Population control: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Population control » Population control

Population control
Mayer wants to pay people not to breed

Page: 1 2 3

Population control

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 11/02/09 - 07:33 PM:	#11
I've read pretty depressing stories of people in India, especially divorced women, (which are in their own "untouchable" class), who have raised funds by selling one of their kidneys. One report says that the majority use the funds to buy a house, then run into further costs, (especially with new medical problems from only having one kidney), and end up where they were to begin with. By targeting the "underclass", you are generally targeting people who may not be in the best position to manage the money they receive either, but that might not be justification by itself. In fact, I would say that it would be unethical not to provide this kind of service. A society would save a lot of money by simply providing affordable and available, with an incentive would save society a lot of money. Actually, New Zealand has some special conditions, especially as it is home to some unique species of plants and animals. Overpopulation, (the population outstripping local resources), can occur even when living conditions for humans aren't strained. This subject will necessarily creep into questions about eugenics, (trying to deliberately change population proportions through controlled breeding). By offering a monetary incentive you automatically attract those with financial problems and thus target those at economic disadvantage, (often associated with racial demographics). Back in the 1920's, "eugenics" was considered a good thing and actively pursued by many developed countries, like the US, (which also engaged in compulsory sterilization for the disabled and reportedly Native Americans). In fact, the eugenics program in Germany, were openly admitted to being inspired by the American program. Its history is why the word "eugenics" got such a bad reputation.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 165

Posted 11/03/09 - 08:31 AM:	#12
What a lot of people miss is the fact that "things" tend to work themselves out. This debate about population control and genetics is just one of them. Just sitting around and trying to "solve" the population "problem" by thinking about it and enacting legislation or force is not a viable "solution". Eventually, the population will become so dense that pollution will begin to kill of people. Crowded cities will bread civil unrest and people will kill each other. People will starve and die. We pour food aid to Africa...this causes the population to explode...they overuse the land and begin to starve or weather conditions change and they starve or they fight with their neighbors and kill each other. Natural mechanisms "solve" these problems without human intervention. People living longer will strain societies ability to pay for their healthcare. Healthcare will decline for the elderly and they will die. You have to be careful what you call a "problem" and what you call a "solution".

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/03/09 - 11:18 PM:	#13
SIR2U wrote: No I don't mean him. No, I don't mean them either. Time for a history lesson. Right... Time for the history lesson: Indira "Gandhi" (a Nehru) got married to a gentleman named Feroz *Khan* not Gandhi, the next time you attempt such wise-cracks make sure you yourself are privy to the most rudimentary of facts, yeah? He adopted it as part of his political ambitions. None of them are 'Gandhis' - the real Gandhis today aren't politicians. So it's Indira "Khan" (I don't believe in adoption of surnames here, neither does any regular intellectual, first names maybe, surnames no). Next time you attempt to impose your ignorance on others, especially where the Mahatma is concerned, I hope you remember how you were rightly restricted to this hysterical position. So much for you giving others history lessons. And of course, she did impose a state of emergency. As far as the official stance of the Indian government remains - it's 2 child per household, against incentives. It has never changed, not even during the period of socialism in the country. There is no law restricting birth or forcing sterilization as in China and it's infamous one-child policy. Hope it's clear, and you've been tutored enough. Edited by Desidude666 on 11/03/09 - 11:24 PM
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1378

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:39 PM:	#14
Desidude666 wrote: Time for the history lesson: Hope it's clear, and you've been tutored enough. I really think you should read properly. I never stated any relation to Mahatma, in fact I clearly said I was not refering to him. As even the quote you placed in your post shows. The woman will always be known to the world as Indira Gandhi whether you like it or not. And there is no way you can say I am wrong about my statement. She did force people to be sterilized for the control of population. Now if you want to discuss this further maybe you could start another thread about the abusive use of surnames. Because her family name has nothing to do with the topic beig discussed.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/04/09 - 11:08 PM:	#15
SIR2U wrote: I never stated any relation to Mahatma, in fact I clearly said I was not refering to him. As even the quote you placed in your post shows. I have read the quotes. In fact, when you attain a position to give someone a lesson, you should then reflect that level of knowledge. I think MK Gandhi has never been truly defended as a politician. All we have today are people who abuse him and his historic position. So when I asked you that question, you rightly denied, while proceeding with to give me lessons. Hence my response. SIR2U wrote: The woman will always be known to the world as Indira Gandhi whether you like it or not. In truth, she isn't. At one point of time the world was known to be flat, it doesn't change facts. You know it, and I know it - she isn't a Gandhi. She never was, and her dynasty has nothing to do with the real Gandhis. SIR2U wrote: And there is no way you can say I am wrong about my statement. She did force people to be sterilized for the control of population. She suspended the Indian constitution too, manipulated the President, discarded the court's decision and declared a state of emergency. Despite her flaws, she was a better option to what the Indians had then. She was a socialist anyway. And besides, they even forced Coca Cola out and controlled politics, it doesn't really mean that India was then not a democracy. In fact, she was voted out of office anyways. SIR2U wrote: Now if you want to discuss this further maybe you could start another thread about the abusive use of surnames. Because her family name has nothing to do with the topic beig discussed. Of course, rather, it's mis-interpretation of them. Let's just quit this personal tirade here, and let's focus on her and what's in contention between us.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1378

