Yet another reason to like Autralia

[Mercutio]

This makes perfect sense to me.

 

[jtr1962]

Nice to know somebody in a position of some influence supports this idea. You need to be licensed for so many other things requiring far less responsibility than raising children. I just don't understand why more politicians aren't for this. By allowing to procreate only those with the money and maturity to properly raise children it seems like you would simultaneously solve so many of society's other problems. The politicians need to sell this idea to the general public. If I'm forced to have my rights to defend myself curtailed because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of me carrying a gun, then I should be able to curtail the rights of those irresponsible people whose desire to have kids makes me feel uncomfortable. Besides, with over 6 billion people the world is already far too crowded. Let's worry about the people who are here already rather than about bringing in new ones. A few centuries of negative population growth certainly won't doom us to extinction.

 

[Stereodude]

Where's Autralia? :mrgrn:

 

[LiamC]

Near Germany/Deutschland. :wink:

 

[Buck]

Near Germany/Deutschland. :wink:

 

[Mercutio]

You know, I've never made fun of any of your typos.

Look, this is a good idea. It really is. We license drivers. We license gun owners. We license even fairly small construction projects and innocuous professional activities.

Twelve year olds can have kids. Anyone else see a problem here?

 

[i]

Problems? Sure. What happens the moment they make - for example - a rectal exam part of the licensing process?

 

[Mercutio]

I don't see a problem with that, either.

Every male who makes it to 40 or 50 has to go through them as a matter of course during their annual check-up anyway.

 

[jtr1962]

Doesn't anyone besides myself or Mercutio have an opinion on this? Certainly something like this is bound to evoke strong feelings in most people, either pro or con.

 

[flagreen]

If you have sex and your girlfriend / wife gets pregnant without a license, what happens then? Do you get a ticket? Force an abortion? Fine them? What if you can't pay the fine? Do you put them in Jail? Suppose your license gets revoked or you fail to renew it? Do they impound the children?

 

[Mercutio]

How about long-term chemical sterilization? Say, ten years.

Forced abortions would probably strike some people as unreasonable, after all.

We impound children all the time. They're called foster children.

For that matter, we could in theory sterilize everyone out the gate and do test tube babies for all who are qualified.

That would of course be an idealogical extreme. But one that's acceptable to me personally.

The issue of how to qualify for a license is more interesting IMO. It'd have to be VERY neutral and full of fail-safes to keep from falling into a selective breeding program.

 

[CougTek]

License for parenthood will never happen...too many people would fail the test. And like every recommendation that would make sense on a worldwide scale (like Kyoto for instance), USA would object for sure.

Every male who makes it to 40 or 50 has to go through them as a matter of course during their annual check-up anyway.

The first guy who even thinks about touching my ass is a dead man.

...come to think of it, the second and third guys too.

Keep your hands in your underwears, not mine. I don't plan to have children so it's a non-issue.

 

[Jake the Dog]

How about long-term chemical sterilization? Say, ten years.

10 years is a loooong time. better perhaps might be 1-2 years with a review nearing the end of each term.

Forced abortions would probably strike some people as unreasonable, after all.

would definitely be unreasonable to some, including me.

We impound children all the time. They're called foster children.

so sad but so true.

For that matter, we could in theory sterilize everyone out the gate and do test tube babies for all who are qualified.

who has the right to qualify me as being fit for parenthood? I say no one but my partner and me.

That would of course be an idealogical extreme. But one that's acceptable to me personally.

in no way is that idealogical in my book. natural concerption is they way we were designed to do it. don't fuck with nature.

The issue of how to qualify for a license is more interesting IMO. It'd have to be VERY neutral and full of fail-safes to keep from falling into a selective breeding program.

unfortunately it would be impossible to be fair to all and since we're talking about the basic right of reproduction, how can you or me or anyone else deny someone of that right? the flip-side to that is that by not limiting those 'unfit' for reproduction and parenthood, we possibly (and probably) condemn some of their offspring to a life of unbearably low quality whilst the rest of us are forced to provide a system to sustain them.

