8 ms·

You mean like the problem of telling people they can't just drive cars or own firearms and need to meet some competence criteria first, i.e. licensing? If so,

You mean like the problem of telling people they can't just drive cars or own firearms and need to meet some competence criteria first, i.e. licensing? If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding.

sugarcube 11y ago
Unfortunately, that quickly leads into fashist territory (eugenics)...
- throwaway_789 11y ago
  That wouldn't lead to eugenics, it would very much already be eugenics.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Eugenics is about altering genetics by controlling breeding. Licensing decisions could be based on a broader range of criteria than just genetics. Genetics might not even come into it.
    - throwaway_789 11y ago
      Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce. Robust markets for DNA sequencing and clinical already exist. It'd be a vanishingly small step to pivot those platforms for eugenics. The licensing proposal is odious even if we were to (naively) discount conventional eugenics. Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce." What if the priorities of the eugenicists and other life licensers clash? For example, what if a known criminal was also the holder of some rare genes that would link up well with someone from the ruling class? > "Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class." So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        >So someone who is poor is of less "merit"? With the word in quotes like that? Absolutely yes.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Can you explain what you mean by that?
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Poor people are, in general, treated as if they have less merit. So they have merit in an absolute sense, but not in a societal opinion sense.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Explain to us what exactly is bad about eugenics in general, that is not related to Nazis doing their Nazi things because of their Nazi ideology?
    - throwaway_789 11y ago
      Eugenics has an unacceptably high -- and excruciatingly documented -- risk of mutating into a demographic weapon wielded by racial groups that have attained dominance by historical coincidence against other racial groups. It is a long-dormant existential threat to large populations. The fact that this cluster of comments is discussing "licensing" the fundamental right of humans to reproduce is in itself a triumph of dystopian rhetoric. Also, excluding Nazis from arguments against eugenics is like excluding Bolsheviks from arguments against communism. Spare me your precious Godwin's Law, Nazism is eminently relevant here.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > The fact that this cluster of comments is discussing "licensing" the fundamental right of humans to reproduce is in itself a triumph of dystopian rhetoric. We're discussing limits on reproduction because this "fundamental right" is most likely going to fuck up the planet. Don't confuse basic capability with a "right". > Also, excluding Nazis from arguments against eugenics is like excluding Bolsheviks from arguments against communism. Spare me your precious Godwin's Law, Nazism is eminently relevant here. Yeah, I'd like to exclude Bolsheviks from arguments against communism too. It's not about Godwin's Law, but about having an actual argument other than "somebody tried that before once and it didn't work". How about exploring why it didn't work and how we can avoid that particular failure mode while reaping the rewards, without throwing the entire concept out? Nazis are
        throwaway_789 11y ago
        > reproduction ... is most likely going to fuck up the planet Malthusian fallacy. The idea of a "population bomb" has been indoctrinated into the modern mind of certain political orthodoxies since the late 1960's. It has yet to pass, because it is wrong. The jeremiads of Malthus and Ehrlich are myopic and dangerously lacking in imagination. We will engineer ways to feed ourselves, generate potable water, control our climate, clean our air, and thrive -- all with a human population that monotonically grows over long periods of time. > Don't confuse basic capability with a "right". What does that even mean? The fact that the same people who fight for esoteric rights of privacy and free speech disproportionately flip their semantic switch to cast the most fundamental human right in scare quotes is difficult to fathom. > It's not about Godwin's Law, but about having an actual argument other than "somebody tried that before once and it didn't work". How about exploring why it didn't work and how we can avoid that particular failure mode while reaping the rewards, without throwing the entire concept out? Here's an "actual argument": modern history. