Should society consider mandatory sterilization?

When did it become not repulsive to force people into unnecessary mutilation and does the person who suggested this wotk for Ta754v675st65oc..k?

When considering plans like this, you have to be willing to consider that it might be used on you or people you care about.

If you think that other people could accept that, then maybe it's worth considering.

I think you'd be wrong and it goes against the most basic human rights.

a reply to: grahag

When considering plans like this, you should be institutionalized.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
A controversial topic that often elicits emotional knee-jerk reactions because we let emotions override our sense of reason and logic. Despite your beliefs towards the topic, the OP is brave for posting it knowing that he/she will be crucified by most people.

If we are to remove emotional reasoning from the equation, what the OP states does make sense if we truly want what's best for humanity. But that is the thing: do we want what's best or do we want what's "right"? They are not the same.

Idiocy at its finest.
Who do you propose decides whose lineage is cut? Government? The elite? Democratic vote? Who gets to decide what symptoms belong to those left unfit to reproduce. It's a simple concept that's been used by elite several times throughout the past several hundred years. It's impossible to look at this idea and find any logic or moral fortitude (twofer!) inside of such an insidious idea.

a reply to: IsntLifeFunny
This is a test of determining how well indoctrination is working, plain and simple. Advocating sterilization? This is undercover propaganda.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Don't get me wrong I get it .. this whole thread is crazy talk .. there is no way we would allow this to happen it's completely against human rights .. it just hurts my heart when I see the things i don't want to see .. you know like you having an awesome dinner and that add comes on (the one with the babies with flies on them) .. You know who doesn't want the best for their children we all do .. thank you for a nice reply that was very soothing ..

a reply to: IsntLifeFunny

Yes, I'm sure you can't find better examples of idiocy on the internet or in real life either...

Personal attack aside, you are kind of missing the point while basking in emotional reasoning. If you look at the idea through an objective, non-emotional and logical perspective, you would see that it has more potential benefit for humankind than it does detriment.

But of course...anyone who even contemplates the idea is an idiotic, cold-hearted, bigoted, pro-elite, Hitler-loving degenerate. Is that a suitable label?

Of course it would make the world better, but we're only allowed to bomb, kill, torture, poison, bankrupt and otherwise destroy people's lives.

Millions of people die from overpopulation already in Africa and other places, but doing something to prevent that is inhuman according to people who don't even give a damn about them in the first place.

originally posted by: SlickMcFavorite
The planet is not overpopulated. The criteria by which this often echoed assertion is made is actually criteria that should first beckon one to consider more sustainable methods of living, no matter how restrictive, way before a human considers any draconian trains of thought. This is the only way to be truly scientific. The amount of uninhabited area now viable as a place to live, through modern methods/understanding of the science of human/ecological balance, dwarfs the currently inhabited, hyperdense city-samples that often underpin the assertion of overpopulation.

Whilst I agree we could better make use of the free area's and even the area's we have already expanded vthere just seems to be a huge elephant in the room. At this moment in time we seem more interested in destroying it all and polluting the bejesus out of it.

And from my personal POV there are people simply bringing kids in to the world as a currency which at the levels will eventually become unsustainable. My wife and I waited until we could afford a child, planned for her and decided we could afford no more children.

The answer is yes it should.

We should also consider genetically modified kids too at least maybe we can program at a least a single molecule of intelligence back into some of these monkeys.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Your idealizing the oldest form of population control and ignoring the historical events that cost billions of lives on a concept flawed from the root of this ideological tree, i.e eugenics.

Should we do what the ancient Greek tribes did and kill baby's that are deformed and dis-figured?
I'm all for genetic augmentation and increasing the intelligence of humanity but sterilization isn't going to resolve the issue of mental illness,neurological disorders and mental retardation.

It just isn't for the simple reason that there is no clear definition as to what even constitutes intelligence. We barely know how the conscious mind functions let alone the unconcious and your already endorsing sterilizing the mentally ill... Your all so supposing the causality for these issues is whether they're heritable traits or not. Never been proven definitively, experiments mainly link a correlation not causality to genetic influence.

So Should we do what the South Americans are doing and euthanize the homeless. Many of them are mentally ill and contribute nothing to society I guess we'll round them and schedule some more sterilizations with doctor Clauberg.
Your contemplating an idea that has been proven to be more detrimental to society when in the hands of authoritative figures. Humans never seem to learn from the mistakes of the past.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I know my position on this topic seems cold and hard to agree with, but it really is not my intention to wish harm or death on anybody. I really do wish we lived in an ideal world where every single person could receive happiness, fulfilment and prosperity - as well as fill that altruistic virtue that would help maintain a strong compassionate bond between humans and other animals.

Unfortunately this is not the world we live in and it probably never will be. We simply cannot continue at the current pace with our population growth, dwindling of resources and distribution of resources issues. At this rate, we will kill ourselves and humanity will be extinct eventually.

originally posted by: onequestion
The answer is yes it should.

