How long before a limit is put in place?

[dirtychinchilla]

The state should not fund children and people should not automatically have the right to have them. I think people should have to pass tests to have children.

Are you mad? We have one reason to be on this planet; to ensure the survival of our species. You'd bring this down to a test?

Who writes the test?

Do they have children?

What about accidental births? Do you kill the child?

What if the child is born and they don't meet your birthing standards. Do you kill the child?

You are a mentalist.

 

[Frightful Boar]

Are you mad? We have one reason to be on this planet; to ensure the survival of our species. You'd bring this down to a test?

Who writes the test? It's an IQ test

Do they have children? That's what the test is for. It ain't looking good for you!

What about accidental births? Do you kill the child? We're testers not murderers.

What if the child is born and they don't meet your birthing standards. Do you kill the child? Nobody is proposing tests for children.

You are a mentalist. Rude

 

[Lysander]

What about accidental births? Do you kill the child?

What if the child is born and they don't meet your birthing standards. Do you kill the child?

To be fair, this isn't totally ridiculous. We put down animals for all sorts of reasons, such as they're ill, we don't like them, they're inconvenient etc etc. Why not do the same with children.

Of course, this will never be seen as acceptable, I'm aware of that. It's just that because we're human, we attain right of species priority just because we're dominant. But if you look at it absolutely, killing a pet because you can't be bothered to look after it is just as valid as killing a kid because you can't be bothered to look after it.

 

[Randomface74]

I only ask that people live within their means

 

[Frightful Boar]

To be fair, this isn't totally ridiculous. We put down animals for all sorts of reasons, such as they're ill, we don't like them, they're inconvenient etc etc. Why not do the same with children.

Of course, this will never be seen as acceptable, I'm aware of that. It's just that because we're human, we attain right of species priority just because we're dominant. But if you look at it absolutely, killing a pet because you can't be bothered to look after it is just as valid as killing a kid because you can't be bothered to look after it.

Sometimes women abort little babies for convenience, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

 

[momentimori]

Are you mad? We have one reason to be on this planet; to ensure the survival of our species. You'd bring this down to a test?

Who writes the test?

Do they have children?

What about accidental births? Do you kill the child?

What if the child is born and they don't meet your birthing standards. Do you kill the child?

You are a mentalist.

The words you are looking for are eugenics and social darwinism.

 

[Lysander]

Sometimes women abort little babies for convenience, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

That's because, as far as I'm aware, a foetus isn't legally thought of as being "alive" and independent. Once something can breathe for itself it falls into that category. Someone can elaborate on this if they have more knowledge of it.

 

[Lysander]

The words you are looking for are eugenics and social darwinism.

I don't see why it would necessarily be a bad thing. The only downside is people wouldn't necessarily be able to continue their own bloodline, but not everyone should do that anyway.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I'm not going to respond to half these points, because they're utterly ridiculous. Particularly the comment that we should determine whether someone should live or not on the basis of their IQ.

Eugenics and social darwinism are unacceptable because they are matters in which humans should not have that level of choice! If someone else wants to procreate, who are we to say that they shouldn't? I know people like to control the world, but that's going way too far.

 

[Frightful Boar]

I'm not going to respond to half these points, because they're utterly ridiculous. Particularly the comment that we should determine whether someone should live or not on the basis of their IQ.

Eugenics and social darwinism are unacceptable because they are matters in which humans should not have that level of choice! If someone else wants to procreate, who are we to say that they shouldn't? I know people like to control the world, but that's going way too far.

I don't think that bolded part ever happened. I commented that it would be an IQ test to determine whether a person should be allowed to breed not live.

The stupid will always be at the mercy of the intelligent, whether it's written or law or not.

People should examine which side they're on. This would give them some valuable information about themselves.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I don't think that bolded part ever happened. I commented that it would be an IQ test to determine whether a person should be allowed to breed not live.

The stupid will always be at the mercy of the intelligent, whether it's written or law or not.

People should examine which side they're on. This would give them some valuable information about themselves.

I apologise for misphrasing it.

So now we're judging the children entirely on the parents? I'm not sure that's valid as a child's IQ is not necessarily representative of the children's IQ.

 

[PMKeates]

The concept of 'overpopulation' is effectively a myth at our current levels. We have more than enough space and, crucially, 'we have science'. Science and technology is what will give us more efficient utilisation of existing resources and the ability to create more. The only time where you could consider overpopulation a problem is when the incremental benefit of an additional human being is less than the incremental cost of supporting him/her. As humans, fundamentally, consume basic energy sources and convert them in to thoughts of seemingly limitless complexity, that equation is going to be weighted heavily in our favour for a long time.

 

[J.T]

So are people suggesting we leave behind the telephone sanitizers?...

 

[kayomani]

The into to the film idiocracy comes to mind

 

[Frightful Boar]

I apologise for misphrasing it.

So now we're judging the children entirely on the parents? I'm not sure that's valid as a child's IQ is not necessarily representative of the children's IQ.

You're probably right about that. Luckily it wouldn't be me that makes important decisions like that!

 

[Frightful Boar]

We have more than enough space and, crucially, 'we have science'.

I drove up to Gairloch last year and on the way I kept thinking:

"I hope Scotland get independence and don't let anyone build on this beautiful countryside"

We might have plenty of space, but it's nice the way it is!

 

[Lysander]

The concept of 'overpopulation' is effectively a myth at our current levels. We have more than enough space and, crucially, 'we have science'.

What are we going to do, create more land?

 

[edscdk]

If someone else wants to procreate, who are we to say that they shouldn't? I know people like to control the world, but that's going way too far.

so explain why I should pay for them to procreate?

- if you can pay for kids have all you want is fair, if you cannot then dont expect others to feed them....

 

[beamer]

Earth population will now plateau until space travel is as cheap and safe as the first sailings to USA. I just hope that "space frontier" is a reality within my lifetime. I can't wait to explore strange new worlds and go boldly.

I'm really talking in terms of years here, maybe decades. It's quite clear that the population is climbing and climbing, and with advances in medicine there are only so many resources and so much space to go round.

It actually worked in China [and they've now increased the limit from 1 to 2]. How long do you think before we see it in the UK?

I don't think "never" is a realistic answer. Given the growth as it is, the limit will have to be put in place at some point.

I also don't think "well, people are dying too" is a realistic argument since people are living longer now more than ever and medicine has come up with better and better ways to keep people alive.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/06/uk-population-increase-births-migration

 

[Zethor]

I don't see why it would necessarily be a bad thing. The only downside is people wouldn't necessarily be able to continue their own bloodline, but not everyone should do that anyway.

I don't think that bolded part ever happened. I commented that it would be an IQ test to determine whether a person should be allowed to breed not live.

The stupid will always be at the mercy of the intelligent, whether it's written or law or not.

People should examine which side they're on. This would give them some valuable information about themselves.

What the hell? Are you *** No personal insults...*** - Will Gill for real? Can't believe what I'm reading!

The strength of the human genome is genetic variation, not certain genes that lead to intelligence or any other "good" trait. Any form of social darwinism would only weaken it because strictly controlled breeding can lead to certain "desireable" traits becoming more dominant which always comes with side effects as the genetic weakness can become dominant too.

In a thousand years you could theoretically create a group of people that are slightly more intelligent or have slightly more physical strength. However, due to these people belonging to a small and somewhat similar gene pool, they may have a vulnerability to certain types of viruses or cancers or some unforseen genetical defect.

Your ideas are not only deeply immoral, they are idiotic.