5 ms·

I know this is an unpopular opinion, and I wouldn't trust most countries to enact it properly but... I wish we had a "reverse-able sterilization at birth" meth

I know this is an unpopular opinion, and I wouldn't trust most countries to enact it properly but... I wish we had a "reverse-able sterilization at birth" method. It would be reversed at no cost to the individual, but if we could somehow set the default to "no kids", and give individuals the choice to turn it on, I think we would see a lot less of a population issue.

hx87 10y ago
I'm not sure why "contraception by default from birth with free reversibility" would be an unpopular opinion. People who don't want kids would be happy, people who want kids but want control over timing would be happy, even people who want kids to be an unexpected gift would be happy...
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I've spent a lot of time with religious people. Many of them think that our current birth-control methods are immoral. Many states in the US still have abstinence-only education.
- mc32 10y ago
  Mostly because it has echoes of eugenics. I agree this would not only control growth but pause our use of natural resources and would allow people in poor countries to do better economically as resources would not have to be shared among a growing pop. Alternatives to contraception, form a pop growth perspective are delayed reproduction (say at 35) or more same sex pairing.
  - erroneousfunk 10y ago
    At age 35? I know you were just throwing a number out, but at age 35, about 10% of women are completely infertile, and the odds of successfully conceiving are significantly decreased, meaning that even in that 90% who are fertile, they may not be able to get pregnant quickly enough to take advantage of their fertility before becoming infertile, even if they're ready to go and start reproducing right on their 35th birthday. And, on top of THAT, the rate of birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities dramatically increases after 35 (with another inflection point after roughly 40). So, yes, while it would significantly decrease the population, you'd be dramatically increasing the number of people, mostly women, who simply aren't able to have children at all.
    - denzil_correa 10y ago
      Could I have a credible source for these numbers?
      - erroneousfunk 10y ago
        There are tons of studies and data that can be found in many places (obviously, it's a fairly common topic of research) but here's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility They also have a table there, outlining the theoretical "percent of women who will fail to have a live birth" if they start trying to conceive at a certain age. Not the same thing as infertility -- they may be fertile, just unlucky up until the point that they're actually infertile. The numbers are a little all over the place, but for 35 year old women, it's somewhere between 13 and 22%
toomuchtodo 10y ago
While not "at birth", there is a non-profit working on this for men: https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/ https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/
serge2k 10y ago
That sounds absolutely monstrous.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  How is giving people a better opportunity to make an informed decision monstrous?
abstractbeliefs 10y ago
The main issue here for me is, "who turns it back on", and in what circumstances will they/won't they do it? People have a right to make their own reproductive choices, but there's a huge human, social, and economic cost when people have children at ill-advised points in their life (either too young, when sick, when poor), and it seems that relying on others to enable your reproductive rights is a hazard where the government or medical profession can remove that right from people. I don't really consider this strictly eugenics, as it's not done with the same intention of improving the global genepool, but instead it attacks it from a more shortsighted and "pragmatic" (economic/social) point of view, but in any case it would be a horrible future.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I completely agree, that's why I said I wouldn't trust most countries to enact it properly. I think if done right it could be a good solution, I just don't think it would be a good solution. There's too much potential for abuse.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    You could solve the moral issues by letting people just go get the birth control applied when they want to. Why force them to partake, and open up the easiest route for a government to screw with probably our most basic right.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      I think we should let people do that currently. My issue with the current way things are, though, is that the default is fertility. I know many people who had kids before they were ready, because it was unplanned. I'd argue that it's more moral to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but give people the choice to become fertile whenever they want. > Why force them to partake, and open up the easiest route for a government to screw with probably our most basic right. If you read my above comments: That's why, even though I wish we could implement it, I probably wouldn't support it if it was an available option. I don't trust any government to do it correctly.
eximius 10y ago
I don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. I think most people that dislike that do out of implementation concerns, not because they are actually opposed.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Well it doesn't matter before puberty, and access to long-term contraceptives like "the pill," depo-privera, diaphragms, IUDs, etc. starting at puberty can create the same effect of defaulting to no pregnancies (or at least extremely unlikely). I would also like to emphasize the importance of accurate, timely sex education so kids learn how their bodies work and what their options are. The combination of contraceptives + education has had a dramatic effect in Colorado on teen pregnancies. And although it's less of an issue in the U.S. and Europe, legal equality for women (right to own property, conduct a business, drive cars, hold political office, etc.) frees them from dependency on a husband. Even the basics help: marital rape is not yet a crime in every country today. In fact it wasn't a crime in all 50 states until 1993! My point here is that we don't need to imagine some sort of draconian program like universal reversible sterilization at birth. All we need to do is promote and make progress with the tools we already have. That can be just as effective, AND more moral as well.
sammydavis 10y ago
It's clearly a good idea. I've long had the same idea, Heinlein had the same idea, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long works.

hx87 10y ago

I'm not sure why "contraception by default from birth with free reversibility" would be an unpopular opinion. People who don't want kids would be happy, people who want kids but want control over timing would be happy, even people who want kids to be an unexpected gift would be happy...

