14 ms·

"Creating societies where people enjoy basic health, relative prosperity, fundamental equality, and access to contraceptives is the only way to secure a sustain

"Creating societies where people enjoy basic health, relative prosperity, fundamental equality, and access to contraceptives is the only way to secure a sustainable world." I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else.

btian 13y ago
Do you mind explaining why? Providing contraception (especially condoms) can prevent STDs in addition to preventing unwanted child birth.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Of the many replies to this post, this is the best response (so far) because it promotes discussion instead of trying to presume, argue, or pre-emptively invalidate sdegutis's opinion.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    I posted one of my reasons as a reply to my original comment, but I think it's going to get drowned out in all the requests for it. Irony?
    - Crito 13y ago
      That's not irony. That is just the expected result of not being forthright.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        Lesson learned. Won't make that mistake again.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        I think you mean forthcoming. I think he was initially fairly straightforward (forthright) about saying he didn't want to state his position (not being forthcoming). It's a pedantic point, but there are implications about the character of the person you're talking about.
        sdegutis 13y ago
        Good point, although I didn't even notice, and I'm probably the one who could have taken offense at it. So I guess my ignorance worked out as a win this time?
- sdegutis 13y ago
  I can't. Not because I don't have legit reasoning (I'm convinced I do). But for a far more interesting reason: I'm one of the 0% in this community who hold this position. This means there's no chance for a fair debate. Socially speaking, I think this is far more interesting than my disagreement itself. EDIT: Ignore this, I have already responded. See the rest of the thread.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    I assure you it's greater than 0.49%. It's not like programming is devoid of conversative Christians [0], for example. [0] not that you're necessarily in that demographic, but it's probably the one most likely to oppose contraceptives.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      There are about 3 conservative Christians on HN.
  - pathy 13y ago
    No, you are making your opinion seem far worse by not even bothering to explain your reasoning. You make it sound like you would be a victim. HN may be biased in it's views by and large but if you don't even try to explain yourself, you give the impression that you are even more ignorant of others views than the ~100% are of yours.
  - ColinCochrane 13y ago
    There is no chance for fair debate if you avoid it because you assume there won't be a fair debate.
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    So you're saying it's interesting that you assume your point will be shot down? Assuming the reception of your viewpoints HN does nothing except suggest that you don't really have any reasoning at all, but want to frame yourself as a victim.
  - run4_too 13y ago
mikeash 13y ago
Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that. There are only two ways to accomplish this: having fewer children, or killing more people. The latter is what has historically dominated, but we've become so much better at keeping people alive in the last couple of centuries or so that it's no longer working. That aside, many people find that solution to be tasteless. That leaves having fewer children. Contraception is the only way to accomplish this. Yes, technically it is possible to accomplish this by avoiding sex. But socially, this doesn't work, because people simply don't do that. Contraception, however, does work. It's the only available solution to a serious problem, and that's why it's on the list.
- jordan0day 13y ago
  > Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that. But the third myth section covers your proposed malthusean explosion, and declares that it's not a valid concern.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Here's a quote from that section: "In Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s." The article is talking about our world, which is one in which contraceptives are widely available. We can't really look at alternate realities in which there are rich countries with no contraceptives and see how their birth rates fared, but I see no reason to assume they would drop, because people will still have sex. The Malthusian explosion is not a valid concern precisely because of contraception.
- hkolek 13y ago
  Please, for the love of god, stop with fearmongering about overpopulation already. It's pure nonsense. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate "The latest United Nations projections indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2062." [1] Also recommended: The documentary "Population Boom" by Werner Boote [2][3] [1] http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm [2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3107706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3107706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 [3] (German) http://www.populationboom.at/ http://www.populationboom.at/
macspoofing 13y ago
>I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. That's because access to contraceptives has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits. From reducing poverty, prevention of STDs, increasing maternal health (from unsafe abortions, and increasing inter-pregnancy interval), reinforcing women's rights and allowing for proper family planning. >When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else. You should, because there really is no downside. The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. It's kind of like being on the Jenny McCarthy side in the vaccine 'debate' - sometimes you're just wrong.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  > The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.
      - XorNot 13y ago
        Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.
run4_too 13y ago
Could I ask why? Would you, for example, ban them in our own society?
- sdegutis 13y ago
  Human life is our ultimate resource, for creative potential and resourcefulness and social fulfillment. It seems like we shouldn't squander this resource just because it can seem inconvenient at times. Taking the long view, collective humanity can probably ultimately solve all the "but what if" scenarios that are touted as justifications to stifle human life.
