EVE Search - Would birth control ever be necessary/ethical?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Would birth control ever be necessary/ethical?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.12.06 02:52:00 - [1] Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 06/12/2008 03:02:49 A potentially controversial issue and also I'm posting this from a UK perspective, so apologies for any confusions in advance specifically to our American chums. Sorry for the Long Read aswell. :( Anyway, UK being in trouble with the credit crunch at the moment like most of the world seem to be in some sort of frenzy for scapegoats to cover in the news, most notably there has been an absolute ton of child abuse cases and intense scrutiny of social workers. "Baby P" "Shannon Matthews" and around 4 or 5 others I can't remember for the life of me. Shannon Matthews mother in that specific case was a woman who has never worked in her life, and as a woman, she has pretty much acted as a "baby machine" since the beginning of her sexual maturity and yet been a completely negligent mother. She is not an isolated case however. There seems to be a huge widescale trend across the whole of British society, I see it everywhere. The "underclass" if you wish to call it that, in this country, will literally breed constantly either because they are either unemployed and have nothing better to occupy their time, or they are motivated by financially supporting themselves by racking up on the child benefit scheme, as many as 5-6 children per family and they aren't raised well in many cases, they raise the kids negligently and badly and product yobbish kids if you that more often then not fall out the bottom of schools with all sorts of personal problems and issues and plague society, but at the risk of sounding very fascist, maybe weren't given the best start in life genepool wise anyway. Whereas alternatively I see very highly qualified professionals with very hard and demanding lives and they don't have kids, they simply don't have time and I see many of them all over the place. Our best and brightest are not procreating, but I see "chavvy" broods all over the country, overweight, profane men and women with entire litters of children and it really frightens me for the future of our society. This is natural selection in its cruelest and most backwards form. Which brought me to the topic of our thread, it is a tricky matter as population levels are only just around stable in western society anyway, even considering that everyone is living longer and we're looking at the situation of living in a society of majorly old people so many years down the line. I still think that as Fascist as it sounds, maybe all of society might benefit better if it was possible to give all babies a life long lasting form of contraceptive coutermeasure whereas when the time comes they can apply to have children where they are assessed by an independant body as whether they are to be regarded as good potential parents. I realise some of my views may seem very harsh and arrogant. Especially probably by Americans who see things different to the UK who have a much grimmer outlook and are probably not completely aware of the situation over here. I do however view things in the ideal of making society a better place to live in for everybody. I believe once a baby in born into the world they deserve societies full love and attention and the best possible start they can have. Otherwise I think the issues in our society are only going to keep repeating themselves, generation after generation, until it overwhelms all else. It's hard to not sound overly fascist in looking for a solution to societies ills when all common values have been put out of the window and human rights activists rule the land to the degree where everyone are free to abuse everything in a politically correct world that's gradually falling apart as the ugly truth starts eating through. Who says I even deserve to live on this earth, I'm big enough to admit I'm glad at my demise if the human race was to benefit at my passing, but as it is I do try to help others when I'm not selfishly indulging myself in things like Eve Online.
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.06 03:06:00 - [2] Edited by: TimMc on 06/12/2008 03:08:12 Go read Brave New World Revisited. After reading it you will probably shoot yourself and help with the overpopulation issue, but not the gene pool one. Controlling reproduction will likely never be ethical, maybe the better of two evils, but never really ethical. However, population control has been necessary for the past 50 years. Look at the where the population of the world is going if it keeps on this rate.
Atomos Darksun Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.06 03:16:00 - [3] IMO (this is also from an American perspective), the UK is in a crash+burn spiral right now on many fronts. The same thing could/is happening in America, on a lesser scale, but it may go down the same road. The idea you described is one that may help the current problem; but those that care more for human rights and choices might *** and moan about it. Also, who would be the ones making these decisions? They'd probably just as screwed up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA Originally by:** Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Lintaka Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.06 03:16:00 - [4] This is an interesting lecture on exponential growth which later leads onto the issue of population growth. If you are interested in the subject then it should keep you enticed, otherwise I will admit it would probably be a little dry. Just follow the ôresponse toö links under the video for each subsequent video: Lecture on Exponential Growth: 8 Parts 10 Minutes each (90 minutes) ---------- Gotta be on the ball.. ball? what ball.. that ball.. which ball.. AHH BALL!!
