81 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

Overpopulation is likely with true longevity, so should we limit procreation and focus more on quality/length of life instead of quantity of procreation?

(the goal being : Less people who are genetically screened and live longer, healthier, and happier lives with greater functionality?)

If no, how do you propose to deal with overpopulation and shouldn't we be trying to create better people rather than allowing current procreational practices?

Edited by abolitionist, 29 November 2008 - 04:32 PM.

[Lotus]

By one child policy, do you mean 1 child per couple, or 1 child per person?

There are some problems with having such policies regardless. What happens when a woman gets pregnant with twins or triplets or even more babies? No I think that people will naturally have less children when their standard of living improves and where there is emancipation and human rights. Other than encouraging people to adopt instead of having biological children, I think ultimately decisions about pregnancies should be made by the woman and the man involved.

[Heliotrope]

the 1 child policy of China creats lots of problems too. I don't think we need it yet

[VictorBjoerk]

I do not think that this is a good idea, I think people will find other solutions to that problem. I'm sure Shannon Vyff will give a good answer to this question if she reads this thread.

[niner]

It would be insane to have such a policy now, since our population would crash.

Even if we cured aging immediately, and delivered the cure to the entire world, the largest possible impact would be about 2 billion people over the next 50 years.

That isn't that big of a deal. I'm not convinced that population is that big of a problem, given that population is decreasing in all of the rich countries that would be the first to get anti-aging technology. This is enough of a non-problem that even talking about mandatory 1 child policies is counterproductive.

[abolitionist]

i haven't seen any solutions, but many claims that they exist.

I'm talking about (if) a true longevity treatment is available.

Assuming it was, don't you think that it would be withheld right now for fear of overpopulation?

Is it really true Niner that population is decreasing in all of the rich countries?

-----------

This is how I'd like to see population control implemented;

all procreation should require a procreational license and involve pre-implantation genetic screening

a women should be able to do what she wants with her body as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others

(including the rights of those we create)

making babies haphazardly is unethical

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 01:43 AM.

[abolitionist]

the 1 child policy of China creats lots of problems too. I don't think we need it yet

it's largely saved China from overpopulation which is a serious concern

it's mostly a problem for people who break the rules

and there should be exceptions for specific circumstances, like;

1. your child dies
2. you have twins

etc...

[abolitionist]

"I think ultimately decisions about pregnancies should be made by the woman and the man involved."

it's been proven that men and women will not make the best decisions for themselves, their children, or the human race. Here's a few examples;

1. accidental/unwanted pregnancies
2. refusal to genetically screen
3. intentionally creating children with genetic diseases (sick isn't it?)
4. having more children than you can take care of
5. having children to get welfare money

etc, etc, etc...

individual humans aren't able to make the best decisions for humanity, they are inherently self-interested and largely running on instinct

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 01:48 AM.

[abolitionist]

shouldn't we also try to prevent pregnancies in third world countries where people are living in terrible poverty and are infested with diseases like AIDs?

look at how many children are born into a world without food, medical treatment, or any hope

just because their parents couldn't stop humping

[niner]

Assuming it was, don't you think that it would be withheld right now for fear of overpopulation?

I don't think so. It will probably come out a little at a time, not all at once. Average and max lifespans for those who take advantage of all available treatements will creep up over time. We will have a lot of time to think about it. It will also cost a lot of money at first, so there will not be an overpopulation danger until it gets cheap enough for large numbers of people to use

Is it really true Niner that population is decreasing in all of the rich countries?

I believe that is the trend. In America, it is increasing due to immigration. Without immigration, it would be decreasing.

This is how I'd like to see population control implemented;
all procreation should require a procreational license and involve pre-implantation genetic screening
a women should be able to do what she wants with her body as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others
(including the rights of those we create)
making babies haphazardly is unethical

I mostly agree, except for pre-implantation genetic screening. I don't think the technology is quite there, and I don't think the need is quite big enough to justify the invasive procedure for everyone. If by "rights of those we create" you mean born persons, then I'm with you. If you mean embryos, then I'm not. I agree that making babies haphazardly is unethical. A lot of people, like Bristol Palin or many ghetto teens, for example, do it, and I think they shouldn't.

[abolitionist]

humans have a sick attitude towards their children, and up to relatively recently child sacrifice was an accepted practice in many ancient cultures

they tend to view them as their property because they were made from their bodies

but humans should be granted rights before they are designed, not once they become adults

men and women really don't care about what they are creating, that's why there is so little care for genetic screening

that's why the state must continue to protect children from parents and also expand this protection to include genetic screening

and procreational licenses to eliminate unwanted and inappropriate pregnancies

[Moonbeam]

Charge people more in taxes for every child, not less. If everybody has to pay the actual cost of their children's burden on society, that will take care of the problem. (I believe this would be the libertarian solution.)