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics. Arguments that an idea is grievously misguided based on broad appeals to disastrous periods in recent history brought about by that idea are valid in matters of social policy debate, which this is. We throw the entire concept out because it is intellectually rancid. The taboo is justified. We should not touch eugenics, just like we should not touch proposals for disenfranchising women or chattel slavery.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding." That sort of licensing is ripe for abuse. What would happen if someone in power took that license away from you just because they didn't agree with your political views?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- zo1 11y ago
  Then your problem isn't the license. The problem is your government. I.e. If the license becomes a problem, it's because you've got bigger problems.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "Then your problem isn't the license. The problem is your government." The license will still be administered by someone / some group. Whether you call those with the administrative powers a 'government' or not isn't really important.
- jazzyk 11y ago
  Not just political views. Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children. But what constitutes mentally ill? The line is fuzzy - perhaps someone is just a bit "quirky", but still could be a good parent? In order to have a license the criteria would have to be crystal clear and added to the Constitution (sorry, US-centric). And even if in the Constitution, someone could abuse it (see: NSA, surveillance).
  - arbitrage 11y ago
    > Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children. It is vastly oversimplifying, and prejudicial, to say something like that. Many more people than you seem to think have experienced, or will experience mental illness in their life. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-mental-illness-ami-among-adults.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-men...
kirsebaer 11y ago
Are you going to force women to abort "unlicensed" children? Force women to have birth control implants? Up until the 1990s in Spain, many thousands of children were systematically stolen from political activists and others with the wrong politics or wrong lifestyle. Parents were told that their newborn had died. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899
- adrianN 11y ago
  A less severe form would be financial incentives for licensed parents. You're still free to have children if you want, but you're only supported by the state if you got a license. Pair this with free birth control implants and abortions for everyone who wants them and you get most of the effect without the use of force. You could even pay men to get a vasectomy.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - throwaway_789 11y ago
      That would be eugenics. The how-to gusto and historical tone-deafness of three commenters in this chain are flabbergasting.
      - bigfudge 11y ago
        You're being down voted, but I don't know why. The tone of the debate is surprising to me too.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Maybe because "it's eugenics, and eugenics is bad, just look at the history!" appeal to 'historic tone-deafness' is not a valid argument. Yes, Nazi Germany did some shitty stuff for ideological reasons and tarnished the "eugenics" label, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of influencing human reproduction and/or selecting for preferred traits and/or direct DNA interventions.
fsloth 11y ago
"If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding." In the context of America this was already tried https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Early_proponents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#... Sterilization and licensing are the exactly same mechanism - the state holds veto right over who gets to procreate.

