Thread: Disfunctional Population Growth

I assume its not the size of the population thats the problem, but the cirumstances in which a reat number of the population is being raised. I'd say deifntely run with the cutting benefits idea.
Single parents be they male and female should be allowed to raise one child, (if they have a good enough job to support both them and the child)
If they cant support both themslelves and the child, there are plenty of couples who cannt have children, who'd love to adopt a child. And gay couples may I add.
And i f a single parent has a second child, whilst the frist is still in full care I would suggest regardless of the salary the child must be taken out of ehr care and palced with a couple who are deemed responsible enough to care for the child.
=)
Imran

Your post covers so many heated issues. Many that I don't feel like getting in an argument about. I have been there. It only goes round & round.

What does seam evident to me is education.
The more educated cultures and countries have a more sustained population and less of the other issues you mentioned.
> Maybe free college tuition for State residents. Like California.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Your post covers so many heated issues. Many that I don't feel like getting in an argument about. I have been there. It only goes round & round.

What does seam evident to me is education.
The more educated cultures and countries have a more sustained population and less of the other issues you mentioned.
> Maybe free college tuition for State residents. Like California.
[/b]

I definitely don't want to argue with anybody about this. I was just mentioning one proposal that I haven't heard too many people ever comment on. I totally agree that there are lots of other factors involved in disfunctional upbringing. There are lots of kids who grow up with two parents with tons of money and end up being profoundly disfunctional, and there are a significant number of kids who grow up in single parent homes, even where the single parent is a drug addict or mentally ill, and the kids turn out to be great people. Of course there are other factors. I am talking about how on the mass scale, the vast majority of people who aren't going to be responsible and/or equipped parents are going to have kids that grow up to be trouble for society. When I was a mental health case manager, I saw for myself so many homes where one mother who was completely dependent on the government even to take care of herself had more kids than I could even keep up with. That is dangerous for society on the large scale. I assumed that everybody would agree with that much. The question is what to do about it. That is the part I don't want to argue about. I can see where some people would say that the proposal I mentioned might be unethical. I wasn't trying to promote it as a definite solution. I just want to see what people would say about it because I haven't heard much about it.

Improving education is one of the most important things we can do. That is a whole new discussion we could all get into. I will just say that the problem with education in the United States is the public school system. I don't think lack of funding is the problem there. I remember when the Mississippi (the worst education state in the U.S.) legislature raised sales tax from 6% to 7% and the extra 1% was to be put 100% into education. Not a damn thing changed as a result of it. The problem is that there is no competition among the public schools, so the people who run them don't give much more effort than what is required of them to keep their jobs. I believe in a voucher system that gives people a choice on what school to send their kids to. If school principals would get a commission from the vouchers used for their schools, they would work much harder to make sure that things are done well. The socialist public education system we have right now sucks. Private schools in the United States kick ass because of the competition element. I think we should give public schools the same benefit. That would change a great deal in our country.

I disagree with the top. It reminds me of Gauss the great mathematician he had a family like you describe however he turned out to be the second most intelligent person ever. The best solution i heard was to raise the education of children by lowering age when it starts so they start proper education at 2/3 instead of 5. This would solve all the problems and proberly raise every childrens intelligence and they would get brought up betters as they will not be wasting it at home.

A) You're making an extreme generalization here that all addicts are bad people and would make horrible ("the worst") parents. Ties in with point B...

B) That is incredibly unethical. You obviously are thinking its just as ethical as forcing people, but it is really no better. There are in ALTERED MIND STATES. In a state of ADDICTION, (hint: you are addicted) you will do anything for the drug. EXPLOITING this fact (hint: they are not choosing to be addicted) it morally unethical. Not are you exploiting their involuntary addiction, but you are giving them more opportunity to become high and do more of the drug. You forget that there are many really nice people who are addicted simply because they were experimenting, there was peer pressure, etc., and now they can't stop. They cannot make rational decisions when they are having their cravings and this is just wrong, I think.

C) Honestly, what is the point of this? If you believe that these addicts and desperate people are what is making this "dysfunctional population" (for the most part), than it is, to be honest, stupid, to do this. For one, you are letting these people continue having their intense addiction as well as denying them the ability to produce life. You are also stopping millions of great people from being born. Now to my point -- instead of spending 100 dollars to give them the vasectomy/tube tying... think of this solution. Giving 100 dollars as well as paying for one of those operations for millions of people... is going to be many billion dollars (and if you did that for more than a couple of years -- 100 millions or even billions). Instead of spending these hundreds of billions of dollars in exploiting someone's addiction and preventing "dysfunctional" babies from being born, why not FUND SOME SERVICES FOR THESE PEOPLE. Make addict "shelters" and methadone treatment centers. Not only are you helping these people, you are helping unborn babies.

