Lately I’ve been noticing that the people who mainly should not have children, whether due to economic limitations, illnesses, or even mental instability, are the ones who have the most children, and many times they end up as single fathers/mothers. My question is whether it would be a good idea to implement some kind of regulation and set minimum requirements that must be met, mainly to prevent the child from ending up in the future as a criminal or a social burden due to those factors.
No because that would end up being abused by corrupt government to stop people from breeding for arbitrary reasons. It would lead to ethnic cleansing.
Instead, we should have programs to help make life easier for people and their children. Government subsidized childcare and education. Universal basic income and/or higher minimum wage. Help finding employment. Rehabilitation programs for drug addicts.
No.
No.
The people doing the most damage to the world are billionaires who have access to power that the rest of us can hardly imagine, so we could talk about what it would look like to interrupt the cycle by not allowing them to reproduce and separating them from any existing children so over the long term other families have an opportunity to rise to the top (and maybe society would level out a bit in the process). If greed has a genetic component, this would also apply selective pressure against genes for greed.
What do you think OP, start with the billionaires?
Hello Lemmy user Big French Bread AT Men Going Their Own Way Lemmy DOT Org, I think you might be doing a eugenics here. Maybe you should not do a eugenics in the future. We’ve made the discovery several times that it is Bad for Many Reasons, and thus should not be done.
Did somebody just discover eugenics?
No, the government cannot be trusted with that power. It will be abused, it has been abused, it has been abused by governments within the past couple decades: involuntary sterilization of First Nations women in Canada, for example.
No government should do that. Just like no government should have the ability to parent your children. Unfortunately, lazy peeps want this so they can stick it to people who are actively parenting their children, because they can’t be bothered to do it themselves.
It could be worse, I’d bet that there are even those who would like the government to pay them for having children that they poorly care for.
Everyone who is saying “I’d agree with it in theory” is not thinking about the practical reality of what that’d mean. If you actually want to enforce that, the only way to do it is with violence. Dragging kids away from their parents, physically beating the parents away, parents shooting law enforcement officers to try to keep them away from their kids, forcible sterilizations, children born who are never allowed to go to schools or hospitals out of fear that they’ll be found, etc. It’s just needlessly cruel. It’s a lot worse than accepting that human beings are not perfect.
Read a comment from OP that sounds like Nazi eugenics shit. Check their profile and this is their most recent post. Yikes. No OP. Please direct your frustration for not having sex elsewhere.
So eugenics?
I just sat at the breakfast table. This is not what I want to read when the day starts.
But fine. Let’s do this.
Why? What is your concern? And what is your solution?
In no instance whatsoever a state may or should interfere with the inate right for an individual to have a family.
Being a single parent is not something you can control. A mother can die at birth, a father can die from an accident or illness, etc. In fact, failling to support such individuals that, regardless being left to take care of a child, or more, alone, do it nonetheless, is a failure for a society. It is a very weak one that does not recognize such commitment and courage.
Suffering from a mental ailment, again, is not something one can control. Most of those who suffer from one are often victims of circumstances they can not control: trauma, anxiety, depression, etc. Severe genetic born mental issues often are self excluding from forward passing. And being a carrier of a mental or any other condition does not make an individual automatically useless or a burden.
Again, it is a very weak society one that fails to support their weakest or vulnerable.
And being poor is not a problem: it’s a sign societies are not balanced. A society is only as strong as their weakest. Access to education, healthcare, justice and social support are pillars to strong societies, that in turn create stable and evolved societies, capable of advancing the human project.
A society that opts to micromanage and deny inate aspirations to any of their members is a doomed project of one. One can not build one’s rights at the expense of the rights of others.
Just wondering about other people thinking on it, I do not have any solution about it in mind, I was just wondering about whether it should or not.
Thanks for your answer.
And what are your own thoughts on this? Your concerns? At what is troubling you? Questions like these are not spontaneous. Something must have stirred them in your mind.
