This is an interesting idea, and actually, I have had my own thoughts on this issue, I think that they should implement a worldwide two-child-policy. Living in China, I've seen that the one-child-policy, though it is decreasing population growth, doesn't work well because a generation is now being raised with the little emperor syndrome. A two-child-policy might work, though, because it would teach children social skills, the value of sharing etc., while ensuring that population does not grow. Then, like in China, they should implement a huge fine on families wishing to have another child. This ensures that a) the government will have more money to spend on poverty aid b) theoretically, only rich families will have another child as they are the only ones that will be able to afford the fine. If you think about it then this means wealth will begin to be more evenly spread, because more children will technically be born into wealthy families than poor ones

by Anonymous 12 years ago

we tried doing that i think but no one wanted to do it especially the more third world countries who have at least 5 kids each

by Anonymous 12 years ago

China used to be (or in some parts still definitely is) a third-world country, and reducing the population growth has been a factor that I think has helped China's economy

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Have you read the Hidden Children series by Margaret Peterson Haddix? It's basically that. And then parents have more children, that they have to hide from the government, who have to stay in their houses all day while their siblings get to go have lives. I don't think limiting the amount of children you could have would be a good idea.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

i love those books.. except after awhile they started making alot more and i stopped reading.. i think i ended where Luke goes to that new school? but i dont know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's like the first one! You need to finish the series. I've read the whole series twice.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

does it get good?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yess. Very.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ok. thanks. ill check them out today. how many are there? like 5 right?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

7 I think.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ok. thanks. :)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're welcome :p

by Anonymous 12 years ago

cont: for this to work, though, they'd have to make birth control much more accessible to everyone, sex ed would HAVE to be pushed more in schools worldwide, and I think your idea about sterilisation could even work to a point, in that they should make sterilisation optional and free to everyone, so that those who have had their 2 children and know they won't be able to afford a 3rd, and don't want to have to worry about birth control, can be sterilised and not have to worry about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This doesn't fix anything. I see the thought process but with no result. Besides, it's natural selection. That's messing with nature which always ends up as a bad thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

As a whole, humanity doesn't comply with natural selection. Mating-wise, we select our mates randomly: there's no universal identifier of a suitable match as in other species (i.e. peahens look for peacocks with bigger, brighter tails; humans select mates based on values, interests, differences, similarities, culture, tradition, the will of others, health, time spent together, lusts, or any number of different factors that everyone puts different emphases on). Health-wise, natural selection doesn't have too much of an effect due to our numbers, intelligence, genetic diversity, and modern medicine. Whereas normally a species could thrive due to resilience to whatever is wiping out the population (be it disease, the inability to find food, or predators), humans can invent things to overcome these obstacles to the point that we negate these factors. There's very little natural about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course, that's adaption. Humans have a very random mating selection. This contributes to a very broad gene pool, which in case of disaster, allows for more individuals to survive. Besides, it may not seem obvious, but perhaps we choose our partners subconciously. Like adrenaline, it's there we just can't understand it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"peahens look for peacocks with bigger, brighter tails" - that's actually not true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I wouldn't say that messing with nature is always bad. Truthfully man kind is incredibly arrogant and doesn't know enough about the delicate balance of nature that's been going on forever to make significant changes. Human intervention has caused the extinction of some species, but we've saved some from extinction too (even some that weren't our fault). As to fixing things, we wouldn't have to worry about the aforementioned issues, and we could drive humanity in a more responsible direction. But like I said, it's interesting to think about, but a bad idea. It's too easy to corrupt: the people who sterilize the population could very well instigate Social Darwinist ideals and effectively commit genocide; they could make a fortune off of jacking up the price for fertility meds or withhold them from criminals as punishment. It would solve a few problems, but create far more.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Bam and there is the problem! In other words humans are so good at surviving, it seems like they are dying. I guess you can effectively say, for a every action, there is a positive and negative reaction. Damn this was a good debate, not many of these aroumd here on the internet.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Like Brave New World?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That book was weird and exageratted but very plausible and scary.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I read that book when I was like 12 (Because I started my goal of reading a whole bunch of classics in the summer) I was a little weirded out by it...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There are SO MANY issues with this entire post, which all basically come down to government and money. Also, "responsible" is a relative term.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You bring up an interesting point about the relativity of the term "responsible". What I imagined was that if something like this were to take effect, then a committee would have to be set up to decide what makes a person "responsible" enough to have or raise children (i.e. finances, sanity, evaluation of their relationships with others, physical capability, etc). Personally, I don't think the flaws of this premise come down to government or money. Most governments do things that the public is entirely unaware of for quite a while. Some good, like adding fluoride to the water supply, and some bad, like torture of war criminals. Keep in mind that this wasn't written in the context of any specific country, style of government, or culture. Regardless, governments still survive while in debt.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'd say the major flaw in this premise would be the repercussions on the populous. As laureneli23 pointed out, this takes away what is probably the biggest deterent for unsafe sex, so the spread of STDs may increase. In addition, even if this wasn't abused (which it inevitably would be) it may have social effects, such as certain groups being paranoid that they are being targeted for eugenic genocide or the backlash of people believing their freedoms are being trampled upon. Some questions come to mind: What if the committee deems the handicapped or 'little people' unfit for reproduction? What if this is only implemented in one country and immigrants feel targetted? What if having progeny is a core value to some people? What if this interfered with the prenatal development of children when it is first implemented? What if it doesn't affect all races or genotypes equally?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

