Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

reply to post by Annee

I was born in poverty. The principal of my primary school made sure we had shoes by buying them herself. When I was 13 - - my mom married a millionaire. I've been on both sides.

Want a cookie? Cause I don't see how that proves how I judge people based on wealth.

Successful people. You still have issues separating Success and money. You do not become successful without hard dedicated work. The power people of the world are not sitting on their ass playing video games. What they decide is of importance - - - may not be what you decide is important.

Really? Cause I can testify that that's wrong. Even in my own life I've gotten to places I damn well did no desire. For many cases it is true, yes. but for many others, birth right and privilege is why they are where they are. One of the reasons I am not a fan of inheritance is for that very reason. My child doesn't deserve my wealth because I'm his dad. He's going to make himself successful. he gets little or no money when he goes to school. he does it himself.

Also I have a major thing against your last statement. What leaders decide as important may not be what I consider important? Then I should tell them to screw over and get lost. I am not a fan of leaders either. I make my own path, through my own life. I'm not a fan of ultra conservationist motifs like that, nor am I a fan of obedience. They damn well better consider what I think as important important to them, or they're out of a job when they get in my way.

If their my boss I will do what they say. But that is the limit. And I serve no man beyond my own designs and needs.

Originally posted by Gorman91
They damn well better consider what I think as important important to them, or they're out of a job when they get in my way.

Ha Ha Ha Ha - - yeah - OK.

Whatever.

reply to post by Annee


It's the game of politics. Do what they say or get out of the way.

This is basically the same message Henry Kissinger has been pushing for years, but with an eco friendly slant to make it seem more palatable to the youngins.

I'm all for people being careful about breeding too much, but politicians should not be preaching common sense to society, because the next inevitable step is public debate and legislation.

reply to post by Gorman91

And those brain waves are not all that different than any animal out there with intelligence. There's no differentiation between the ability of a crow and a newborn in terms of mental capacity.

Yes, I agree. The difference boils down to specieism, nothing more. Again, your point?

Sentience is the ability to feel, be conscious, and most importantly, have a subjective experience. A new born cannot. It is all automated. A new tablet for new code and instructions to be inscribed upon. This, as you've happily ignored, is the reason you are wrong.

No, a newborn is sentient, also a foetus since around 5th month is most probably sentient. They have subjective experiences and feelings.

Wealthy people who procreate in the first world take more resources that could be diverted to the poor in the 3rd world. They take water, they take food, they take rights. They make the 3rd world stuck in the 3rd world as their governments become dependent on wealth from the 1st world.

If they take more than their justified share by stealing, then it is corruption and needs to be fought. In the same way that reproduction crimes happening in third world need to be fought.

Ergo, the sins of the rich are just as bad as the sins of the poor. There is no difference.

And we need to fight both, if we want to progress.

Once again, justify not doing the same to the 1st world and the very rich. The ability to pay for your kids does not change the fact that your purchases make the parents of the poor unable to help their kids.

Purchases give people jobs and money, they help everyone.

The well being of the poor is kept unable to be reached by the rich.

The wellbeing of the poor is kept unable to be reached by corruption (both of rich and poor) and by reproduction anarchy of the poor diluting their already small share of resources even further.

reply to post by Gorman91

Then why is it hard to believe in quality without destruction of reproductive freedom. It IS possible for every human being to live in a sustainable, good house and be fed well and educated well and have good water to drink. It simply takes time and money.

By all means, do so. I just believe that with absolute reproductive freedom, this goal is much harder to achieve, if it is even possible.

Slaughtering the poor, or the rich, is not the answer.

Nobody wants to slaughter anyone.

We can conserve the world's environment without needless sacrifice of who we are.

So who we are? I dont subscribe to unconditional reproduction anarchy being a core part of who we are at all. We are rational beings, that is the core part of what it means to be human. And controling reproduction in accordance with circumstances seems very rational to me.

Stop being a hypocrite and offer the termination of your life for the benefit of your planet. It's just a selfish to be aware it's selfish to have so many lives on the planet and yet not give up your own life, thereby saving the planet of having to support your existence.

