Mantisdreamz wrote:

amorrow wrote:

Mantisdreamz wrote:What if someone won the lottery, in that they were able to give birth to a child - but didn't want to have a child? Could they pass their privilege onto someone who did?

This isn't me fancied with the idea. Just questioning.

Lots of fertile people are going to be voluntarily childless with our without ILS. I think you would need an actuary to attempt to evaluate the real contribution of volunteers who want to transfer such credit because the goal is to control overall population. The unit of measure here is infant sterilization (IS) because, while it sounds harsh, that is the natural unit of measure of effectiveness - a "unit of currency" if you will. If someone wanted to try to volunteer, I would imagine that what would be required is that they actually surrender their fertility by getting sterilized. A childless female at aged in her mid-40's would probably count for about 1/5 of an IS. Using that as a working value, you would need five such females to get sterilized to have the same effect as sterilizing that one infant. Once you allow for such transfers, you also have to take steps to ensure that money does not corrupt the process very much. If the expected infant only got three such females to volunteer, then the infant would still be subject to the lottery, but with a lesser chance of "winning the lottery". Even if five such volunteers stepped up, you might want each contribution to shift the odds by a fraction of a standard deviation rather than a linear amount (so that each infant would always have some chance to win the lottery). The actuaries and regulators can figure out the most workable schemes. The point is the reach the population targets on schedule and to prevent money or such from completely corrupting the system.

I don't see how money could not corrupt the system. I think it will. Bringing about feelings of helplessness for many individuals.

How is it that some U.S. States run these vile lotteries for cash are not accused every day of somehow running an authentically crooked operation? Such practices do endorse the vice of gambling, and typically are a poor,dumb man's tax, but up front, they declare that the operation's purpose is to make money for the State. They take measures to ensure that they lottery is honest: they have demonstrably trustworthy people running the operation. I mean, it is not as if only the governor's daughter wins lottery, right? They have a plastic box with ping-pong balls so that everyone can see the process and have some faith than it is a not cheat. Otherwise, they would just have a computer decide who wins and everyone would lose trust in the system. We are stuck but we are not helpless.

We are stuck on a finite planet but we has the potential to watch world population grow exponentially with dire consequences in terms of human suffering for almost everyone except the very wealthy. An operational ILS would have to be treated as (apologies for the choice of words) sacred. The infants of the leadership and the wealthy would have to be subject to the lottery just like everyone else. Mutual trust and cooperation is required. Recognizing such might bring on a tinge of helplessness, but I do not see how to solve that. Sadder but wiser, or whatever.

The sticking point for me is that you are suggesting a move that people have no say in and may be unwilling to participate in. The required political and social changes to enact such a move are simply totalitarian in nature and completely against my sense of right and wrong.

I would fully support you educating people about the dangers of overpopulation and about safe, cheap and effective contraception, but your "ILS" is frankly an abhorrent concept to me. I see it on a moral par with the suggestion that we should nuke several overpopulated countries or introduce a military grade biological weapon into the population to thin it out. It reminds me of the Tom Clancy novel, Rainbow Six.

Durro wrote:The sticking point for me is that you are suggesting a move that people have no say in and may be unwilling to participate in. The required political and social changes to enact such a move are simply totalitarian in nature and completely against my sense of right and wrong.

I would fully support you educating people about the dangers of overpopulation and about safe, cheap and effective contraception, but your "ILS" is frankly an abhorrent concept to me. I see it on a moral par with the suggestion that we should nuke several overpopulated countries or introduce a military grade biological weapon into the population to thin it out. It reminds me of the Tom Clancy novel, Rainbow Six.

I do not attempt to dress it up to the point of deception: it is fertility fascism, but it can work even in a highly admirable democracy. On the other hand, it is powerful and the temptation will always be there to attempt to abuse it. Honestly, I expect it to be tried first in some near-despotic counties, but I imagine that the despot would be assassinated if s/he tried to get away with giving their own offspring an exemption from the lottery or otherwise attempting to abuse it in some coercive way to achieve ends other than promoting good citizenship. My other consideration is that it would institutionalize a two-class society and that you might have to give the "lottery winners" some form of extra political power and even some form of access to the children of others and some form of authority involving the values instilled in the next generation. I do not make such considerations because I feel sorry for the lottery "winners" but simply because it would help to stabilize and entrench an ILS system. ILS has to be treated as sacred. It has to be viewed like a exit door latch on a jumbo jet: *nobody* gets to carelessly screw with it once it is in place and working properly. I have to admit that ILS sort-of becomes a new form of religion and you might find that irksome, but I suggest that the only thing it should be married to is good citizenship. That is the best I can think of when it comes to trying to provide a future that is as optimistic as is suggested by the high quality of life that we have enjoyed. My point is: we have had it really good and it is difficult to try to ensure that such lasts for a many more generations.

amorrow wrote:

Mantisdreamz wrote:

amorrow wrote:
I don't see how money could not corrupt the system. I think it will. Bringing about feelings of helplessness for many individuals.

