"eugenics IS a VERY effective way to combat overpopulation"
Do you actually have any evidence of that?
How do you intend to decide who has "messed up genes"? How do you intend to prevent those people from reproducing? What will you do if (and by "if", I mean "when") those people sometimes reproduce anyway? What, exactly, are you proposing?
It's a very simple fact that if fewer people are allowed to pass their genes on, it will result in fewer births.
"How do you intend to decide who has "messed up genes"?"
Well, I have no clear-cut definition, but people with serious heriditary diseases, for example, most certainly DO have such genes. If they want children, that's just selfish. Also, I don't think serial killers should be allowed to reproduce. I think it will have a very positive effect on the future if their genes are weeded out.
"How do you intend to prevent those people from reproducing?"
Through discouragement and sterilization (in as benign a fashion as possible).
"What will you do if (and by "if", I mean "when") those people sometimes reproduce anyway?"
Yes, it could possibly happen before they are prevented to reproduce. That would be most unfortunate. In my view, the child of such a union should be sterilized (in as benign a fashion as possible) and be allowed to live a happy life.
I have a question of my own BTW: what do you think a better way of combatting overpopulation is? I'm eager to learn, as I'm absolutely convinced overpopulation is by FAR the biggest problem on the Earth.
Mostly, I think we need to fight poverty, increase access to and accurate education about contraception, and educate people about population growth. They're not quick, easy solutions, but forced sterilisation isn't ok. You're talking about forcing a life changing medical procedure on people based on other people's judgements about their quality of life. Some people with hereditary conditions choose not to have children, and that's their choice. But
Plus, you're talking about sterilising a portion of the population that's relatively small and probably has a lower fertility rate than the general population anyway. Even if it were morally fine, it wouldn't have a significant impact on population growth. You'd be spending huge amounts of resources rounding up and sterilising disabled people (which would have a serious negative impact on the population psychologically, whether you think it's immoral or not) for a decrease in the population growth rate that would probably be negligible and certainly not be enough to actually cause the population to shrink.
Should everyone be allowed to reproduce?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"eugenics IS a VERY effective way to combat overpopulation"
Do you actually have any evidence of that?
How do you intend to decide who has "messed up genes"? How do you intend to prevent those people from reproducing? What will you do if (and by "if", I mean "when") those people sometimes reproduce anyway? What, exactly, are you proposing?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Do you actually have any evidence of that?"
It's a very simple fact that if fewer people are allowed to pass their genes on, it will result in fewer births.
"How do you intend to decide who has "messed up genes"?"
Well, I have no clear-cut definition, but people with serious heriditary diseases, for example, most certainly DO have such genes. If they want children, that's just selfish. Also, I don't think serial killers should be allowed to reproduce. I think it will have a very positive effect on the future if their genes are weeded out.
"How do you intend to prevent those people from reproducing?"
Through discouragement and sterilization (in as benign a fashion as possible).
"What will you do if (and by "if", I mean "when") those people sometimes reproduce anyway?"
Yes, it could possibly happen before they are prevented to reproduce. That would be most unfortunate. In my view, the child of such a union should be sterilized (in as benign a fashion as possible) and be allowed to live a happy life.
I have a question of my own BTW: what do you think a better way of combatting overpopulation is? I'm eager to learn, as I'm absolutely convinced overpopulation is by FAR the biggest problem on the Earth.
--
VioletTrees
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Mostly, I think we need to fight poverty, increase access to and accurate education about contraception, and educate people about population growth. They're not quick, easy solutions, but forced sterilisation isn't ok. You're talking about forcing a life changing medical procedure on people based on other people's judgements about their quality of life. Some people with hereditary conditions choose not to have children, and that's their choice. But
Plus, you're talking about sterilising a portion of the population that's relatively small and probably has a lower fertility rate than the general population anyway. Even if it were morally fine, it wouldn't have a significant impact on population growth. You'd be spending huge amounts of resources rounding up and sterilising disabled people (which would have a serious negative impact on the population psychologically, whether you think it's immoral or not) for a decrease in the population growth rate that would probably be negligible and certainly not be enough to actually cause the population to shrink.
Also, you know, some of us are glad we were born.