But nobody here is talking about killing anyone. We are talking about reproduction responsibility and control, not killing those already born.

reply to post by Maslo

Yes, I agree. The difference boils down to specieism, nothing more. Again, your point?

This species has a right to freedom. You're point?

No, a newborn is sentient, also a foetus since around 5th month is most probably sentient. They have subjective experiences and feelings.

No, they don't. Their brains have not yet even learned how to make decisions. Babies do things automatically. They don't choose to grab, their hands just grab from an automatic response. They don't choose to eat, they just do. This is why they cry. They don't understand how to decide not to respond to emotions, pain, feelings, etc etc. They have no capacity to understand anything. They can just auto-respond and that's it. Not until upper cognitive development of around 4-7 years of age do they have the ability to choose. When they have been taught that the way they react automatically is not the only way.

If they take more than their justified share by stealing, then it is corruption and needs to be fought. In the same way that reproduction crimes happening in third world need to be fought.

No, they shouldn't. They have more money, and the right to consume more as a result. No doubt, fewer poor means they will consume even more.

And we need to fight both, if we want to progress.

We need to not fight if we want progress.

Purchases give people jobs and money, they help everyone.

Sweatshop jobs so they can't afford an education and breed more? GENIUS!

The wellbeing of the poor is kept unable to be reached by corruption (both of rich and poor) and by reproduction anarchy of the poor diluting their already small share of resources even further.

The corruption is the result of wealthy who buy politicians. The poor have nothing to do with it.

By all means, do so. I just believe that with absolute reproductive freedom, this goal is much harder to achieve, if it is even possible.

Yes, exactly. Why is that bad if freedom remains?

Nobody wants to slaughter anyone.

You do, even if it's done cleanly through sterilization and birth limits. It's still slaughter.

So who we are? I dont subscribe to unconditional reproduction anarchy being a core part of who we are at all. We are rational beings, that is the core part of what it means to be human. And controling reproduction in accordance with circumstances seems very rational to me.

Only some are rational. We are everything, everyone, every possibility. There is no human identity. And for that reason, your opinion on reproduction has no right to be forced on the natives int he jungles of Africa and New Zealand, on the farmer in Ireland, or on the emperor in Japan. You're opinion can only be put forth upon yourself. No one else.

But nobody here is talking about killing anyone. We are talking about reproduction responsibility and control, not killing those already born.

When you limit the growth or down right sterilize a population, you slaughter that culture, that way of life. You are killing them. Control is irrelevant. Control is evil. Get lost if you want to control. All you will find is a rifle in every corn field, and an uzi behind every project.

Killing those already born? There's my problem. I do not want killing of anyone before or after they are born. I do not want wholesale control over the free people of the world. I do not want you telling me what to do. See what happens if you do. And then you will have a slaughter on your hands, as the free people of the Earth die. Blood will be on your hands. Good luck managing the World with a billion fewer people with your sweat shops. All you will do is cause those who support you to disown you, and even more slaughter and fracture to begin.

reply to post by Gorman91

This species has a right to freedom. You're point?

Unless you are an anarchist, which you are not (and even then it is not so clear), no right to absolute freedom exists. Then why should reproduction be absolutely free?

No, they don't. Their brains have not yet even learned how to make decisions. Babies do things automatically. They don't choose to grab, their hands just grab from an automatic response. They don't choose to eat, they just do. This is why they cry. They don't understand how to decide not to respond to emotions, pain, feelings, etc etc. They have no capacity to understand anything. They can just auto-respond and that's it. Not until upper cognitive development of around 4-7 years of age do they have the ability to choose. When they have been taught that the way they react automatically is not the only way.

You should look up the definitions of "sentience" and "sapience", because you are talking about sapience, while I am talking about sentience. Ability to make rational decisions is not a prerequisite for sentience.

No, they shouldn't. They have more money, and the right to consume more as a result. No doubt, fewer poor means they will consume even more.

I dont follow you here.

We need to not fight if we want progress.