D) It would be cheaper to HELP these people, probably, rather than simply "do away with them" and let them fuck themselves over completely. And more, who the HELL would give billions of dollars and provide thousands of doctors willing to do this regularly? No one is going to be willing to exploit these people WHILE fucking them completely. However, helping them, which is ethically and just... logically... a way better decision.

E) You are biased. This is obvious because you'd rather fuck these people over completely (exploiting an addiction) than help them with their problem. Not as if I've had, but I bet you've never had any drug-addicted parents or relatives. If you had, would you really go up to them and say "Hey, I'll give you 100 dollars if you let me make it so you can't have kids." You'd rather live in a nation with no problems at all, which, by the way, won't happen. We have problems, and instead of dishing out a lot of money to just ignore the problem, try to solve it. Don't just try to put these people into "ghettos" and separate them from "high-class people." Help them and you help our nation...

I would typically try not to generalize. In this case, I think with the so many variables and factors that encompass the post that education was the best "fix it" I could even comprehend, without degeneralizing the topic into a million categories.

In certain cases you have to generalize.
Addicts as a whole would make bad parents. Taking small exceptions ruins any possibility of moving forward.
One parent is typically not as good as two parents.
So on and so forth.

I agree with your basic statement of this problem with society, Universal Mind. Because of the higher birth-rate in poorer families, the gap between rich and poor is destined to widen, and the growth of a disaffected and troublesome sub-class is unavoidable. BUT.

Originally Posted by Universal

There are definitely exceptions, but most kids who aren't raised by fathers significantly lack conscience.[/b]

Unsupported generalisation

Though you raise a few interesting points and ideas, your narrative seems embedded in what is almost a Victorian conception of the family and the male's role in it. I'd argue that it is the female influence on a child, rather than the male's, that encourages emotional development and what you refer to as "conscience". You also come off as distinctly anti-feminist, bordering on mysoginistic. Just commenting.

My word-of-the-day-calendar word for today: "Lumpenproletariat" 1) The lowest, most degraded stratum of the proletariat. Used originally in Marxist theory to describe those members of the proletariat, especially criminals, vagrants, and the unemployed, who lacked class consciousness. 2) The underclass of a human population.

And now, my chance to use it in a sentence: I agree with UM that the lumpenproletariat should not be allowed to breed.

Just kidding. Some of my best friends.

I think reproduction should be a privelege, not a right, and that people should have a licence to reproduce. One of the qualifications would be that you can prove that you can support the offspring, including education thru college, provide health insurance, etc everything else kids need. Anyone who would take $100 to sterilize themselves probably would not be in this category. And if they do it in a state when they are not thinking rationally...well, that kind of speaks for itself as to the kind of parent they would make.

This is not cruel. They will be happier without the burden of children, the potential abused and/or neglected kids will be better off not having been born, and none of them will be a burden on society. This is not a moral judgement on their lifestyle choice, which I have nothing against, as long as they don't expect to be subsidized by unwilling donors (taxpayers). At the least, anyone who wants welfare should be sterilized.

Why is this primitive drive to spread ones genes seen as such a sacred right? I'm for freedom of choice for everything...except for maybe this one little thing that has the most effect on so many others, and can really be taken care of so easily.

(I know this is all hypothetical. People would let every other right they have be taken away before this one. No matter how horrible the circumstances, people will continue to breed like rats, and nothing will ever stop them. Luckily education does slow it up a little, and if anything can ever do any good, that will be it.)

Some highlights from a very ignorant post:

Originally Posted by ataraxis

A) You're making an extreme generalization here that all addicts are bad people and would make horrible ("the worst") parents. Ties in with point B...

B) That is incredibly unethical. You obviously are thinking its just as ethical as forcing people, but it is really no better. There are in ALTERED MIND STATES. In a state of ADDICTION, (hint: you are addicted) you will do anything for the drug.

C) Honestly, what is the point of this? If you believe that these addicts and desperate people are what is making this "dysfunctional population" (for the most part), than it is, to be honest, stupid, to do this. For one, you are letting these people continue having their intense addiction as well as denying them the ability to produce life.

