Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Passive population control - would it work?

Posted by Cambion 
Passive population control - would it work?
March 19, 2017
"Population control" is a term with a bad reputation right along with "eugenics," and I also know that if any form of either one were to be actively put into effect, everyone (read: breeders) would be bitching left and right that reproducing is a basic human right and laws prohibiting or limiting it is a violation of said rights.

But what if more passive means were used as population control? It may not get results as fast, but I wonder how effective they would be. I'll list some examples below.

1) Eliminate speed limits entirely. If someone wants to blitz through a neighborhood at 90 miles per hour and wrap their car around a utility pole, let them. While we're at it, let's eliminate just about all traffic laws entirely, such as being required to wear a seatbelt and driving drunk being a crime. We all know the dangers of doing those things, so if people want to choose to be stupid, they can learn the lesson the hard way.

2) Make all drugs legal. I know people turn to drugs for different reasons, but if they want to kill themselves for a high, don't protect them from themselves. Everyone fucking knows that drugs aren't healthy - it's drilled into your head from the time you start school. Cigarettes kill a lot of people too through cancer, yet those are legal.

3) Make birth control, sterilization and abortion free and widely accessible, and encourage people to make use of them.

4) Meanwhile, make breeding the least attractive life choice. Stop giving people special tax breaks for having kids and do not offer increased benefits for additional kids born while the parents are on the dole. If parents want to make stupid choices, then they'll have to learn to make due with less. They'll still have the full ability to choose, but this might make them think a little harder about those choices.

5) Instead, give that money to people who don't have kids and who get sterilized. Reward intelligence and responsibility for a change.

6) Increased support for same-sex relationships since just about all gay/lesbian couples who have children adopt instead of producing biological children.

7) Legalization of human euthanasia. Honestly, this should already be a thing. There is no reason that people who are suffering shouldn't be allowed to choose to die with dignity instead of forcing them to stay alive until the very end.

8) Make domestic (as in American) adoption cheaper and easier. I don't mean make it so easy that any Chester can waltz in and buy himself a harem, but adopting in this country is so fucking expensive, difficult and uncertain that nobody wants to do it. Sometimes you spend five figures and wait five years and still don't get a kid.





The downside is that some of these things wouldn't just result in the injury or death of the person directly involved - they might wind up taking someone else with them who was doing everything they're supposed to do. And each one of those things I mentioned have their own unique downsides too.

Thoughts? Additions? Arguments?
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 19, 2017
The first one about no traffic laws. I think that is unoffically the case in Iran and Turkey.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 19, 2017
I disagree with the first two. Passively culling the population isn't something I think should be done, rather stop breeding and get population growth to 0, or as close to as possible. The guy going 90mph isn't just going to kill himself, he is probably going to take someone with him. Driving is dangerous even with the current laws, the other day I was almost run off the road because some dick entered my lane practically on top of me, and didnt signal or anything. I wouldn't want to live in a world where oblivious fuckers like that can get away with causing accidents. This is also true of legalizing drugs. They don't just hurt the person taking them. I ended up with depersonalization for a year because a certain bastard smoked in the household and didn't give a damn that he had kids.

Otherwise I agree. Especially with 4, 5, and 6. With 4, I think there should be a social change as well as a financial one. There are certain traits that are stigmatized {ex. A person with glasses and acne is seen as bad, while someone without is seen as better}. Society should stigmatize breeding. When I talk publicly about how sprogs need to behave or how most people have kids because they can't or won't use birth control, I am hushed lest I offend some nearby moo. I think this behavior should change. Let the breeders be condemned as LGBT people were, and sometimes are, and I expect the population will decline, as most breeders don't want children, they want to follow the herd.

Lock him up or put him down.
Stolen from Shiny.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
Quote

The guy going 90 mph isn't just going to kill himself, he is probably going to take someone with him.

Yes, same with drunks and people who are stoned. They ALWAYS seem to take someone else out and they walk away without a scratch.