sugarcube 11y ago

Unfortunately, that quickly leads into fashist territory (eugenics)...

throwaway_789 11y ago
That wouldn't lead to eugenics, it would very much already be eugenics.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Eugenics is about altering genetics by controlling breeding. Licensing decisions could be based on a broader range of criteria than just genetics. Genetics might not even come into it.
  - throwaway_789 11y ago
    Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce. Robust markets for DNA sequencing and clinical already exist. It'd be a vanishingly small step to pivot those platforms for eugenics. The licensing proposal is odious even if we were to (naively) discount conventional eugenics. Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce." What if the priorities of the eugenicists and other life licensers clash? For example, what if a known criminal was also the holder of some rare genes that would link up well with someone from the ruling class? > "Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class." So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        >So someone who is poor is of less "merit"? With the word in quotes like that? Absolutely yes.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Can you explain what you mean by that?
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Poor people are, in general, treated as if they have less merit. So they have merit in an absolute sense, but not in a societal opinion sense.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Explain to us what exactly is bad about eugenics in general, that is not related to Nazis doing their Nazi things because of their Nazi ideology?
  - throwaway_789 11y ago
    Eugenics has an unacceptably high -- and excruciatingly documented -- risk of mutating into a demographic weapon wielded by racial groups that have attained dominance by historical coincidence against other racial groups. It is a long-dormant existential threat to large populations. The fact that this cluster of comments is discussing "licensing" the fundamental right of humans to reproduce is in itself a triumph of dystopian rhetoric. Also, excluding Nazis from arguments against eugenics is like excluding Bolsheviks from arguments against communism. Spare me your precious Godwin's Law, Nazism is eminently relevant here.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > The fact that this cluster of comments is discussing "licensing" the fundamental right of humans to reproduce is in itself a triumph of dystopian rhetoric. We're discussing limits on reproduction because this "fundamental right" is most likely going to fuck up the planet. Don't confuse basic capability with a "right". > Also, excluding Nazis from arguments against eugenics is like excluding Bolsheviks from arguments against communism. Spare me your precious Godwin's Law, Nazism is eminently relevant here. Yeah, I'd like to exclude Bolsheviks from arguments against communism too. It's not about Godwin's Law, but about having an actual argument other than "somebody tried that before once and it didn't work". How about exploring why it didn't work and how we can avoid that particular failure mode while reaping the rewards, without throwing the entire concept out? Nazis are
      - throwaway_789 11y ago
        > reproduction ... is most likely going to fuck up the planet Malthusian fallacy. The idea of a "population bomb" has been indoctrinated into the modern mind of certain political orthodoxies since the late 1960's. It has yet to pass, because it is wrong. The jeremiads of Malthus and Ehrlich are myopic and dangerously lacking in imagination. We will engineer ways to feed ourselves, generate potable water, control our climate, clean our air, and thrive -- all with a human population that monotonically grows over long periods of time. > Don't confuse basic capability with a "right". What does that even mean? The fact that the same people who fight for esoteric rights of privacy and free speech disproportionately flip their semantic switch to cast the most fundamental human right in scare quotes is difficult to fathom. > It's not about Godwin's Law, but about having an actual argument other than "somebody tried that before once and it didn't work". How about exploring why it didn't work and how we can avoid that particular failure mode while reaping the rewards, without throwing the entire concept out? Here's an "actual argument": modern history. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics. Arguments that an idea is grievously misguided based on broad appeals to disastrous periods in recent history brought about by that idea are valid in matters of social policy debate, which this is. We throw the entire concept out because it is intellectually rancid. The taboo is justified. We should not touch eugenics, just like we should not touch proposals for disenfranchising women or chattel slavery.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding." That sort of licensing is ripe for abuse. What would happen if someone in power took that license away from you just because they didn't agree with your political views?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zo1 11y ago
Then your problem isn't the license. The problem is your government. I.e. If the license becomes a problem, it's because you've got bigger problems.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "Then your problem isn't the license. The problem is your government." The license will still be administered by someone / some group. Whether you call those with the administrative powers a 'government' or not isn't really important.
jazzyk 11y ago
Not just political views. Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children. But what constitutes mentally ill? The line is fuzzy - perhaps someone is just a bit "quirky", but still could be a good parent? In order to have a license the criteria would have to be crystal clear and added to the Constitution (sorry, US-centric). And even if in the Constitution, someone could abuse it (see: NSA, surveillance).
- arbitrage 11y ago
  > Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children. It is vastly oversimplifying, and prejudicial, to say something like that. Many more people than you seem to think have experienced, or will experience mental illness in their life. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-mental-illness-ami-among-adults.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-men...

kirsebaer 11y ago

Are you going to force women to abort "unlicensed" children? Force women to have birth control implants? Up until the 1990s in Spain, many thousands of children were systematically stolen from political activists and others with the wrong politics or wrong lifestyle. Parents were told that their newborn had died. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899

adrianN 11y ago
A less severe form would be financial incentives for licensed parents. You're still free to have children if you want, but you're only supported by the state if you got a license. Pair this with free birth control implants and abortions for everyone who wants them and you get most of the effect without the use of force. You could even pay men to get a vasectomy.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - throwaway_789 11y ago
    That would be eugenics. The how-to gusto and historical tone-deafness of three commenters in this chain are flabbergasting.
    - bigfudge 11y ago
      You're being down voted, but I don't know why. The tone of the debate is surprising to me too.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Maybe because "it's eugenics, and eugenics is bad, just look at the history!" appeal to 'historic tone-deafness' is not a valid argument. Yes, Nazi Germany did some shitty stuff for ideological reasons and tarnished the "eugenics" label, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of influencing human reproduction and/or selecting for preferred traits and/or direct DNA interventions.

fsloth 11y ago

"If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding." In the context of America this was already tried https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Early_proponents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#... Sterilization and licensing are the exactly same mechanism - the state holds veto right over who gets to procreate.