1) About the committee: Finances - Come and go and are not necessarily under one's will. Sanity - What if what we think is sane is actually insane and what we think is insane is actually sane? Slightly joking, but do you get my point? Also, the definition of sanity is very probably subject to change. Not easily, but still. Evaluating relationships - Entirely relative. Physical capability - Explain? 2) Except I don't think the government can sterilize the entire country without people finding out that something's weird. :P And it very much does come down to money - people using it as bribes that someone should be fertile or infertile, for example. 3) And since it's not about any specific country, someone - probably America - would go to war with someone else under the decision that the other country is being a horrible, evil bastard with this. 4) About most of the questions on the bottom - This is partly why it would never happen. -cont-

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The second to last question - There would totally be studies that would probably show or something like this happening, which would be hushed up and people would be given meds to "make sure nothing happens" which wouldn't work all the time. Eventually some people would be smart enough to really look into everything and a) sue the government for a lot of money, or b) sue the government for a frickload of money if there's something wrong with their kid that can be traced back to their sterilization, their fertile-ness medication, or the Make Sure Nothing Happens meds. Yeah, I'm thinking America. Let's just go with America because I don't know the culture of any other country. The last question - This would show up in studies and be figured out. And if, for example, there's a difference with it between black and white people, SOMEONE is going to shout about racism and conspiracy theories. This is easily one of the best conversations I've had here. :D

by Anonymous 12 years ago

1a) An economy's finances are different than a person's finances. Unlike people, a country can be in massive amounts of debt and still get stuff done. Funds can be moved around, hidden and in some cases, eliminated entirely. They don't simply come and go. 1b) That wouldn't matter. What's sane is what's sane at the time. Absolute truth is irrelevent to the premise. Most likely a committee would base their decisions on scientific findings, which are at best an approximation of the truth. We misdiagnose all the time and probably always will. The same goes for relationships: there are correlations between how a man treats his mother and sisters compared to how he treats his girlfriend or wife; there are correlations between parental involvement and parenting styles and emotional states in adolescence: again, they'd be goin on what is most likely to bring about the best result. 1c) By physical capabilities I mean stuff like are they an amputee/blind/deaf/mute, etc

by Anonymous 12 years ago

2) I think they could. Governments and corporation withhold important information from us all the time. Even if something's found out, it doesn't mean the entire populous will care, or act upon it. When we found out cigarettes can kill us, we kept smoking. If fluoride can be added or taken away and nobody noticed, a similar water-borne agent could go unnoticed until it's too late. We could all be advised to get vaccinations, not knowing entirely what they are for, and it could be the sterilization drug. I'd say it's plausible 3) You'd be surprised how many atrocities nations overlook... did you hear about the virginity checks in Egypt? The human trafficking globally? 4) I'm not saying it would or should happen. Quite the opposite. I'm saying it'd be an interesting world if it did. And not every possible problem is considered when anyone makes a decision.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, come on, only looking at America is no fun! Democracies have power over their leaders that other governments don't. However, if you've read dystopias like 1984 or simply read history, you know that a government can become too powerful because of the people's consent (prime example: Germany after WWI). Conspiracy theorists tend to come off as nuts, even if correct, especially if it's about race (there was once a conspiracy theory that the KFC was trying to sterilize black people) or the wickedness of the government. Also, just to add fuel to the fire, even democratic countries have struggles with the press. Some argue that unbridled freedom of the press gives our enemies too much information, thus the government should do its best to hide and/or censor what could be a threat to national security; others say that an open government has the greatest connection to its people, and that the press is capable of discretion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

1b) Sure, but I mean like if someone's entirely capable of raising a kid but for whatever reason they're legally insane, then it's not really fair. 1c) Being any of the things you listed doesn't mean someone's incapable of raising a kid. It might be a hindrance in one respect or another, but if the committee decides it's bad, that would be entirely messed up. And people would throw a fit. 2) Cigarettes are a different story - it's not like the government was making us smoke them. The people who wouldn't care about being infertile are the ones who didn't want kids in the first place, ever, and they're a minority. And about vaccinations - I don't live in the States anymore, but my mom doesn't trust vaccinations and I'm sure she's not alone. Even if sterilization does go unnoticed until it's too late, the populace would make a huge fuss when it is noticed. 3) I know human trafficking is still quite up and about, but not about virginity checks in Egypt. o_O