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.06 03:22:00 - [5] Originally by: Atomos Darksun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA rofl Over Population will lead the the death of indivudalism, democracy and eventually liberalism. This will lead to a Totalitarianism where no one really cares, because we are at that point we are all united in voice, thought and stupidity. Only way this will really turn around is when that government goes to **** and we get world war 3, then it will all start over again.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.12.06 03:36:00 - [6] I think Chinas approach was a good one. They limited families to two children to replace the adults. If any more were born to a single family, they were not offered any help or aid of any sort. That could apply to child benefits too. They pay for a maximum of two children, any more than that and the answer is no. No more chav girls using loads of babies to gain crazy amounts of benefits. One I knew had 7 kids and got more in benefits total than I could earn in a month. They were all fairly young kids so she would be getting those benefits for years and never having to work in all that time. Last time I heard, she was out getting drunk every night and eventually had the kids taken away from her. What was her response to that? Go out and make some more babies. She now has two more. There comes a point in time when enforced neutering becomes a necessity. Not a prticularly nice one granted, but necessary all the same for the sake of the kids if nothing else. Her idea of bringing up the kids is to pay a young babysitter a few bucks so she then can go out and get drunk on those benefits she's being paid to keep the kids while someone else has to face the riotous little brats of hers. She then comes home to a house full of sleeping kids, and passes out. In the morning she might take a few of them to school, deal with them from a couple of hours when they come home from school until the babysitter takes over again. The kids see their mother about three or four hours a day. I have good reason to agree with you 5pinDizzy. It might not be ethical but something needs to be done. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
Stitcher Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2008.12.06 03:42:00 - [7] Edited by: Stitcher on 06/12/2008 03:43:01 I'd never endorse any kind of governmental restriction over whether or not a person is allowed to breed (although if the UK did become sufficiently overpopulated I'd not object to a limit of two children per household) Unlike most Britons at the moment, I trust our governmental system (even though I'm not a fan of the Labour party at all...) enough not to be particularly worried of any kind of totalitarian state springing up. The overall trend of Europe and the West has been towards increasingly liberal, permissive societies, and I don't think we're in any real danger of sliding backwards, no matter what the Daily Mail's uneducated howlings might say. Nevertheless, I'm a big believer in decentralization. I don't like large-scale government, especially when that large scale involves fine control in people's private lives. A macro-scale beureacracy shouldn't attempt to micromanage. I'd rather see the individual counties and constituencies of the UK be given a greater degree of autonomy, supported by a communication and supply network without central control. More to the point, I'd really rather not see a ministry in London decide whether or not people three hundred miles away are given permission to have a child. When it's something as personal and as important as starting a family, putting it in the hands of an office in Westminster would be as bad, if not worse, than leaving things as they are. I certainly wouldn't condone semi-permanent contraceptive implantation. Still, if it absolutely DID have to come down to that level of control... make it a decentralized authority responsible for controlling local population demographics, and on a scale small and comprehensible enough to easily interact with the people. Otherwise we'd just wind up with the exact same problem as is being produced by this "polyclinic" fiasco, where people have to travel ten miles to see an impersonal medical technician, rather than one mile to see their GP. For personal things like health or family planning, you want a local, personal service, which big government simply can't provide. - Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain.
Mankirks Wife Caldari Space Furry Association	Posted - 2008.12.06 04:03:00 - [8] The fundamental flaw in the democratic process is that everyone has a voice. Therefore, nothing can ever happen that's bad for the individual, even if it benefits the entire group. --- Originally by: tarin adur Also, cuz Sporks are like minmatar,do lots of things ok...but nothing spectacularly.
