Indiscriminate Copulation and Reproduction, A Standard Of The Species

Huntn

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
1,303
Reaction score
1,665
Inspired from a different thread where native American children we fitted with IUDs. Racial discrimination? Yes, bad, but it got me thinking. Would we be better off controlling out numbers in general?

Seriously? As if enough hasn't already been endured.

I remember reading that in Europe, somewhere in past centuries, you could not get a marriage license until you had the means to support a family. That’s an observation, not necessarily support for the idea without further discussion. :)

I’m starting to think that controlling human reproduction might be a good thing for the human race, but in my fantasy version it would be based on non-racist, universal standards. Possibly IUDs for all children until they progress to a point where they chose to have kids, not as a result of hormones and biological pressure.

But there are kinks in this idea, such as who is in control of such a program and do we prevent poor people from reproducing if they can’t support their children? That comes across as a double penalty for being poor, which also seems like an argument for socialism and against capitalism. However I think we’d be served by not having a bunch of white teens popping out babies out of wedlock, or if you prefer, prior to being in a position to move forward in life independently of their parents support.

I wonder if is this how a substantial chunk of the human race is conceived, based on biologically driven copulation regardless of circumstances vs a specific decision to reproduce. It would not surprise me.
 

Alli

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,145
Reaction score
6,011
It goes against the principles of Catholocism. Birth control = bad.

Personally, I’ve always thought it would be a great idea. Mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when a man can prove he can support a family.

As for Europe, they so seldom get married it’s hardly worth bothering. It’s all family by partnership.
 

Stephen.R

Site Champ
PRSI Banned
Posts
406
Reaction score
587
I’m not sure how big the issue is elsewhere compared to the US. I get the impression that those of a certain view in the US try to limit any access to anything helpful - condoms/the pill/abortions. Am I getting the wrong impression?
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Posts
2,763
Reaction score
5,696
Inspired from a different thread where native American children we fitted with IUDs. Racial discrimination? Yes, bad, but it got me thinking. Would we be better off controlling out numbers in general?


I remember reading that in Europe, somewhere in past centuries, you could not get a marriage license until you had the means to support a family. That’s an observation, not necessarily support for the idea without further discussion. :)

I’m starting to think that controlling human reproduction might be a good thing for the human race, but in my fantasy version it would be based on non-racist, universal standards. Possibly IUDs for all children until they progress to a point where they chose to have kids, not as a result of hormones and biological pressure.

But there are kinks in this idea, such as who is in control of such a program and do we prevent poor people from reproducing if they can’t support their children? That comes across as a double penalty for being poor, which also seems like an argument for socialism and against capitalism. However I think we’d be served by not having a bunch of white teens popping out babies out of wedlock, or if you prefer, prior to being in a position to move forward in life independently of their parents support.

I wonder if is this how a substantial chunk of the human race is conceived, based on biologically driven copulation regardless of circumstances vs a specific decision to reproduce. It would not surprise me.
Reproduction is going down already in many places around the world. China, which tried to control its population with a 1-child rule, is now allowing 3 children.


The move is the Communist Party’s latest attempt to reverse declining birthrates and avert a population crisis, but experts say it is woefully inadequate.
 

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,953
Reaction score
5,671
The key to controlling (i.e. reducing) population growth is to educate girls, or, to ensure the provision of education for women/girls.

Now, this is a long term strategy - in that it will not bear fruit (in socio-economic and cultural terms, which subsequently means also legal and political terms) for a number of decades.

However, the education of women tends to lead to female autonomy, and female economic independence, and, almost invariably, smaller families.

Whenever, and wherever women have a choice, and are able to determine family size - and have access to the means to determine (or limit) family size - in other words, access to safe, affordable, and reliable birth control, the size of families inevitably decreases.

So, the secret is female education, female economic independence and access to safe, affordable,and reliable birth control.

This is something that aid agencies finally (and yes, belatedly) learned, for female education is the key to transformation of a society.

And, in every single society where women have been educated (and have economic autonomy and control over reproduction), birth rates have fallen.

However, it is not a coincidence that far too many of the world's great religions define what they describe as "morality" in terms of control of female sexuality, and female sexual activity.

