Which of the following methods of population control would you support assuming that they could be implemented ?
progressive taxation of families by the number of children
18%
[ 11 ]
forced contraception beyond a certain number of children
0%
[ 0 ]
progressive reduction of rights by the number of children (voting rights, medicare, pension, other retirement benefits)
1%
[ 1 ]
forced sterilization after a certain number of children
16%
[ 10 ]
all of the above
23%
[ 14 ]
none of the above
30%
[ 18 ]
some but not all of the above
10%
[ 6 ]
Total Votes : 60
Author
Message
truecougarblue Heavy Crude
Joined: Dec 21, 2005 Posts: 471
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: Re: population control options
If Hitler had stopped at the channel and not gone to war with Stalin then they would have won North Africa and secured the middel east. The americans weren't even in the war at that point and may not have gone to war with Germany despite Japan's attack if Hitler had agin started talking nice after consolidation of the continent.
My 2 cents. _________________ Cougar
"Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." - Brigham Young
At that time the US and other countries used forced sterilization on supposedly "deficient" people to completely stop them from reproducing (this included the mentally ill and the mentally retarded). Such programs continued long after the war e.g. in Sweden.
We are not discussing something like that here (in particular no one is proposing to define a group of people who should be prevented from reproducing). That sort of idea is utterly discredited.
For your information, the strongest measure I would personally support is a change in taxation but it's interesting to see that some people would (or think they would or claim they would) support quite extreme ideas. My guess is that that's just posturing though.
Joined: Jun 13, 2007 Posts: 3643 Location: Minniesotuh
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
I did not say that I favored that type of sterilization, however, forced sterilization was one of the options offered in your poll.
I posted that item primarily for information, and because it is a short jump from that kind of sterilization to a form regarding procreation.
If I remember the article correctly, it said something to the affect that forced sterilization in the US lasted until the 1960s.
And, I also sometimes feel that our current executive branch is behaving like Nazis.....
I don't think that forced anything regarding enforced reduced procreation will go over in the US. To reduce numbers, it will have to be something along the lines of global war or pandemics...
Of course, I could be wrong! _________________ "RRrrruuuunnnn!!!" ~Apocalypto
Last edited by Ferretlover on Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: Re: population control options
Bytesmiths wrote:
Ludi wrote:
btu2012 wrote:
Seriously, it's to be used as a gauge of social attitudes.
Used in what?
Fascist mind-control experiments? For compiling lists of the first to go up against the wall? To find Ann Coulter types who want to make a baby?
Nothing that ambitious. They don't take polls for that, they've got much better ways to sniff you out. After they find out who fits the profile they desire, they'll abduct them for secret cross-breeding experiments with aliens. That's the plan, anyway. Well, unless you wear a tinfoil hat, in which case ...
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: Re: population control options
Back a ways here:
---
Egomancer is correct in one respect: war is the fastest way to reduce a population to below the carrying capacity of its ecosystem. See also my postings about "humanitarian nuclear war."
However, high tech warfare is about as effective at determining darwinian fitness as a lottery based on random numbers.
Yo Egomancer, have you ever served in combat? Know anyone who has? Somehow I doubt it.
---
Jack: I disagree. Nuclear weapons are the better bet.
First of all, ground bursts throw lots of debris up into the atmosphere, which will help offset global warming. Second, they're quick enough that your enemy (or your target population) doesn't have time to respond. Third, there is no issue about having to keep a secret, as one does with a preemptive biological attack.
And last but by no means least, the blowback (in the technical sense) is manageable: if the fallout comes your way, hide in a hole for a month at most, and then it's safe to come out again. Can't say that about bugs! And if you vaccinate as much of your own population as you need to keep the wheels turning after the plague, your enemies will find out (there is no way to keep that a secret) and then the cat's out of the bag. As it were.
Too many people have to be involved to make bugs work. Nuclear weapons, not so many that you can't keep it a secret until the first one goes off.
---
BTU is correct about China and Russia. Both of which (whom?) are just waiting for the US to go away, and under the right circumstances might be tempted to give us a nudge.
---
Header_Rack, your reasoning has a hole in it big enough to drive a main battle tank through.