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2008.12.06 04:41:00 - [9] Originally by: Mankirks Wife The fundamental flaw in the democratic process is that everyone has a voice. Therefore, nothing can ever happen that's bad for the individual, even if it benefits the entire group. Keep that thought in mind when those select few who get to decide the fate of millions decides for the good of the group some ethnic cleansing is in order. Granted thats an extreme example but the fact is that whenever someone says "its for the good of the group" have you ever noticed that those same people dont seem to be affected? "We're raising taxes" says the politician living in a 12 room mansion. "We're going to war" says the gun hoe leader whose children will never see a battlefield. -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase: Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
Irulan S'Dijana Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.06 06:08:00 - [10] So..perhaps in an amalgamation of something like China's one-child policy and Starship troopers, people must earn (through hard public service) the right to vote, own businesses, have children etc? Of course, there is the question of what happens if people have children "illegally". This may force people to join the "underclass" (incidently, this is a genuine economic term to describe people who show "aberrant behavior"), which only makes the problem worse. Hmm..needs more thought. But as a general principle, I do believe some sort of population control if only because of the planet's limited resources. It doesn't need to be harsh, such as have more children and you go to jail, but perhaps withdrawing social benefits (such as China) or imposing increasing (exponentially increasing?) penalties for the increasing number of children. There is of course the "right to life" argument. Just replace "abortion" with "right to conceive" or something. Two physicians are talking shop. "Doctor," says one, "I'd like your professional opinion. The question is, should the pregnancy have been terminated or not? The father was syphilitic. The mother was tuberculous. They had already had four children: the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth was tuberculous. The woman was pregnant for the fifth time. As the attending physician, what would you have done?" "I would have terminated the pregnancy." "Then you would have murdered Beethoven." The counter argument is of course, that given the number of children and the number of Beethovens, you'd have to populate several planet full of morons before getting any significant number of Beethovens. Not only that, but the vast majority of the Beethovens in any given field do not come about in such circumstances, and it could be argued the way society is evolving the worse the environment, the less chance of developing full potential. In such a case, especially in a planet of dimishing resources it maybe be permissible to sacrifice a few of the "great" if the result is a large number of the "pretty good" survive. - Nobody gets rich in this business. You simply obtain new levels of relative poverty.
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2008.12.06 06:19:00 - [11] Originally by: Irulan S'Dijana So..perhaps in an amalgamation of something like China's one-child policy and Starship troopers, people must earn (through hard public service) the right to vote, own businesses, have children etc? Of course, there is the question of what happens if people have children "illegally". This may force people to join the "underclass" (incidently, this is a genuine economic term to describe people who show "aberrant behavior"), which only makes the problem worse. Hmm..needs more thought. But as a general principle, I do believe some sort of population control if only because of the planet's limited resources. It doesn't need to be harsh, such as have more children and you go to jail, but perhaps withdrawing social benefits (such as China) or imposing increasing (exponentially increasing?) penalties for the increasing number of children. There is of course the "right to life" argument. Just replace "abortion" with "right to conceive" or something. Two physicians are talking shop. "Doctor," says one, "I'd like your professional opinion. The question is, should the pregnancy have been terminated or not? The father was syphilitic. The mother was tuberculous. They had already had four children: the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth was tuberculous. The woman was pregnant for the fifth time. As the attending physician, what would you have done?" "I would have terminated the pregnancy." "Then you would have murdered Beethoven." The counter argument is of course, that given the number of children and the number of Beethovens, you'd have to populate several planet full of morons before getting any significant number of Beethovens. Not only that, but the vast majority of the Beethovens in any given field do not come about in such circumstances, and it could be argued the way society is evolving the worse the environment, the less chance of developing full potential. In such a case, especially in a planet of dimishing resources it maybe be permissible to sacrifice a few of the "great" if the result is a large number of the "pretty good" survive. Beethoven is but one example in a population that we label as gifted, genius, etc. If you were to somehow get a number for every man and woman in human history that has been labeled as thus, both reconized and unreconized, the numbers would be significantly higher. -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase: Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
Jona Picroft	Posted - 2008.12.06 06:21:00 - [12] Being a devout Anglican, I see this issue through a different light. The very first commandment in the bible was "be fruitful and multiply". So of course we have an obligation to follow that command. Not only to replace ourselves but to also add to the next generation. This is not the problem though The problem occurs in the complete ignorance of true marriage. To be married a husband and wife must permanently commit themselves to each other. Divorce is sometimes necessary of course, but it's still too easy. The - once the warm fuzzy feeling is gone I guess it's time to move on - mentality. Hate to bring out another quote from the bible but, John 4: 18 shows that if you can't do it right the first time you shouldn't be getting remarried over and over again. Sex is just too easy to come by. Heck many don't even worry about marriage and just have at it whenever they can snag someone else. Those same people then wonder why they are so unhappy and feel so worthless. To me it's because they are not fulfilling their intended purpose. The problem of over-population is because of this over abundance of sex. This is so because of a lack of fore-sight by many people. Logic points the way and religion gives us purpose.
Cyprus Black Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.12.06 06:38:00 - [13] The Mexican culture promotes having as many children as humanly possible with total disregard to the financial and social burden it causes. Even if some countries actively maintain population controls, there will always be third world countries that will outright refuse to do so. ___________________________________________________ The Escapist: EvE Online video review.