E) You are biased. This is obvious because you'd rather fuck these people over completely (exploiting an addiction) than help them with their problem. Not as if I've had, but I bet you've never had any drug-addicted parents or relatives.
[/b]

You did a very poor job of reading what I wrote. I said SEVERAL times that I was only mentioning a proposal and not saying I agree with it. I just wanted to see what other people's opinions are. You also really jumped the gun to some very unfounded conclusions. For one thing, I have had a lot of trouble with drug addiction my damn self. I am a true blue pot head if there ever was one. I have almost died of alcohol overdoses on many occasions. I have have gone overboard with cocaine several times, and my heart almost stopped beating from it on one occasion. The same happened with meth twice. And most importantly, I was an every day user of pain killers for a long time, primarily forms of synthetic heroin in needles. On top of that, many of my best friends from college are now dead from pain killer overdoses. Some of the ones that are still alive are hopelessly addicted. I have been through all kinds of crazy stuff with them, watched intense drama with their families, and seen exactly how they operate. I have talked to them extensively about their problems, even on a daily basis. I let one of them live with me for two months after he got out of rehab. He ended up robbing me and later confessing while crying when I didn't even know that my gun and 61 of my CD's had been stolen. At the time, I was taking care of his dog because he and his brother couldn't take care of him (A DOG!!&#33 because they were too damn addicted. They ended up giving me the dog because they were hopeless, and five years later, they still are. I was also a mental health case manager for four years and worked with tons of drug addicts. I know drug addiction! And guess what... I know that drug addicts are not able to raise children well, usually not able to do it at all. That is a fact. They make horrible parents. I never said they are all bad people. You pulled that one out of your ass, and a few other things came out with it.

As you said, they will do "anything" for their drug. That is so true. The drug takes on importance over absolutely everything else. Children can't compete with that. If you think people in that state make good parents, then I hope you will get yourself sterilized.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

I agree with your basic statement of this problem with society, Universal Mind. Because of the higher birth-rate in poorer families, the gap between rich and poor is destined to widen, and the growth of a disaffected and troublesome sub-class is unavoidable. BUT.
Unsupported generalisation

Though you raise a few interesting points and ideas, your narrative seems embedded in what is almost a Victorian conception of the family and the male's role in it. I'd argue that it is the female influence on a child, rather than the male's, that encourages emotional development and what you refer to as "conscience". You also come off as distinctly anti-feminist, bordering on mysoginistic. Just commenting.
[/b]

I am interested in dealing with reality, not political correctness. I take the problem very seriously. Read what I said to Altaraxis, and you will pick up on a few clues as to why. I think men and women are equal in human terms. I value their lives and well being equally. However, I recognize that there are major differences in their abilities and therefore social functions. Men and women differ in more areas than hormones and genitalia. Mothers play a very important role in child development. However, the consience factor alone is affected much more by the father. I didn't make that up. Plenty of studies support it, so it is not unfounded. Part of the difference is the intimidation factor. I never worried for two seconds about getting in trouble with my mother. My only concern was getting in trouble with my father. He was the far better disciplinarian. If I made a bad grade on a progress report, I would get my mother to sign it and plead with her not to tell my father. That is generally how things work. That is why fathers are usually necessary for the development of conscience. As soon as society recognizes that instead of worrying that holier than thou political correctness police will jump on them for recognizing relevant reality, the better off we will be. Women serve very important functions in other areas, so by far the best formula is a two parent home. By far! But I applaud people who overcome the obstacle and turn out to be great people without that advantage.

By the way, was your comment about how women play a more important role in emotional development "anti-masculist"?

Originally Posted by Universal

Some highlights from a very ignorant post:
You did a very poor job of reading what I wrote. I said SEVERAL times that I was only mentioning a proposal and not saying I agree with it. I just wanted to see what other people's opinions are. You also really jumped the gun to some very unfounded conclusions. For one thing, I have had a lot of trouble with drug addiction my damn self. I am a true blue pot head if there ever was one. I have almost died of alcohol overdoses on many occasions. I have have gone overboard with cocaine several times, and my heart almost stopped beating from it on one occasion. The same happened with meth twice. And most importantly, I was an every day user of pain killers for a long time, primarily forms of synthetic heroin in needles. On top of that, many of my best friends from college are now dead from pain killer overdoses. Some of the ones that are still alive are hopelessly addicted. I have been through all kinds of crazy stuff with them, watched intense drama with their families, and seen exactly how they operate. I have talked to them extensively about their problems, even on a daily basis. I let one of them live with me for two months after he got out of rehab. He ended up robbing me and later confessing while crying when I didn't even know that my gun and 61 of my CD's had been stolen. At the time, I was taking care of his dog because he and his brother couldn't take care of him (A DOG!!&#33 because they were too damn addicted. They ended up giving me the dog because they were hopeless, and five years later, they still are. I was also a mental health case manager for four years and worked with tons of drug addicts. I know drug addiction! And guess what... I know that drug addicts are not able to raise children well, usually not able to do it at all. That is a fact. They make horrible parents. I never said they are all bad people. You pulled that one out of your ass, and a few other things came out with it. [/b]