 

[Fushigi]

I think the more logical solution is to freeze the population .. approximate zero growth. I read it in a sci fi novel a number of years ago and the idea made perfect sense to me. Each couple is allowed two children -- basically you're allowed to reproduce to replace yourself. After that you are sterilized. No fines or issues with twins, triplets, etc.; just accept them and be sterilized right away.

Sperm & ova can be frozen to allow for future IVF in case any of the children die prematurely.

The potentially for bias enters in if you allow additional breeding rights to the truly gifted (as was the case in the story). Defining gifted and keeping the system from being abused would be difficult.

That won't keep the idiots from reproducing. But it will cut down on things like welfare abuse, the need for larger homes and their associated drain on natural resources, the desire for larger and less efficient vehicles, grocery bills, etc.

 

[jtr1962]

There are plenty of good reasons to keep idiots from reproducing at all. Technology is rapidly causing the types of jobs that enabled a person of low IQ to support themselves(and their children) to disappear. Even high IQ and plenty of education are no guarantees of employment(as many on SF and SR have sadly learned), but it makes supporting oneself much more likely. Besides the issue of employment, violent crime generally tends to be caused by people of low intelligence. You solve welfare dependency and crime in one shot by having at least a minimum intelligence as a standard for being allowed to have your two children(maximum). Anything other than intelligence and income tests would probably be seen as social engineering, however. And I wouldn't give exceptions to the two children per couple rule to anybody, regardless of who they are or how much money they have. A rule like this would only be accepted by the general populace if it was fairly applied to everybody. Downsides? Occasionally very stupid parents give birth to a genius. I'm more than willing to forego a few geniuses in order to get rid of large numbers of morons within a few generations.

If we were to start selective breeding for certain characteristics other than intelligence(which is inarguably a good thing) I would put breeding smaller people high on the list(smaller people consume fewer overall resources). With machines there is really no need for brute strength any more. We're probably heading in this direction anyhow evolution-wise. In 100,000 years we'll likely all look like Roswell aliens, assuming that we don't kill ourselves off first.

 

[Tea]

Forgive humble suggestion of self, but is muchly obvious we should be breeding better class of person. I vote we be now breeding for big tits.

 

[Tea]

Ekaf! That was my login you used!

 

[Ekaf-Ami]

I am most humbly sorry, Miss Tea. I not for one moment was realising my mistake. Please accept my most humblest apologies.

 

[Tea]

Its OK, Ekaf. Try not to do it again, OK?

 

[Tea]

Besides, it was a stupid idea. Everybody knows we should be breeding for big bananas.

 

[Stereodude]

Ahh, yes... license the parents... It will do wonders. Look at what it's done for drivers. :roll:

 

[Mercutio]

One has to think that having licensed drivers has led to having better drivers than when they weren't.

 

[Stereodude]

One has to think that having licensed drivers has led to having better drivers than when they weren't.

Teaching common sense and consideration for others would do great things in both categories, but unfortunately you can't teach common sense and we're stuck with stupid people in the world.

 

[Mercutio]

First, to address Fushigi's "Stop at Replacement", this link from The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

The environmental and energy cost of Fushigi's two children will outstrip the environmental and energy costs of an Indian couple having 60(!) children.

So even replacement is kind of an iffy proposition.

Let's get one thing straight:

There's nothing wrong with stupid people. Yes, they're stupid. They may be annoying to smart people. But the world needs them. There have to be people to push the button that runs the robo-janitor of the future.

Valid, interesting link.

If you're basing your breeding criteria on passing an intelligence test, you're selecting for intelligence, and the traits that go with it, which can include things like depression, autism, homosexuality (gay people tend to be smarter than average, even though they oxymoronically would have a rough time breeding).

This is not a good thing.

Therefore a "Breeding License" can't involve be a straight test for intelligence.

(Also, I've met some real frickin' morons that I think are good mommies and daddies).

At the same time, we don't want this future either.