Arvald Caldari Ninjas N Pirates	Posted - 2008.12.06 06:38:00 - [14]
Vele Nori Amarr Dakinii	Posted - 2008.12.06 07:13:00 - [15] Edited by: Vele Nori on 06/12/2008 07:16:03 Originally by: Jona Picroft Being a devout Anglican, I see this issue through a different light. The very first commandment in the bible was "be fruitful and multiply". So of course we have an obligation to follow that command. Not only to replace ourselves but to also add to the next generation. This is not the problem though The problem occurs in the complete ignorance of true marriage. To be married a husband and wife must permanently commit themselves to each other. Divorce is sometimes necessary of course, but it's still too easy. The - once the warm fuzzy feeling is gone I guess it's time to move on - mentality. Hate to bring out another quote from the bible but, John 4: 18 shows that if you can't do it right the first time you shouldn't be getting remarried over and over again. Sex is just too easy to come by. Heck many don't even worry about marriage and just have at it whenever they can snag someone else. Those same people then wonder why they are so unhappy and feel so worthless. To me it's because they are not fulfilling their intended purpose. The problem of over-population is because of this over abundance of sex. This is so because of a lack of fore-sight by many people. Logic points the way and religion gives us purpose. This "fore-sight" on behalf of many people would require them to conscientiously abstain from sex. Then they aren't being fruitful and multiplying, are they? Every time you want to have sex but refuse it or use protection you are disobeying your god. But here's the catch. God is not going to spawn another planet for you. God does not spawn food or water for people dying of hunger or thrust. God does not spawn money for you when you have none to buy food or shelter for your family. It is easy to follow this commandment when you're among the top 10-20% richest people in the world and can provide for you family. But when you look logically at it it is nothing but a way for religion to propagate itself at the expense of the planet and its resources, ordering people to multiply as much as they can. Originally by: Irulan S'Dijana So..perhaps in an amalgamation of something like China's one-child policy and Starship troopers, people must earn (through hard public service) the right to vote, own businesses, have children etc? Of course, there is the question of what happens if people have children "illegally". This may force people to join the "underclass" (incidently, this is a genuine economic term to describe people who show "aberrant behavior"), which only makes the problem worse. Hmm..needs more thought. Isn't going to happen unless you have everybody permanently on birth control since puberty.
Alyln	Posted - 2008.12.06 09:29:00 - [16] I think that a variation on China's policy would be good but with a limit of 3 or 4, as in the future, western countries are looking to have lots of old people, as well as a greater influence of CPS (child protective services) or the equivalent to keep the under qualified parents at a minimum of children.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.12.06 09:33:00 - [17] no wonder like over half of brittish adults think the childern are vermin, behave like animals, and should be hunted that was probably the saddest lol smiley I have ever posted
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2008.12.06 11:02:00 - [18] Having children is not a right, when you DO get children you have the OBLIGATION to 100% be able to give them the best start possible. Doesn't mean beign rich or anything but being in a position to fully focus on them. As such, if things aren't going brilliantly parents should decide to not have children. If they don't want to do that then I guess societies have to step in.
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.06 11:05:00 - [19] hell yes, this is a just cause. if intelligence is genetic, why do we keep idiots alive, there a burden on society your country and humanity. Any normal intelligent person would see that, and thus would support having them sterilized and killed. Geeks if your geeks do all of that, what does the rest of humanity do? why is it your always looked down by other social groups as scum?. can we sterilize 90% of humanity now... there useless. geeks can do everything they can do and more. i really am seeing a no brainier to letting anything of lesser quality exist. -------------------------------------------
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.06 11:52:00 - [20] you need a permit for driving a car but anyone can squirt out a kid Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
P'uck	Posted - 2008.12.06 11:54:00 - [21] Originally by: TimMc Controlling reproduction will likely never be ethical Everybody does it in one way or another when picking partners / having sex.
Sniper Wolf18 Gallente Apocalypse Ponies	Posted - 2008.12.06 11:56:00 - [22] Temporary sterilisation would probably be the best option, until they learn that children are not a source of income. and seriously! Thanks for just reading my sig!
