Eugenics and sterilization[edit source]
I'm unsure about the focus on eugenics and sterilization. There are certainly dangers in it, as we've seen in history with forced sterilization used in various parts of the world by oppressive governments; I'm also unconvinced of the ethics or effectiveness of eugenics, even if carried out with the best of intentions.
Btw, is this all your own work? I'm aware you've been doing a lot of work on this for a long time. --Chriswaterguy 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you are referring to PR China with oppressive governments (which did btw not introduce eugenics nor sterilisation, see furtherup); indeed some atrocities have happened because of the introduction of the "one child policy" However rather than that these atrocities were committed "because of" (signifying a necessity), I actually see them having happened because the citizens did not introduce sterilization (meaning that if it was, it wouldn't of happened). The Chinese approach was a bit similar to the Pope saying that the battle to AIDS needs to be fought with abstinence. This is obviously not the way to go. However, aldough slightly relevant to sterilisation, the focus of this article was to give a deeper understanding on the measures we should take when we introduce it on a large scale (nation-wide or globally; of which the latter is a necessity in order to build a sustainable economy). The idea here is that a balance needs to be found between sterlisation as well as continued propogation (in order to not reduce the population completely so that it extincts). However, the latter is (as we already currently need to decrease the population with 300%) best done by selecting the people that have the best charisteristics (this improving the genetic makeup meaning reduced susceptibility to disease, ...) Regarding its effectiveness, there really isn't any doubt this will work. This, as selective propogation is inherent to nature itself and has existed since millions of years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection ).
- Regarding the second question, indeed it is all my work, and had already been posted some time now at wikiversity. However, I do believe that it will be more read here and giving that the highest population growth is in the third world (btw with the highest degree of teen pregnancies), and as this population growth cuts away all advantages of humanitarian aid, as well as nullifies the advantage of any single humanitarian project, I am guessing that inclusion of my text here at Appropedia, in health care (where it belongs) will have a greater effect and may be vital to humanitarian aid in the future (as many projects haven't even implemented it yet, and certainly not on the way I'm proposing.
- 220.127.116.11 08:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very quick thoughts (friends & food are waiting). Re effectiveness, there's no question in my mind that eugenics will work if we can selectively breed people the same way humans have bred livestock and plants - but I can't conceive of any way to do this which respects people's rights.
- Look into Kerala and compare their achievements in reduction of population growth with China's. There's much more to study as well - e.g. why Europe's growth rate has plummeted.
- Re necessity, it's a question of population times resource use. At the moment, it's the smaller wealthier portion of the world that is using most of the resources. And the necessity is to reduce resource use extremely quickly, and I don't know if it's conceivable for reductions in population growth to make a huge difference - whereas other things I believe can achieve that (major changes in focus in where we put our efforts and money, towards renewable energy and demand management).
- This is an interesting discussion, and I'd like to turn some of it into an article page.
- Thanks for clarifying the authorship. Just trying to keep track of which documents are being ported and which are original.
- I'll come back to this conversation later. --Chriswaterguy 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here is an interesting article that more closely mirrors my thoughts on population versus impact. --Lonny 09:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding people's rights: I do not dispute the fact that indeed some of our priviliges will need to be given up. However, as with everything in nature, everything can be considered as a tradeof; in this case giving up some priviliges to ensure that everyone is able to have a comparable level of comfort and to ensure the continuation of other species aswell. At the moment, I would no longer talk of a human right however; I consider human propogation to no longer be a human right, as we passed (since some time) the tresshold of 2 billion people (the amount of people the planet can support). An annoyancy here is indeed that is not yet regarded in this manner, and that it eg is also taken up without conditions in the human rights charter (which is now being implemented in practice in the EU due to the Lisbon-treaty). So regarding the breaching of people's rights: I do not think this is done.
- Regarding necessity; indeed implementing population control will not provide quick changes (aldough this must be taken in perspective; eg in the developing world people generally grow less old and the 'refresh rate' is thus much quicker here.) However, aldough it will not give a "quick fix" regarding the decrease of population, this is a bit outside of the point; AT simply targets to implement the most suitable approaches/technology on all areas. In addition, aldough it doesn't have a great benefit to decrease the already existing population, not implementing it does have a great negative effect as not implementing it does allow to increase the population very quickly (and add allot more additional strain); eg such as when we eliminate other population controlling factors as with development/AT projects. Thus, even if one disagrees with the implementation on a large scale (as I suggested in my writings at my blogspot page), population control cannot simply be dismissed in development projects, as this would be something like mobbing the floor with the tap open.
- If with necessity, you were referring to providing a quick fix regarding the reducing of greenhouse gas emissions (not quite clear in text), I must stress that population control is not completely intented for this, aldough it does play a role in combating it (I mentioned this too on my talk page regarding the population growth page). The explaination is more or less simple; we must find a balance regarding population that the planet can support/sustain (not just regarding greenhouse gas emissions, but also regarding impact on ecosystems, ...). In finding this tresshold, we (or I) looked at the WWF-numbers for a population number that can be sustained by the planet and found that we exceed this by 300-500%; meaning a population decrease of 300% needs to be done (I thus even took the smallest number, arguing that a 200% greenhouse gas reduction can be done with improvements in technology alone, this being the 'error margin').
