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. |
|
The disfuntional element in the United States seems to be getting worse and worse and bigger and bigger. This is happening in other countries too. Consience does not seem to be as in style as it was when I was a child. Things are more dangerous, people on average are more violent, criminals are not as despised, and sociopathic behavior is even celebrated on a ridiculous scale. I am totally convinced that this results from the trend of bringing kids into the world and giving them insufficient parental supervision. It is a fact that, generally, kids turn out better if they are raised by both of their parents. There are definitely exceptions, but most kids who aren't raised by fathers significantly lack conscience. What is really bad is when a disfunctional woman who can't even take care of herself brings several, or even many, kids into the world and the fathers are long gone before the kids are even born. That is a very dependable recipe for a batch of sociopaths. High quality discipline and proper love are necessary for the formation of a conscience. Again, there are exceptions, but something has to be done about this horrific trend. It is a disease in society. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
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. |
|
"...You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world..." - Terence McKenna
Previously known as imran_p
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. |
|
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. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
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... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Some highlights from a very ignorant post: |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
That's a good point I don't really know much about the subject... thanks for informing me I understand I'm wrong there. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
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. |
|
hmmmm..sorry if this is off this is just what I am getting generally |
|
Then you need to read again. This is what you should be getting... |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
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. |
|
Bookmarks