Darwin's Demise

[Keller]

We all know, or at least can understand, that the natural selection that Darwin defined is no longed in use in the human species. Take me for instance. I have terrible eyesight and poor ears. I would have never made it in a world of natural selection. I am damn near blind and at 22 I am going deaf in one ear. However, I will continue to live and prosper hopefully to a ripe old age.

With that said, I was struck by my own feelings when reading the Political Compass questions that I am sure some of you have done. It was the question about whether people who have a serious inheritable disease should be prohibited from reproducing. It was a tough question for me to answer.

First you have to consider the kid. Is it fair, knowing that a kid has say a 25% chance of having a disease, to go ahead and have children? Of course, then legislating that decision is even tougher.

Then you have to consider the cost to the state of having that kid around. Let's say the kid has little to no hope of ever producing anything (but of course joy) for society. The kid also requires that the mother/father not work or else hire help. Then you have to factor in the medical costs that are most likely paid by the state.

Further you need to consider the propigation of that gene over and above natural selection due only to our own medical society in which we can now care for those persons. Say the gene is recessive in females so then the daughter, when it comes time for her to have children, has to face these same questions of whether it is worth it to have kids or not.

Finally keep in mind the growing number of children in foster care that need loving homes. Is it proper to say fuck you to nature, have your own kids, risk disease to them and future generations, and leave those kids in mostly shitty homes where the foster parents just want a check from the government?

Please don't think I have no heart, because I do. A lot of this was not made up. My best friend and his wife (she carries a female recessive trait) have decided to adopt even though they so want to have kids because if they have a boy, there is a 50% chance he will end up being mentally and physically retarded and an enormous burden on their family. What do you think?

[Cayge]

Good for those who adopted instead of passing along weak genes, in my opinion. Most people's egoes interfere with the mere thought of adoption. I find that most people truly wish to see a part of themselves in something they create, whereas I see nothing but narcissism in that approach. There are 1000s of children who need homes, from infants on up, that will end up being just part of the system because we, as humans, have such enormous egoes we cant handle raising a child that never got a chance. We mostly prefer a spitting image of our vain, egotistical selves. In your case Keller, thats a tough call, but, dont overlook adoption as a valid outlet for parenting, and anyone else reading, too. We have quite an enormous population already, thanks.

[Betheny]

I have a cousin that was born with several problems, including cerebral palsy. However, my aunt and uncle continued to have children. They have 3 healthy children, and their eldest is the handicapped one. None of them have any problems at all except her.

I don't think that it's really fair to legislate this kind of thing.

I'll probably post more later when I have time.

[Nieninque]

I know of a family where there are 6 kids, all but one of them has learning difficulties. The one that doesnt was called lucky :D

We don't live in a kill or be killed society. While I do agree with a nation trying to have its people the best it can be, I don't think it should be enforced.

- Arkans

[Psykos]

Sociobiology (The latest string of Darwinism for the Left) -- is a new "hot" field of research. It basically states that natural selection is based upon reproductive selection, etc. Its an interesting theory, but I'm not so sure I buy it.

[StrayRogue]

Well, I do sort of believe in a system of eugenics and population control. We are over-populated, and the problem can only get worse. While its horrible to say that people born with problems should be treated the same way as anyone else, I still feel its more fair that such people, if their problems are discovered prior to birth, should be terminated.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Well, I do sort of believe in a system of eugenics and population control. We are over-populated, and the problem can only get worse. While its horrible to say that people born with problems should be treated the same way as anyone else, I still feel its more fair that such people, if their problems are discovered prior to birth, should be terminated.

Define problem

[StrayRogue]

More people are being born now than ever before. Our population is growing so fast. Our planet runs low on natural resources all ready, and starvation is still ripe all across the globe.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
More people are being born now than ever before. Our population is growing so fast. Our planet runs low on natural resources all ready, and starvation is still ripe all across the globe.

What area of the globe are you talking about exactly? I believe that the birth rates have decreased in the U.S., with couples having only 1.7 children per couple as of the last census as opposed to around 2.5 from the census before that.

The problem of world population growth will likely decrease as developing countries grow increasingly more advanced. Poor countries are mainly agrarian economies, and the mainstay of the agrarian economy is manual labor. The continual population growth of poor agrarian economies is likely an attempt to control an input of production. It's a huge waste, from a farm's standpoint, when you have leftover capital (untilled land) because of a lack of labor. Families can't readily control how much land they have, but they can control the amount of labor that the land supports. If each kid, by itself, can produce 2 units of food and it only consumes 1 unit in the same period, each child the family has represents a clear profit. So, people in these economies have as many children as possible to maximize profit.

Of course, what happens when there's a war or drought? Each unit of production (each child) can't sustain itself and must die off. In response, people have more kids to replace the ones they lost, and the cycle begins again.

Manufacturing economies emphasize capital over labor, so I suspect that families will be able to achieve a similar economic position with fewer children working capital intensive jobs. Families won't bother having more kids, because the number of factory spaces are limited. The kids in the factories will, in turn, make more money per capita than a farmer kid will, because factories are more efficient than rudimentary farming.

Regarding the natural resources thing, I doubt that the world will ever run out of natural resources. Prices will just continue to increase until the consumer shifts their mode of consumption. Take paper for example. Lets say trees get so rare that paper costs $100 a sheet. People will simply stop consuming paper and shift completely to an acceptable substitute (email, web, phones, etc.).

[GSLeloo]

America used to practice Eugenics. They would do force sterilizations in the jails and forbid certain people to have children. I think after the movement passed those people sued the government...

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
More people are being born now than ever before. Our population is growing so fast. Our planet runs low on natural resources all ready, and starvation is still ripe all across the globe.