How is it that some U.S. States run these vile lotteries for cash are not accused every day of somehow running an authentically crooked operation? Such practices do endorse the vice of gambling, and typically are a poor,dumb man's tax, but up front, they declare that the operation's purpose is to make money for the State. They take measures to ensure that they lottery is honest: they have demonstrably trustworthy people running the operation. I mean, it is not as if only the governor's daughter wins lottery, right? They have a plastic box with ping-pong balls so that everyone can see the process and have some faith than it is a not cheat. Otherwise, they would just have a computer decide who wins and everyone would lose trust in the system. We are stuck but we are not helpless.

We are stuck on a finite planet but we has the potential to watch world population grow exponentially with dire consequences in terms of human suffering for almost everyone except the very wealthy. An operational ILS would have to be treated as (apologies for the choice of words) sacred. The infants of the leadership and the wealthy would have to be subject to the lottery just like everyone else. Mutual trust and cooperation is required. Recognizing such might bring on a tinge of helplessness, but I do not see how to solve that. Sadder but wiser, or whatever.

That's different though. People maybe who are in need of money may be the ones who typically play the lottery. This lottery you are speaking of is a lottery of the ability to give birth or not. This is not a typical 'lottery' as the one in which people play in order for a chance to win money. People are playing for the chance of the chance to give life. People of higher stature with a bit of money in their pockets will negotiate their 'earnings' with whoever is responsible for this system. That's what I mean about how money will corrupt the system.

You say there will be mutual trust. Well, I barely trust the operations/governmental system as it is now. I'm not paranoid or anything, but - I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and this idea will only further add to shady operations within those we think we can trust. Or, it is at least very probable that it could be corrupted in some way.

Not too mention what Durro stated. How is it that people will come to an agreeance on this sort of thing? Maybe it's not taking away a very essential part of your existence - the ability to have children - but for some, it may be their whole life.

That's pretty much what any real solution to the problem must be like. Taking the population down far enough fast enough can only be done by methods that everybody thinks are horrible as you say. Any method that isn't horrible like that just won't be effective enough at actually getting the population down.

Delvo wrote:That's pretty much what any real solution to the problem must be like. Taking the population down far enough fast enough can only be done by methods that everybody thinks are horrible as you say. Any method that isn't horrible like that just won't be effective enough at actually getting the population down.

Bingo. Bravo.

In the shuffling madness of the locomotive breath,
Runs the all-time loser, headlong to his death.
He feels the piston scraping, steam breaking on his brow --
Old Charlie stole the handle and the train won't stop going --
No way to slow down

I am trying to give you an idea of what that vista is going to look like when we finally make it to the pass. We must find the pathway. We must find the pathway.

Mine may well be an unpopular concept too, but I advocate suicide as a solution. All those who are so concerned about the level of human population that they feel the need to dream up and then suggest solutions, at great length I might add, which impinge on the rights of innocents but would presumably be of no concern to themselves, they being well beyond the age at which the measures are recommended for implementation, should be reminded that they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and to demonstrate that they are not being passive and simply passing the buck.

Self-immoliation is a spectacular way to make a point.

Australia had a population spike after World War 2 - the so called Baby Boomer generation that was born between 1945 and 1964. We now have the problem that since then, our birth rates have declined and Australia is not growing in population fast enough. When the Baby Boomers retire, there may be more retirees than workers to support them. So, we actually need to either increase our birth rates or dramatically increase immigration for young, skilled workers, or else we face economic ruin in the next 10 to 20 years.

How does that fit in with the mandatory sterilization via lottery thing ? Our government was actually giving tax incentives for people to have babies - the "baby bonus" of $3000 for each child born after a certain date.

Our government does the opposite thing, Pays for ligation/vasectomies. But the amount is pretty low, roughly $22 for men and $8 for women, IIRC (USD).

Yeah, but you have nearly a billion people in a country less than half the size of ours while we have a population of just over 21 million. Your military is probably bigger than our entire population. And no, don't get any ideas...