  - run4_too 13y ago
    That's a sound argument, and I agree with it, but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception. You and I are both a result of chance. To the level that your grandparents decided to have sex at 7PM instead of 7AM, and that your grandmother didn't shift to the right afterwards, allowing a different sperm to be "the fastest". Is our existence a denial of the person that would have been created had the other fact occurred? That's a rather strange position to take. Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is. Is a young married couple that chooses to have sex with a condom different from a couple that chooses not to have sex at all? Perhaps I'm not properly understanding your point though.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      "but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception." "Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is." Artificially disconnecting sex from children increases the bias in future generations against having children. I explained it better elsewhere in this thread. Abstinence doesn't cause this artificial disconnect.
      - run4_too 13y ago
        > the bias in future generations against having children You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all. There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.
abraininavat 13y ago
This person is trolling by getting people to argue with a position that he or she doesn't even put forth. Don't fall for it -- ignore people who say things and refuse to back them up.
- run4_too 13y ago
  I think it's more likely the person is being honest. I think the positive move would be to encourage him/her to express their rational and provide an example of how HN accepts different conclusions provided there is a logical process in creating those conclusions. What you are doing is providing example to buttress op's point as being correct. Best to leave that attitude on reddit.
  - abraininavat 13y ago
    Best to leave that attitude on reddit You disagree with my interpretation of this thread, fine. You might be right, great! The "best leave that attitude on reddit" comment is childish and does more to lower the quality of the conversation than my call to ignore unexplained (not even irrational) points. Grow up.
    - run4_too 13y ago
      I think your overall style is rather needlessly confrontational. First with OP, and now with me.
sdegutis 13y ago
My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world. There are so many wild cards, so many variables, that all these "but what if" arguments aren't convincing to me. In terms of resource depletion, I'm confident that the human race is capable enough to solve its major sustainability problems without stifling this major source of creative and resourceful potential.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to. Out of interest, do you want to see contraception restricted in the areas where it is already widely available, or just restricted for the people who do not yet have that access?
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    "Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to." I can't agree. I'm not saying it physically and literally stops them. But it does create an artificial separation that makes it more alluring to choose sex sans children.
    - the_af 13y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you somehow saying that procreation should be more or less random? That it's better if people don't get to decide when they will have children? What's your opinion of people who choose to remain celibate?
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        On an individual level, people can choose to have or not have children. That's not really what I'm getting at. My point is more about the collective mental separation between sex and having children. When children grow up in a society where you can have sex without having children, the default is to just have sex with no regard to this consequence. The thought of having children occurs less and less often. In fact, it often encourages a fear of having children, which suddenly taunts in the form of a life-ruining "accident". This is the kind of mental "artificial" limiting that I'm concerned about. It's not about the choice itself, it's about making one choice the default.
zeidrich 13y ago
Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless. No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them. A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves. A common rebuttal is that people should just not engage in sex if they are not intending to have children. This is maybe ideal in some moral frameworks, but whether it's ideal or not, it's not the reality. The reality is that some people will engage in sex anyways, and some people will be forced to engage in sex against their will. While it might be a goal to prevent these things from occurring, the reality is that they occur, and methods to mitigate the negative impacts of their occurrences are better than just finger-wagging. That said, if your argument is more along the lines of "The Pope says that it is wrong, and the Pope espouses God's will." then I can't really refute it. I can just disagree. In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice. If they shouldn't engage in sex for non-childbearing reasons, then they can struggle with that decision as well. However, when succumbing to that results in an unwanted childbirth, it does more than just punish the parent, it now involves the child and the whole community.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  My line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.
  - checker 13y ago
    As I read it, your original point was that you oppose the idea that global availability of contraception is necessary to increase sustainability. I think that's why people want you to expand on it.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
MartinCron 13y ago
Serious question: are you a parent? I have two (planned, lovely, adorable, whatever) children and while I adore them and am proud of what I'm doing, raising kids well (or at least as well as I'm able) is hard. Very hard. I mean, it's so hard that the very idea of compelling other people to do it when they haven't chosen to seems extremely immoral.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  My wife and I have 4 kids, from ages 1 to 10. Raising them is incredibly hard.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Thanks. I appreciate the response. Sorry you feel so embattled in your minority views here.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      The biggest take-away for me is that HN can make your work day totally unproductive if you let it.

