don't factor in our procreational decision-making ourselves that the progeny will also likely make poor decisions. But I get it, you can always say it's THEIR FAULT. But if you know BEFOREHAND that poor decisions is a possible (even likely?) factor in the progeny's life, why wouldn't that be considered as well instead of post-facto blaming the person who made the bad decision? We can prevent it full stop.

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

For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given.

But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong.

For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given.

But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong. — Echarmion

What are the alternatives?

We can prevent it full stop. — schopenhauer1

No we cannot. You can maintain your personal innocence, that's all. Whatever bad happens won't happen to your descendants, if you don't have any.

No we cannot. You can maintain your personal innocence, that's all. Whatever bad happens won't happen to your descendants, if you don't have any. — unenlightened

How is it we cannot? In your next sentence you just said how we can prevent the next generation's bad decisions by not having them.

For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given. — Echarmion

What I assume is that there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of whatever system is in place. I don't see the downfall of capitalism coming anytime soon, it is more efficient than any other currently known/demonstrated system.

But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong. — Echarmion

No this is not what that means, because it would not be only the "rich" that would be allowed birth rights. you would never be able to sell something like that to society as a whole, and if you were to emplement it over time it would eventually be revolted against. You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there.

I said "your descendants" you said "the next generation". My children are one thing, my sister's and cousin's children are another.

You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there. — SonOfAGun

Why should anyone have children? It is all Draconian- making decisions on others behalf. If you say because some hypothetical "majority" like it.. I will have words.

Why should anyone have children? It is all Draconian- making decisions on others behalf. If you say because some hypothetical "majority" like it.. I will have words. — schopenhauer1

talk to me again when you and everyone you know are starving to death.

I said "your descendants" you said "the next generation". My children are one thing, my sister's and cousin's children are another. — unenlightened

Okay, so we both agree government-sponsered antinatalist policies would be immoral. We both seem to agree that a personal decision to prevent one's own progeny will prevent suffering for one's own descendants. You are correct that it won't prevent a whole "generation" because that would include all people's progeny. However, antinatalism can be at the margins as well. More people who don't procreate means at least those descendants are spared life (bad-decision making, suffering, etc.). So the more people who don't, the more is spared (the alternative of suffering, possible bad-decisions, and dealing with life, etc.).

talk to me again when you and everyone you know are starving to death. — SonOfAGun

The descendants lives are spared any suffering by not being born. The people who are living have to deal with it, not use people, and break the very cycle of suffering they themselves are dealing with by being born themselves.

The descendants lives are spared any suffering by not being born. The people who are living have to deal with it, not use people, and break the very cycle of suffering they themselves are dealing with by being born themselves. — schopenhauer1

That is not how it is going to play out man. People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices. And no amount of moral hand waving is going to change that. Come on man reality is just one step further. it is better over here.