3 ms·
Rather than sterilizing people, I've often thought that maybe we should rather have things like means-testing. Originally it was more in the context of not lett
by zo1 3y ago
Rather than sterilizing people, I've often thought that maybe we should rather have things like means-testing. Originally it was more in the context of not letting poor kids suffer, but perhaps we expand it to make sure kids will have a healthy and safe and loved childhood.
There is something very visceral that comes out of people when you suggest that procreation should perhaps not be a universal right. And don't get me wrong, I think parenthood is integral to a society, but we're broken atm and need to get to a place where we have an upward trajectory.
- esarbe 3y agoHow about means-providing instead? Poverty is not a choice but dictated by economic circumstances. If you want to "fix" humanity, it's not by taking away a universal right from humans, but by making sure that their needs are are taken care of.
- zo1 3y agoI think that's what I meant, perhaps I used the wrong word. So we "test" that they have the "means" to provide a roof and food for their children? And yeah, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be helping them at the same time
- esarbe 3y agoThanks for clarifying!
- zimpenfish 3y ago> So we "test" that they have the "means" to provide a roof and food for their children? But when? Pre-conception seems like the best choice and yep, they have $$$. Oh, no, month 2 of the pregnancy has a complication which wipes out $$ of their money. Still, good to go. Oh no, there's a birth complication and that's another $$ wiped out. Basically on the edge of financial viability now - do you take the baby away? Then there's, say, a global economic meltdown and our unlucky parents are now wildly underwater - do you take the baby away? Or the landlord decides to jack up the rent or sell the building or ... It's a nice idea but ultimately unworkable unless you can predict the future.