4 ms·
> Cash handouts to encourage poor men to receive vasectomies for example. Yikes. There is a better alternative: it is very well known/studied that women that
by cies 6y ago
> Cash handouts to encourage poor men to receive vasectomies for example.
Yikes.
There is a better alternative: it is very well known/studied that women that have a strong position and are educated have less children.
One (poor; your words) man without a vasectomy can knock up many women. Hence I think it's better to focus on the women.
- IronRanger 6y agoWe can't wait decades for that process to play out. The environment doesn't have the time. Offer young poor men with one or zero children a vasectomy: and give them a bicycle, a shack with a light, a pressure cooker, a phone, a solar charger and battery. Total cost a few hundred dollars. This will shortcut what people ultimately materially want and would also fundamentally alleviate poverty.
- cies 6y agoI totally cringe at your focus on poor/rich. Rich peeps are so much worse for the environment than the poor. Look at what an average Bangladeshi cranks out in CO2-equivalent, water use, landfill contribution and compare that to an average USer. Sure I get that having many children is a multiplier, but even if that average Bangladeshi couple has 4 they still dont contribute as much to environmental destruction as an average US couple without kids. My solution would be (as only picking on someone's solution is not nice in a discussion): only tax pollution, scarce resources and stuff that otherwise needs to be disincentivized. Only. So no tax on wholesome behavior like income from labor or housing. And yes: money is a scarce resource (tax the shit out of it over say 5 or 10MM USD). This will rearrange the economy to do good for us all + nature.
- cies 6y agoI see the parent comment is removed ([flagged]). The author mentioned paying poor men for vasectomies as the quickest and pretty much only solution to environmental problems.
- thatseugenicsm8 6y agoHave you ever heard of the term "eco-fascism"?
- cies 6y agoi have.
- beerandt 6y agoWhy is a different method any less "yikes" for govt action attempting essentially the same goal?
- Pfhreak 6y agoOne uses coerced sterilizations and the other is about raising the level of education of half the population? It should be pretty clear why improving education is not a yikes while eugenics is.
- beerandt 6y agoIt's still coercion, if that's the purpose. I'm not suggesting we not educate people. I am suggesting that the attempt of suppressing reproduction within a particular demographic, no matter the incentive or perceived "good" that results (cash or education), is walking a very fine line.
- Pfhreak 6y agoOh, I see the point you are raising. Yes, if your reason for educating and empowering women is so they will have fewer children (statistically) then yeah, definitely need to questioned.
- cies 6y agoBoth are not coercion. One is paying poor (cash hungry) men for something irriversible they may later regret. The other is providing education to poor women, and empowering them so they will (statistically) decide to have less babies. Coercion is waaaay less, to the point that I'd like to say educating is not coercing. Education can be undone, unused, forgotten. Vasectomies not so much. I dont think "totally" suppressing reproduction is what happens: those women still want/can/will have babies, just not so many.