7 ms·

It's time to consider restricting human breeding

3 points by DLay 12y ago

eip 12y ago
Rich people have been considering it for over one hundred years. Lucis Trust, Hitler, Monsanto, UN Agenda 21, Bill Gates Foundation, and many more. Frankencorn is already quite a few steps ahead of you.
DamnSpam 12y ago
They may as well expedite the detonation of the planet through information saturation, a capability available to everyone & more.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Western countries are experiencing reproductive failures - folks getting married later or not at all, folks having one or zero children. Germany, Japan and now the USA having this epidemic. Now you want to restrict reproduction?
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Western countries are experiencing reproductive failures Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Notwithstanding this, the idea of "restricting reproduction" is a non-starter in a civilized world. History shows this can't work if the power is given to governments. If people educate themselves and then choose, different story. Part of that education is to realize that the human population may already be three times larger than its long-term sustainable level: http://arachnoid.com/peak_people http://arachnoid.com/peak_people But the bottom line is that people must choose based on free will, not be "restricted" in their choices. If this isn't so, the cure will be worse than the disease.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Its a failure of the country as an organism. Countries can have crime problems, economic problems, and reproductive problems. They're all measured statistically.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > Its a failure of the country as an organism. So people aren't free to have ideas instead of children? The most important modern ideas do more to shape the modern world than any number of children -- except those children who have ideas.
  - sbierwagen 12y ago
    Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      >> Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many >> children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. > Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. Only in a narrow biological sense. But remember that reproduction is not about individuals, it's about genes. If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes. > From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. False, if you are a member of a genetically related group and you contribute something other than sperm to the process. If this were not so, everyone past prime reproductive years, everyone not actively engaged in direct biological reproductive activity, would be useless and might as well die. This is clearly not the case. Imagine that you are a teacher or a scientist. Do I really have to explain this?
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        "If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes." In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes (hypothesize, say, a gene that contributes to idea-having and ideas that benefit idea-havers). Or, of course, if he helps his close relatives in other ways. But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for - though on a values level, I'd certainly like to encourage it! Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes.
        lutusp 12y ago
        > In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes ... Yes, which is why I emphasized membership in a genetic cohort. But think about that cohort -- being a human distinguishes you from the cockroaches competing for the same resources. So if you only taught people how to kill cockroaches and nothing else, you would have contributed to the fitness of the human genotype. > But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for ... On the contrary, see above. Imagine that someone does nothing except make fire manageable to his tribe, and the fire technology serves a number of beneficial purposes like cooking and warding off predators after nightfall. It's also been suggested that an altruistic act like saving an unrelated human at some personal risk, can be explained this way, rather than by way of a religious or other explanation. > Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes. Memes and genes are linked.
mullingitover 12y ago
Brave New World was supposed to be a story about a dystopian future, but I always thought the idea of automating production of humans and creating planned societies was a brilliant innovation. Why bother with trying to restrict breeding through coercion? Simply manufacture enough sterile humans using artificial wombs, and eventually they could outcompete the 'feral' population. As a bonus, you could perfectly control population levels and prevent the top-heavy population trees that are occurring in Japan and Italy, for example.

3 points by DLay 12y ago

eip 12y ago

Rich people have been considering it for over one hundred years. Lucis Trust, Hitler, Monsanto, UN Agenda 21, Bill Gates Foundation, and many more. Frankencorn is already quite a few steps ahead of you.

DamnSpam 12y ago

They may as well expedite the detonation of the planet through information saturation, a capability available to everyone & more.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Western countries are experiencing reproductive failures - folks getting married later or not at all, folks having one or zero children. Germany, Japan and now the USA having this epidemic. Now you want to restrict reproduction?

lutusp 12y ago
> Western countries are experiencing reproductive failures Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Notwithstanding this, the idea of "restricting reproduction" is a non-starter in a civilized world. History shows this can't work if the power is given to governments. If people educate themselves and then choose, different story. Part of that education is to realize that the human population may already be three times larger than its long-term sustainable level: http://arachnoid.com/peak_people http://arachnoid.com/peak_people But the bottom line is that people must choose based on free will, not be "restricted" in their choices. If this isn't so, the cure will be worse than the disease.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Its a failure of the country as an organism. Countries can have crime problems, economic problems, and reproductive problems. They're all measured statistically.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Its a failure of the country as an organism. So people aren't free to have ideas instead of children? The most important modern ideas do more to shape the modern world than any number of children -- except those children who have ideas.
- sbierwagen 12y ago
  Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    >> Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many >> children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. > Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. Only in a narrow biological sense. But remember that reproduction is not about individuals, it's about genes. If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes. > From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. False, if you are a member of a genetically related group and you contribute something other than sperm to the process. If this were not so, everyone past prime reproductive years, everyone not actively engaged in direct biological reproductive activity, would be useless and might as well die. This is clearly not the case. Imagine that you are a teacher or a scientist. Do I really have to explain this?
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes." In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes (hypothesize, say, a gene that contributes to idea-having and ideas that benefit idea-havers). Or, of course, if he helps his close relatives in other ways. But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for - though on a values level, I'd certainly like to encourage it! Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes ... Yes, which is why I emphasized membership in a genetic cohort. But think about that cohort -- being a human distinguishes you from the cockroaches competing for the same resources. So if you only taught people how to kill cockroaches and nothing else, you would have contributed to the fitness of the human genotype. > But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for ... On the contrary, see above. Imagine that someone does nothing except make fire manageable to his tribe, and the fire technology serves a number of beneficial purposes like cooking and warding off predators after nightfall. It's also been suggested that an altruistic act like saving an unrelated human at some personal risk, can be explained this way, rather than by way of a religious or other explanation. > Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes. Memes and genes are linked.

mullingitover 12y ago

Brave New World was supposed to be a story about a dystopian future, but I always thought the idea of automating production of humans and creating planned societies was a brilliant innovation. Why bother with trying to restrict breeding through coercion? Simply manufacture enough sterile humans using artificial wombs, and eventually they could outcompete the 'feral' population. As a bonus, you could perfectly control population levels and prevent the top-heavy population trees that are occurring in Japan and Italy, for example.