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.06 12:02:00 - [23] Edited by: Sokratesz on 06/12/2008 12:07:13 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ Worth watching for the first ten minutes alone. Deals with the exact problem described in the OP trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.12.06 12:14:00 - [24] There is an ethical solution. However, achieving that solution is almost certainly impossible. (and thus, we will probably eventually require something like the China policy....) The ethical solution? Get everyone a good job. Its that simple. DO NOT just give them money. Make them do actual work for it. Look at every population groups in all of history that achieved middle class or higher wealth. They stop having kids. It also helps with the environment. Poor people don't give a crap about polution (or if they do, they are more concerned about money). Get people some income that they earn, and they suddenly start caring enough to spend the needed money so their rivers do NOT catch on fire. Play nice while you butcher each other.
Arianhod	Posted - 2008.12.06 13:40:00 - [25] Hmm... I am from a family of 3 (1 brother one sister) and due to family circumstances had to go on benefits for a few years to have the family raised. Why? It is because mother was being a mother, she could work nine till five and get a bit more money but could she raise us (well, I did help raise my siblings but I took that on myself not forced). For that reason some of the system has got it right, we did need it, we didn't waste it. It all comes down to competence, many of these young mothers are incompetent and are ranching their offspring for benefits.... disgusting. To anyone who has read Alastair Reynolds books, I think he was on to something with his political system of Demarchy - Democratic Anarchy. I agree the technology needed doesn't exist, but even in the early USA some of the population counted as 3/5 of a man, so perhaps a similar system here to value votes based upon competence could be implemented. If a minority of the population is the one competent enough I believe they should have a stronger voice to counteract the "less taxes = better way of life" mentality much of the underclass has.... I think that the intelligent people in Britain liked Britain, the old one in the history books not the one we have today. There's a reason there's a strong Brain Drain here to the EU and the colonies, they want out. I think that the problems are still solvable but I haven't a clue how we can implement a 3 child policy here without condemnation from all political parties. For the devout Anglican, I don't care if that's inspired from the Bible it's good stuff regardless and I can't fault it. For god not giving us more than one planet.... he did. We just need to prove we are worthy of them by claiming them. I am a firm believer that our future is in mining Mars and the solar system to build habitats in Earth orbit. We could be able to go between plannets within a few years if only we were allowed to use nuclear power plants in space.... Damn that was a bit of a ramble wasn't it Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Supporting Linkification since 2008
Irulan S'Dijana Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.06 14:02:00 - [26] Originally by: Sokratesz Edited by: Sokratesz on 06/12/2008 12:07:13 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ Worth watching for the first ten minutes alone. Deals with the exact problem described in the OP trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA zomg! yarrbay here I come. - Nobody gets rich in this business. You simply obtain new levels of relative poverty.
Shirley Serious Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.06 14:24:00 - [27] animals have as many offspring as they physically can, before the environment (which incidentally is changed by the animals presence - there's no such thing as "living in harmony with the environment") cannot support those numbers, and then there's a big fall. Predation, disease, competition between individuals for food and resources, are what limits populations. Humans have largely eliminated predation and disease, thanks to the inventions of the tiger rifle and the sewer. Which leaves competition between individuals as the only 'natural' limit to population. But to get to the point where that happens, means standards of living drop tremendously. Yes. Yes, I am.
Zephyr Rengate Caldari Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2008.12.06 14:55:00 - [28] Is it just me or is Shanzem getting on anyone elses nerves?
Arianhod	Posted - 2008.12.06 14:59:00 - [29] Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Is it just me or is Shanzem getting on anyone elses nerves? Just you I think. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Supporting Linkification since 2008
Atomos Darksun Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.06 16:32:00 - [30] Edited by: Atomos Darksun on 06/12/2008 16:32:17 Originally by: Sokratesz Edited by: Sokratesz on 06/12/2008 12:07:13 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ Worth watching for the first ten minutes alone. Deals with the exact problem described in the OP trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA Already beat you to it dude. Go up a few posts Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.06 17:06:00 - [31] Originally by: Arianhod Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Is it just me or is Shanzem getting on anyone elses nerves? Just you I think. Nah I think he annoys alot of people, myself included. Originally by: Jona Picroft Being a devout Anglican, I see this issue through a different light. The very first commandment in the bible was "be fruitful and multiply". So of course we have an obligation to follow that command. Not only to replace ourselves but to also add to the next generation. This is not the problem though The problem occurs in the complete ignorance of true marriage. To be married a husband and wife must permanently commit themselves to each other. Divorce is sometimes necessary of course, but it's still too easy. The - once the warm fuzzy feeling is gone I guess it's time to move on - mentality. Hate to bring out another quote from the bible but, John 4: 18 shows that if you can't do it right the first time you shouldn't be getting remarried over and over again. Sex is just too easy to come by. Heck many don't even worry about marriage and just have at it whenever they can snag someone else. Those same people then wonder why they are so unhappy and feel so worthless. To me it's because they are not fulfilling their intended purpose. The problem of over-population is because of this over abundance of sex. This is so because of a lack of fore-sight by many people. Logic points the way and religion gives us purpose. I am a Christian, but your statement is invalid. Most, if not all, of the commandments in the early old Testimate/Torah were there for specific times. Things like not eating pigs because they were unhealthy. Many of the commandments were to increase numbers of people on the Earth, especially the Hebrew nation which were tiny. Today, we have healthcare and alot less war and famine, so there are too many of us. Previously these things kept population down so people could and did have families of 10. Just a couple hundred years ago there were only 250 million people on the planet, now we are in the billions.