I meant when you said
if their problems are discovered prior to birth, should be terminated.

what do you mean by problem?

[GSLeloo]

Also the Nazi's adopted a T4 program in which they would take children who were mentally retarded, phsyically handicapped, etc, and have them put down.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Also the Nazi's adopted a T4 program in which they would take children who were mentally retarded, phsyically handicapped, etc, and have them put down.

The Jews nailed Jesus to a cross. We can't all be perfect. :saint:

[GSLeloo]

~pinches Wezas~ The Romans nailed Jesus to a cross and Jesus was a Jew too!!!!

My point was in talking about Eugenics, it has already been done in several different instances to several different degrees and when reflected upon most people consider what happened to be wrong.

[Keller]

My argument is not for the greatest society possible, which was the argument for eugenics in the 20s and 30s. I am saying it's not fair to the children, even if they do not have a condition, to be possible carriers and have to weigh that in their decision to have kids in the future. I have seen that decision being made, and it sucks. The couple had to go through therapy because they disagreed so highly.

Then the other argument is the cost to the state. Basically, you and I are helping to pay to raise them. Is that ok with all of us?

The side that Leloo was taken automatically loses, she invoked Godwin. Might as well kill the thread.

- Arkans

[xtc]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Well, I do sort of believe in a system of eugenics and population control. We are over-populated, and the problem can only get worse. While its horrible to say that people born with problems should be treated the same way as anyone else, I still feel its more fair that such people, if their problems are discovered prior to birth, should be terminated.

Eugenics was popular around the world, had there not been a Hitler I wonder if we would be practising Eugenics today.

[Betheny]

I believe in environment over heredity for the most part. I really hate it when poor, ignorant people squirt out 6 kids and raise those children to be just like they are. It's a vicious cycle. That sort of thing needs to be stopped.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by StrayRogue
More people are being born now than ever before. Our population is growing so fast. Our planet runs low on natural resources all ready, and starvation is still ripe all across the globe.

What area of the globe are you talking about exactly? I believe that the birth rates have decreased in the U.S., with couples having only 1.7 children per couple as of the last census as opposed to around 2.5 from the census before that.

The problem of world population growth will likely decrease as developing countries grow increasingly more advanced. Poor countries are mainly agrarian economies, and the mainstay of the agrarian economy is manual labor. The continual population growth of poor agrarian economies is likely an attempt to control an input of production. It's a huge waste, from a farm's standpoint, when you have leftover capital (untilled land) because of a lack of labor. Families can't readily control how much land they have, but they can control the amount of labor that the land supports. If each kid, by itself, can produce 2 units of food and it only consumes 1 unit in the same period, each child the family has represents a clear profit. So, people in these economies have as many children as possible to maximize profit.

Of course, what happens when there's a war or drought? Each unit of production (each child) can't sustain itself and must die off. In response, people have more kids to replace the ones they lost, and the cycle begins again.

Manufacturing economies emphasize capital over labor, so I suspect that families will be able to achieve a similar economic position with fewer children working capital intensive jobs. Families won't bother having more kids, because the number of factory spaces are limited. The kids in the factories will, in turn, make more money per capita than a farmer kid will, because factories are more efficient than rudimentary farming.

Regarding the natural resources thing, I doubt that the world will ever run out of natural resources. Prices will just continue to increase until the consumer shifts their mode of consumption. Take paper for example. Lets say trees get so rare that paper costs $100 a sheet. People will simply stop consuming paper and shift completely to an acceptable substitute (email, web, phones, etc.).

The latest projections for India having them taking over China as the most populated country in the world so I doubt a reduction is taking place regardless of the change in type of economy. There is still culture to consider. We are an overpopulated world.

[Keller]

harsh beth, but I sort of agree. I think people should be given permits to breed. it's not fair that their kids are born into poverty. that sucks

[Keller]

I don't care which country is more populated. That is not the question. The question is whether it is fair to the unborn to be born into a shitty situation. Is it fair to let egomaniacal parents decide to bring kids into the world who will have a shitty existence?

[Betheny]

I'm not even saying it's true 100% of the time, a lot of times overcoming adversity is a very important step to building character, but more often than not I would say people are overwhelmed and have to give in to that sort of thing. It's a shame. Yeah, harsh, but true. But we do the best we can with society as it is.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Keller
I don't care which country is more populated. That is not the question. The question is whether it is fair to the unborn to be born into a shitty situation. Is it fair to let egomaniacal parents decide to bring kids into the world who will have a shitty existence? It depends on your definition of a shitty existence. A kid can grow up in the suburbs to very financially stable parents who makes sure their kid has everything materialistic they've always wanted, but be completely lacking in love. On the other hand a kid can grow up in the ghetto because the father left, so mother has to raise the child on her own and that kid never wants for love or affection, encouragement and so on yet is extremely poor. They may want for money, but then again, even the wealthy want for more money.
On another end you have men making babies well into their 60s and 70s and that child will grow up the better part of their life without their father. That is pretty damn selfish, but that is one of our basic rights as humans. To reproduce.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by xtc
The latest projections for India having them taking over China as the most populated country in the world so I doubt a reduction is taking place regardless of the change in type of economy. There is still culture to consider. We are an overpopulated world.

I don't think India's situation compromises the integrity of my argument. India's economy is comprised of 25% agriculture. 25% is way too high for India to be considered industrialized, at least to the point where it affects families' reproductive behavior.

Look at the rates of all the industrialized/service based nations (U.S., United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, etc.). The economy with the highest percentage of agriculture is France, with 2.7%. The countries also have the lowest birth rates.

[Nakiro]

For most humans, how long you live is determined mainly by where you are born.