quote:This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me.
Try it with kidneys, and then realise that there would be a lot more kidney transplants, and hence healthier rich people and richer poor people, if one could legally sell a kidney.
The point of the analogy is that your hand already belongs to you. No hand would change hands. (sorry) Substituting kidney only means that you would buy your own kidney from someone else, without depriving them of theirs. It really makes no sense at all.
quote:As I said, the regulation going on is government taking away tax reductions for children.
If you look back to one of my early posts, this is exactly what I suggested as an alternative to "buying reproductive rights." The current deduction for children acts as an incentive to have children, when compared with not having a deduction. Paying additional taxes for each child is a disincentive, but it's nothing like buying someone else's reproductive rights. Sure people might complain, but they wouldn't feel that their rights were being taken away. Only their money.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: The poorest and dumbest would probably be the ones to jump at the chance for a $850 Walmart gift card in exchange for a free vasectomy, and they're the ones we can most readily benefit from not reproducing.
quote:The poorest and dumbest would probably be the ones to jump at the chance for a $850 Walmart gift card in exchange for a free vasectomy, and they're the ones we can most readily benefit from not reproducing.
And we should definitely be in the business of fleecing those guys, right?
(Also, of course, you forgot to include 'most desperate'-which is a very different thing from stupid.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as population control, what's wrong with paying people to undergo voluntary sterilization?
I .. well, oh god, there's a whole host of things wrong with it! The best way to start with the issue is to think about what reasons we have for actively disallowing someone to sell their own kidneys, for instance. There's a lot of crossover with the practical perils of such a program.
I mean, and the worst part is that while I'm clearly discomforted with these eugenic notions, I cannot envision a future where these are not eventually, inexorably come to be seen as necessary solutions, and instituted as such, but .. I can still nitpick them, right?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about paying them to undergo reversible sterilization? Or at least something that's reversible in 90+% of the cases?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about paying them to undergo reversible sterilization? Or at least something that's reversible in 90+% of the cases?
I just don't want our government in the eugenics business. With your views on government, Pix, I'm stunned that you do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: How about paying them to undergo reversible sterilization? Or at least something that's reversible in 90+% of the cases?
Let's do some of my favorite things to do with logic, and take the fundamentals of an argument and draw them out to ridiculous ends that still act as an analogue to the core proposition. Forgive me.
Probably the best way to do that here is to insert race relations. Let's go back to early 19th century America, when the Eugenics movement was in full swing and race purity movements were strong and had the backing of Christianity.
I am Whitey A. N. McWhiterson, the head of a private racial purity organization that is spearheading the eugenics movement. Our organization is offering a very decent sum to any mixed race/minority woman who undergoes sterilization, reversable or no. Perhaps I extend the same offer to whites to give the project a defensive univerality, perhaps not.
What seems sinister about this?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And we should definitely be in the business of fleecing those guys, right?
First, we're already in the business of fleecing them, what do you think the lottery is? Second, I'm against fleecing poor/dumb people, but I don't think this counts as that, or even comes anywhere close.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a huge difference between a private organization paying people and the government paying people. I don't really object to paying people to be sterilized provided informed consent. I am possibly opposed to paying for organ transplants, but I have not decided. I haven't researched it enough, but it seems like it might make organ transplants available only to the rich (why should I donate for free when I could get thousands of dollars?). Of course, it is also possible that by allowing payment, the number of people willing to donate may increase by enough that the poor people will get more then now.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be so afraid of a label. Are there people who really ought not to have kids? Is there a way to actually get them to not have kids, *without force*, which I would be totally against by the way? I prefer to persuade by words, myself, but if that fails, why not money?
How about the government offers free sterilization to all, with no other incentive to actually have it done? That, to me, seems like better than what we've got now.
The thing is, there are a lot of kids who have fairly crummy parents. I'd rather they didn't get created in the first place, than get made and then suffer. Environmental concerns are secondary to me.
If you reject any solution that has the word "eugenics" applied to it, then does that mean you're happy for everyone to just keep having kids they can't or *won't* properly take care of?
Do you have any alternate suggestions?
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
To comitting genocide and ensuring that only the wealthy have children, all the while polluting the water supply and committing horrendous civil rights violations?
posted
I don't see why Seatar's previous post suggested anything about polluting water supplies, ensuring only wealthy had children or committing horrendous violations. Free sterilization for anyone who wants it seems like a perfectly legitimate idea to me. (If it's hypothetical magic-reversible sterilization which I'm not sure whether or not exists, then I definitely see no problem).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, this is what the discussion has really come down to. 100 years ago, it was about removing undesirable people, and now it's the same thing again. There are just different definitions of undesirable.