While I agree that some minor drugs should be de-criminalized, because the War on Drugs is 1. not working; 2. a gross invasion of privacy for all and 3. a waste of law enforcement resources that could be used to catch people who steal stuff and commit homicide, I do think there should be some control of the more serious drugs.

Tangent: It saddens me to see that people who are in chronic pain are being treated like criminals because of all the idiots who want to abuse opioids to get high. Now doctors are coming out with ridiculous guidelines like: nobody should have opioids prescribed for longer than a week, unless they have had surgery or they have cancer. What about migraine headaches? Or osteoporosis or spinal stenosis, all of which are chronic, painful conditions? What about veterans who have shrapnel inside them? Or anyone else with chronic conditions?

My theory is that pot is being legalized because of the opioid crisis. The "big government" answer is to severely restrict opioid prescriptions and give pot to people in chronic pain. Then they will commission "studies" to show how effective it is.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
Quote

My theory is that pot is being legalized because of the opioid crisis. The "big government" answer is to severely restrict opioid prescriptions and give pot to people in chronic pain. Then they will commission "studies" to show how effective it is.

We have a winner. Sure, "big government" is leaning towards legalizing pot for helping manage symptoms not just to save face in the opioid epidemic, but also for taking more money from the public's wallets in the form of taxes and fines to continue to fuel the Big Pharma machine.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
What I think should happen is that the churches and religious organizations who want people to have the kids should pay for the kids, it's not like they lack for money. For example, if a single person is unemployed, they can collect unemployment and maybe Medicaid for themselves, but if they have a kid, then the government should not fund anymore, instead why doesn't their church pay for the extra food, toys, diapers, etc. For example, if you are Catholic and need free Pampers, why not ask your priest for them? If you have dirty cloth diapers ask your minister if you can use their washing machine. If this happened, I am sure the religious leaders would be giving out birth control soon.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
There are even things that individuals can do. Maybe some people think I am weird but I never tell a pregnant woman "congratulations" but then I guess mostly women do that. Stop with the preggo parking spaces. Never attend baby showers or "sprinkles". Why do women go to them anyways?
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
Quote
contemplativeintrovert
Let the breeders be condemned as LGBT people were, and sometimes are, and I expect the population will decline, as most breeders don't want children, they want to follow the herd.

People are largely heterosexual or homosexual because they were born that way. It's not a matter of following any "herd," or employing advertising techniques that use a bandwagon approach. An overwhelming majority of the population won't be swayed into switching teams, so to speak, simply because of a homo or heterosexual's persuasiveness or salesmanship.


Quote
bell_flower
My theory is that pot is being legalized because of the opioid crisis. The "big government" answer is to severely restrict opioid prescriptions and give pot to people in chronic pain. Then they will commission "studies" to show how effective it is.

Maybe. But it was the same "big government," and by proxy big pharma and big medical, that caused so much of the opioid crisis to begin with. These groups netted massive profits from the distribution of opioids. Folks who had serious pain got them, but folks who had moderate pain got them, too. And when the prescription expired and the insurance money ran out, MANY of these people got hooked on the drugs. The result? A heroin epidemic.

So what are big government and big pharma saying now? Well... they want to legalize pot... in part at least because it might get addicts off of opioids! And who will sell the pot? Big pharma, of course. And who will regulate it? Big government, of course. And who stands to earn immense profits? Big pharma. And don't forget the taxes that fund big government. Another win/win for crony capitalism. Nevermind the guy in East Nowhere, Iowa who got addicted to the pain pills his doctor gave him after having routine surgery... eye rolling smiley


Quote
Cambion
Instead, give that money to people who don't have kids and who get sterilized. Reward intelligence and responsibility for a change.