btian 13y ago

Do you mind explaining why? Providing contraception (especially condoms) can prevent STDs in addition to preventing unwanted child birth.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
humanrebar 13y ago
Of the many replies to this post, this is the best response (so far) because it promotes discussion instead of trying to presume, argue, or pre-emptively invalidate sdegutis's opinion.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  I posted one of my reasons as a reply to my original comment, but I think it's going to get drowned out in all the requests for it. Irony?
  - Crito 13y ago
    That's not irony. That is just the expected result of not being forthright.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      Lesson learned. Won't make that mistake again.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      I think you mean forthcoming. I think he was initially fairly straightforward (forthright) about saying he didn't want to state his position (not being forthcoming). It's a pedantic point, but there are implications about the character of the person you're talking about.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        Good point, although I didn't even notice, and I'm probably the one who could have taken offense at it. So I guess my ignorance worked out as a win this time?
sdegutis 13y ago
I can't. Not because I don't have legit reasoning (I'm convinced I do). But for a far more interesting reason: I'm one of the 0% in this community who hold this position. This means there's no chance for a fair debate. Socially speaking, I think this is far more interesting than my disagreement itself. EDIT: Ignore this, I have already responded. See the rest of the thread.
- nollidge 13y ago
  I assure you it's greater than 0.49%. It's not like programming is devoid of conversative Christians [0], for example. [0] not that you're necessarily in that demographic, but it's probably the one most likely to oppose contraceptives.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    There are about 3 conservative Christians on HN.
- pathy 13y ago
  No, you are making your opinion seem far worse by not even bothering to explain your reasoning. You make it sound like you would be a victim. HN may be biased in it's views by and large but if you don't even try to explain yourself, you give the impression that you are even more ignorant of others views than the ~100% are of yours.
- ColinCochrane 13y ago
  There is no chance for fair debate if you avoid it because you assume there won't be a fair debate.
- dylandrop 13y ago
  So you're saying it's interesting that you assume your point will be shot down? Assuming the reception of your viewpoints HN does nothing except suggest that you don't really have any reasoning at all, but want to frame yourself as a victim.
- run4_too 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that. There are only two ways to accomplish this: having fewer children, or killing more people. The latter is what has historically dominated, but we've become so much better at keeping people alive in the last couple of centuries or so that it's no longer working. That aside, many people find that solution to be tasteless. That leaves having fewer children. Contraception is the only way to accomplish this. Yes, technically it is possible to accomplish this by avoiding sex. But socially, this doesn't work, because people simply don't do that. Contraception, however, does work. It's the only available solution to a serious problem, and that's why it's on the list.

jordan0day 13y ago
> Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that. But the third myth section covers your proposed malthusean explosion, and declares that it's not a valid concern.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Here's a quote from that section: "In Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s." The article is talking about our world, which is one in which contraceptives are widely available. We can't really look at alternate realities in which there are rich countries with no contraceptives and see how their birth rates fared, but I see no reason to assume they would drop, because people will still have sex. The Malthusian explosion is not a valid concern precisely because of contraception.
hkolek 13y ago
Please, for the love of god, stop with fearmongering about overpopulation already. It's pure nonsense. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate "The latest United Nations projections indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2062." [1] Also recommended: The documentary "Population Boom" by Werner Boote [2][3] [1] http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm [2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3107706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3107706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 [3] (German) http://www.populationboom.at/ http://www.populationboom.at/

macspoofing 13y ago

>I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. That's because access to contraceptives has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits. From reducing poverty, prevention of STDs, increasing maternal health (from unsafe abortions, and increasing inter-pregnancy interval), reinforcing women's rights and allowing for proper family planning. >When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else. You should, because there really is no downside. The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. It's kind of like being on the Jenny McCarthy side in the vaccine 'debate' - sometimes you're just wrong.

humanrebar 13y ago
> The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.

run4_too 13y ago

Could I ask why? Would you, for example, ban them in our own society?

