It is almost impossible to talk about it. Powerful churches continue to insist that every act of intercourse embrace the opportunity for another human being. Their political henchmen/exploiters carry the concept over into the civil arena. The word itself, eugenics, automatically recalls the horror of Hitler's mad philosophies made manifest.
The demonization of the term Eugenics parallels the term "liberal" which classically describes today's libertarian but in current usage denotes his statist opposite.
As a start might we begin to soften the word and entertain the notion that human happiness and the chance for human survival will be enhanced if we can discover an acceptable way of reducing population?
8 comments:
Perhaps your "political exploiters" encompasses the idea, but the biggest obstical to any population control is "when there are more of us than there are of you, we rule". China is apparently already comfortable with their position, but other's are still working on their place in the pecking order. JAGSC
Yep. It's the economic and strategic element of the problem. We work on whatever of the problems originate in doctrinal matters, and we still have it to work on.
The framework of the argument will probably involve the notion that even a controlling majority can breed itself into misery.
We've discovered an acceptable way of reducing population: Become a modern, technological, prosperous Westernized society.
When you live in a mud hut in the middle of nowhere without a satellite dish, entertainment options are limited after 8PM or so, so a lot of hanky-panky goes down.
Kids are cheap when you don't need to buy them all shoes, X-boxes, and college degrees.
Pretty much every First World nation is actually in population decline, or would be if it weren't for immigration. The most prosperous up and comers, like India, Mexico, and Brazil, are seeing their growth rates taper off dramatically, too. A lot of folks think that global population growth will have halted and perhaps even reversed by the latter half of the century without anybody having to do anything other than what they're already doing.
Umm, "Eugenics?" Look, we tried that here in Indiana; sterilizing the "unfit" has two problems: 1)it doesn't reduce the supply of unfortunates, malefactors and ne'er-do-wells, an' 2) it makes yer soul all...slimy.
Hooo Boy. I need to jump on this one quickly, Roberta. "Sterilize the unfit?" No. No. No. Nothing even in the same galaxy.
I wondered; 'cos that's what "eugenics" meant, long before the crooked grosses rolled. Glad to hear that was not what you meant.
--But, srsly: who decides? If not the prospective parents, who?
Roberta: It has to be voluntary. It has to be non-governmental. It must depend on reward, not imposed punishment.
We should be talking about a movement rather than a program, a spreading understanding that "per capita" is the moccasin in the hot tub.
Suppose the next Bill Gates and Warren Buffet worry about humanity breeding itself into savagery. They start thinking about lifetime pensions for women who choose not to bear children, payable annually, large enough to motivate?
No. I don't know if anything like that is practicable. I do know I'd like to see a discussion among the world's sentients.
Tam: I applaud hanky panky, in a grass hut or a Versailles chambre.
I do not applaud the biological results of bareback hanky panky appearing like clockwork every fifty weeks or so.)
(Among other things, they grow up to compete with me for small pistol primers.)
Protection is available in many forms, and one of the tasks is to erase the remaining agenda-driven barriers to contraception. This calls for curbs on both Attila and the Witch Doctor.
The distribution problem you cite is real. Wish I had a ready answer. Don't.
Post a Comment