I don't want any government agency "giving away" any more money. If they stop stealing wealth from the rightful owners, they won't have any reason to give it away. I don't care what side of the aisle you stand on, the taxation in this country is a combination of insidious and downright insulting. The gov't steals from us right out of our paychecks. Most people don't even notice... they just accept it as is. Then the pols go on television to announce in flamboyant fashion that they're "giving away money" in the form of nanny state benefits. It's like a guy stealing your wallet and catching up with you later in the day to charitably "give away" $20 to you, and telling you how thankful you should be for it.

Fuck that noise. I've heard "it's for the children" enough. Stop picking everyone's pocket and you won't have to "give away" any more money. Taxes should go to the military, infrastructure, police, justice system, fire, K-12 education. Beyond that, we should pick up our own tabs and parents should pick up their own tabs and the tabs for their kids, too.

We don't need any more "giving away" of benefits, we need the nanny state to get the hell out of our lives.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
Quote
mr. neptune
There are even things that individuals can do. Maybe some people think I am weird but I never tell a pregnant woman "congratulations" but then I guess mostly women do that. Stop with the preggo parking spaces. Never attend baby showers or "sprinkles". Why do women go to them anyways?

I believe they go because of social pressure.

I understand wanting to give a gift to good friends, but beyond that, I don't get it.

What's really shocking is how wide of a net is cast to round up women for these events. Distant cousins and seldom seen acquaintances are usually invited, and expected to pony up a gift. Then they are forgotten... until the next LifeScript event...
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
When I talk publicly about how sprogs need to behave or how most people have kids because they can't or won't use birth control, I am hushed lest I offend some nearby moo. I think this behavior should change.

------------------------------------

This. You can never really speak your mind on this topic without worrying about someone in earshot and not necessarily a moo but someone that knows a particular moo that isn't like that at all and oh you're just a terrible person. But yet the next conversation they all agree with each other about how bad it is that "they" let gay people get married. As if its okay to have this opinion and actively and sometimes aggressively defend their position if only to keep the status quo in their favor (heteronormative).

Grinds my gears I tell ya....
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
Quote
Cambion
"Population control" is a term with a bad reputation right along with "eugenics," and I also know that if any form of either one were to be actively put into effect, everyone (read: breeders) would be bitching left and right that reproducing is a basic human right and laws prohibiting or limiting it is a violation of said rights.

But what if more passive means were used as population control? It may not get results as fast, but I wonder how effective they would be. I'll list some examples below.

1) Eliminate speed limits entirely. If someone wants to blitz through a neighborhood at 90 miles per hour and wrap their car around a utility pole, let them. While we're at it, let's eliminate just about all traffic laws entirely, such as being required to wear a seatbelt and driving drunk being a crime. We all know the dangers of doing those things, so if people want to choose to be stupid, they can learn the lesson the hard way.

2) Make all drugs legal. I know people turn to drugs for different reasons, but if they want to kill themselves for a high, don't protect them from themselves. Everyone fucking knows that drugs aren't healthy - it's drilled into your head from the time you start school. Cigarettes kill a lot of people too through cancer, yet those are legal.

3) Make birth control, sterilization and abortion free and widely accessible, and encourage people to make use of them.

4) Meanwhile, make breeding the least attractive life choice. Stop giving people special tax breaks for having kids and do not offer increased benefits for additional kids born while the parents are on the dole. If parents want to make stupid choices, then they'll have to learn to make due with less. They'll still have the full ability to choose, but this might make them think a little harder about those choices.

5) Instead, give that money to people who don't have kids and who get sterilized. Reward intelligence and responsibility for a change.

6) Increased support for same-sex relationships since just about all gay/lesbian couples who have children adopt instead of producing biological children.

7) Legalization of human euthanasia. Honestly, this should already be a thing. There is no reason that people who are suffering shouldn't be allowed to choose to die with dignity instead of forcing them to stay alive until the very end.

8) Make domestic (as in American) adoption cheaper and easier. I don't mean make it so easy that any Chester can waltz in and buy himself a harem, but adopting in this country is so fucking expensive, difficult and uncertain that nobody wants to do it. Sometimes you spend five figures and wait five years and still don't get a kid.

