Should society consider mandatory sterilization?

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Ignoring the fact that IQ is a relatively bad method of measuring universal intelligence, this really isn't a good idea. What I would be willing to consider is the mandatory chemical sterilization of those convicted of violent crime (first extracting a sample for later use in case of acquittal.)

Besides, the predominant cause of idiotic people is an idiotic culture, not their genetics.

You have limited the sterilization process to only criminals. I have a criminal in my family and only ONE. The rest of us are law abiding citizens so your process of elimination is faulty.

Oh, so it's alright for others, but not for you? See how this is all wrong yet?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Suppose that's what GM foodstuffs are all about, possibly retarding our reproductive processes never mind a whole lot of other nasty possibility's.

End of the day should we continue to breed at the level we are doing all we will achieve is to bring about the demise of the current society.

Need to ether get the hell off this rock called Earth and on to greener pastures or start eating Soylent Green.

Seriously? Because, gee, according to all those alarmist predictions, we are already there. They were obviously totally wrong, but, hey, believe away, because, gee, they might be right someday......

I really like the thought of the OP. I've toyed with idea, and thought Stephen King's "The Stand" was the best way to go about it, a supervirus that randomly takes out majority of the population. Then I got to thinking that that was too impractical, because the book did have some unsavory individuals who still remained. Good premise, but there's a better way of doing things I think.

The best way to start it off, is shut down every ER in the world. Majority of ER visits are accident related anyway, or the patient wouldn't be making an unscheduled visit there. So, start off with the Darwin award winners that frequent the ER.

Then every doctor, nurse, medical scientist, and any profession related to medical and the advancement of humanity should be shot and killed. This would be fairly easy to carry out in most developed countries. With them out of the way, we don't have to worry about patching up people, fixing cancer, prescribin' kids ADHD meds and we can get back to real natural selection.

I have a feeling that would take care of a ton of the world's population, thereby creating a more peaceful and tranquil existence for all of Earth's inhabitants. Well maybe not all, I think we would still have a good grasp on that top rung of the food chain, but I believe most humans would behave and be more careful and thoughtful with their actions if the consequences for simple things was significantly more severe.

Not sure you would need to get rid of many more people after that. Think things would sort themselves out. Just some quick thoughts on my part.

a reply to: saabster5

You really need to give that a sarcasm tag or warning, by the way.

Id this a joke? That's what nazis did. Would you like to be sterilized. Reproduction is a right. This is unamerican. Did Hitler write this?

a reply to: Essene616

Actually, it is American, and we have to own up to it.
Buck v Bell

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Well DUDE.... I guess you need to re-read the OP..... I NEVER said 80% needed to be sterilized did I? Here I quote a joke from Bill Burr which is clearly stated in the OP isn't it and you twist it don't you?

There is nothing to misconstrue in your OP... Your considering the positive aspects of sterilizations by comparing it to a joke by bill burr for god sake.. What the hell is there to miss-read?

So again, what constitutes as intelligence?

What constitutes a mentally unfit individual(s) and/or family(s)? and what is the causality in your opinion? Environment, genetics? Or something else entirely.

Who decides and administers the sterilization? and Why?

If you seriously can't answer the questions above and are going to continue deflecting the valid questions I asked you and make a federal case out of something irrelevant I said,than don't even bother responding.
Btw population control was put into practice by psychologist and other scientists in Europe, it was used by the Aztecs,the Maya and many other civilizations. The intention behind the idea is noble(decreasing the chances of stupid people from breeding and increasing the amount of resources to replenish) but again it becomes a very dangerous political game to play once that power gets out of hand.

What will stop those from abusing the power of sterilizing anyone considered undesirable(i.e sterilizing people based on race,ethnicity,culture and country of origin? I ask this because you seem to imply that if we sterilize those who do not meet the standards of intelligence that humanity will experience no negative consequences from this action taken. You even went on to say:

Technology and science would faster expand making lives easier on this planet. Maybe closer to being able to feed and house everyone on this planet.... making poverty illegal.

This is fallacious reasoning, at one point in human history there were less than a billion people and we still fought over resources and poverty was even more rampant than it is today. You seem to be favor of handing over power to an increasingly smaller and smaller group of people. How will that jump start another human golden age?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
As others have stated hitler and the USA tried it to varying extents and the rest of the world didn't seem to like it.

However if you remove emotions and personal feelings it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money.

Saying that I don't agree with eugenics or killing of the weak. I Like having my grandma around and without expensive treatment she wouldn't be.

LOL If we remove emotions and personal feelings? You realize that people with no empathy are considered mentally ill, right? That's one of the ways to describe the word "psychopath".

Psychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. The psychopath can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack conscience and empathy, making them manipulative, volatile and often (but by no means always) criminal.

What is Psychopathy?

So basically, your 2nd paragraph reads like this: "However if you think like a psychopath it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money."

This simply needed repeating!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"They" are always right especially if you follow mass media. GM food stuffs still have a lot of kinks to work out. That's just plain fact. We are not at tipping point yet, but its in the post, of that you can be sure.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"They" are always right especially if you follow mass media. GM food stuffs still have a lot of kinks to work out. That's just plain fact. We are not at tipping point yet, but its in the post, of that you can be sure.