Cierejai Caldari	Posted - 2008.12.06 17:21:00 - [32] Quote: Otherwise I think the issues in our society are only going to keep repeating themselves, generation after generation, until it overwhelms all else. As long as bleeding hearts and vocal minorities run the show anyway. Equal rights imply everyone is equal, giving anyone a leg up because they aren't white skinned defeats the purpose of equality.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2008.12.06 17:33:00 - [33] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 06/12/2008 17:35:32 Originally by: Cyprus Black The Mexican culture promotes having as many children as humanly possible with total disregard to the financial and social burden it causes. Even if some countries actively maintain population controls, there will always be third world countries that will outright refuse to do so. They have their own methods... the machete. I cant think of a place on Earth where I would rather not be than in some third world country where entire villages get butchered or worse. --- Originally by: Roguehalo Can you nano Titans?
Xrak Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.12.06 17:43:00 - [34] Originally by: Jona Picroft Being a devout Anglican, I see this issue through a different light. The very first commandment in the bible was "be fruitful and multiply". So of course we have an obligation to follow that command. Not only to replace ourselves but to also add to the next generation. This is not the problem though The problem occurs in the complete ignorance of true marriage. To be married a husband and wife must permanently commit themselves to each other. Divorce is sometimes necessary of course, but it's still too easy. The - once the warm fuzzy feeling is gone I guess it's time to move on - mentality. Hate to bring out another quote from the bible but, John 4: 18 shows that if you can't do it right the first time you shouldn't be getting remarried over and over again. Sex is just too easy to come by. Heck many don't even worry about marriage and just have at it whenever they can snag someone else. Those same people then wonder why they are so unhappy and feel so worthless. To me it's because they are not fulfilling their intended purpose. The problem of over-population is because of this over abundance of sex. This is so because of a lack of fore-sight by many people. Logic points the way and religion gives us purpose. If God existed we wouldn't have this problem. So take your religious bs and gtfo. The trouble is we need to even out the parenting problem, i.e. we need to encourage the people not having any kids to have 1-2 kids, and the ones having more then 3+ kids to stop. A simple adjustment to the benefits system would go along way I think, increase help for first time mothers but significantly reduce the amount received for any child beyond the 3rd. Also it is important not to just get an image in our minds that all lower-class mothers are bad or even the majority, or that the kids will always grow up to be delinquents. The problem is best viewed without prejudice where every one is even. Having 1million mothers looking after 1.5million kids, is going to end up better then 0.5million mothers looking after 3 million kids.
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.06 17:50:00 - [35] Originally by: Shanzem hell yes, this is a just cause. if intelligence is genetic, why do we keep idiots alive, there a burden on society your country and humanity. Any normal intelligent person would see that, and thus would support having them sterilized and killed. Geeks if your geeks do all of that, what does the rest of humanity do? why is it your always looked down by other social groups as scum?. can we sterilize 90% of humanity now... there useless. geeks can do everything they can do and more. i really am seeing a no brainier to letting anything of lesser quality exist. Go die in a fire you piece of filth.
Dred 'Morte New European Regiment R.U.R.	Posted - 2008.12.06 18:02:00 - [36] Have you ever tried thinking about this from a purely economic viewpoint? May I suggest that the problem may be Walfarism? Before, people had children, took good care of the, so that later, the now adult (previously children) would take care of the now elderly parents. It basicly worked. Now we have a welfare system that depends on population growth (otherwise you have less and less adults paying the retirement of more and more elderly), yet promotes two types of problems: either you try having a better quality of life by having less children (or none at all) or by having lots of them for the sole purpose of the benefits. Since your retirement is "assured" you don't even have to worry about your children loving you as you won't depend on them when you're old. In the old system, there was "freedom and love", but many flaws, of corse. In the new one, there is force and greed, less flaws on the short term, and I believe, more on the long run.