Your neighbors have 10 kids on 40 acres. OK, five of the kids take care of the farm while the other five take a hike up the road, with rifles and binoculars. One day you & your family are outdoors together, and five minutes later you're all dead, and the multiplying morons down the road have taken over your land.
Did I hear you say "Life isn't fair"...? Were those your last words, or the words of the 16-year-old who took you out with a single shot, as he and his siblings bury the corpses and survey their new conquest? Or will they keep your daughter alive as "breeding stock"...?
Dude, you need to take some lessons in community defense.
It's not in anyone's interest for that kind of excessive breeding to be tolerated.
---
Egomancer, re. nuclear defense shield: Dude, go do your research, it simply can't work. Search the keywords "nuclear defense" and "decoys" and see what you come up with. The decoys will always be cheaper than anything that can kill them all fast enough to also get the real warheads. Game over, you lose.
---
BTU, what measures do you think are realistic (rather than extremist or naive) given the short time frame available?
---
I'm quite serious about the proposals I posted, including snipping everyone at age 12 and requiring a permit in order to make a baby. It's not posturing. I'm a geek, I wouldn't know how to posture if you gave me an illustrated instruction.
That stuff is downright mild compared to what Ma Nature has in store for us if we don't. See also Iraq, Somalia, Darfur.
Realistically we won't do doodley-squat, and Ma Nature will do the housecleaning.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: Re: population control options
gg3 wrote:
BTU, what measures do you think are realistic (rather than extremist or naive) given the short time frame available?
---
I'm quite serious about the proposals I posted, including snipping everyone at age 12 and requiring a permit in order to make a baby. It's not posturing. I'm a geek, I wouldn't know how to posture if you gave me an illustrated instruction.
That stuff is downright mild compared to what Ma Nature has in store for us if we don't. See also Iraq, Somalia, Darfur.
gg3,
Thanks for the excellent post. It's a pleasure to get back on topic.
I agree with the points you make above. I think that any measures, initially, should start with incentives and taxation
(including along the lines you proposed) and possibly fines in some parts of the third world (where education is low, tax collection is poor and the political system is authoritarian). One also needs intensive propaganda through all media, saturating the public with awareness of the problems we are facing and we'll likely face; this will require government pressure. Among incentives I would mention universally available free contraception, family planning clinics etc.
Increasing women's education and rights as the UN is already doing is crucial, and should be intensified and funded MUCH better than it is now. It should be viewed as an emergency and high priority. A propaganda campaign must be launched/intensified in certain third world countries.
I agree with making foreign aid and funding conditional of implementing meaningful population control/reduction schemes, and on reforming tax codes to account for environmental and resource costs.
One also has to deal with the objections of religious leaders. This could be done by encouraging "stewardship" interpretations of religious texts. One can achieve it by directing funding appropriately and by challenging the "grow and multiply" paradigm; also by exposing the suicidal character of the ideas of the "multiply" schools. This will be extremely difficult to achieve especially regarding Islam and Hinduism.
All of this would be the first step, likely to be politically feasible as the crisis becomes serious.
In the rich/developing world, taxation would be key (also for dealing with the general resource/environmental problems). One must reform the tax system such as to fully include all social and environmental externalities of major human activities, including that of having children. This would ensure that everyone pays the full price for the environmental, social and resource damage created his decisions.
As the crisis progresses, more serious measures might become necessary and politically acceptable.
Btu _________________ only the paranoid survive
Last edited by btu2012 on Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:10 am; edited 2 times in total
Joined: Oct 27, 2004 Posts: 635 Location: Salt Spring Island, Cascadia
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
In the rich world, taxation would be key (also for dealing with the general resource/environmental problems).
Taxation as a way of effecting change only works when people have jobs. If vast numbers of people are thrown out of work (a la 1929), then the "tax tool" becomes impotent.
This is certainly true of those who have chosen voluntary simplicity, as well. Tax policy has zero impact on me, because I don't make enough money to pay taxes.
Be careful about promoting growth-based tools in a period of decline. _________________ :::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality, a forming sustainable community. Be the change! ::::
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