All of those promoting the genetically modified foods re the same sort pushing medications for anything and everything, and they likely think just like the OP. Make money off them and then eliminate those we don't like or need any longer.

That this got fifteen flags is truly disturbing.

To the thread:
No one - NO ONE - has a right to tell someone else whether or not they can have children. Period. Not for monetary reasons, or genetic reasons, or racial reasons, or any other reasons. That people say the OP is wrong, but they'd consider certain cases is disturbing as well. Why just certain ones? There is no partial way to do such a thing, and no good way, and it never, EVER works out well. And yes, sterilization is a form of extermination. It's just planning ahead. Eliminate the ability for one group to breed, and you eliminate the group. Surely no one here really believes that isn't the case! We are supposed to deny ignorance here, folks, not promote it. As for this "overpopulation" business, who says?? Those in control? Those that want to make money selling contraceptives, or want to take over some area or another? The issue isn't overpopulation; it's corruption. Sterilizing people will never eliminate that.

For the OP, You made it about IQ in your opening post, so please stop pretending otherwise. You keep talking about "illness" and "sickness" (and I'd love to know what you see different in those two...), as though you can eliminate them by sterilizing people. Sorry, but no! That isn't even logical, and most illnesses are not genetic. As for those that are, who are you to decide if someone else gets to live with some problem or another? That isn't your place to decide.

My family is, for the most part, highly intelligent. There are a couple of family members who have problems, and hey, some of us have vision problems, which can be genetic. So, kill off our family line? Hey, it's genetic - gotta sterilize! Right? Keep your fascism out of my life, thank you.

And, no, it isn't just poor and low IQ people that have kids, either. We aren't rich, but we take care of ourselves, and we have FIVE. That's right, five from me. My eldest is VERY intelligent - 180's - and she's got three. So, toss out that little bit of nonsense, please.

The real issue here is that too many people who ought to know better have bought into the lie. Those in control want more, and so they use scare tactics, such as "overpopulation", to make people believe that this or that draconian measure is somehow a "good thing". I'd have thought most members here were too smart to fall for that sort of BS. Clearly, I was wrong. At least fifteen bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Come on, wake up! This crap was claimed decades ago. By now, we are all supposed to be living wall--to-wall and eating each other. Didn't happen, and isn't going to. How long do people believe a lie, once it's shown to be a lie? Seems like some will believe for decades. Now there's a study we won't ever see.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What? No, I support genetic modification because I understand how the process works. Issues with it are not a direct result of the modification itself, but other unsavory practices that its use may promote (like mono cultures.)

I flagged this thread because I believe it is a topic worth discussing, even if I don't personally think that mandatory sterilisation is something that should be done. Yes, the opening post is a bit distasteful, but this is still a subject we must talk about.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

People cling to lies like Velcro. The fact that this thread exists disgusts me. It's people's right totthink like nazis if they want, but I am not happy that civilization is still producing Mengele like ideas.

a reply to: saabster5

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

How many of you agree with contraception for women

It's temporary sterilization for women .. My step sister bagged mum at 13 to have it prescribed .. mum kind of forced talked me into it at the age of 17 and I was not even sexually active .. was she being a nazi ? or is this such a stupid idea .. I remember her main concern was me finishing university before I get knocked up

a reply to: Layaly

Sterilisation is not temporary. If done en masse it would remove entire gene lines from the pool, by ending them and this would be a totally unacceptable outcome. The more genetic diversity the better. Removing potential from the system of procreation is not conducive to the longevity of the species.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I think its rather obvious that we as a race have to do something about our rising population.

Stands to reason given the simple fact that resources and clean water sources are of a finite nature.

Not suggesting mandatory sterilization is the answer. Contraception and education would seem to be the ticket but fact is those dont seem to be making to much of a dent regarding our numbers. Especially so in our third world nations.

a reply to: TrueBrit

i said above this is just a thread people need to chill out .. I dont think OP has an image in his head of running around chopping people's (who he deems unworthy) bits off .. there is male contraception available and I do welcome that .. why should females be the only one who are kind of expected to be on a pill

a reply to: andy06shakethe earth can sustain more people than will ever exist at any given time. We just need to distribute its recources poperly. Over population is propaganda, people want to reduce the population to two classes, like in metropolis, that silent film with the female robot that beyonce dresses as.

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: TrueBrit

i said above this is just a thread people need to chill out .. I dont think OP has an image in his head of running around chopping people's (who he deems unworthy) bits off .. there is male contraception available and I do welcome that .. why should females be the only one who are kind of expected to be on a pill

Umm, nope.


Male contraceptives and female contraceptives are voluntary. And the pills have to be taken on a constant basis; as in, their effects are short lived and can be undone by simply refusing to continue their usage.

The OP is talking about mandatory sterilizations. That's a massive difference and everyone in this thread knows it. So please don't try to act like we're the ones being unreasonable because we object to this proposal.

originally posted by: Essene616
a reply to: andy06shakethe earth can sustain more people than will ever exist at any given time. We just need to distribute its recources poperly. Over population is propaganda, people want to reduce the population to two classes, like in metropolis, that silent film with the female robot that beyonce dresses as.

problem is and I am so terribly sorry for saying this .. my cat has it better (food, comfy bed, love, vet) then a kid born in africa with HIV and dying of starvation and dehydration and wont make it more then few weeks (its a fact)