I dont think so.

Sweatshop jobs so they can't afford an education and breed more? GENIUS!

No, jobs that are better than what they had before, otherwise they would leave.

The corruption is the result of wealthy who buy politicians. The poor have nothing to do with it.

The corruption is present in both groups. I do agree that corruption among the wealthy can cause more mayhem, tough.

Yes, exactly. Why is that bad if freedom remains?

Because I dont consider freedom to reproduce more important than quality of life of the resulting children.

You do, even if it's done cleanly through sterilization and birth limits. It's still slaughter.

It is not slaughter, it does not kill anyone.

Only some are rational. We are everything, everyone, every possibility. There is no human identity. And for that reason, your opinion on reproduction has no right to be forced on the natives int he jungles of Africa and New Zealand, on the farmer in Ireland, or on the emperor in Japan. You're opinion can only be put forth upon yourself. No one else.

We have already established that you are not an anarchist, why are you bringing this up again? You want to force your opinions on others, too.

When you limit the growth or down right sterilize a population, you slaughter that culture, that way of life. You are killing them.

No, I am not killing anyone. Just limiting reproduction. Stop with the strawmans.

Control is irrelevant. Control is evil. Get lost if you want to control. All you will find is a rifle in every corn field, and an uzi behind every project.

Control is everywhere, even you are a controller.

Killing those already born? There's my problem. I do not want killing of anyone before or after they are born. I do not want wholesale control over the free people of the world. I do not want you telling me what to do. See what happens if you do. And then you will have a slaughter on your hands, as the free people of the Earth die. Blood will be on your hands. Good luck managing the World with a billion fewer people with your sweat shops. All you will do is cause those who support you to disown you, and even more slaughter and fracture to begin.

Thats just your opinion. There are no free people on this planet, never were, and never will be. Unless the person lives somewhere alone in a forest, maybe. There is no society without rules limiting freedom.

reply to post by Maslo


Absolute freedom is not what I am talking about. Freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what I am talking about. Violations of those are a no no.

Sentience is the ability to make subjective decisions. Sapience is the ability to use that subjective knowledge objectively and fairly. In both cases, the baby does not have the capacity to do either.

Perhaps, then to appease you, I should ask why Sapience isn't more worthy of judgement than sentience. If sentience is what you believe, then it is not what makes us human, and therefore is irrelevant.

Most of what you said elsewise is not an answer, just your inability to answer it. However. Jobs that were better than before? No. Because there are too many people. And with too few people no work would get done to begin with. in both situations, your claim in incorrect and not able to work with current economics of the world.

People are free by their ability to live, do what they want, and peruse their happiness so long it violates no ones else. By this I am a free man who is not alone in the forest. I force my ways on no one, other than those who want to force their own ways over others. In this case, the one forcing restraint for the freedom of all is more right than the one forcing power for the control of others.

Simply put, I wouldn't mind having crap quality of life for the sake of freedom. Because freedom allows me to improve myself and quality. Control does not. Sacrificing freedom for quality is not a choice. it is enslavement. And I do not buy into that.

reply to post by Gorman91

Simply put, I wouldn't mind having crap quality of life for the sake of freedom. Because freedom allows me to improve myself and quality. Control does not. Sacrificing freedom for quality is not a choice. it is enslavement. And I do not buy into that.

Thats pretty twisted thinking IMHO. Quality of life, or wellbeing is more important than freedom since its the reason why we value freedom. The only reason why we love freedom is because it often correlates with and causes us better wellbeing, but still, the reason is the wellbeing, not freedom for the sake of freedom itself. You said it yourself - you want freedom because it allows you to improve quality of life, and dont want control because it may not improve quality of life. So freedom is only a tool for achieving wellbeing. And thats why it is valued.

Now what about freedoms which cause bigger decrease of wellbeing than increase, such as freedom to kill, rape, or create other people while being incapable of taking care of them? Those freedoms defeat the sole purpose of freedom, defeat the reason why its valued among people. And thats why they are and should be restricted.

reply to post by Maslo


We value freedom irrelevant of quality of life. A poor man in a the gutter desires and understands freedom the same way as a pampered old man in a mansion.