Basically all your proving wrong here is what I said about you having experience with this sort of thing. That doesn't change the fact that you are exploiting them completely and unethically, when you could instead spend those billions of dollars that this "plan" would take to help them. And you obviously think it's a "good idea," even if you don't "agree with it." The fact that you are giving reasons why and just the reflection on all your posts shows this. You did a very poor job of reading what I wrote, also.

" If you think people in that state make good parents, then I hope you will get yourself sterilized. "

I didn't say they should be parents WHILE they are drug addicts. Rather, they should get help to stop their drug addiction. They COULD make good parents if you were to help them. You still haven't answered the question... you could either A) Spend billions of dollars funding the "100 dollar per person" thing, funding vasectomies and tubal ligations (HINT: Google the cost of vasectomies and tubal ligations), funding doctors who would actually be unethical enough to do this, and funding people to locate these potentially-horrible parent drug addicts.... This all ends up screwing over the drug addicts (you are not helping them AND denying their ability to produce life forever, unless they come up with the money to reverse it) and not helping them, as well as keeping millions of people being born or B) Spend much much less money building drug treatment centers to help these people become good potential parents. Not only is this cheaper, more ethical, but it also lets these people become better and you are vastly improving society. I don't really see the benefit of choice A as any sort of potential proposal?

Before you were just attacking my assumptions... but you didn't even mention the facts of my post...

"Again, there are exceptions, but something has to be done about this horrific trend. It is a disease in society. " That and the description "sociopaths" implies the "bad person" thing.

And do you really think you should exploit people's addictions to ignore a problem when you can just as easily help them as well as helping society? That's kind of sad.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

That doesn't change the fact that you are exploiting them completely
And do you really think you should exploit people's addictions to ignore a problem when you can just as easily help them as well as helping society? [/b]

How is this exploiting anybody? Why should everyone be a parent? Why should others feel obligated to help every last person reproduce? I think allowing them to choose of their own free will (however addled they are) sterilization would help them to live a freer life without the burden of kids, save kids from neglect, save society from the expense, and save resources for those more likely to do well and limit their own reproduction.

Notice it would always be a choice. People would be given the freedom to choose for themselves, rather than finding themselves accidentally as a parent without actually choosing that. You should give people the freedom to choose for themselves, rather then assuming everyone should try to conform to what you think is a good life and an improvement according to your standards. Give people some credit. I do. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that you may not make the best parent and taking a step to prevent it.

People become very defensive when it comes to their freedoms and others. It is a very fine line between freedom and a change from a free nation when things like this would be implemented.
Unfortunately because the many of the population make bad decisions and the rest of us have to pay for that in more than one way, we as a nation grow week.

I think Universal Mind makes good points personally. You have to be a hard liner to get results. However if you take this route, it most likely will change the entire democratic process.
So we will instead see people take advantage of our freedoms and see it dwindle out in another way.
In either case it seems you eventually get the same result.

"You sleep in the bed you made."

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

How is this exploiting anybody? Why should everyone be a parent? Why should others feel obligated to help every last person reproduce? I think allowing them to choose of their own free will (however addled they are) sterilization would help them to live a freer life without the burden of kids, save kids from neglect, save society from the expense, and save resources for those more likely to do well and limit their own reproduction.
[/b]

In my post I talked about addiction. It ISN'T free will, because you are addicted. Your choices are dictated by the drug, not by your own free will. But the fact is... you're paying for their drugs (which was his basic idea) when they cannot have free will. I'm totally for them being sterilized -- IF it's ACTUALLY of their own free will. If they have cravings and just want to do it for another hit, then its definitely not their free will and it is immoral. I never said that no one should be sterilized, but you shouldn't exploit their addiction for it

Notice it would always be a choice. People would be given the freedom to choose for themselves, rather than finding themselves accidentally as a parent without actually choosing that. You should give people the freedom to choose for themselves, rather then assuming everyone should try to conform to what you think is a good life and an improvement according to your standards. Give people some credit. I do. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that you may not make the best parent and taking a step to prevent it.
[/b]