So the question is, how do we make a test equitable without also causing it to lose its exclusivity?

Perhaps, instead of barking up the intelligence tree, we should consider instead the traits that make good mommies and daddies and try to figure out how we can test for those.

 

[Fushigi]

First, to address Fushigi's "Stop at Replacement", this link from The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

The environmental and energy cost of Fushigi's two children will outstrip the environmental and energy costs of an Indian couple having 60(!) children.

So even replacement is kind of an iffy proposition.

Their argument doesn't apply to what I suggest. What I suggest is to apply this on a global level, not just the US or even just the primary industrialized societies. It would never work otherwise. And yes, it will take a few generations for the leveling-out to occur and the end result may well be a world population of 9-12 billion. But it'll be a fairly stable population. Also, as the world's economy levels out, the per capita energy consumption will become a little closer to balanced (but the US may well maintain it's "lead" for some centuries based on the resources we have).

If you're basing your breeding criteria on passing an intelligence test, you're selecting for intelligence, and the traits that go with it, which can include things like depression, autism, homosexuality (gay people tend to be smarter than average, even though they oxymoronically would have a rough time breeding).

This is not a good thing.

I agree on this point. You can't say you'll breed for intellignece to the exclusion of other traits. You need to also breed for longevity/health, creativeness/artistic ability, analytical skills, mechanical aptitude, and all other traits needed to maintain a society and let it flourish. Basically, everyone has their place.

Anyway, I think a good start would be to give all prepubescents something to keep them infertile until at least age 20. Not necessarily deny puberty; just fertility. This would end teen the teen mother sydrome which would automatically make the world a slightly better place.

 

[jtr1962]

I thought this quote from Mercutio's first link summed it up nicely:

It goes beyond elitism for us to create replicas of ourselves while tens of thousands of Others' children die from lack of care each day.

I couldn't have said it better myself. If anyone really feels the need to be a parent, adopt. Or one day soon we'll have robot children as in AI:Artificial Intelligence that can fulfill that role with consuming the resources real children do.

There's nothing wrong with stupid people. Yes, they're stupid. They may be annoying to smart people. But the world needs them. There have to be people to push the button that runs the robo-janitor of the future.

The thing is we'll need less of them as time goes on. Eventually robots will do 100% of the routine work of society, and the job of people will be to design those robots, including the factories of robots that make more robots. Needless to say, this isn't a role that stupid people will excel in. The only caveat is that we should never give our machines self-awareness lest they wake up one day to realize they don't need us.

If you're basing your breeding criteria on passing an intelligence test, you're selecting for intelligence, and the traits that go with it, which can include things like depression, autism, homosexuality (gay people tend to be smarter than average, even though they oxymoronically would have a rough time breeding).

Maybe define intelligence to include a wider range of abilities than academic, but keep the general idea of keeping those from breeding who have no real abilities in anything. I tend to think depression and intelligence go hand in hand partly because the more intelligent you are the easier it is to see how the world is a mess largely because of stupid decisions by stupid people. Stupid people don't see this, and don't get depressed as often if you give them their daily dose of sitcoms and celebrity gossip. Get rid of stupid people, you won't have them making dumb decisions that affect everyone around them. Furthermore, you won't have smart people in power forced to make stupid decisions to cater to the intellectually-challenged majority just to keep themselves in power.

At the same time, we don't want this future either.

Did you see the movie? Sadly, this future is more likely. We're already seeing some of it with the continual dumbing down of schools and society in general. It may only be a matter of time before some smart kid is sued in court by the parents of kids whom he/she made feel bad because of his/her superior grades. Don't think it wouldn't happen. The moronic majority always feels that everything should be made to cater to them.

Perhaps, instead of barking up the intelligence tree, we should consider instead the traits that make good mommies and daddies and try to figure out how we can test for those.

The biggest part of being a good parent is teaching them what the schools don't. Not just academics, but life skills in general. As such, intelligent parents are more likely to possess those skills. I'm not saying that all stupid parents are bad, but the good ones I've met were only academically stupid. They would have passed an intelligence test with flying colors.