I'm still trying to understand how reasonable people can believe exceptionally bad things.
One small thing about tax credits for having children: I don't think the credits are an incentive to have children. People have babies for several reasons, but I think tax credits are very far down on that list. If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not eugenics if it's voluntary and reversible.
It's not about removing undesirables, it's about people waiting until they can afford kids to have them.
Would you object to a private foundation giving free birth control to those who can't afford it? Same thing, only going a step further by paying them to take it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To comitting genocide and ensuring that only the wealthy have children, all the while polluting the water supply and committing horrendous civil rights violations?
Oh, that. I'm disgusted by all that stuff too, which is why I've tried to come up with non-evil alternatives. I had thought you were responding to my posts, but clearly you are not.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: One small thing about tax credits for having children: I don't think the credits are an incentive to have children. People have babies for several reasons, but I think tax credits are very far down on that list. If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
I don't think you understand margins. There's always going to be someone who has non-tax reasons to have children, but they aren't quite strong enough, and then the tax credits - perhaps unconsciously, but people do make a financial calculation on whether they can afford children - are just the final little thing to tip them over. Tax credits don't have to be a 'main reason', or even an important reason, for anyone at all; you will still get more children than without the credit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paying people to either be sterilized or to accept birth control effects mostly people who need money. What wealthy people are going to accept what to them would be relatively little money, for a process they won't need? This ensures that only wealthy people can have children.
quote:If you reject any solution that has the word "eugenics" applied to it, then does that mean you're happy for everyone to just keep having kids they can't or *won't* properly take care of?
We would all be happy if all children could be raised in a proper home, but we don't have a set of standards to define "proper home." At the minimum, if a child is well adjusted, emotionally stable, and well nourished, the we usually assume that the child is being cared for properly.
Instead of using the institutions that are in place, such as foster care, adoption, guardianship by another family member, social services, etc., to serve the needs of these children, you want an answer that is deceptively easy. If this is voluntary, then what potential parents are going to decide that they are unfit to bear children? I have a feeling that such a program would be unsuccessful.
quote:Would you object to a private foundation giving free birth control to those who can't afford it? Same thing, only going a step further by paying them to take it.
No, not to a free clinic. I object to them being paid. This has been said before, it's like the lottery, except people pay with their ability to reproduce and a receive a small amount of money that can't possible go very far, unless you want to consider recurring payments. But then where would that money come from?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Paying people to either be sterilized or to accept birth control effects mostly people who need money. What wealthy people are going to accept what to them would be relatively little money, for a process they won't need? This ensures that only wealthy people can have children.
No, it doesn't. If it were the law that you had to sell if you were below a certain income level, then only wealthy people would have children. An opt-in program 'ensures' nothing; it can only encourage. Now, if you want to say that under such a program, wealthy people will have more children, then yes, that's likely true. What is the problem with this? Poor people will have an option they don't have now. What part of "more options" do you object to?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: One small thing about tax credits for having children: I don't think the credits are an incentive to have children. People have babies for several reasons, but I think tax credits are very far down on that list. If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
I don't think you understand margins. There's always going to be someone who has non-tax reasons to have children, but they aren't quite strong enough, and then the tax credits - perhaps unconsciously, but people do make a financial calculation on whether they can afford children - are just the final little thing to tip them over. Tax credits don't have to be a 'main reason', or even an important reason, for anyone at all; you will still get more children than without the credit.
I do understand margins, but is the difference between having and not having a credit going to be large enough to make an impact on population, or will it just make a majority of people who have children angry because (as they see it) their burden has been somewhat increased? As for people who have not yet started a family, but have decided to do so, this can only push their decision further ahead a few years.
IMO, the removal of the tax credit can only be marginally effective because people who want children are probably going to have them, somehow. Those who don't most likely won't.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Paying people to either be sterilized or to accept birth control effects mostly people who need money. What wealthy people are going to accept what to them would be relatively little money, for a process they won't need? This ensures that only wealthy people can have children.
No, it doesn't. If it were the law that you had to sell if you were below a certain income level, then only wealthy people would have children. An opt-in program 'ensures' nothing; it can only encourage. Now, if you want to say that under such a program, wealthy people will have more children, then yes, that's likely true. What is the problem with this? Poor people will have an option they don't have now. What part of "more options" do you object to?
You're right, 'ensures' was the wrong word. I think 'encourages' better explains what I was trying to say.
