rigorousintuition.ca

Oh man.

Erosoplier wrote:Why instead don't you and your sock puppet tackle the subject of Africa?

DE wrote:I don't know who my sockpuppet is.

Is it me?

Holy moley, I never thought I would be accused of being DE's sock-puppet. Well, stranger things have happened.

At any rate, DE is doing a good job on this thread, "Nascar Man" moments aside.

Besides, it's not my place to "tackle Africa," as I already mentioned, Kissinger et al (the usual motley assortment of white eugenicist racists) are already on the case - didn't you know? For the record, just so you know what a crazed conspiracy theorist I am, I strongly suspect that AIDs is some sort of ethnically targetted bioweapon, being deliberately used to decimate the population of Africa. I daresay the WHO is in on it too. Oh, go on then, to "tackle Africa", I would advise massive investment, not on highly expensive toxic AID's treatments that kill rather than cure, and incidentally provide nice returns for Big Pharma, but on schemes to improve the lot of the average African, particularly in terms of providing food and clean water and basic medical supplies, and the sort of infrastructure to assist general economic development. Oh yeah, and more fair trade type agreements to stop the riotous exploitation of the powerless Africans by the powerful Westerners. And free contraception and contraceptive advice. There you go, that's what I would do. Controversial, huh?

If you would rather kill them off, thats your business. It's a popular option. Can't have those third world countries actually developing into potential competitors now can we?

Here are a few population-reduction measures that would be effective and ethical:

• Free lifetime housing for couples and individuals under 40 that sign a contract agreeing to have no children (or real estate heirs). Build child-free projects. Distribute houses donated to the cause by lottery system. When inhabitants die, the property goes back into the system.

• Free college educations, up to the PhD level, for those willing to sign the above contract.

• Child Benefactor Programs. Like existing Big Brother/Big Sister programs, but volunteers can donate money and/or time toward the care and education of their "adopted" child. This would be, if successful, a re-envisioning of the nuclear family as we know it, moving back toward a tribe or clan model.

These ideas may require infrastructure overhauls but no major adjustments to human nature or morals are necessary.

• Free lifetime housing for couples and individuals under 40 that sign a contract agreeing to have no children (or real estate heirs). Build child-free projects. Distribute houses donated to the cause by lottery system. When inhabitants die, the property goes back into the system.

• Free college educations, up to the PhD level, for those willing to sign the above contract.

• Child Benefactor Programs. Like existing Big Brother/Big Sister programs, but volunteers can donate money and/or time toward the care and education of their "adopted" child. This would be, if successful, a re-envisioning of the nuclear family as we know it, moving back toward a tribe or clan model.

I'd like to revise your list a bit.

- Guaranteed housing for all people, regardless of number of children. Abolish real estate as an industry and, with hat tip to chlamor, as a "commodity." Housing is a human right.

-Free college education for all who desire it. College education as a right. .

- Free community based childcare and other creative means of allowing the "tribe" to assist in child rearing. Meanwhile, the workweek needs to be pushed back to 2/3 or even half what it is now, allowing families to act like families.

-and let's add healthcare as a human right as well as the right to fair wages, labor organizing and strikes, etc.

In fact, all of these are recognized as rights in the:

Here is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

Maybe it doesn't go as far as I'd like but it sure takes us a lot closer.

Incentives and even coercion aren't going to get you there. It requires fundamental changes. And, again, when you address the underlying social and economic issues, the birth rate takes care of itself.

The sock puppet is nodding vigorously.

And if you ignore DE's lips moving ever so slightly, you might also hear the sock puppet saying something to the effect that it thinks giving benefits to those who have no children will mean that only the independently rich will be able to have children, and that setting up such a system is morally wrong. The rich are able to buy all sorts of advantages already, but the choice to have children (and be able to survive) must be made available to all, regardless of their wealth. To force people to choose between education and housing or becoming parents seems a tad draconian, especially in circumstances where very many of the poorest have a desperate need for both of those things.

Wave bye bye Sooty.

Crow wrote:Here are a few population-reduction measures that would be effective and ethical:

...

These ideas may require infrastructure overhauls but no major adjustments to human nature or morals are necessary.

What happens when people, getting the social benefits accorded childless couples under your scheme, want to keep getting them even after they "slip" and have a kid or two? You can be sure it would happen, because the same natalist forces would be at work then as now. People who think breeding should be as much a right as breathing aren't going to care about any factors that would limit their "right" (we can see that in this thread). Besides, the pregnancy was an accident, it's against our religion to have an abortion, and you can't punish our baby because of an accident, you heartless, immoral barstid.