Freedom does correlate to well being. And therefore, don't take our freedom away, or you will take our quality of life away.

The freedom's you listed are freedom's people extend beyond themselves. And therefore are wrong. I have always stood by this fact.

Control for quality of life demands freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means no restrictions of how many children you can have, under any financial condition.

You are allowed to advise. Offer tax benefits, etc etc. You are not allowed to force it, nor allowed to extinguish your mistakes that are, themselves, alive.

reply to post by Gorman91

The freedom's you listed are freedom's people extend beyond themselves. And therefore are wrong. I have always stood by this fact.

So is freedom to reproduce. It extends beyond the individual to the children that are the result of it. It is not a personal freedom.

Heck, creating a new human is one of the biggest extensions of your freedom over another I can think of. There is no question that it has to be regulated so that the created human will came to this world under good enough conditions.

reply to post by Maslo


Yes, it does. But it is not forced. This is called rape, and is wrong.

Conditions are subjective, as I've always said. The person has the right to control their own conditions. So long no one dies or gets irrefutably damaged, the methods and conditions are not yours to judge right or wrong. When a body or body part shows up, we know someone failed as a parent. Worse still when the parent doesn't tell anyone. Then we have a court case, and the people by jury decide the appropriate punishment. Because we know someone failed when a physical proof is present. We cannot say if someone failed without it.

reply to post by Gorman91

Yes, it does. But it is not forced.

It is forced on the child.

So long no one dies or gets irrefutably damaged, the methods and conditions are not yours to judge right or wrong.

Yes, they are. When the conditions are bad, there are only two alternatives - the parent and child lives off of public money, or the child is harmed. In both of these alternatives I can judge them, as a member of society, and I should have the right to control and prevent these situations from arising, because they infringe on other peoples rights (either taxpayers, or the child).

reply to post by Maslo


A child is under their parents care. Their opinion is null.

And there are other ways. The child and parent simply are poor and barely get by without government money.

They do exist, you know.

You are nothing more than a 1% investor of a company called the Federal Government. You have no say, only an opinion that the majority holders listen to. You do not control nor prevent anything but by your advice and opinion. You have no power beyond that. Quite frankly, you are simply not that important. And you have all the right in the world to stop investing in the system and leave.

reply to post by Gorman91

A child is under their parents care. Their opinion is null.

Their opinion maybe, but not their rights. I am not talking about opinion.

And there are other ways. The child and parent simply are poor and barely get by without government money. They do exist, you know.

My aim is to ensure that only parents that can take care of their childrens basic needs procreate. If they can do it without government help and manage to persuade reproduction authorities that it is the case, then by all means, procreate. As long as one of those two bad alternatives I mentioned are not involved, I am agnostic of the underlying mechanism (in the boundaries of the law, of course.. ).

You are nothing more than a 1% investor of a company called the Federal Government. You have no say, only an opinion that the majority holders listen to. You do not control nor prevent anything but by your advice and opinion. You have no power beyond that. Quite frankly, you are simply not that important. And you have all the right in the world to stop investing in the system and leave.

All right, substitute "I" for taxpayers, voters, government, society, whatever. Thats not the point.

reply to post by Maslo


Well to be honest, a kid doesn't much have an opinion until their an adult, and by that time, their live is already the product of their own choices. That's one of the problems with humanity, free will is awfully slow to develop.

Parents who can take care of their children have no guarantee of actually doing so. All you are really doing is needlessly cutting off a group of people because of their quantity of wealth. Hollywood has proven that having money doesn't make you a good parent. The only fair way to go about it is to arrest the parents when they screw up. You cannot assume.

I think the point is most taxpayers don't think it's right to control who has kids, and until you see that day you cannot do anything, and basiically, because America is the drop off point of every countries poor, that's not likely to happen.