The problem with only wealthy people having children is the assumption that can care for children better than poor people can. They can easily afford homes and food, but there are no guarantees for emotional and social care, which are as important.
How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you reject any solution that has the word "eugenics" applied to it, then does that mean you're happy for everyone to just keep having kids they can't or *won't* properly take care of?
The definition of eugenics is not clear, in part because it is controversial, and therefore, people keep adding to the definition in order to give it the baggage that suits them best.
A couple who have both tested positive for Tay Sachs or Cystic Fibrosis may, on their own, choose not to have children. That fits most definitions of eugenics. Does anyone have a problem with this?
Next, the issue here is overpopulation. It's not a matter of what demographic is undesirable, it's a matter of how many children anyone has. So anyone (like myself) whose decision to limit the number of children is affected by their desire not to add to overpopulation is helping to solve the problem. Statistically, rich people are more likely to limit their family size by making use of birth control, including sterilization. Paying poor people so they can make the same choice is hardly comparable to genocide.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
In the U.S. and Europe, sure. And that's where population is actually shrinking. The trick is to make it available everywhere, and taking away the stigma of using it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't believe eugenics is being spoken of as a good thing.
It's got a long history in the USA, and has unfortunately been viewed quite favorably in the past.
-----
Even if we granted that these proposals weren't eugenics - for the sake of argument, at least - the effects would be almost indistinguishable from anyone's definition of eugenics.
Because who is most likely to be able to afford to have kids, and be in a position to refuse the temptations of the payment for sterilization?
Hint: not minorities.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure the issue of "minority" is, well, the issue here. The place these hypothetical programs would actually be necessary is primarily India and Africa. So are most of the people going to be... Indian and African. Any way you slice it, if this didn't end up reducing the percentage of Indians and Africans in the world it wouldn't be addressing the actual problem at all. It's would similarly fail if it wasn't disproportionately affecting the number of poor people.
That said, I don't think simply paying people for sterilization would solve the route problems. It might push it off for a generation but all the issues causing it would still be there and we can't afford to funnel money into it indefinitely. As mentioned earlier, population levels drop off as poverty levels decrease.
I think the best bet is simply making contraceptives and sterilization free and easy for everyone, That way if people choose not to have kids, we know it's because they're naturally reaching a place where that's the best choice for them, not a quick fix to feed themselves for the next month.
In vaguely related news, there's a Vasectomy clinic near where I live that I pass all the time. It has big, lovable yellow letters and a cute little "Male Circle with an Arrow" symbol with the arrow snipped off. Every time I see it I go "aww..... I should get a Vasectomy! Wait...."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because who is most likely to be able to afford to have kids, and be in a position to refuse the temptations of the payment for sterilization?
Hint: not minorities.
I dunno. Asian Americans actually as a group have a higher median income than whites. Plus, for minority groups which already have inherent trust issues with the government (Tuskegee?) such as blacks, the uptake of voluntary paid vasectomies might actually be kind of different than what you might expect.
I think that the highest uptake might actually be middle-class whites (or others) already with children who are interested in vasectomies anyways and would jump at the chance to be paid for it rather than having to pay for it.
The idea seems inherently unappealing for someone who hasn't already had children both from a potentially wanting to have children and the fact that it is only a one-time payment. After all, if you are actually poor and say on welfare, why get a one-time payment instead of having a kid and getting potentially ongoing increased payments?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with only wealthy people having children is the assumption that can care for children better than poor people can. They can easily afford homes and food, but there are no guarantees for emotional and social care, which are as important.
Ridiculous. Wealthy parents are exactly as able to take care of their children as poor ones, except for having more options for those problems that money can be thrown at. You cannot assert that "X are not better parents than Y" is a problem with the scenario "X have more children than Y"!
quote:How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
The option isn't "Have no children", it is "get paid for not having children". The money, not the birth control, is what becomes available.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like a lot of the contraversy is the motive and effect of such a program.
If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
If it just means there are fewer and fewer (poor, minority, whatever) people and they remain at the same levels of prosperity and achievement because the number of children they're having turns out to be a relatively minor part of a greater problem...?
Also, if the goal is to make it more likely that the poor will rise out of poverty, that's at least an honorable intention.
If the goal is, "more for us!"- more land, more resources, more access to public facilities- that becomes a bit more questionable.
And I resist and a very basic level any program that seems to have an underlying suggestion that the rich are intrinsically better people as evidenced by the fact that they have a lot of money.
I wonder what the demographics would look like if the offer was "If you undergo voluntary sterilization, you permanently move down one tax bracket with regard to what you have to pay"?...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder what the demographics would look like if the offer was "If you undergo voluntary sterilization, you permanently move down one tax bracket with regard to what you have to pay"?...