CaptSpify 10y ago
I've spent a lot of time with religious people. Many of them think that our current birth-control methods are immoral. Many states in the US still have abstinence-only education.
mc32 10y ago
Mostly because it has echoes of eugenics. I agree this would not only control growth but pause our use of natural resources and would allow people in poor countries to do better economically as resources would not have to be shared among a growing pop. Alternatives to contraception, form a pop growth perspective are delayed reproduction (say at 35) or more same sex pairing.
- erroneousfunk 10y ago
  At age 35? I know you were just throwing a number out, but at age 35, about 10% of women are completely infertile, and the odds of successfully conceiving are significantly decreased, meaning that even in that 90% who are fertile, they may not be able to get pregnant quickly enough to take advantage of their fertility before becoming infertile, even if they're ready to go and start reproducing right on their 35th birthday. And, on top of THAT, the rate of birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities dramatically increases after 35 (with another inflection point after roughly 40). So, yes, while it would significantly decrease the population, you'd be dramatically increasing the number of people, mostly women, who simply aren't able to have children at all.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    Could I have a credible source for these numbers?
    - erroneousfunk 10y ago
      There are tons of studies and data that can be found in many places (obviously, it's a fairly common topic of research) but here's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility They also have a table there, outlining the theoretical "percent of women who will fail to have a live birth" if they start trying to conceive at a certain age. Not the same thing as infertility -- they may be fertile, just unlucky up until the point that they're actually infertile. The numbers are a little all over the place, but for 35 year old women, it's somewhere between 13 and 22%

toomuchtodo 10y ago

While not "at birth", there is a non-profit working on this for men: https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/ https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/

serge2k 10y ago

That sounds absolutely monstrous.

CaptSpify 10y ago
How is giving people a better opportunity to make an informed decision monstrous?

abstractbeliefs 10y ago

The main issue here for me is, "who turns it back on", and in what circumstances will they/won't they do it? People have a right to make their own reproductive choices, but there's a huge human, social, and economic cost when people have children at ill-advised points in their life (either too young, when sick, when poor), and it seems that relying on others to enable your reproductive rights is a hazard where the government or medical profession can remove that right from people. I don't really consider this strictly eugenics, as it's not done with the same intention of improving the global genepool, but instead it attacks it from a more shortsighted and "pragmatic" (economic/social) point of view, but in any case it would be a horrible future.

CaptSpify 10y ago
I completely agree, that's why I said I wouldn't trust most countries to enact it properly. I think if done right it could be a good solution, I just don't think it would be a good solution. There's too much potential for abuse.
- serge2k 10y ago
  You could solve the moral issues by letting people just go get the birth control applied when they want to. Why force them to partake, and open up the easiest route for a government to screw with probably our most basic right.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I think we should let people do that currently. My issue with the current way things are, though, is that the default is fertility. I know many people who had kids before they were ready, because it was unplanned. I'd argue that it's more moral to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but give people the choice to become fertile whenever they want. > Why force them to partake, and open up the easiest route for a government to screw with probably our most basic right. If you read my above comments: That's why, even though I wish we could implement it, I probably wouldn't support it if it was an available option. I don't trust any government to do it correctly.

eximius 10y ago

I don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. I think most people that dislike that do out of implementation concerns, not because they are actually opposed.

snowwrestler 10y ago

Well it doesn't matter before puberty, and access to long-term contraceptives like "the pill," depo-privera, diaphragms, IUDs, etc. starting at puberty can create the same effect of defaulting to no pregnancies (or at least extremely unlikely). I would also like to emphasize the importance of accurate, timely sex education so kids learn how their bodies work and what their options are. The combination of contraceptives + education has had a dramatic effect in Colorado on teen pregnancies. And although it's less of an issue in the U.S. and Europe, legal equality for women (right to own property, conduct a business, drive cars, hold political office, etc.) frees them from dependency on a husband. Even the basics help: marital rape is not yet a crime in every country today. In fact it wasn't a crime in all 50 states until 1993! My point here is that we don't need to imagine some sort of draconian program like universal reversible sterilization at birth. All we need to do is promote and make progress with the tools we already have. That can be just as effective, AND more moral as well.

sammydavis 10y ago

It's clearly a good idea. I've long had the same idea, Heinlein had the same idea, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long works.