See America is built off of letting the poor come here, procreate and succeed on their own, raise their children up right, and then those children succeeding past their parents capacity. America is not about preventing the poor from breeding. Then you have essentially created a slavery system based off wealth. The poor don't breed, die off, and so america's corporations lobby and via for more immigrants to pay less. This system repeats, and you essentially have a system of slavery. A group incapable of not being poor, and incapable of having children that can not be poor.

America is, as the Constitution says,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So sorry, but everyone has the right to breed. Says so right there. The blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, AND right after mentioning promoting the general welfare and common defense. Not just the rich. It's pretty clear what America is about. And you're not getting it.

reply to post by Gorman91

Parents who can take care of their children have no guarantee of actually doing so. All you are really doing is needlessly cutting off a group of people because of their quantity of wealth. Hollywood has proven that having money doesn't make you a good parent. The only fair way to go about it is to arrest the parents when they screw up. You cannot assume.

I can indeed assume, law is full of asumptions. When a parent is poor, it is very accurate to assume that one of the two alternatives I mentioned will happen if he/she procreates. That is enough to restrict this privilege, IMHO.

The poor don't breed, die off, and so america's corporations lobby and via for more immigrants to pay less.

The poor dont breed, die off, and there are less poor left, The country is wealthier. Your assumptions about immigrants is baseless.

So sorry, but everyone has the right to breed. Says so right there.

It does not.

The blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, AND right after mentioning promoting the general welfare and common defense.

There is no absolute liberty or freedom in the US, it is restricted by many laws and regulations. Unless you can find that reproduction is an unalienable right written in the constitution, then such laws would not be unconstitutional. Heck, the US had some reproduction regulations in the past before WW2.

It's pretty clear what America is about. And you're not getting it.

Maybe. I am not sure it would be a good idea for the US to have such laws myself. The US can afford to have reprodution anarchy. But there is no legal or moral principle that would forbid it, as far as I know. Just public opinion, nothing else.

reply to post by Maslo


Laws may be full of assumptions, but that doesn't make it right, nor mean we should continue to do that.

It is also not important to be accurate. If just one goes against it, you have no right to assume a minority based off a majority. This is called dictatorship.

No, my assumptions on immigration are not baseless. Even now the next wave is beginning from Africa and the middle east. Immigration waves always bring poverty. And when the poor die off, they don't die off, all that happens is others take their place. It's part of the economies of America. Your assumptions of the poor are baseless when one actually looks at history. Do me the favor of proving how I am baseless.

You confuse absolute freedom in one realm with absolute freedom in all realms. I have absolute freedom to draw anything I want, that doesn't mean I have absolute freedoms everywhere. Stop mixing straws, it's, as you would say, baseless.

Public opinion is enough for you to suck it up and live with it. It's inaction versus action. Inaction in this case, minority doesn't suffer. Action, minority always suffers.

reply to post by Gorman91

Laws may be full of assumptions, but that doesn't make it right, nor mean we should continue to do that.

I agree, I just believe we should.

It is also not important to be accurate. If just one goes against it, you have no right to assume a minority based off a majority. This is called dictatorship.

Democracy is a dictatorship of majority. There may be some constitutional safeguards thrown in in the US or elsewhere, but I am not aware of there being one specificaly against reproduction control.

No, my assumptions on immigration are not baseless. Even now the next wave is beginning from Africa and the middle east. Immigration waves always bring poverty. And when the poor die off, they don't die off, all that happens is others take their place. Your assumptions of the poor are baseless when one actually looks at history. Do me the favor of proving how I am baseless.

Maybe not entirely baseless, but:
1. there is no reason to assume a wealthy country cannot protect its integrity against immigration.
2. It is still better than the same situation with no reproduction control. There is less poor overall, and the poor from another poorer country get a chance to live better life and all that jazz.

Public opinion is enough for you to suck it up and live with it. It's inaction versus action. Inaction in this case, minority doesn't suffer. Action, minority always suffers.

It is not inaction versus action, there is absolutely no guarantee that one is somehow inherently better than the other, consequences of both approaches are important to judge what is better. There are many laws that prefer action over inaction. As for public opinion, in a democracy, you are right.