The downside is that some of these things wouldn't just result in the injury or death of the person directly involved - they might wind up taking someone else with them who was doing everything they're supposed to do. And each one of those things I mentioned have their own unique downsides too.



Thoughts? Additions? Arguments?

Traffic laws need to stay as they are so innocent, responsible people aren't taken out with the idiots.

In the past abortion was completely against the law and birth control if available was only for married couples. Now even American Catholics will use the pill. Singles can go on the pill. It is now possible to be sexually active and CF. For most breeding will be attractive even if against the law, that is a long term question of evolution. However, being CF is now an option that is on the table.

People who breed excessively aren't living well, even when on Government support. Sometimes that support is all that keeps helpless children, especially loaves, alive. While the government uses the subsidized as cannon fodder, you can expect that support to continue.

Weed is becoming legal in many states, some for medical use only and others recreational.

You can get a prescription for legal heroin derivatives. In the past that was very hard to do. In the past you had to make do with Ibuprofen.

I think greater acceptance already a thing. The LGBT community is coming out of it's closet and fighting for its rights as human beings, fewer LGBT are living the hetro lie. There's a long way to go, but gays and lesbians can get married legally.

LGBT can now adopt, although it is difficult.

Medical euthanasia is legal in at least two states under certain conditions. In the past it is not discussed but now it's a national topic.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
@S54

I know that most people are heterosexual, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm not saying try to make people LGBT, I'm saying that society needs to pressure people into not breeding. If people could openly {and without backlash} state negative opinions about breeders, they might stop. Being hetero isn't herd thinking, but in most cases, having kids is. Breeders aren't having kids for the sake of kids, but because "it's what you do," "you aren't complete without kids," and all that nonsense. They do it because the other heifers in the herd {and mra heifer supporters} pressure them into it. Either that, or they are just too negligent to use birth control.

@TheNoodler

Thank you! People, at least where I live, use gay as an insult, use homo slurs, etc. without batting an eye. But the second you criticize the chylldrun or mention that most births aren't planned or wanted, you are censored. Screw that, I will be just as vocal about population control as the loudest bigot is vocal about being a bigot.

Lock him up or put him down.
Stolen from Shiny.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 20, 2017
It might help if journalists would mention population issues in their articles. There is an article on MSN about a garbage pile in Ethiopia that killed 120 people. But there was no mention that the reason for such huge garbage pile was - you guessed it - so many people. The photos showed lots and lots of people, there could have been mention of the fact that a large number of people were making a lot of garbage.

Now that brings back a bad memory I had when I worked at the service plaza and the manager wanted to save money and did not call to have the compactor emptied and tried to get more garbage in. He broke the compactor and it had to be taken away and 2 regular dumpsters were given to the facility. I was 45 years old at the time and they told me to go in the dumpsters and jump on the garbage bags to keep it from overflowing. I could not believe I was a grown man jumping on top of a dumpster. Oh, did I mention that there was lots of Pampers in there too?
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 21, 2017
I'm opposed to #1 for the reason many people have mentioned. I prefer non-breeding to killing.

I don't really see #2 as a population issue. For me, it's a personal freedom issue. I think people should be able to do whatever they like to their own bodies, but they should be informed. So I'd regulate it (to control quality) and tax it (to provide accurate information about addiction, etc). To me it's the same as cigarettes and alcohol. One key aspect is that they should not affect others with their personal choices, so drug use combined with operating machinery, exposing others to drugs second-hand, and child neglect should be treated harshly. I think there would be a lot of benefits to decriminalizing drugs: money from the "war on drugs" could go to better use, criminal organizations would lose one of their sources of financing, and people with chronic pain could get treatment without hostility from doctors.

I'd love to see incentives for breeding eliminated, but don't see 5 as necessary.