Atomos Darksun Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.06 18:09:00 - [37] Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.12.06 19:44:00 - [38] Ok after going away and giving a lot of thought of what my own opinions are and watching the great videos some of you posted (that bacteria in a bottle metaphor was certainly alarming) I've come to some personal conclusions. I think some of the idea routes I was going down were a bit far fetched at least in our present time and I needed to be a bit more down to earth and realistic in my approach. As already raised by Shanzem, me nor anyone else I think are trying to label anyone else as not deserving to live or reproduce. What we are really after I think is to try and retain order and balance in our society while at the same time trying to coexist in harmony with nature and the environment. Same applies to problem children, I would prefer to concentrate that bad children will usually be bad due to bad role models and avoid any genes debate altogether is I don't think it's relevant, we're not trying to create a society of perfect physical specimens or braniacs, just one with reason and order where there is resources and plenty for everyone. Our differences are what make us special and I vehemenantly oppose any form of selective breeding, part of the reasoning why I oppose the recent ideas of UK having a DNA database of everybody as I believe it's the possible start of a slippery slope down that route. I agree with those that have mentioned that Governments should not be able to play God with their lives, they can't even be trusted to abuse every bill they are constantly passing that erodes our freedoms piece by piece. Trying to be realistic, I think the best thing so say was impose a reasonably lax child limit if needed, just to try and guide things gently in the right direction. The problem with setting these sorts of rules though are enforcing them. Ideally I would only reserve sterilising individuals who have proven to be abhorrent parents to their current children as a way of stopping them from producing more and doing the same to them. What I would add to a child limit is while I absolutely draw the line here, I think parents should be allowed to choose the sex of their baby if they're on the verge of exhausting their child limit, let's say the child limit is 4 and they've had 3 girls or 3 boys, they can balance their families with the last one. I've grown quite sympathetic to such parents over time and I think it would create far less opposition in the long run to any imposed child limit as people go to any lengths to have that son or daughter they're missing.
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.06 20:09:00 - [39] Originally by: Gnomes Rock Originally by: Shanzem hell yes, this is a just cause. if intelligence is genetic, why do we keep idiots alive, there a burden on society your country and humanity. Any normal intelligent person would see that, and thus would support having them sterilized and killed. Geeks if your geeks do all of that, what does the rest of humanity do? why is it your always looked down by other social groups as scum?. can we sterilize 90% of humanity now... there useless. geeks can do everything they can do and more. i really am seeing a no brainier to letting anything of lesser quality exist. Go die in a fire you piece of filth. Its true though, Intelligent have better sperm -------------------------------------------
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.06 22:23:00 - [40] Originally by: Shanzem Its true though, Intelligent have better sperm Why are you assuming you qualify as "intelligent enough to live", or that all your family qualify, or that your children would qualify. The very fact that you're suggesting this shows that you don't think things through and are a fool. My point that you should die in a fire still stands.
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.06 22:35:00 - [41] Originally by: Gnomes Rock Originally by: Shanzem Its true though, Intelligent have better sperm Why are you assuming you qualify as "intelligent enough to live", or that all your family qualify, or that your children would qualify. The very fact that you're suggesting this shows that you don't think things through and are a fool. My point that you should die in a fire still stands. Sigh IQ is inherited, suggests twin study -------------------------------------------
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.12.06 22:46:00 - [42] Originally by: Shanzem Sigh IQ is inherited, suggests twin study "suggests" Actually, nevermind, i'm not arguing with you anymore. You're a complete idiot if you really think your idea is a good one. Totally worthy of that GoonSwarm ticker.
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.06 23:07:00 - [43] Edited by: Shanzem on 06/12/2008 23:10:35 Originally by: Gnomes Rock Originally by: Shanzem Sigh IQ is inherited, suggests twin study "suggests" Actually, nevermind, i'm not arguing with you anymore. You're a complete idiot if you really think your idea is a good one. Totally worthy of that GoonSwarm ticker. Hay just wait until you have your society tell`s you that you are a genius -------------------------------------------

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.