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But something like the sterilization of an entire country - that would be huge and noticed. 4) I'm not saying you think it would or should happen. It's just interesting to talk about. :D It'd be a horrible world if it happened though. ...Wait, let me correct that. It'd be a -worse- world if it happened. 5) I'm like an anti-history buff. My knowledge is sorely lacking. And not that I want to only look at America, but I don't suppose we could go through every kind of government and think about how the sterilization thing would go over. Not to mention I keep forgetting how any other kind of government really works, so... A dictatorship would be easy to figure out I suppose, but other than that... About the press - both are good points, but what's your point?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My points: 1) If a committee, council, or other group of elected officials gains enough power, it doesn't matter how much people protest. The committee has the backing of the government and the powers that support it (i.e. the army, the police, etc). Democracy may be the best governing system so far, but it still has its flaws. Again, the prime example would be Nazi Germany, but for more recent examples, pretty much just search "corruption". 2) I don't know about you, but I got vaccinated as a baby. Even if the entire population didn't get vaccinated, the number of births would drop dramatically, and, depending on how long it would take to be discovered, could be sufficient to implement such a pay-to-breed program within a few generations. Eventually those who can still make kids on their own would be too old to do so and all those vaccinated as a baby (some vaccinations are already manditory) would have no choice.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

3) Again, noticed doesn't mean dealt with. Maybe they'd notice in a developed country, but developing nations or even ones where citizens are, for lack of a better term, "civil" about their democracy. America and more recently the Middle East are very vocal. You rarely hear about riots in Scandinavia or small islands. 4) Good. We're talking about plausibility though, and your view seems much more optimistic, which seems to be the cause of our miscommunication. 5) You keep saying that people will fuss, sue the government, etc., and what you seem to imply is that the program would shut down, measures would be taken against it, and/or the government officials responsible would be removed (as would be the logical conclusion to your argument). I'm saying, maybe not. You don't win every case. There's probably a lot of stuff we don't know. People are hired to do studies (no one hired, no information uncovered). People are paid to be silenced.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I have ...no argument. Whatsoever.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My main problem with this is that people would then feel completely free to have sex, no matter the age or circumstances. Pregnancy risk doesn't always keep people (teens, etc) from having sex, but it definitely has a fear factor. Without that, more and more people would sleep around and STDs would become a seriously huge epidemic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree. I don't think the world would turn into a massive orgy. And world wide, STD's are a huge epidemic. As long as we focus on teaching the importance of being safe and responsible I don't see how people have sex is a problem, especially without pregnancy being an issue. Also I don't think the age or circumstances in which people would participate in sexual activities would be any different than they are now.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*having

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Thank you for posting this amirite and all of your insights and opinions. This is a really interesting discussion and I enjoy mulling over it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

crazy you are

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My thoughts are similar but may be viewed as cruel. I think natural selection is important. First of all, you should only be having kids if you are proved as able to provide for them. If you're starving in a third world country and have AIDS, you shouldn't be having kids. Next, screw the people on welfare, the people on life support. We don't need leeches. We can't move forward if we are being held back, can we?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I see what you mean, but I disagree on natural selection being important. The problem with natural selection is that the genes that are necessary for survival at that time are what progress and genes that aren't are more likely to be lost. Say, for example, a new sort of plague ravaged mankind and medicine couldn't keep up. Those resistant, live; those susceptible, perish. If a new epidemic comes along and the genes that would have made us resistant to it are lost because those who had them perished in the last plague, there goes humanity. Leeches can save your life... I wouldn't say the poor are holding us back, nor would I say that starving are. It's been said before, and I'll repeat it: we're too good at surviving. If you live in North America, you know we have a surplus of food and a lot of other commodities, and it's killing us. It would be smart to relocate our surplus to those with a deficit to equalize the equation.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

1. We're not even close to overpopulation. You could put all 6+ billion people in Texas with the population density of New York City, and provide for them with the United States' farmland alone. (http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50) Maybe centuries in the future, when the earth nears its carrying capacity, we could discuss encouragement of smaller families, but for now, it's completely unnecessary. The problem is distribution of our resources, not a shortage of them. 2. Having some bureaucracy decide what couples are fit to raise children would lead to rampant discrimination and corruption. 3. Procreation is a gift (some believe a God-given one) that we should never outlaw because it is fundamentally good. Are not children one of the few innocent joys in our world? What would it be like if we only saw a handful of children every month? It would be a depressing world, I think.

by Anonymous 12 years ago