[lightowl]

and procreational licenses to eliminate unwanted and inappropriate pregnancies

What does that mean? I license to have sex? Or should every man be temporarily sterilized at birth?

If everybody has to pay the actual cost of their children's burden on society, that will take care of the problem.

In Denmark its very cheap to have children ( almost free ). The government subsidizes each child with cash each month AND pays all medical bills. Still we have a declining birthrate. It has little to do with money and much to do with social circumstances. People are more interested in careers. The government want people to have more children and there is a good reason for that. Humans are a valuable resource for society. Humans start out as children ( if anyone had forgotten ).

it's largely saved China from overpopulation which is a serious concern

China already have an overpopulation problem, but they are solving it by many other means than restricting how many children people can have. The economic boom in china is bringing people out of poverty. That is increasing the resources available to everybody thus decreasing overpopulation. Also, you may have noticed that China is having a problem with having too many old/sick people now. That is one of the reasons for the boom in robotics technology in China. That may be a good spawning from a bad side effect of regulating child birth.

Edited by lightowl, 30 November 2008 - 02:25 AM.

[abolitionist]

Charge people more in taxes for every child, not less. If everybody has to pay the actual cost of their children's burden on society, that will take care of the problem. (I believe this would be the libertarian solution.)

I like that idea, however we can't punish parents for the random genetic defects that occur if they do go through screening

and we can't screen for everything yet

will inability to pay stop people from having kids? certainly a deterrent but they already do it now when they can't afford it

i think with some tweaking the idea could work as a good measure to help guard against haphazard pregnancies beyond what is sustainable or ethical

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 02:36 AM.

[abolitionist]

"What does that mean? I license to have sex? Or should every man be temporarily sterilized at birth?"

not to have sex, just to have children

with the options available now for contraception and birth control, sterilization shouldn't be needed

accept maybe for those proven unable to control themselves

or the disabled who cannot support or take care of children

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 02:37 AM.

[abolitionist]

"In Denmark its very cheap to have children ( almost free ). The government subsidizes each child with cash each month AND pays all medical bills. Still we have a declining birthrate. It has little to do with money and much to do with social circumstances. People are more interested in careers. The government want people to have more children and there is a good reason for that. Humans are a valuable resource for society. Humans start out as children ( if anyone had forgotten )."

Why not adopt if they are so concerned about having more children as resources?

Billions of children die every day from starvation and terrible living conditions.

Humans are not a resource for society, society is a resource for humans.

Society should focus on longevity to prevent the need (actually an addiction) for fresh fodder.

Is it a declining population or just a declining birth rate?

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 02:31 AM.

[lightowl]

will inability to pay stop people from having kids? certainly a deterent but they already do it now when they can't afford it

Have you not been paying attention? Having many children is still a resource for the poor. They already live the hard life. They already don't have money for health-care and education. That's why poor children are cheap.

[lightowl]

Why not adopt if they are so concerned about having more children as resources?

People already don't want many children. The few children they want, they want to be their own. Are you suggesting the government force people to adopt?

[abolitionist]

will inability to pay stop people from having kids? certainly a deterent but they already do it now when they can't afford it

Have you not been paying attention? Having many children is still a resource for the poor. They already live the hard life. They already don't have money for health-care and education. That's why poor children are cheap.

sometimes it's a deterrent, but not always

many times they do it out of lack of self control or because they simply want to have a big family - look at all the AIDS babies and those born into poverty, it certainly doesn't help the parents

look at all the parents struggling to feed their children...

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 02:35 AM.

[abolitionist]

Why not adopt if they are so concerned about having more children as resources?

People already don't want many children. The few children they want, they want to be their own. Are you suggesting the government force people to adopt?

their own? you mean 'ownership'?

how is an adopted baby different from one from your body?

Yes, if they want so badly to bring life into the world, they should be ethical and not driven by a desire for 'ownership' - whatever that means

sounds like a sick power trip to me

many parents love to brainwash their children and take pride in passing on their own bullshit to another human being

however, they can still raise adopted children who will be in their family... it's a sick motivation to want to make children just because they will look more like you or

take some kind of pride in knowing that they came from their loins - grow up people!

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 02:41 AM.

[lightowl]

Billions of children die every day from starvation and terrible living conditions.

That's a bit of an overstatement.

Humans are not a resource for society, society is a resource for humans.

Semantics. Of cause humans are a resource for society.

Is it a declining population or just a declining birth rate?

Both. That's why the government is concerned. It is leading to a lack of people in the workforce and not enough people to take care of the elderly. We have an extreme right-wing anti immigration government at the moment. They don't like foreigners.

[lightowl]

their own? you mean 'ownership'?

It means their own genes.

how is an adopted baby different from one from your body?

For many reasons. Do some research on that. Regardless of what you think, that's what people are choosing. People go to extraordinary length to have children "from their own body" as you say.