sdegutis 13y ago
Human life is our ultimate resource, for creative potential and resourcefulness and social fulfillment. It seems like we shouldn't squander this resource just because it can seem inconvenient at times. Taking the long view, collective humanity can probably ultimately solve all the "but what if" scenarios that are touted as justifications to stifle human life.
- run4_too 13y ago
  That's a sound argument, and I agree with it, but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception. You and I are both a result of chance. To the level that your grandparents decided to have sex at 7PM instead of 7AM, and that your grandmother didn't shift to the right afterwards, allowing a different sperm to be "the fastest". Is our existence a denial of the person that would have been created had the other fact occurred? That's a rather strange position to take. Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is. Is a young married couple that chooses to have sex with a condom different from a couple that chooses not to have sex at all? Perhaps I'm not properly understanding your point though.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    "but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception." "Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is." Artificially disconnecting sex from children increases the bias in future generations against having children. I explained it better elsewhere in this thread. Abstinence doesn't cause this artificial disconnect.
    - run4_too 13y ago
      > the bias in future generations against having children You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all. There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.

abraininavat 13y ago

This person is trolling by getting people to argue with a position that he or she doesn't even put forth. Don't fall for it -- ignore people who say things and refuse to back them up.

run4_too 13y ago
I think it's more likely the person is being honest. I think the positive move would be to encourage him/her to express their rational and provide an example of how HN accepts different conclusions provided there is a logical process in creating those conclusions. What you are doing is providing example to buttress op's point as being correct. Best to leave that attitude on reddit.
- abraininavat 13y ago
  Best to leave that attitude on reddit You disagree with my interpretation of this thread, fine. You might be right, great! The "best leave that attitude on reddit" comment is childish and does more to lower the quality of the conversation than my call to ignore unexplained (not even irrational) points. Grow up.
  - run4_too 13y ago
    I think your overall style is rather needlessly confrontational. First with OP, and now with me.

sdegutis 13y ago

My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world. There are so many wild cards, so many variables, that all these "but what if" arguments aren't convincing to me. In terms of resource depletion, I'm confident that the human race is capable enough to solve its major sustainability problems without stifling this major source of creative and resourceful potential.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to. Out of interest, do you want to see contraception restricted in the areas where it is already widely available, or just restricted for the people who do not yet have that access?
- sdegutis 13y ago
  "Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to." I can't agree. I'm not saying it physically and literally stops them. But it does create an artificial separation that makes it more alluring to choose sex sans children.
  - the_af 13y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you somehow saying that procreation should be more or less random? That it's better if people don't get to decide when they will have children? What's your opinion of people who choose to remain celibate?
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      On an individual level, people can choose to have or not have children. That's not really what I'm getting at. My point is more about the collective mental separation between sex and having children. When children grow up in a society where you can have sex without having children, the default is to just have sex with no regard to this consequence. The thought of having children occurs less and less often. In fact, it often encourages a fear of having children, which suddenly taunts in the form of a life-ruining "accident". This is the kind of mental "artificial" limiting that I'm concerned about. It's not about the choice itself, it's about making one choice the default.

zeidrich 13y ago

Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless. No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them. A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves. A common rebuttal is that people should just not engage in sex if they are not intending to have children. This is maybe ideal in some moral frameworks, but whether it's ideal or not, it's not the reality. The reality is that some people will engage in sex anyways, and some people will be forced to engage in sex against their will. While it might be a goal to prevent these things from occurring, the reality is that they occur, and methods to mitigate the negative impacts of their occurrences are better than just finger-wagging. That said, if your argument is more along the lines of "The Pope says that it is wrong, and the Pope espouses God's will." then I can't really refute it. I can just disagree. In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice. If they shouldn't engage in sex for non-childbearing reasons, then they can struggle with that decision as well. However, when succumbing to that results in an unwanted childbirth, it does more than just punish the parent, it now involves the child and the whole community.

sdegutis 13y ago
My line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.
- checker 13y ago
  As I read it, your original point was that you oppose the idea that global availability of contraception is necessary to increase sustainability. I think that's why people want you to expand on it.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago

MartinCron 13y ago

Serious question: are you a parent? I have two (planned, lovely, adorable, whatever) children and while I adore them and am proud of what I'm doing, raising kids well (or at least as well as I'm able) is hard. Very hard. I mean, it's so hard that the very idea of compelling other people to do it when they haven't chosen to seems extremely immoral.

sdegutis 13y ago
My wife and I have 4 kids, from ages 1 to 10. Raising them is incredibly hard.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Thanks. I appreciate the response. Sorry you feel so embattled in your minority views here.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    The biggest take-away for me is that HN can make your work day totally unproductive if you let it.