As I said, it is not truly a "choice." Offering FREE vasectomies and FREE tubal ligations would be a true free choice, because they have no incentive except not being able to raise children in a bad neighborhood. Think about it this way -- if you really think they have the ability to make free choices under those conditions (when addicted), then realize that they are not CHOOSING the vasectomy/tubal ligation... they are CHOOSING the money. But they have to get the procedure for the money. I highly doubt that any of these people would take the money while wanting to undergo that procedure. I find it incredibly ironic you are saying I AM the one that isn't "giving people the freedom to choose for themselves." By not giving them money for this... or even offering free surgical procedures for sterilization, THEN you are giving them freedom. But by exploiting their addiction, that's not freedom. And it's not about "conforming to what I think is a good life," but helping them get off drugs. I don't really think that's TOO much of an opinion (ADDICTED CRACKHEAD = BAD / HEALTHY WITH A JOB = GOOD). So it is not a free choice because they are addicted and that is the only reason they are going to do that, and why not spend the money to improve people's health, well-being, and life in general? This is not a logical proposal at all, anyways. You are FUNDING PEOPLE'S DRUGS. I don't think the government would fund many billions of dollars to indirectly buy crack and a tubal ligation for some prostitute(s) on the street.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

In my post I talked about addiction. It ISN'T free will, because you are addicted. Your choices are dictated by the drug, not by your own free will. But the fact is... you're paying for their drugs (which was his basic idea) when they cannot have free will. I'm totally for them being sterilized -- IF it's ACTUALLY of their own free will. If they have cravings and just want to do it for another hit, then its definitely not their free will and it is immoral. I never said that no one should be sterilized, but you shouldn't exploit their addiction for it[/b]

But it was their free will to take the substance to become addicted, no?
again: ""You sleep in the bed you made."
There are consequences, or should be for those actions.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Basically all your proving wrong here is what I said about you having experience with this sort of thing. That doesn't change the fact that you are exploiting them completely and unethically, when you could instead spend those billions of dollars that this "plan" would take to help them. And you obviously think it's a "good idea," even if you don't "agree with it." The fact that you are giving reasons why and just the reflection on all your posts shows this. You did a very poor job of reading what I wrote, also.

" If you think people in that state make good parents, then I hope you will get yourself sterilized. "

I didn't say they should be parents WHILE they are drug addicts. Rather, they should get help to stop their drug addiction. They COULD make good parents if you were to help them. You still haven't answered the question... you could either A) Spend billions of dollars funding the "100 dollar per person" thing, funding vasectomies and tubal ligations (HINT: Google the cost of vasectomies and tubal ligations), funding doctors who would actually be unethical enough to do this, and funding people to locate these potentially-horrible parent drug addicts.... This all ends up screwing over the drug addicts (you are not helping them AND denying their ability to produce life forever, unless they come up with the money to reverse it) and not helping them, as well as keeping millions of people being born or B) Spend much much less money building drug treatment centers to help these people become good potential parents. Not only is this cheaper, more ethical, but it also lets these people become better and you are vastly improving society. I don't really see the benefit of choice A as any sort of potential proposal?

Before you were just attacking my assumptions... but you didn't even mention the facts of my post...

"Again, there are exceptions, but something has to be done about this horrific trend. It is a disease in society. " That and the description "sociopaths" implies the "bad person" thing.

And do you really think you should exploit people's addictions to ignore a problem when you can just as easily help them as well as helping society? That's kind of sad.
[/b]

First of all, you should stop being so defensive about the fact that I just asked a question. You are all boned up with this idea that I am arguing heavily for the proposal. I just wanted to raise a discussion. I didn't get into the details of your extreme opposition because, ONCE AGAIN, it is not something I want to argue about. I will argue about my premises, but I will not argue about the on-target comments about the proposal. However, I will answer your questions. Secondly, the word "sociopath" was a description of how kids way too often end up turning out when they grow up in bad homes. Do you argue that that's not a problem? I never said that the drug addict parents are automatically bad people. Your defensiveness, wherever it may be coming from, is putting false perceptions into your head. The "disease" part was also a reference to how the kids too often turn out. One can be bad for society without being evil. Think, and chill out and read more carefully.