Posted 11/05/09 - 04:31 PM:	#16
desidude66 wrote: Of course, rather, it's mis-interpretation of them. Let's just quit this personal tirade here, and let's focus on her and what's in contention between us. There is no tirade and there is certainly nothing to focus on in this thread except population control. As I stated, if you would like to start another thread about her that is your privilege to do so. I personally do not wish to discuss her and as I have also stated: She will always be known to the rest of the world as Indira Gandhi. Simply because the rest of the world does not know and has little interest in finding out what her real name was, even if they guess that she might have another name. Cheers.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/06/09 - 12:21 AM:	#17
swstephe wrote: I've read pretty depressing stories of people in India, especially divorced women, (which are in their own "untouchable" class), who have raised funds by selling one of their kidneys. One report says that the majority use the funds to buy a house, then run into further costs, (especially with new medical problems from only having one kidney), and end up where they were to begin with. By targeting the "underclass", you are generally targeting people who may not be in the best position to manage the money they receive either, but that might not be justification by itself. In fact, I would say that it would be unethical not to provide this kind of service. A society would save a lot of money by simply providing affordable and available, with an incentive would save society a lot of money. That's is not a problem resulting from their caste system alone, it results from economic opportunities. Such widows cannot do anything other than manage their families, and if they lose that, they need to live off a charity, so one could also say that it's also education. The families in the rural areas are so poor that they cannot even afford food on a daily basis, so for them it becomes a major problem sustaining widows. Widows, according to the Atharva Ved, the 4 Veds are the Hindu authority, are suggested to be re-married. So when such caste systems were developed, widows probably stood a better chance of survival - until the puranic period - that probably ruined everything and people abused their position, using the work of their forefathers as a social distinction. Why I think the caste system is so misunderstood is because those who aren't privy to it's protocols assume that the 'higher' castes are better off. Actually, the Brahmins, who are the scholar classes (like our modern researcher 'class', the intelligentsia), are supposed to have their own rankings. If one is lower in rank, he does not have privileges of the social sphere as a regular Brahmin. To be a Brahmin, you need to be born as one (so your forefather's qualities may be assumed in you), then educated as one, then have a son after the age of 25 (the requirements are very strict), then sustain your family until the age of 50, donate everything you have to society after meeting your responsibilities as a predecessor to your son and then proceed to the jungle for ascesis till death. That's a 'normal' vedic Brahmin as advised by the Manu Smriti (Vedic Adam, but the East doesn't believe in incest - so there are various Adams who are called Prajapatis so incest as a beginning is eliminated, unlike the West). In fact, the nomad class of Brahmins (highest) were restricted from owning any property or leading a family life, and were supposed to live in solitude in some forest. Even food is restricted for them, the highest form of class restricts any food but fruits. Naturally, if you can retain such discipline, you are a role model and need to be projected as such in a society that suggests that the human senses are the source of all grief. Primarily so that they could demonstrate control of their senses, or 'indriyahs'. Besides, the earliest scripture, such as the Ramayan, suggest Vedic Rituals and donations by monarchs to brahmins and the shudras with equal respect. So whatever the caste, no one is supposed to undermine another. It baffles me why people cannot understand distinctions. No matter what you do, you cannot develop a lineage over-night. This comes with scholarly multi-generation driven endeavours, the lower caste just don't have that - it's like inheriting wealth, not everyone comes from the Gates or Jobs family, you have to live with being common. They (higher caste) are respected for their potential as evidenced by their forefathers, however if they rest on their laurels and not expand on the past, they abuse their position. It's a relatively abused system in post-puranic India, the original caste system is a human accomplishment of social organization. The higher you are in the caste system, the more you are supposed to do. The warriors are supposed to be able to ready for fight (for everyone!) at a short notice. How easy is that if the fight isn't yours? With such efforts, the social incentives are natural. Nothing comes for free in our existence, there are always trade-offs, and you have to live with what you have, no other way around. If others seek a desirable lineage, you start working on your own generation, no point undermining another. Same goes for vice-versa as no one has control over where he is born.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Laic
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009
Location: Northern Ontario