Of course none of this will happen, all the governments would rather just lead us toward collapse because of their short-sightedness. I don't know how they can see the economic effects of low population growth in 50+ years and take actions to encourage breeding (advertising, dire warnings, and financial incentives), but cannot see how - in the best of all possible outcomes - automation will lead to chronic underemployment. Of course resource shortages and climate change and environmental destruction are in our much more immediate future, but they won't take any action whatsoever on these issues.

People suck.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 21, 2017
I thought the first two were more extreme examples too, but even if innocent people got taken out by idiots driving or using drugs, it would still contribute to a lower population. Not saying I would support some idjit killing me because they felt like driving like a jackass, but it was an idea I wanted to toss out for the sake of discussion (well, a little part of me would like to see no speed limits because I usually drive my car like I stole it I'm a law-abiding citizen).

Another one I was considering adding but decided against initially was cutting people off as far as insurance who knowingly stay sick. Primarily, I'm talking about smokers and morbidly obese people who have to be hospitalized or receive frequent medical treatment because of their completely voluntary personal habits. If someone is addicted to cigarettes or food and tries to make a change, I don't think they should be denied help, but I mean the ones who suck up resources because they don't feel like taking their doctors' advice. I didn't post this one because I realize it treads touchy ground and could open up a debate over who is "worthy" of medical care and who isn't. I apologize if this is insensitive, but I have a very difficult time feeling sorry for anyone who gets lung cancer after a 30-year smoking habit or who is hospitalized for their fourth heart attack in as many years because they have no problem being 800 pounds and need to be hauled out of their house with a crane. Is it really worth it to throw money away on these hopeless causes?

Also, sterilizing retards and/or severely mentally impaired people. We used to do this and we stopped because it was deemed a violation of human rights. By "severely mentally impaired," I don't mean someone who is depressed or anxious or autistic and takes medication, goes to therapy - in other words, people who are aware of their mental health and take steps to take care of themselves. I mean people who are way beyond help who pose a threat to themselves and to others: violent retards and autistics, rapists, murderers and sociopaths. There is no reason whatsoever these people should have the ability to breed. To be fair, people with a history of mental illness - regardless of severity - probably shouldn't be having kids anyway lest they pass their conditions on to their offspring. We do not need horny, unrestrained, boundary-less tards flapping around forcing themselves sexually onto strangers and getting absolutely no punishment because of their "conditions."

Like you guys have said, stigmatizing breeding would probably go a long way in reducing it too since so many people reproduce simply to follow the herd/Life Script. I don't think it would ever happen because people have regarded breeding as a miraculous, worthwhile life choice for so long that it would take a lot and a long time for it to do a total 180. This could go along with option #4 up top - quit catering to breeders (financially, legally, socially, etc.) and people might be more reluctant to breed. I suggested paying people to not breed because monetary incentives are usually a good way to make people do what you want them to do and they'll think they're making bank.

Also, if drugs are made legal across the board, we'd probably free up about 75% of the cells in all our prisons so we can make room for the actual criminals, like the grown-ass Indigo awtards who strangle random people for (insert bullshit reason).
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 22, 2017
Quote
Cambion
Like you guys have said, stigmatizing breeding would probably go a long way in reducing it too since so many people reproduce simply to follow the herd/Life Script. I don't think it would ever happen because people have regarded breeding as a miraculous, worthwhile life choice for so long that it would take a lot and a long time for it to do a total 180. This could go along with option #4 up top - quit catering to breeders (financially, legally, socially, etc.) and people might be more reluctant to breed. I suggested paying people to not breed because monetary incentives are usually a good way to make people do what you want them to do and they'll think they're making bank.

Not breeding is always financially preferable, and it would only become more so if governments stopped incentivizing breeding through various subsidies. Thus you would have greater disparity between those who reproduce and those who don't, without giving any money to non-breeders. Studies have shown that it's relative wealth that people care about, more than absolute wealth, so this would have the desired effect.