We should also consider genetically modified kids too at least maybe we can program at a least a single molecule of intelligence back into some of these monkeys.

Wow... Mind explaining who those "monkeys" are?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I've already explained this, though. Eugenics simply doesn't work unless you're looking at relatively simple physical traits. Do you want to try and eliminate blue eyes? That's about the best you could do. Intelligence, temperament, these are mostly influenced by your environment, not your genetics. At least, if they are influenced by genetics, we do not properly yet understand how.

Overpopulation is an issue resulting from artificial scarcity and waste, at least when it comes to food.

We are simply better served by attempting to break the cage we have built for ourselves, rather than mutilate ourselves to fit within it.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I've already explained this, though. Eugenics simply doesn't work unless you're looking at relatively simple physical traits. Do you want to try and eliminate blue eyes? That's about the best you could do. Intelligence, temperament, these are mostly influenced by your environment, not your genetics. At least, if they are influenced by genetics, we do not properly yet understand how.

Overpopulation is an issue resulting from artificial scarcity and waste, at least when it comes to food.

[B]We are simply better served by attempting to break the cage we have built for ourselves, rather than mutilate ourselves to fit within it.

The fact that people continue to return to this seriously flawed and failed experiment, for a solution to a nonexistent problem, is proof in itself that we have not gotten any smarter, and that we don't learn for our past mistakes.

Our genetic make-up is tied into our very environment. We don't just pass on the genetic material we get from our parents, we pass on genetic material that is imbued and adapted to our environment.

That is why we exploring the 100th monkey effect, in our search for just how much is nature, how much is nurture, and whether there comes a time when some behaviors reach critical mass.

The simp!e truth is that we don't know enough to go down that path, and we have a greater chance of falling off a cliff in the darkness to our demise, than we are likely to be beamed up into a land of light and greatness.

We have the tools and resources for a comfortable life for every person on this planet. The problem is that too many of us are no longer satisfied with a simp!e life. It is always about bigger, more, and out classing and out hording the other guy.

So if we are running out of things, check the closets, attics, and basements of the ones living in the big houses on the mountain tops, the ones with the guard dogs, the 40 meter fences and drawbridges at the gates.

We don't have to destroy life. We need to embrace it and share it. The magic lies in discovering who we are and the possibilities available from linking to the gifts and talents each of us are given.

Whatever the hypothetical advantages of such an initiative, which I will leave out of consideration except for mentioning that succes is not guaranteed, or even easily defined.

The issue is ethics, what makes a human life worth living? Is it intellectual achievement and the advancement of the species, spiritual or religious purpose, or simply the pursuit of happiness? This is a question that has to be answered before a selection can be made. And even if a majority could decide upon a set of traits that gives a person the right to pass on their genetic code, it is pretty much guaranteed not to be a general concensus. What about the people who want to opt out? Too bad for them?

Furthermore, regardless of how evil you personally believe the government/corporations/reptilian alien overlords to be, I think we can all agree on the fact that human beings are prone to corruption, or at the very least mistakes. Which begs the question of who would wield this kind of power over life. This person or group would need to be completely objective and unbiased while simultaniously having acces to vast amounts of information about any and every human being in order to assess whether or not this person is worthy or not.

So in conclusion, while it's an interesting avenue of thought and topic for debate, in practice it is simply not possible. At least not without taking away what are considered basic human rights, in which case the comparison with Hitler is an easy one to make, as stated by other commenters.

Turning the concept around...I cannot believe that it's considered a basic human right for a woman to get pregnant as and when she pleases, regardless of whether they can look after that child or not...

So rather than seeking to eradicate a portion of society through eugenics, maybe we should look at considering an approach to determine fitness to procreate?

a reply to: selfharmonise

I was poor, on govt assistance when I was pregnant, however, I now have a good job, bought a house and new car and can afford private school for my child.

You reasoning is null and void. And you are pretty pompous and ignorant if you truly think like that.

Good for you. You've made the grade according to your principles.

Does private school, a new car and a house constitute success in your mind? If so, then you are a fantastic parent. Let me applaud you for focusing on the material aspects of parenthood.

You said nothing about time spent with your child or the values and care you are instilling.

My statement wasn't a personal attack on you, although you have chosen to make a personal attack on me based on your own insecurities and inverted snobbery.

I stand by my statement - which did not at any time state that to be a fit parent you only had to have enough money.

I think you're wearing your single parent victim heart on your sleeve...and it doesn't sway me either way.


a reply to: veracity

a reply to: selfharmonise

I know it wasn't a personal attack on me, it was an attack on anyone who does not uphold whatever values you think are important. I did not mention the personal time we spend together bc that is a given. Your post implies that you are only worried about money and how poor people should not be able to procreate so that is why I mentioned "material things".

I do not feel like a victim bc I am a single parent...at all. I just wanted to prove you wrong, which I did, and you are still entitled to you pompous views. Good luck in life, those that think they are better than others are automatically by default worse, sorry.