 

[jtr1962]

And yes, it will take a few generations for the leveling-out to occur and the end result may well be a world population of 9-12 billion. But it'll be a fairly stable population. Also, as the world's economy levels out, the per capita energy consumption will become a little closer to balanced (but the US may well maintain it's "lead" for some centuries based on the resources we have).

Unless we develop fusion very soon there is no way the planet can support even the current 6 billion in a lifestyle resembling what we enjoy in the US. The only reason we haven't finished the job of poisoning the planet is because half the world's population lives with no electricity or mechanized transportation. I'm not saying the world couldn't stably support 9-12 billion people, but it certainly couldn't do so by destroying forests to make roads and farmland and burning fossil fuels for power. Assuming we develop fusion, we can farm hydroponically under artificial lights in very tall structures and we can build our transportation network underground. By living mostly in densely populated cities we can exist in huge numbers this way with minimal environmental impact. But we need a limitless, non-polluting power source that we don't currently have.

can't say you'll breed for intellignece to the exclusion of other traits. You need to also breed for longevity/health, creativeness/artistic ability, analytical skills, mechanical aptitude, and all other traits needed to maintain a society and let it flourish. Basically, everyone has their place.

This was more or less my selection criteria as well. It would be a boring world if everyone was just academically smart and had no other interests.

Anyway, I think a good start would be to give all prepubescents something to keep them infertile until at least age 20. Not necessarily deny puberty; just fertility. This would end teen the teen mother sydrome which would automatically make the world a slightly better place.

This would take care of probably 90% of the problem. The worst parents are usually the youngest ones(again, there are exceptions). Teen mothers are almost universally supported on welfare, and get zero support from the fathers. I would probably make the minimum age to procreate at least 25, though, and maybe even 30. A child should have mature parents. Many people aren't in their twenties.

 

[blakerwry]

does anyone realize that if we breed for inteligence then we'll just end up raising the average intelligence... there will still be reletively stupid people and the "bar" will have to be rasied... this would keep happenning forever...

I like the population based theory.. I don't think we need smarter people, I think we need less people(or atleast not more).

 

[Tea]

.... and more Orangutangs ...

 

[flagreen]

Let's just selectively breed smaller people. Half-Size would be about right I would think. It works with ponies and dogs so why not humans - "Shetland Man". Enviromentally freindly. Half the mess and fuss.

 

[Tea]

Absolutely, Mr Green. Smaller peope, yes. With orange hair.

 

[Jake the Dog]

smaller people perhaps but lets keep the titty size as it is now :mrgrn: (following on from the excellent suggestion from oh-hariy-one!)

 

[Mercutio]

1. A civilized man judges not the shape of the bosums, only appreciates that they are there and available for all to admire.
It's possible to be a lecher and also a gentleman (or a gentlelady, even).

2. This thread has more value than a couple of jokes.

 

[Jake the Dog]

1. A civilized man judges not the shape of the bosums, only appreciates that they are there and available for all to admire.
It's possible to be a lecher and also a gentleman (or a gentlelady, even).

who's judging shape? just judging the size :wink:

2. This thread has more value than a couple of jokes.

absolutely right.

 

[its.fubar]

hey you guys you seem to have a very short memory to say the least or do not read any history books.

to give you some idea of what I'm talking about and maybe something to think about .

my father Was one of the many thousand who went to war in WW2 to stop people such as these, they were called Nazis then,they also though they should decide who should live or die.

 

[Santilli]

NO!
The answer is aids. We have too many people, and need more animals.

Kill humans, and let animals live.

s

 

[Santilli]

Most orangs are well endowed. They have the right idea...

:wink:

 

[Pradeep]

NO!
The answer is aids. We have too many people, and need more animals.

Kill humans, and let animals live.

s

I thought HIV originally came from monkeys in Africa? Maybe it's a conspiracy to kill us all, so the monkeys can roam free!