Likewise, the provision of education for girls: Some years ago, I spent the best part of two years in Afghanistan, as a political counsellor with the EU, and it was only during my time in that country that it dawned on me why some religious authorities are so antagonistic to the very idea of female education.

Prior to that, I had assumed that they (the Taliban, and those who think as they do) were simply traditionally minded troglodytes, illiterate misogynists informed by a primitive worldview, who were rooted in a version and vision of the past, and who were determined to enforce that perspective, irrespective of the cost to their society.

I learned better: In essence, they oppose female education not because their worldview is retrograde, or, rather, not only because their worldview is retrogade, but rather, because they understand that the education of women is exceptionally threatening, for - if implemented, - it will serve to undermine their whole system of authority, privilege and power in their society.
 
Last edited:

P_X

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Site Donor
Posts
2,809
Reaction score
5,122
The key to controlling (i.e. reducing) population growth is to educate girls, or or, the provision of education for women/girls.

Now, this is a long term strategy - in that it will not bear fruit (in socio-economic and cultural terms, which subsequently means also legal and political terms) for a number of decades.

However, the education of women tends to lead to female autonomy, and female economic independence, and, almost invariably, smaller families.

Whenever, and wherever women have a choice, and are able to determine family size - and have access to the means to determine (or limit) family size - in other words, access to safe, affordable, and reliable birth control, the size of families inevitably decreases.

So, the secret is female education, female economic independence and access to safe, affordable,and reliable birth control.

This is something that aid agencies finally learned, for female education is the key to transformation of a society.

And, in every single society where women have been educated (and have economic autonomy and control over reproduction), birth rates have fallen.

However, it is not a coincidence that far too many of the world's great religions define what they describe as "morality" in terms of control of female sexual activity.

Likewise, the provision of education for girls: Some years ago, I spent the best part of two years in Afghanistan, as a political counsellor with the EU, and it was only during my time in that country that it dawned on me why some religious authorities are so antagonistic to the very idea of female education.

Prior to that, I had assumed that they (the Taliban, and those who think as they do) were simply traditionally minded troglodytes, illiterate misogynists informed by a primitive worldview, who were rooted in a version and vision of the past, and who were determined to enforce that perspective, irrespective of the cost to their society.

I learned better: In essence, they oppose female education not because their worldview is retrograde, or, not only because their worldview is retrogade, but rather, because they understand that the education of women is exceptionally threatening, for - if implemented, - it will serve to undermine the whole system of authority, privilege and power of their society.
This. I'll also restate my prime principle on the topic. You want to make society smarter? Educate women. Want to make society at least twice as smart? Start actually listening to women.

It goes against the principles of Catholocism. Birth control = bad.

Personally, I’ve always thought it would be a great idea. Mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when a man can prove he can support a family.

As for Europe, they so seldom get married it’s hardly worth bothering. It’s all family by partnership.
World religions, at least the judeo-coptic ones are pro-proliferation for very good reasons. Prior to the industrial evolution, a nation's GDP / economic viability really depended on human farm labor and that required (hu)manpower, that was fueled by the number of children available. So having large families were critical for success for a nation. If you think about the etymology of the word nation, it comes from the latin word natus, which means born. Concurrently, this is an "evolutionary" advantage for a religion (from this aspect, a religion is like a meme - a self-serving set of information that primarily exists to proliferate), to ensure more followers, and outgrow rival religions. So from that perspective, forbidding relationships that do not bear children makes a strategic sense. This is why I think from many respects, religion may be helpful in a pre-industrial society.

This beneficial role gets reduced once GDP becomes much more dependent on technology in an industrial civilization, and actually reverses (if the ideology is not adjusted) in a society that saturated its natural space in terms of resource utilization. Yet religion could help perpetuate poverty and ensure a steady supply of future followers. The disclaimer is that none of these have to happen, but pre-industrial religious ideologies need to be adjusted to an industrial and then to a post-industrial era. This is where I see a schism with religious fundamentalists and the interests of humanity as a whole.


Inspired from a different thread where native American children we fitted with IUDs. Racial discrimination? Yes, bad, but it got me thinking. Would we be better off controlling out numbers in general?