Honestly I don’t care too much about it, I was just wondering what will happen if there is still no control about all the people just having kids wo any requirement while they don’t have any condition to support these kids correctly. But I stated in other comments before I don’t believe it is of any interest to the government or anyone with power to do such a thing, they need cheap labor force to move the economy so they will let everyone in such conditions to keep having even more kids.
This comment thread of theirs was likely the start, but probably not the first time they’ve thought about this.
Not just rich people, also stupidity is a threat to democracy but how to fix it?
Unfortunately, most people didn’t realize their instance and replied in good faith. Someone replied to them basically saying that education was dismantled to keep people stupid to benefit the rich, and then OP replied with a lovely comment hinting at eugenics.
Trust me there are people who even using the best education they stop being stupid is like it is in their genes.
They commented that right before this post. Notice how they wanted to “fix” stupidity, and then they tried to pull the conversation into supporting eugenics.
That may be it. Or it may be something else. And that is why I am still hoping OP will reply to me.
Talking and exchanging ideas and viewpoints is the best way to push back stupidity, which I think it has been extremely abused as a word lately, when ignorance would be better used.
OP’s mind is already made up, as you can see. They just wanted to ruffle up some feathers. They aren’t here for actual debate.
They’re “just asking questions” in the Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro way.
They ask, we answer. Not answering is the worst thing to do.
Allow me to hijack this thread and ask why shouldn’t the government be allowed to bar me from perpetuating my defective genetics? I am disabled and consequently the government already controls a huge portion of my life, and I get very little input into things, such as where and how I am allowed to work, what I’m allowed to earn in any given field and realistically where I can live. Why should my rights start and end at my ability to inseminate someone?
I will not have children by choice because my genetics are broken and I don’t want my children to go through this. It is fortunate that I am smart enough to have had this thought and can practice restraint despite my massive rod, but a lot of people aren’t or can’t. Why shouldn’t the government get a say, when they already effectively dictate the lives of disabled people?
If the government allows everyone who wants to have children to keep doing so without requiring any kind of minimum conditions, in the long run society could fall apart, since the children of those people could very possibly end up being a burden on the governmental system and, instead of being productive, would have to be supported by the other members of society, which little by little would become unsustainable.
I’m not saying that’s my personal opinion but it’s a possibility right?
I’m not saying that’s my personal opinion
What is your personal opinion, then?
People have been fucking without license for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why do you think society will fall apart now if that goes on as it always has?
And what makes you think the current government of any country is qualified to decide whose genes will benefit humanity down the line? What makes you think the people in charge now would even try to benefit all of humanity long term? Their track record in the past 50 years certainly doesn’t look good.Personally, I don’t care much, it’s just that given the current conditions of society, the question came to my mind of what could happen in the future if the current conditions are prolonged further over time.
No. It might be in a politicians best interest to ensure a population stays dumb and then ensure those dumb people raise even dumber children.
But what about if these dumb people end up converting to communism and then burn everything down including politicians and the whole society?
Lol you complain about “communism” but do you know that these “communists” you supposedly hate literally did the Birth Control thing and Forced Abortions and Forced Sterilizations in China, and now they have a fertility and low population crisis, all because of the stupid One Child Policy, the “communists” you hate are literally the ones that “burn down society” and yet you are promoting government birth control policies on those same lines (but I assume with more right-wing aesthetics instead). Lmfao.
That’s kind of the point. You want the sheep to think they are burning down society for some do-good ideology while the politicians sidestep the government into a into dictatorship or other kind of single party authoritarian system. Regardless, the politicians of the new government will be just fine.
I think that, to a certain extent, such a thing would actually benefit politicians: more cheap labor for industry. But eventually it would backfire on them, not so much because the population somehow became enlightened, but because social degradation would reach a breaking point that would lead to a widespread revolution, and given the intellectual characteristics of that population, there would be no way to rebuild again.