As for your counterproposal, I want to comment on the rehab part of it (but not about whether my proposal is ethical). As somebody who knows, you have way too much faith in rehab. Stick around and watch what a horribly unfortunate failure it usually is. That's really sad. It does help a few people, but do you think it would help society as much as cutting off the vast majority of drug addict and other disfunctional reproduction? I'm just asking.

Since a separate discussion came about regarding free choice of drug addicts, I will tell you about myself with that. I don't blame my history of addiction on anybody, not even the people who got in my face and hyped up pain killers and other drugs. I made my decisions knowing damn well what that stuff can lead to. And I didn't need to be having kids during all of that. And anybody who said I didn't need to be having kids ever would have been making a very understandable statement. If I had taken the form of another person and watched myself, I would have said the same thing. If I had made the decision to get a vasectomy then, it would have been my responsibility to make the determination one way or the other. There would have been no victimization. By your reasoning, prostitutes who are selling themselves to support drug habits are being raped. Do you claim that too? When I got into drugs, I was not some poor helpless victim who got attacked by drugs out of the sky and couldn't control my body. I knew what I was getting into. And it was my responsibility to quit. I haven't used a needle in nine months. If I ever do it again, which I adamantly am against, I will not blame it on anybody else.

You asked how the project would be funded. That could be by the government(s) and private organizations. If the average American paid a total of $100 in taxes and charity toward the project, since 300,000,000 X 100 = $30,000,000,000 (thirty-billion dollars), more than your "hundreds of millions or even billions" would be met in the United States. Other countries in the world could similarly meet their needs. And don't doubt for a second that there are ongoing supplies of doctors who would be willing to dedicate their lives to the cause. A great deal of my country takes this stuff very seriously.

That answers that. Try to give your answers without being so rude. There is no reason to get nasty about this. I'm just asking questions. You can answer questions and express disagreement with my premises without getting personal. I want what is best for society, whatever that may be.

There is something else relevant to mention... Vasectomies can be reversed, and tubes can be untied. But no hard drug addict is going to spend money on that because it would take too much of a drug sacrifice. When addicts get to the point where they are ready to have kids (the small percentage that would), they can reverse their operations.

Originally Posted by Universal

First of all, you should stop being so defensive about the fact that I just asked a question. You are all boned up with this idea that I am arguing heavily for the proposal. I just wanted to raise a discussion. I didn't get into the details of your extreme opposition because, ONCE AGAIN, it is not something I want to argue about. I will argue about my premises, but I will not argue about the on-target comments about the proposal. However, I will answer your questions. Secondly, the word "sociopath" was a description of how kids way too often end up turning out when they grow up in bad homes. Do you argue that that's not a problem? I never said that the drug addict parents are automatically bad people. Your defensiveness, wherever it may be coming from, is putting false perceptions into your head. The "disease" part was also a reference to how the kids too often turn out. One can be bad for society without being evil. Think, and chill out and read more carefully.

As for your counterproposal, I want to comment on the rehab part of it (but not about whether my proposal is ethical). As somebody who knows, you have way too much faith in rehab. Stick around and watch what a horribly unfortunate failure it usually is. That's really sad. It does help a few people, but do you think it would help society as much as cutting off the vast majority of drug addict and other disfunctional reproduction? I'm just asking.

Since a separate discussion came about regarding free choice of drug addicts, I will tell you about myself with that. I don't blame my history of addiction on anybody, not even the people who got in my face and hyped up pain killers and other drugs. I made my decisions knowing damn well what that stuff can lead to. And I didn't need to be having kids during all of that. And anybody who said I didn't need to be having kids ever would have been making a very understandable statement. If I had taken the form of another person and watched myself, I would have said the same thing. If I had made the decision to get a vasectomy then, it would have been my responsibility to make the determination one way or the other. There would have been no victimization. By your reasoning, prostitutes who are selling themselves to support drug habits are being raped. Do you claim that too? When I got into drugs, I was not some poor helpless victim who got attacked by drugs out of the sky and couldn't control my body. I knew what I was getting into. And it was my responsibility to quit. I haven't used a needle in nine months. If I ever do it again, which I adamantly am against, I will not blame it on anybody else. [/b]

That's a good point I don't really know much about the subject... thanks for informing me I understand I'm wrong there.