Yes, if they want so badly to bring life into the world, they should be ethical and not driven by a desire for 'ownership' - whatever that means

sounds like a pretty sick power trip to me

So, you would force people to adopt because you think they have a power-trip? Sounds like you are the one with the power-trip.

[abolitionist]

"Billions of children die every day from starvation and terrible living conditions."
That's a bit of an overstatement.

AB : you mean you don't care, right? why not feed the kids already born before creating new ones?

"Humans are not a resource for society, society is a resource for humans."
Semantics. Of cause humans are a resource for society.

AB : semantics? no it's called ethics, babies are not our fodder - that's your attitude perhaps

"Is it a declining population or just a declining birth rate?"
Both. That's why the government is concerned. It is leading to a lack of people in the workforce and not enough people to take care of the elderly. We have an extreme right-wing anti immigration government at the moment. They don't like foreigners."

and they are preventing adoptions from other countries? if so, they are racist scum!

I don't see why we should create more humans to care for the elderly and do our labor - that's not an ethical reason to procreate, especially considering that it isn't necessary and we're also largely ignoring longevity science

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 02:49 AM.

[lightowl]

it's a sick motivation to want to make children just because they will look more like you

You are pretty extreme in your conclusions. Of cause they don't do it JUST because they want them to look like them. That's one reason but there are many others, including an evolutionary urge to reproduce, but also a wish to give birth to their child.

Edited by lightowl, 30 November 2008 - 02:49 AM.

[abolitionist]

it's a sick motivation to want to make children just because they will look more like you

You are pretty extreme in your conclusions. Of cause they don't do it JUST because they want them to look like them. That's one reason but there are many others, including an evolutionary urge to reproduce, but also a wish to give birth to their child.

extreme? how is the position invalid and why does extreme have a negative association?

immortality is extreme - so we can eliminate that logic right here and now

the urge to have sex is not the urge to reproduce, there is no urge to make your own child - that's about the desire for ownership (power) and cultural prejudices

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 03:02 AM.

[lightowl]

"Billions of children die every day from starvation and terrible living conditions."
That's a bit of an overstatement.

AB : you mean you don't care, right? why not feed the kids already born before creating new ones?

Of cause I care about people in poverty. I also help those few I can. Can you say the same?

You said BILLIONS of children die EVERY DAY. That's an extreme overstatement. You then go ahead and conclude that I don't care about people starving. You sir are an extremist idiot. I am done arguing with you.

[abolitionist]

"Billions of children die every day from starvation and terrible living conditions."
That's a bit of an overstatement.

AB : you mean you don't care, right? why not feed the kids already born before creating new ones?

Of cause I care about people in poverty. I also help those few I can. Can you say the same?

You said BILLIONS of children die EVERY DAY. That's an extreme overstatement. You then go ahead and conclude that I don't care about people starving. You sir are an extremist idiot. I am done arguing with you.

the world population is projected to be around 7 billion, so yes there aren't billions dying every day, millions I should have said

I have 3 adopted kids...

so why are you telling me that you're done? did you get your feelings hurt and now are unwilling to debate?

If a person has their own kids while other children are starving and dying in terrible conditions - then yes, it's clear that they truly don't care.

It proves they care more about their sense of ownership and their own cultural prejudices than they do about dying, starving children.

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 03:01 AM.

[abolitionist]

their own? you mean 'ownership'?

It means their own genes.

how is an adopted baby different from one from your body?

For many reasons. Do some research on that. Regardless of what you think, that's what people are choosing. People go to extraordinary length to have children "from their own body" as you say.

Yes, if they want so badly to bring life into the world, they should be ethical and not driven by a desire for 'ownership' - whatever that means

sounds like a pretty sick power trip to me

So, you would force people to adopt because you think they have a power-trip? Sounds like you are the one with the power-trip.

I think they should be forced to adopt before having their own kids if we already having sick and dying parentless children, YES!

And why would or should they care if their children have their own genes?

Can you give one ethical reason?

And how is it ethical that that desire take precedence over the dying, starving children?

It's called - RACISM!!!

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 03:07 AM.

[abolitionist]

Would you be less happy with adopted kids?

Would the world be worse off for adopting instead of having your own?

Would it be more ethical to have your own instead of adopting those already in need of parents?

If the answer is NO to any of these questions, you should be able to provide some verifiable reasoning.

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 03:10 AM.

[abolitionist]

Clearly the world has too many people at present;

pollution
inability to feed, care for those already alive due to greed and mismanagement of resources
overcrowding

we like to say that there are solutions to these problems and that we should keep increasing our numbers for some odd reason - though I haven't seen it defined

however, the status quo continues, if we have solutions to pollution, overcrowding, and all the sick and dying masses living in poor conditions

why aren't we using them?

we need to stop overprocreation and the sick cultural prejudices of RACISM and effectively CULTURAL EUGENICS

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 03:16 AM.