We are still sorting out our plans of colonisation! Now I know where to start!

Don't joke.



Actually, forget Australia. We have a defence treaty with the USA and a capable deterrent force that would bloody the nose of any invasion. But New Zealand however....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo6fgZ-dbOw[/youtube]

And if those bloody kiwis turn out to be anywhere near as dumb and defenseless as those dodos!

amorrow wrote:

Delvo wrote:That's pretty much what any real solution to the problem must be like. Taking the population down far enough fast enough can only be done by methods that everybody thinks are horrible as you say. Any method that isn't horrible like that just won't be effective enough at actually getting the population down.

Bingo. Bravo.

In the shuffling madness of the locomotive breath,
Runs the all-time loser, headlong to his death.
He feels the piston scraping, steam breaking on his brow --
Old Charlie stole the handle and the train won't stop going --
No way to slow down
I am trying to give you an idea of what that vista is going to look like when we finally make it to the pass. We must find the pathway. We must find the pathway.

Are you suggesting we should all wear aqualungs and live underwater to solve the population crisis?

Doubtdispelled wrote:Mine may well be an unpopular concept too, but I advocate suicide as a solution. All those who are so concerned about the level of human population that they feel the need to dream up and then suggest solutions, at great length I might add, which impinge on the rights of innocents but would presumably be of no concern to themselves, they being well beyond the age at which the measures are recommended for implementation, should be reminded that they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and to demonstrate that they are not being passive and simply passing the buck.

Self-immoliation is a spectacular way to make a point.

This other fresh thread in the Philosophy forum uses the phrase "voluntary euthanasia". I will not elaborate here because, by its nature, the kind of caring, professional ILS that future obstetricians and police I predict are going to implement has a surprisingly large number of spiritual and social implications. My book at my web site is at a hundred pages and growing.

Scott H wrote:It should be obvious to a non-Christian that people are suffering everywhere. People with deformities, mental illnesses, handicaps, unattractive features, speech problems, and a host of other offensive or debilitating traits are being locked in hospitals, and some are turning to violent crime and suicide.

If, for one reason or another, whether it be a self-conscious awareness of an offending trait, a compassion for others, or even just an unbearable torment, one would rather choose not to live, why not give him/her the option of leaving the world painlessly? The heartbroken, for instance: if there is such agony in being single and lonely, then why should one be made to endure it?

I have grown to suspect that the common argument that individual's lives are precious and sanctified is nothing but hogwash, a lie intended to cover up the true motivation of doctors, psychiatrists, and other providers of health care services, as well as that of the more sadistic among the American public, which includes the desire to dominate, humiliate, defeat, manipulate, and make a mockery of a suffering citizen. The forbidding of voluntary euthanasia, in this case, is merely a way to master-whip people into getting them to do what you want, justified by no moral pretense to the 'sanctity of life' but rather an instrument of pure greed, a new form of slavery.

I am therefore issuing a challenge: name the one soundest objection to voluntary euthanasia. If our life isn't precious to us, why can't we end it?

Durro wrote:Australia had a population spike after World War 2 - the so called Baby Boomer generation that was born between 1945 and 1964. We now have the problem that since then, our birth rates have declined and Australia is not growing in population fast enough. When the Baby Boomers retire, there may be more retirees than workers to support them. So, we actually need to either increase our birth rates or dramatically increase immigration for young, skilled workers, or else we face economic ruin in the next 10 to 20 years.

How does that fit in with the mandatory sterilization via lottery thing ? Our government was actually giving tax incentives for people to have babies - the "baby bonus" of $3000 for each child born after a certain date.

Money is a short-term device that deals with short-term issues of the orderly and fair distribution of goods and services (or perhaps if you are talking about wealth (re)distribution). When was the last time you heard of money fixing a 100-year or otherwise multi-generational problem in human civilization? Yes, I understand that successful campaigns, winning wars and comfortable retirements require money. One of my points is that when it comes to Good Earth Stewardship (i.e. proper stewardship for all of humanity at a multi-generational time scale), the unit of measure until further notice is not the dollar; it is the Infantile Sterilization. The IS can suffer inflation as well: an IS on at 20 billion person planet is probably worth less than an IS on a 2 billion person planet because on that 20 billion person planet, the poor are dumb, live their lives and are forgotten (perhaps as soon as 10 minutes after they are dead) and the dirt poor and dumb are practically rolling around in their own excrement. OK, maybe that is a bit more obvious for the 50 billion version, but you get the idea. Your justification for letting the planet slop its way into overpopulation is some pathetic, short-term economic excuse? In most aspects, what I expect your idea of an "ideal" economy mostly accelerates the rate at which we burn up our non-renewable resources. Money is just an invention of Man. In some ways, money just helps us to pig out on the non-renewable components of the Lebensraum as if there was no tomorrow. *That* is not Good Earth Stewardship. That is not caring *enough* about entire future generations (and I do not really want to hear about your specific progeny all the money you are gonna leave them). Money is not to put more petroleum or vital ores back in the reserves. You have the talent: get real. Set issues of money aside and get real.