- Here is an interesting article that more closely mirrors my thoughts on population versus impact. --Lonny 09:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the controversial tag; is this because of the eugenics part or the population control ? I noticed btw that regarding population control some of the issues raised here are actually also relative to population control and ~thus need to be integrated into the population growth page.
- Finally, regarding this topic, I know that I might come over a bit strong at times, but know that no matter what my standpoint regarding this is, I always respect your decision. I only provided these resplies in order to perhaps improve some of the other articles at Appropedia and provide everyone a more wide understanding of the problem and necessairy countermeasures (which need to be done regardless but may or may not come from AT organizations).
KVDP 09:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"Outdenting" my response so the format doesn't get too skinny :-).
Thanks KVDP. Quick initial response: The eugenics is extremely controversial, especially considering the history of it. But restricting people's reproduction is not far behind.
There are a few issues (in addition to the discussion higher up the page):
- Only a minority would contemplate such extreme actions - especially eugenics. Even if you're convinced these are the right steps (and I'm not) I can't see them gaining traction politically. This is an enormous issue - IMO insurmountable.
- These policies would give enormous power to certain decision-makers. Power leads to abuse and corruption.
- With radically improved efficiencies, wiser practices, and new renewable energy tech, I believe we can look forward to a post-scarcity future, i.e. abundance. In which case a population of 6 or even 8 billion will have a tiny impact relative to our current irresponsible lifestyles. Of course that's not to be taken for granted - it does require a serious change of direction, and that's not happening yet.
I really appreciate the discussion, and that you're not forcing your view. What I would like to see is some presentation and analysis of these issues on Appropedia pages, with your arguments, mine, and others. These are tough issues, and important ones - some good analysis will be a valuable contribution to the debate. --Chriswaterguy 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Think about the Principles of development in relation to population growth:
- community participation is front and center - it's something that development organizations have learned and are still learning the hard way.
- dignity of program participants - in this case, the program being global reproductive planning. That article doesn't cover this sort of case, so I don't expect that to convince you, but my belief is that any program that issues commands rather than provides incentives faces big problems.
- incentives in development programs - seems like a good title for an article, though I'm still thinking about what might go in it :-). As I think about population growth and some government policies (e.g. Australian and Singapore governments, and probably many others), the problem is not that their policies aren't effective at stopping population growth. Rather, they are not designed to stop population growth. The incentives are meant to keep the birthrate up, in countries where the birthrate is naturally dropping. While governments offer baby bonuses, there are still many steps that can be taken without getting to enforcement.
- Open information in development - another idea for a title... but in terms of family planning, we are a long way from having open info now, and sex and contraceptive education would be very controversial. In some countries there is not even open access to contraceptives.
And of course the history about what has worked and what hasn't - I have a bit of an idea, but I'd like to see a deeper study.
Ultimately, I believe the most effective ways to reduce population growth probably do not involve enforcement. Getting some clarity now - I just had to think for a while.
Eugenics is perhaps a bit different - but the same problems apply with participation vs enforcement. I'll keep thinking. --Chriswaterguy 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - re "Selection of persons qualified to reproduce"[edit source]
I propose we completely remove sections such as these - most of this page, actually. I consider it completely at odds with effective, participative development as well as respect of human rights - completely unacceptable as an approach to development, and if a government wanted to carry out such policies, I'd not only vote against them but take to the streets in protest (and I'm sure I'd have lots of company, in any democratic country).
These sections are also completely unreferenced, and I don't see any argument for keeping them that's based in real world examples, field experience etc.
However, information on sterilization, including incentives and easing the valid concerns of citizens about sterilization, would be very valuable, IMO. --Chriswaterguy 08:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Re the statement higher on the page, "Regarding people's rights: I do not dispute the fact that indeed some of our priviliges will need to be given up. However, as with everything in nature, everything can be considered as a tradeof;"
Rights cannot be easily traded against theoretical benefits. Force, and the inevitable power it gives to decision-makers, will inevitably lead to corruption.
Population is a problem. Enforced sterilization is not a solution. There are solutions, though - places such as Kerala and Europe lead the world in stopping population growth. --Chriswaterguy 09:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, this page makes me (and certainly countless others) immediately run away from your site. I can't wish any success to a group with such backward ideas. FYI, sexual reproduction is effective because it allows an infinite variation between individuals and thus quick adaptation. Selecting a few reduces the variability, making the group weaker and exposed to unforeseen health/behaviour/mental problems. Who does that selection ? based on what ? Are offsprings killed if the parents are later found to be less than perfect (Cancer, Alzheimer, etc ...) ? Selective breeding in animals make them good at one thing, and weaker in all other aspects.
- Agreed that this is a problem and will turn people off. I've deleted the page since there were no objections. --Chriswaterguy 03:29, 8 January 2011 (PST)