5 ms·

It seems the problem is in the use of force. Apart from that, if there's a group of people that would make better than average parents, and whose kids would be

It seems the problem is in the use of force. Apart from that, if there's a group of people that would make better than average parents, and whose kids would be more likely to contribute more to society than they consume, then shouldn't that group be encouraged to have and adopt as many kids as they can afford to support?

milofeynman 5y ago
You're describing eugenics. The same sort of casual propaganda that the Nazi party and others would use. Most people who are highly successful right now got there through privilege and parental wealth, not through some sort of inherent talent.
- ackfoobar 5y ago
  > Despite full Maoist Communism in China, descendants of former landlords and rich peasants today earn 16% more than descendants of others. > They couldn't inherit wealth from grandparents, parents were barred from university in Cultural Revolution, but they inherited something https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1301012672138285059 https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1301012672138285059
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Just because one was barred from university or wealth doesn’t mean that the political entrenchment was eliminated. If I was a wealthy family that rubbed elbows with other wealthy families, such that all my family friends were from wealthy families, any success I gather would also have me nepotize my family friends into whatever companies I make and whatever government success I achieve.
duped 5y ago
Putting aside the ethics of eugenics, the tacit assumption there is that encouraging children is a good thing.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  No problem was ever solved by deliberately reducing the potential number of people available to solve it. If humanity faces resource constraints, the way to solve them is to get as many net-positive-resource people as possible working on solutions. One person could devote one lifetime to solving a problem. Or, they could have 4 kids, everyone devotes half of one life time (the other half to raising kids), and now there are 2.5+ lifetimes of effort spent on the problem.
  - duped 5y ago
    We aren't facing resource constraints, we're facing overuse of resources. The problem of overpopulation is not one of an inability to feed, house and water people - the problem is the impact we have upon our own environment. The single greatest thing we could do to improve our species' odds of survival today is reduce ourselves in number. Because we are currently causing a mass extinction event.

milofeynman 5y ago

You're describing eugenics. The same sort of casual propaganda that the Nazi party and others would use. Most people who are highly successful right now got there through privilege and parental wealth, not through some sort of inherent talent.

ackfoobar 5y ago
> Despite full Maoist Communism in China, descendants of former landlords and rich peasants today earn 16% more than descendants of others. > They couldn't inherit wealth from grandparents, parents were barred from university in Cultural Revolution, but they inherited something https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1301012672138285059 https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1301012672138285059
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Just because one was barred from university or wealth doesn’t mean that the political entrenchment was eliminated. If I was a wealthy family that rubbed elbows with other wealthy families, such that all my family friends were from wealthy families, any success I gather would also have me nepotize my family friends into whatever companies I make and whatever government success I achieve.

duped 5y ago

Putting aside the ethics of eugenics, the tacit assumption there is that encouraging children is a good thing.

nitrogen 5y ago
No problem was ever solved by deliberately reducing the potential number of people available to solve it. If humanity faces resource constraints, the way to solve them is to get as many net-positive-resource people as possible working on solutions. One person could devote one lifetime to solving a problem. Or, they could have 4 kids, everyone devotes half of one life time (the other half to raising kids), and now there are 2.5+ lifetimes of effort spent on the problem.
- duped 5y ago
  We aren't facing resource constraints, we're facing overuse of resources. The problem of overpopulation is not one of an inability to feed, house and water people - the problem is the impact we have upon our own environment. The single greatest thing we could do to improve our species' odds of survival today is reduce ourselves in number. Because we are currently causing a mass extinction event.