When I recognized the value of the concept of IS, I was excited. I knew it mattered. Future generations will be empowered to make US dollar vs. IS decisions. Those will be better-informed decisions because proper pedagogy and correct terminology brings prompt clarity to the issues at hand. I am not promoting the notion of IS to the mean or to be some kind of bully. I care. Please let us get back to the issue of a really nice version of effective population control without pipe dreams. I do not want to leave any room on this particular chessboard for sophmoric BS. I do not live long enough to bicker over such trifles and neither do you, I would expect. I want clarity and mastery and wise decisions that future generations will be proud of. There may be Great Depressions in our future, or at least some economics fluctuations. Feh. The Correct Logic of ILS is the sort of thing that lasting relevance and intellectual immortality is made of. It is the sort of thing that advances human civilization in our time. If you want to make a difference, then let me suggest that you indulge in some unbounded ambition leavened only lightly by your maturity and experience. Such is a proper formula for a possibly lasting relevance. If Dawkins were not so old and wealthy or married or whatever, he might otherwise be ready to publicly acknowledge that my analysis of the situation is correct.

As far as baby bonuses are concerned: Legislators might consider that such measures facilitate good parenting, but as a financial incentive they have the indirect effect of promoting reproduction. It is a trade-off, but I think that such measures might eventually be discontinued or counter-balanced with a program akin to ILS.

Any sane notions of how much a younger generation is expected to support an older generation should be based on notions of zero population growth. in times of shrinking population... well, tough.

I take it, Morrow, you don't understand the concept of irony?

Ah, no. I just spotted your flag.

Doubtdispelled wrote:I take it, Morrow, you don't understand the concept of irony?

Ah, no. I just spotted your flag.

I recognized the irony but I thought that the coincidence of the other thread (which I assume is sincere) was also amusing.

Durro wrote:Yeah, but you have nearly a billion people in a country less than half the size of ours while we have a population of just over 21 million. Your military is probably bigger than our entire population. And no, don't get any ideas...

You probably have noticed by now that I am a typical (white) US citizen and I live in the USA. When I thought of ILS, I acknowledge that I was influenced by the real benefits of China's one-child policy but I felt that what might make the system more flexible was to see what American structures could be blended into it. As far as China itself goes, I am not here to offer it advice because they tend not to appreciate such. An approach more similar to a one-child policy would have been to simply have an adjustable value so that, say you have a "1.2 child policy" and a lottery per family to see who gets the extra child, but I thought to myself that you can play a lot of games with what the notion of "family" means (e.g. divorced man with one child re-marries a childless woman. Do that get to have a child or no?...). The other thought was that measuring the ecological burden per person misses the important fact that how many children you have is probably the most important single decision one makes about the significances of how one's life impacts the non-renewable resources. My mind then happened to drift over to the local animal control center and it all just came together in my mind. It occurred to me that the reason that people would resist ILS is highly analogous to the reasons they resisted evolution: it is highly objectifying and a blow to irrational aspects of our ego. At that point, I knew I was on the right track and I have been building upon the idea from a godless pragmatic American perspective.

redwhine wrote:

amorrow wrote:

Delvo wrote:That's pretty much what any real solution to the problem must be like. Taking the population down far enough fast enough can only be done by methods that everybody thinks are horrible as you say. Any method that isn't horrible like that just won't be effective enough at actually getting the population down.

Bingo. Bravo.

In the shuffling madness of the locomotive breath,
Runs the all-time loser, headlong to his death.
He feels the piston scraping, steam breaking on his brow --
Old Charlie stole the handle and the train won't stop going --
No way to slow down
I am trying to give you an idea of what that vista is going to look like when we finally make it to the pass. We must find the pathway. We must find the pathway.

Are you suggesting we should all wear aqualungs and live underwater to solve the population crisis?

Yeah, well, I never really go into smilies. Obviously, "Locomotive Breath" is a classic that asks the listener to engage a few minutes of "sense of urgency".