I would make contraception, abortion and sterilization free, however, as this makes not having children accessible to everyone. It's cheaper in the long run to pay for these things than unwanted children, and it's humane as well.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 25, 2017
Something needs to be done.

I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.

At some point it has got to stop.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 25, 2017
Quote
selidororous
Something needs to be done.

I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.

At some point it has got to stop.


It won't. There will be no legal intervention to decrease population. The usual suspects--violence, famine, disease--will reduce it over time.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 25, 2017
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
Quote
selidororous
Something needs to be done.

I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.

At some point it has got to stop.


It won't. There will be no legal intervention to decrease population. The usual suspects--violence, famine, disease--will reduce it over time.

Or the peninsula falling off into the Gulf due to the weight of so many people? LOL
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 25, 2017
Quote
selidororous
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
Quote
selidororous
Something needs to be done.

I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.

At some point it has got to stop.


It won't. There will be no legal intervention to decrease population. The usual suspects--violence, famine, disease--will reduce it over time.

Or the peninsula falling off into the Gulf due to the weight of so many people? LOL



LOL... thankfully it's attached to the continental shelf. But that doesn't mean rising sea levels won't get ya!
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 26, 2017
I took Economics 101 in college, so I think the best way to stop excessive breeding is to stop subsidizing it. It's that simple. And not just tax breaks. Health insurance should be like car insurance, for unforseable events. You break your leg or get cancer, health insurance should kick in, just like if you get rear-ended in your car. You decide to have a baby, you should fucking pay for it - ALL of it - just like if you decide to add fancy rims or re-paint your car. No child should starve, so if you can't afford to feed yours, we will give it to someone who can afford it.

If we actually made parents bear the entire cost of their children, there would be fewer children born. As it is, in my country (USA), an unemployed woman can get knocked up and know that she has just secured housing, food and healthcare for both her and her child. Married, middle-class people know that their employee health plan will pay for the pregnancy and birth, and that their employers will pay them to take time off with the baby, not to mention the insurance for the kids who will see a doctor every three weeks. They will also get a huge tax credit for their bundles of joy. The shitty public schools with ever-increasing budgets and ever-decreasing results that their children attend will also be financed by the taxpayers.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 26, 2017
People have a right to be self destructive if they are not endangering anyone else against their will. Keep traffic laws the same and allow drugs only under certain controlled conditions.

Maybe we should stop discouraging people from smoking, overeating, being sedentary and having unprotected sex.

I certainly support making breeding as expensive as possible, but I don't believe it will happen.

I just read another article about middle aged white Americans dying at an alarming rate from all causes. Not sure if that will lower the population because most people have already bred by middle age.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 26, 2017
Quote
happyhiker
I took Economics 101 in college, so I think the best way to stop excessive breeding is to stop subsidizing it. It's that simple. And not just tax breaks. Health insurance should be like car insurance, for unforseable events. You break your leg or get cancer, health insurance should kick in, just like if you get rear-ended in your car. You decide to have a baby, you should fucking pay for it - ALL of it - just like if you decide to add fancy rims or re-paint your car. No child should starve, so if you can't afford to feed yours, we will give it to someone who can afford it.

If we actually made parents bear the entire cost of their children, there would be fewer children born. As it is, in my country (USA), an unemployed woman can get knocked up and know that she has just secured housing, food and healthcare for both her and her child. Married, middle-class people know that their employee health plan will pay for the pregnancy and birth, and that their employers will pay them to take time off with the baby, not to mention the insurance for the kids who will see a doctor every three weeks. They will also get a huge tax credit for their bundles of joy. The shitty public schools with ever-increasing budgets and ever-decreasing results that their children attend will also be financed by the taxpayers.

I agree, people who have more kids should have to pay for them out of their own pockets - no more tax breaks.
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 26, 2017
Children are one of the few things in life for which a person can plan, at least in the developed world. We've come up with contraceptives, prophylactics, and surgical procedures to put off pregnancy temporarily, long-term, and permanently. If an accident happens, Plan B is now available OTC at big box stores in the same aisle as the condoms. Worst comes to worst, there's abortion.

