6 ms·
> Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here. Time could be th
by teeray 2y ago
> Just look at for example Elon Musk and imagine if there were no need for physical pregnancy which i think is the major limiting factor here.
Time could be the great equalizer here. Spending time with your children is pretty universally accepted as beneficial, so we could make it mandatory for extrauterine births over some threshold. It could be structured such that the more extrauterine children you have, the more of your 24 hours per day must be spent with them. I’m intentionally hand-waving over specifics of what that would look like and enforcement, but I’m sure you can come up with ideas. The goal is: if you want to artificially have hundreds of extrauterine children, society will take from you all the time you could have spent building rockets and running companies.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoTime isn’t a sufficient measure to serve as a proxy for quality parenting.
- ben_w 2y agoBut it is a way to limit people to a fixed maximum number of children. Say it's a requirement for an hour per day per child — no matter how many drugs Musk takes to stay awake, he can't have more than 24 kids.
- satvikpendem 2y agoBut, lots of people have many kids thst they don't take care of. Genghis Khan is one such example, apocryphally having so many kids as to constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him as an ancestor. So I don't quite get your point, there is no maximum.
- ben_w 2y agoThe suggestion is to change the rules, so what people currently do is irrelevant. Genghis Khan set the rules, which is why actually changing them would be very difficult.
- satvikpendem 2y agoThe suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. Genghis Khan is more closer to our current ruleset than anyone currently is to this suggested rule set, he didn't set any rules, he was following the same rules as people currently do, as I mentioned in the previous sentence.
- ben_w 2y ago> The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I can easily imagine a punishment of forced sterilisation for non-compliance. It wouldn't be the first time human society had that as a punishment.
- satvikpendem 2y agoI mean, if we're talking about totalitarian rather than democratic regimes, then sure, you can sterilize people who don't comply.
- ben_w 2y ago> democratic regimes UK, 2015, due to the mother not being capable of looking after her kids: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 Also, one of the main things that made it stop wasn't specifically democracy, but that eugenics became unacceptable, otherwise you'd have to explain why you think the US wasn't democratic until 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
- satvikpendem 2y agoOnce you start getting into forced sterilization, that is when you will start losing many people on so called reforms, it is simply untenable, regardless of whether the government is truly democratic or not (and by democratic earlier I meant non-totalitarian, I should've been more accurate). That ruling by the UK is also not something I'd support, even if the courts ruled so.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y agoI think a lot of people living at that time would constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him (or her) as an ancestor.
- scotty79 2y agoWe are limiting sperm donors. I don't see why wouldn't we limit future parents for the same reasons.