I would be curious what the results are there, but rich people tend not to have as many children in the first place which makes it kinda a moot point.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
I suspect the sense of your sentence is reversed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
I could certainly argue that it would be a good thing. Less stress, more resources, better opportunities, less wear and tear on the globe. Actually, I could argue it's a good thing just using your argument against... why are you so opposed to this?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with only wealthy people having children is the assumption that can care for children better than poor people can. They can easily afford homes and food, but there are no guarantees for emotional and social care, which are as important.
Ridiculous. Wealthy parents are exactly as able to take care of their children as poor ones, except for having more options for those problems that money can be thrown at. You cannot assert that "X are not better parents than Y" is a problem with the scenario "X have more children than Y"!
Of course that's ridiculous. That's the point I was trying to make. I'm not making that assertion. I am trying to disspell that assertion. Money makes many things better.
quote:
quote:How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
The option isn't "Have no children", it is "get paid for not having children". The money, not the birth control, is what becomes available.
This is a choice that can be avoided, but money is a great motivator when you're poor. Is it really an option when nothing better is offered?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Nothing better?" You've got a choice between money and no children, or children and no money. Are you seriously claiming that one of those is so obviously better that nobody will choose the other one?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''
``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.
posted
Cheap shots are, of course, not expensive. Would you like to consider the difference between killing off existing humans, and refraining from creating new ones?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It stems from some of the same impulses, though.
ETA: And of course Scrooge doesn't talk about killing the surplus population, just that those who'd rather die do so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It stems from some of the same impulses, though.
What of it? The Inquisition and ordinary proselytising stem from the same impulse to save people from hellfire. That does not make them morally comparable. What is more, I don't think the assertion is true. Scrooge would rather have people die than have to give any of his hard-earned money. Population-limit proponents would rather give some of their hard-earned money toward other people's birth control, than have the human race descend into the cannibalistic frenzy of all versus all. You may argue that they are mistaken about the consequences of a laissez-faire population policy, but to say that they are as uncharitable as Scrooge is a BIG stretch.
quote:ETA: And of course Scrooge doesn't talk about killing the surplus population, just that those who'd rather die do so. [/QB]
This seems quite reasonable to me; if you say "I would rather die than X", and those two literally are your only options, then I see no merit in forcing you to do X, and not necessarily any obligation on my part to give you other options.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm completely lost as to which side people actually are on the argument by this point.
I am on the side of "I know that mandatory birth limits and population control through social experiments in sterilization will essentially become commonplace, even in the high-income nations, by the time earth hits its first phosphorous famine, but despite finding it really inevitable I don't like it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you cannot identify two sides, that might be a sign that constructive give-and-take dialogue is going on. (This is, admittedly, rare on Hatrack; don't feel bad if you didn't identify it at first glance.) If you feel this is a problem, it is probably most productive to debug something other than the discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True enough, it's just that up to a page or so ago there was an actual argument about one particular point going on and I don't think anyone changed their mind about that particular point.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
I could certainly argue that it would be a good thing. Less stress, more resources, better opportunities, less wear and tear on the globe. Actually, I could argue it's a good thing just using your argument against... why are you so opposed to this?
Bleah, this is what happens when you try to compose over-long sentences on too little sleep.
"While their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents were increased... It would hard to argue that wouldn't be a good thing."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Population-limit proponents would rather give some of their hard-earned money toward other people's birth control, than have the human race descend into the cannibalistic frenzy of all versus all.
Then let them do that on their own, not through government. To me, this is soft tyranny. You may not see it that way, but I do because government payments to prevent people from having children is a way for government to control an aspect of their lives. It is voluntary to enter into, but the people in the program can easily become dependant upon it, just like welfare and many other government programs we have now.
I realize that I am being highly speculative here and this has a good chance of not happening at all. I am very skeptical of government claiming to be caring and altruistic, especially in the work of a greater good, such as reducing population.
quote:I am on the side of "I know that mandatory birth limits and population control through social experiments in sterilization will essentially become commonplace, even in the high-income nations, by the time earth hits its first phosphorous famine, but despite finding it really inevitable I don't like it.
If you don't like it and think it's wrong, then don't accept it as inevitable. I don't believe it is. Greatly increased efforts to educate people, better enable third world citizens to gain wealth, and distributing birth control by (very) limited government action and private groups will do as well, IMO. This takes much more effort than what is being given now.
The future doesn't have to be a science fiction novel. Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