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:41 PM:	#18
I think a lot of this issue is within the realm of child protection agencies and social assistance. When I was younger I babysat for a woman who was on social assistance in subsidized housing. She got more and more money for each child she bore. While no child should go without as a child is not able to choose whether it will be born into a rich or poor household, no child should be born to a mother who's use of the social bennefiets she recieves was as poor as the treatment this mother afforded her children. While the home was well kept the money did not go towards healthy food choices or educational toys. It went to her drug and alcohol addictions. Of course she never drank or took drugs while in the presence of her children she had that much respect. That's why the extra money went to me for babysitting. I think I watched her children a few times over a month before I figured this out. I quit in spite of my attachment to the children and their joy while in my care because I felt it was morally wrong to enable this woman to party three nights a week on her baby bonus money. Full well knowing that she'd just find another sitter, I was not going to be involved. Paying people to take birth control as an option? Maybe. I don't feel it needs to go that route. Rather I believe that instead of giving parents money to take care of their children that more agencies should be able to provide better care services for the children. Children are expensive no doubt and should be provided for above all things. I can personally state that nearly 90% of my disposable income goes towards my own children as it should. Rewarding responsible parents would possibly create enough influence to have people wait until they know it would be responsible to have children. Not everyone who wants to have children is going to have a means to support them, not only financially but ethically and responsibly. It would not improve our population to target groups of low income. The reward would need to stem across all classes. The major failing here (in Canada at least and maybe America) is that people fear child protection agencies. For good reason. These agencies are called in during crisis situations when a parent has become abusive or negligent with the children. Why wait until there is a problem? A lot of monies are spent in court, on lawyers and in care for foster placement. This could be drastically reduced if there were a child welfare agency that did not specialize in only keeping open cases where there were concern. Still the pressure would remain. Just enough pressure to do well with the children. Knowing that as soon as one has a child that the expectations will be checked on and monitored will have people rethinking the idea of having children. Having children will become a responsibility. Like it's not? No not from what I've seen. Most parents I know, even those who have adopted children have no idea how to parent. "Some parents deserve respect, most of them don't"~ George Carlin The issue I see is that reproduction has become a selfish act. I want a baby. I want a puppy, I want a car. Unfortunately Gimmie gets in this society. People look so blindly to what they ideally want and they go for it like they're going to know exactly what they're getting into. Kids grow up and turn into teenagers, did you expect that one? Puppies aren't so cute as dogs and buying a car means gas and insurance along with repairs, do you still want? That brings me to my second idea. Forward education. Mandatory parenting classes. Education and hands on experience in raising children. We could subsidize half of the daycare centers in the school with the work of high school students. Start them off at puberty. Help them understand what the body does and why it does that. Help them understand the stages of child development, what's expected at what ages and what the milestones they're going to face as parents are going to be. Bet that's enough to deter anyone who isn't ready from having a child. The key is social support. Money is nice, for sure. Grades? Even better. Extra curricular credit that looks exceptional on college applications, now here we're talking business. Determining how much support and money someone is going to need to assist with raising a child based not only on a tax return line? Priceless. I find it common that the child protection agencies aren't interested enough in rich families. Living in a small town and being in a middle class income group I get flack all the time from social agencies. My house is spotless, my children are advanced and I'm a single parent! I may not have much but it all goes into my kids. They're the best. Meanwhile a woman from my church who paid for us to eat lunch with her out of pity had the dirtiest brand new SUV I've ever seen in my life and she openly called her adopted daughter "Fully Black" come on woman. Also a single parent, more money than I could ever want to have and still not taking care of her child as well as the druggie welfare mom I babysat did. No child protection agencies involved with her, she has money. Right on money. Money is not the answer. It really isn't. Support and awareness. Make people more aware of what having a child means. Give people help to raise their children both financially and socially so that no one has the opportunity to fall through the cracks into a child welfare concern. Less people randomly popping out babies? I think so.
If life is like a box of chocolates than Science and Philosophy are the insert card that let's you know what you're going to get. Read it wisely! ~Me

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1378

Posted 11/08/09 - 09:37 AM:	#19
Laic wrote: Mandatory parenting classes Make people more aware of what having a child means. As a teacher, I have been saying this for years. Most parents I meet have no idea that they have resposabilities that go beyond paying the bills for their kids. They think that school will do the rest, and often complain when it doesn't do the job properly. It's no use teaching the kids what they are not going to be forced to practice by their parents or society. Take the kids out of school for a month and educate the parents about manners and common sense so that they can help teach their kids.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Laic
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009
Location: Northern Ontario

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 11/08/09 - 12:19 PM:	#20
SIR2U wrote: Laic wrote: Mandatory parenting classes Make people more aware of what having a child means. As a teacher, I have been saying this for years. Most parents I meet have no idea that they have resposabilities that go beyond paying the bills for their kids. They think that school will do the rest, and often complain when it doesn't do the job properly. It's no use teaching the kids what they are not going to be forced to practice by their parents or society. Take the kids out of school for a month and educate the parents about manners and common sense so that they can help teach their kids. I totally support you! I see a lot of parents blaming the schools. What is the school supposed to do? Really? There was a kid in my daughter's class who hit everyone last year, and the mom was just as bad as the boy. If not worse. How are teachers to cope with that? What is the next school going to do? This woman was wealthy and the boy was well dressed. Still she did not actually take care of her son's moral agenda. Or her own. I think that now since a lot of schools have faith removed, religion rather, that moral codes and ethics should be strongly taught. This would solve so many issues, including overpopulation. People would know that it is not fair to put a child through this kind of upbringing before they make the choice to have a child! Maybe parents should be required to help in the classes as well!
If life is like a box of chocolates than Science and Philosophy are the insert card that let's you know what you're going to get. Read it wisely! ~Me

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.