At this point, breeders have no excuses to sit here and say that they have this kid and it's the responsibility of The Village™ to pay this child's way through life and the financial burden should not be placed solely on the people that brought it into existence. I saw this post on Facebook where somebody bitched at how people think poor people shouldn't have kids and that having kids is a right and blah blah blah. First of all, if your ass is poor, having a child means you're going to stay poor. Wherever you are on the socioeconomic scale before breeding is where you'll stay after breeding. Secondly, you have this kid and realize oh shit, it needs food, diapers, clothes, etc. on a consistent basis. How are you going to pay for all that AND keeping your electricity and water running, keep up the rent so you don't end up out on the streets, and maintaining your mode of transportation so you can get to work to pay for all that? Because you're not going to sit there, make a piss-poor decision on the basis of "Whatever, whatever, I do what I want" and then emotionally hijack me and society as a whole into feeling like your burden of your own doing is somehow on us. Thirdly, and most importantly, HAVING KIDS IS NOT A RIGHT. The mere fact that your kids can be taken away from you, whether temporarily or permanently, even if that's a super-last resort sort of thing, says that having kids is a privilege. That would be further established if pregnancy was opt-in as opposed to opt-out, like the default is infertility until one passes a series of examinations to prove their fitness as future parents. And yes, that would include income levels in line to where a person lives. If the combined income levels of a couple is $60K and they live in Bumfuck, Nebraska, then okay. But if their combined income is $60K in San Francisco or NYC, that would get a hard pass.

Frankly, if breeders want all these subsidies for breeding, it can be taken out of the paychecks of other breeders. They can form their own village, where they have to give where they take, instead of trying to foist it upon the childfree.

------------------------------------------------------------
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..."
- Dr. Yi Suchong, Bioshock

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born."
- Garrett Hardin

"I feel like there's a message involved here somehow, but then I couldn't stop laughing at all the plotholes, like the part when North Korea has food."
- Youtube commentor referring to a North Korean cartoon.

"Reality is a bitch when it slowly crawls out of your vagina and shits in your lap."
- Reddit comment

"Bitch wants a baby, so we're gonna fuck now. #bareback"
- Cambion

Oh whatever. Abortion doctors are crimestoppers."
- Miss Hannigan
Re: Passive population control - would it work?
March 26, 2017 10:22PM
Quote
paragon schnitzophonic

At this point, breeders have no excuses to sit here and say that they have this kid and it's the responsibility of The Village™ to pay this child's way through life and the financial burden should not be placed solely on the people that brought it into existence. I saw this post on Facebook where somebody bitched at how people think poor people shouldn't have kids and that having kids is a right and blah blah blah. First of all, if your ass is poor, having a child means you're going to stay poor. Wherever you are on the socioeconomic scale before breeding is where you'll stay after breeding. Secondly, you have this kid and realize oh shit, it needs food, diapers, clothes, etc. on a consistent basis. How are you going to pay for all that AND keeping your electricity and water running, keep up the rent so you don't end up out on the streets, and maintaining your mode of transportation so you can get to work to pay for all that? Because you're not going to sit there, make a piss-poor decision on the basis of "Whatever, whatever, I do what I want" and then emotionally hijack me and society as a whole into feeling like your burden of your own doing is somehow on us.

...

Frankly, if breeders want all these subsidies for breeding, it can be taken out of the paychecks of other breeders. They can form their own village, where they have to give where they take, instead of trying to foist it upon the childfree.




Any person who advocates that any impoverished person should breed should be held in contempt. What they're advocating, in essence, is that poor people should remain poor forever and ever and ever. No upward mobility. No chance for a better lot in life. And the kids? They are also dooming them to growing up in an impoverished environment. Highly unethical on all fronts.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login