I remember reading that in Europe, somewhere in past centuries, you could not get a marriage license until you had the means to support a family. That’s an observation, not necessarily support for the idea without further discussion. :)

I’m starting to think that controlling human reproduction might be a good thing for the human race, but in my fantasy version it would be based on non-racist, universal standards. Possibly IUDs for all children until they progress to a point where they chose to have kids, not as a result of hormones and biological pressure.

But there are kinks in this idea, such as who is in control of such a program and do we prevent poor people from reproducing if they can’t support their children? That comes across as a double penalty for being poor, which also seems like an argument for socialism and against capitalism. However I think we’d be served by not having a bunch of white teens popping out babies out of wedlock, or if you prefer, prior to being in a position to move forward in life independently of their parents support.

I wonder if is this how a substantial chunk of the human race is conceived, based on biologically driven copulation regardless of circumstances vs a specific decision to reproduce. It would not surprise me.

The USA has a really disturbing past of white Anglo-Saxon supremacy with its Eugenics movement that also provided some roots to the family planning movement. A critical element is that you cannot provide ethical birth control without adequate sex education. So the latter makes or breaks a system.

One more thing to add is where I grew up, the protonazis in the 1930s dreamt up social darwinist programs where they would force people to marry early and have a lot of kids to outgrow the "undesired" populations with which they've had territorial disputes. It was an insane read especially because a lot of it just really resonated with some of the current fundamentalist ideologies we are dealing with.
 
Last edited:

Huntn

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
1,303
Reaction score
1,665
I’m not sure how big the issue is elsewhere compared to the US. I get the impression that those of a certain view in the US try to limit any access to anything helpful - condoms/the pill/abortions. Am I getting the wrong impression?
Well there are definitely elements based on religion who think it’s our duty to breed like bacteria without thinking what happens to bacteria, it grows until it crashes. Then there are the players, playing those people with a lot of talk about God’s will, protecting fetuses, etc, for their vote, and apparently the religious suckers are either too dim witted to see all the sinning going on, or in the case of Donny Despicable are twisted enough to throw in with Beelzebub to keep something worse form being elected... a Democrat. Now, how this nonsensical logic works, I suspect is Christians who have fallen off the wagon and hit their heads, or they are just generally gullible, stupid, and be easily lead by the nose.
 

Alli

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,145
Reaction score
6,011
I’m not sure how big the issue is elsewhere compared to the US. I get the impression that those of a certain view in the US try to limit any access to anything helpful - condoms/the pill/abortions. Am I getting the wrong impression?
You’ve gotten the right impression.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Posts
2,763
Reaction score
5,696
I’m not sure how big the issue is elsewhere compared to the US. I get the impression that those of a certain view in the US try to limit any access to anything helpful - condoms/the pill/abortions. Am I getting the wrong impression?
Yes, and this stance (IMHO) is all the proof one needs that the opposition to abortion based on the idea that it’s “murder” is utter nonsense. Since they oppose other forms of birth control too, they clearly do not want women to have reproductive rights.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Site Donor
Posts
2,809
Reaction score
5,122
Well there are definitely elements based on religion who think it’s our duty to breed like bacteria without thinking what happens to bacteria, it grows until it crashes. Then there are the players, playing those people with a lot of talk about God’s will, protecting fetuses, etc, for their vote, and apparently the religious suckers are either too dim witted to see all the sinning going on, or in the case of Donny Despicable are twisted enough to throw in with Beelzebub to keep something worse form being elected... a Democrat. Now, how this nonsensical logic works, I suspect is Christians who have fallen off the wagon and hit their heads, or they are just generally gullible, stupid, and be easily lead by the nose.

Bacterial growth curves, indeed great to demonstrate this issue in a tiny scale. On a human scale the petri dish is the entire ecosystem, and we are transitioning from the exponential phase to stationary.
1622588060665.png
 

P_X

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Site Donor
Posts
2,809
Reaction score
5,122
I'll drop this here...Two University of Chicago economists came up with a hypothesis that legalization of abortion played an absolutely crucial role in decline in crime in the USA (and around the world). If I were a law-and-order pro-lifer, I'd find it very important to refute this notion to be able to sleep at night:
Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far.

The estimated coefficient on legalized abortion is actually larger in the latter period than it was in the initial dataset in almost all specifications. We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.

A 2014 paper from Western Europe seems to corroborate these notions.
 
Top Bottom