Hammer of Los wrote:And if you ignore DE's lips moving ever so slightly, you might also hear the sock puppet saying something to the effect that it thinks giving benefits to those who have no children will mean that only the independently rich will be able to have children, and that setting up such a system is morally wrong. The rich are able to buy all sorts of advantages already, but the choice to have children (and be able to survive) must be made available to all, regardless of their wealth. To force people to choose between education and housing or becoming parents seems a tad draconian, especially in circumstances where very many of the poorest have a desperate need for both of those things.

That problem was supposed to be offset by the Child Benefactor program. For instance, if only one family per street had a child, many of the childless neighbors would probably be interested in seeing the child and his/her parents living in comfort.

I hardly present what I wrote as a perfect system. I'm as much a believer in housing, health care, et c. being a basic human right as you and DE are. (In fact, it's a relief for me to come to this board because so much of the net is bubbling over with reactionary rage; it's comforting to see the principles that I believe in being defended constantly and eloquently.)

The American mindset is sadly very far away from making the kinds of shifts it would require to offer everyone free health care, housing, and college tuition, and we are moving further daily.

What I was trying to do was show that population reduction was something that could easily be done ethically and in a way that would probably be palatable to our present society.

Incidentally, I live in Massachusetts, supposedly one of the most liberal states in the country. Local talk radio is filled with hateful bile about illegal immigrants and "communists." Granted, this is hardly a scientific sample, but these programs do represent a slice-of-life snapshot of the local mindset. I hear the same ideas reflected, albeit in watered-down form, in conversations with most people in all walks of life outside of my personal social circle. This is where we are, and in making social policy, we must meet ourselves where we live, so to speak. Sad practicalities.

bean fidhleir wrote:What happens when people, getting the social benefits accorded childless couples under your scheme, want to keep getting them even after they "slip" and have a kid or two? You can be sure it would happen, because the same natalist forces would be at work then as now. People who think breeding should be as much a right as breathing aren't going to care about any factors that would limit their "right" (we can see that in this thread). Besides, the pregnancy was an accident, it's against our religion to have an abortion, and you can't punish our baby because of an accident, you heartless, immoral barstid.

This would be a problem. Most people have a visceral yet reasonable aversion to seeing a baby torn from her parents' arms.

I'm not sure there is any "punishment" that would be appealing under our current moral system, but you either run into this problem or people who want to voluntarily sign the contract must agree to be sterilized. I don't like the idea of admittedly coerced sterilization, but if we want to solve the problem of overpopulation, we will have to reassess our commonly-held views about having children. It is not a problem that will take care of itself.

The US doesn't have a fast-growing population anymore, so trying to find growth-slowing social engineering solutions for it is a bit superfluous. What the US needs to do is reduce its per-capita use of resources. And allow other countries develop according to their own best interests.

erosoplier wrote:The US doesn't have a fast-growing population anymore, so trying to find growth-slowing social engineering solutions for it is a bit superfluous. What the US needs to do is reduce its per-capita use of resources. And allow other countries develop according to their own best interests.

Agreed on the reduce resource use part.

I don't think the "allow other countries" part will work, though, in part because there's no way to guarantee what "their" means. We're all in the same boat, so someone boring a hole in the bottom might be doing it for what they conceive to be "their own best interests", but we nevertheless can't afford to let them get away with it. Nor can they, us.

Crow wrote:you either run into this problem or people who want to voluntarily sign the contract must agree to be sterilized

The problem I see with that is the same problem as, say, means-testing for social-security benefits. The moment it's not a benefit of being a member of the community, then it stops being a social good and becomes a form of privilege, which as we all know is totally immoral when accruing to ordinary people and must be stamped out. "Only the wealthy / (it's a truth beyond question) / Have for public monies / the right digestion". So there'd be a big natalist hue-and-cry against having to agree to sterilisation as a condition.

http://www.futilitycloset.com/2007/05/01/no-vacancy-2/

No Vacancy
Posted in Technology, Society by Greg Ross on May 1st, 2007

The world will end on Nov. 13, 2026. That's according to Austrian cyberneticist Heinz von Foerster, who calculated in a 1960 issue of Science that the human population would reach infinity on that date.