You asked how the project would be funded. That could be by the government(s) and private organizations. If the average American paid a total of $100 in taxes and charity toward the project, since 300,000,000 X 100 = $30,000,000,000 (thirty-billion dollars), more than your "hundreds of millions or even billions" would be met in the United States. Other countries in the world could similarly meet their needs. And don't doubt for a second that there are ongoing supplies of doctors who would be willing to dedicate their lives to the cause. A great deal of my country takes this stuff very seriously.[/b]

I don't think this would work, though. And I'm not talking about "ethics." For one, the basic premise of this proposal is giving them money so they can get their next hit. I doubt that any politician would be very popular after they will add a whole hundred dollars to the taxes (more on that later...) to fund drugs for crack addicts. Not only this will probably boost drug production (more people being able to buy drugs), but there are so many Americans who wouldn't want ANYTHING to do what they believe are "low-life of society" (I'm not reflecting my own opinions here, I'm just saying many old people and adults wouldn't want to give money to these people). And on the only 100 dollar part... you aren't being very conservative (at all) with your numbers.

You start with 300,000,000...
-20.4 percent of 298,444,215... because kids 0-14 don't have to pay taxes (and remember, I'm pretending kids who are 15, 16 and 17 have to pay taxes here too...)
60811719 less there
And remember that 12% of america is below the poverty line...
So more like 237,632,496 Americans... but anyways, its a lot of money for the people.

That answers that. Try to give your answers without being so rude. There is no reason to get nasty about this. I'm just asking questions. You can answer questions and express disagreement with my premises without getting personal. I want what is best for society, whatever that may be.[/b]

Sorry if you thought I was being rude/nasty/personal/etc. Because I wasn't and I'm sorry if you thought I was... Your views are interesting and I'm just asking you questions like that so you could tell me what you think. But I realize I was wrong in a lot of what I said about it being pretty unethical. My only real qualm with your idea now is that if the government would fund drugs for people. That just wouldn't seem likely as a proposal

There is something else relevant to mention... Vasectomies can be reversed, and tubes can be untied. But no hard drug addict is going to spend money on that because it would take too much of a drug sacrifice. When addicts get to the point where they are ready to have kids (the small percentage that would), they can reverse their operations.
[/b]

That's a good point.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

So more like 237,632,496 Americans... but anyways, its a lot of money for the people.
[/b]

Think of they money saved. We could offer $10,000 and still save money.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Think of they money saved. We could offer $10,000 and still save money.[/b]

We could Fund Dream Views Forever!

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We could Fund Dream Views Forever!
[/b]

FUNDING

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Think of they money saved. We could offer $10,000 and still save money.
[/b]

What are you talking about? No money is being saved. I was saying that with less people paying for one thing, the more they have to pay. You know, division, right?

Yeah, there is probably no way the government would ever fund it because it would be too politically incorrect. But private organizations could probably pull it off. It is true that kids would not pay and most poor people would not pay for it. I think people with money would be willing to donate a lot of money to it, though. I mentioned $100 as an average donation and tax sum. There are millionaires all over the place who would pay thousands for it. There are really rich people who would even donate in the millions. I'm not sure what the average operation would cost, but let's suppose it is $400 on average. That would be $500 per person. 1 million dollars would pay for 2 thousand operations. A single donator of 1 million dollars could stop 2 thousand people from reproducing. An extremely rich person who is really concerned with what is happening to his city would do it. And that is just one person. Imagine what 50 extremely rich people in one city could do together if they donated 1 million each. That would be 100 thousand operations. If all of the people with money who aren't that rich donate additionally what they want to the cause, there would be a whole lot more money for it.

There are just the questions of how much that sum of money would make a difference and whether it is ethical to do that. I know I said that drug addicts choose to get themselves into drugs in the first place and then raised the question of whether drug addict prostitutes are being raped when they have sex for drug money, but this plan would involve strong temptation that would put people in situations where most of them will never end up having kids. But those would be the ones who never get to the point of responsibility where they are able to have their operations reversed and have kids. It is still a major thing with extreme consequences to tempt people with. Does the good outweigh the bad?

Originally Posted by ataraxis

What are you talking about? No money is being saved. I was saying that with less people paying for one thing, the more they have to pay. You know, division, right?
[/b]

I meant for the taxpayers in future support. Just a few people not on welfare, chronic unemployement (I've got a few of those in my family, they're pretty good at it), medicaid, prison, etc. and you would save a lot of money.

Since we're talking hypothetically, would it be better if we made this a loan, taken voluntarily, and that with pay back you could get your sterilization reversed? (This part is also hypothetical; the reversal is much more expensive than the sterilization procedure and doesn't always work. Altho with females some forms of really good mindless birth control are reversible. Not so much with males.)