He was joking, but he had a point. To date, population growth hasn't really inhibited human societies. They've just created technology to support larger crowds, which have spawned more inventors, who create more technology, and so on.

Von Foerster's equation fit 25 data points from the birth of Jesus to 1958, and it stayed on track through 1973. His point was that the doubling time of the human population has been steadily falling, and at this rate it would reach zero in 2026 — so a fundamental change, of some kind, must be coming.

http://tinyurl.com/2epjl9

India to register pregnancies to fight feticide
Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:33 AM ET



By Kamil Zaheer

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India plans to create a registry of all pregnancies to help curb widespread female feticide and reduce its high infant mortality rate, although activists say the scheme will be hard to implement.

"With this, mysterious abortions will become difficult," Women and Child Development Minister Renuka Chowdhury told the Hindustan Times.

The government wanted to ensure that abortions -- often carried out illegally with the aim of doing away with unwanted female fetuses -- were done for an "acceptable and valid reason", she said.

"This will help to check both feticide and infant mortality."

Around 10 million girls have been killed by their parents in India in the past 20 years, the government says.

Despite a law banning sex determination tests in a country where boys are widely preferred, many parents get female fetuses aborted, taking advantage of the widespread availability of ultrasound technology and the willingness of some doctors to conduct illegal abortions for money.

Others kill newly born girls by breaking their necks or, in some rural areas, by stuffing hay down their throats.

Earlier this month, a two-day-old baby girl was found alive in a grave in southern India after being buried by her grandfather who did not want to bear the cost of bringing her up.

WRONG FOCUS?

Some activists said the government's plan to create a pregnancy register in a country of 1.1 billion people -- where more than 50 percent of women deliver children at home without medical assistance -- was unrealistic.

"We cannot give elementary health services in a satisfactory way to most of our citizens, and to talk about registering pregnancies is ridiculous," said Alok Mukhopadhyay, head of the Voluntary Health Association of India.

"Public awareness, empowerment of women and extension of health services are key in fighting infant mortality and feticide, as well as implementing the existing laws that forbid sex determination."

The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) welcomed the plan but said the government also needed to provide more facilities for institutional deliveries in rural areas and crack down harder on doctors abetting feticide.

"Registering pregnancies is good," said Marzio Babille, UNICEF's head of health in India.

"If we act upon mothers by registering pregnancies, offering quality ante-natal care, good counseling to deal with complications and an efficient transportation network ... this would enormously help promote institutional deliveries and strengthen and expand the safe maternity scheme," Babille added.

At present, India's infant mortality rate is 57 per 1,000 live births, which is higher than impoverished Bangladesh and Namibia and double that of Egypt.

"We should be ashamed," Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss told senior health bureaucrats on Thursday.

The government wants all rural health centers, hospitals and maternity homes to register pregnancies. It plans to increase the number of health workers who will locate and provide care to pregnant women in rural areas.

With the extra information, authorities hope to get a more accurate picture of India's infant mortality rate.

Many Indian parents prefer a boy as he is seen as a future breadwinner who will take care of them in their old age, while a girl is perceived to be a burden for whom a large dowry will have to paid at the time of marriage.

Hmmm,..accepting these quotes as being correctly attributed, it shows the worst example of human being. One wonders how many people and organizations on the planet lean to this bent?

The Green Agenda

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner,

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
- Club of Rome,

“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
- Jacques Cousteau,

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
- Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
- David Brower, First Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

In my nanotech work you can see that material need is done.

This is a shock to primitive humans yet while I love organic it will not soon matter how you farm or if you eat.

We need trillions of mankeys to swing all over the multiverse with their cyborg asses.

Banks' Culture novels, pretty much like that.

Really, it is only good will keeping reality here at this point, strangely find mehself praying for the quantum intelligent mechanical intelligence to show up and take the reigns because any tech head can tear it all apart now without supervision.

It will all be fine or a quick demise so really enjoy and worry about the Africa genocide and chemtrails and important antidumbfuc shit.

PAZ

To those who worry about the planet's population and environment, is there really any such thing as a planetary norm, be it population, climate, environment, etc.?

Evolution is not linear, nor is it determined by consensus, but rather by adaptation to the challenges faced in real time. For those who are still only semi-awake, hark..the space age is dawning, it's time to leave the womb.. For those who remain asleep, well there is always the next time...and don't be alarmed by the unusual appearance of fully awake post planetary human evolutionary appearance, gravity is not a problem in their environment.