I still don't know what you meant by "exploitation". I have a different definition of that word.

hmmmm..sorry if this is off this is just what I am getting generally

1. having children should be a choice
2. that choice should be dependent on whether or not they can support the child
3. if they can not support the child its a psuedo immoral choice if they choose not to become steril
4. if you are rich you have every reason to choose to have children since, you make a better parent

.__.

this is what I am generally getting

and although, yes, poverty is a horrible situation for a child to grow up in - having been born in a poor family myself I do have to say though income should not be the defining factor of how people choose. Its hard for me to explain this, but can you imagine the pressure on poor people to become sterile and never have children. That once becoming sterile becomes popular, can you imagine what it will be like culturally when they visit richer people "are you sterile yet? I mean, you dont think YOU should have children right?"

or the propoganda on TV "You dont have to raise children if you dont feel you can, you can become...sterile"

can you imagine the flip-side scenario? that if you are rich you should morally choose to have children since poor people can't? do you see what I am getting at?

what I found wrong with this thread in general is the connection between poverty, the abundance of children born into poverty, and an idea of over population being the fault of - poor people. I dont think offering the idea that poor people, dont have kids, even if it is a choice, solves the problem at all. The first problem is WHY they are poor. And perhaps rich and spoiled brats who think "BECUASE THEY ARE LAZY IDIOTS WHO NEVER WENT TO SCHOOL" should be bitch-slapped. A lot of poor people have gone to school. I myself have a bechelors degree and cant find a job except a minimum wage job. And its really upsetting, I worked my ass off in college and graduated with a 3.5 gpa, I think I deserve better than a minimum wage job. I talked to a lot of my friends who also graduated, they are also having the same problem.

If it wasnt for my parents, I would be out on the street. And even then, this frightens me. Because my parents have been working shitty jobs their whole life, unable to complete their higher education becuase they left to raise me and my sisters *my mom was the only hispanic-female engineer in her school too!!*. And they are partly waiting for me and my sisters to make money to help them buy a house they've been dreaming month. My parents are getting old, and work is wearing out on them..retirement is coming soon. Cars broke down. We couldnt buy anymore. . and for one month last year in 2006 I am pretty damn sure our total income was well into the poverty line. Bills were piling and I am damn happy we werent kicked out of the shitty apartment.

People dont understand poverty. They dont understand why it happens to WHOM it happens to, or even how long it lasts. A lot of people fall into poverty, and a lot climb out.

I dont think we should even be bringing up this conversation, I find it insulting actually. This idea that poverty should become sterile, its pretty much telling those in poverty "Youre gonna be poor bum the rest of life loser, and there aint nothing you can do about it". Its ignoring the real problem!!

we first need to eradicate poverty. we first need to bring up the value of the dollar and raise minimum wage to living standards *studies show that it is CLEARLY NOT* And I guarantee you, if min. wage is raised to what it should be due to inflation - poverty will be eradicated. why? the original purpose of min. wage was to keep low income families OUT of poverty. the idea is, as low as your income is you can still afford the necessities of life, including health insurance! really, think about that. . . . raise min. wage. . . no more poverty

only after we get rid of poverty can we really start talking about raising children as a choice - and changing our cultural point of view that its OK to not have children - hell more people should be adopting

Originally Posted by juroara

hmmmm..sorry if this is off this is just what I am getting generally

1. having children should be a choice
2. that choice should be dependent on whether or not they can support the child
3. if they can not support the child its a psuedo immoral choice if they choose not to become steril
4. if you are rich you have every reason to choose to have children since, you make a better parent

[/b]

Then you need to read again. This is what you should be getting...

1. Having children should be a choice.
2. That choice should not be made by people other than the parents, but ones who cannot support the child cannot support the child. Offering the choice of sterility might not be unethical, and that issue is what this thread is about.
3. Nobody has said that there is anything immoral about not choosing to become sterile.
4. Parents who can support their children can support their children better than people who cannot support their children.

I didn't really mean to sound like a eugenics nazi. I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything against their will. (My excuse--coincidentally I had been talking about this same thing earlier in the day IRL, and that conversation kind of got carried over into this one, but without the context, it sounds kind of bad.) Rich people are not better than poor people in any way that matters, except for one--they can pay their own way. And even that doesn't matter if you don't have kids to support. Almost anyone can take care of just themself. If they can't, there are usually ways to get help. I have also never understood why anyone would want to have kids, so it is easy for me to think that giving up that opportunity in exchange for a $100 or $10,000 and a child-free life would be very easy. I think that people who do have kids should expect to pay their way, that's all.