Quote from: James McMurrayThat's not a list of middle class values,. not even close. Instead it's another assignment of values to people based on their economic standing. Would you say that all blacks or all Australians hold a vertain set of values, or is it only ok when you pick the group to stereotype?

Are we offended? Don't you want to be middle-class?

I don't mind being middle class, although I'd love to move up. I do mind being told what my values are by someone that won't even back the statement up.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't mind being middle class, although I'd love to move up. I do mind being told what my values are by someone that won't even back the statement up.

What? I analysed what you said. Are you retracting it?

You told me I identify with the Middle class. I said I didn't realize that, could you prove it to me? You responded without a list of middle class values. How does your inability to back your claims up equate to me retracting mine?

Did you get mad that the psychoanalysing of JimBob seemed to fail and decide to come value analyze me instead? If so, do it, don't just make a claim without the ability to back it up.

Here, I'll start easy. You supposedly know what my values are, so tell me: am I Republican or Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? Where do I stand on abortion, gun control, or that big fence they want to build in Texas?

If you can answer those correctly we'll talk a bit more. Who knows, maybe you are a master at knowing people based on a smattering of internet contact. If so, great, teach me. If not, quit making a fool of yourself pretending that you are. That is, unless you enjoy being laughed at.

Quote from: James McMurrayYIf you can answer those correctly we'll talk a bit more. Who knows, maybe you are a master at knowing people based on a smattering of internet contact. If so, great, teach me. If not, quit making a fool of yourself pretending that you are. That is, unless you enjoy being laughed at.

I didn't tell you what your values were; you told me what your values were. Laugh away.

I still think I've got JB pegged, by the way.

[Oh, and James? I've announced my political ideology loud and clear for those with the eyes to see it. Would you like to give me an analysis?]

Pegged? Dare I ask? [Edit: figured it out - first I thought we were talking about the topic of the thread, since droog had responded to my post, more or less]

No, I am not in favour of directly restricting anyone's right to bear children. Indirect restrictions like, "well you're in prison so no you can't have sex with your spouse, and no you can't have IVF," are fine.

If you want the birth rate to drop, improve women's education. It's the only method that's been consistently successful across entire societies. Of course, once the women start getting social and political power to go with that education, the birth rate rises again, as we're seeing in Scandavia. But I don't imagine that's really entered the minds of those posting to the thread in support of reducing birth rates.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAcross the street, there's a family of home-schooling, flag-waving, born-again Christians.  They just had their seventh child.  My wife and I both thought that was ethically wrong and selfish of them.  [...]  Our neighbors across the street, we're pretty sure, are motivated by religious and political goals to outbreed their competitors.

So, tell me this.  Whose children are going to inherit the Earth?

Quote from: JimBobOzOf course, once the women start getting social and political power to go with that education, the birth rate rises again, as we're seeing in Scandavia. But I don't imagine that's really entered the minds of those posting to the thread in support of reducing birth rates.

What percentage of those children are born to immigrants at the lowest levels of Scandinavian society?

Consider, for example, this article:

"About 40 percent of Malmo's population is foreign-born or has at least one foreign-born parent. The bulk of foreign-born people come from the former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. Among school-age children, 50 percent have at least one foreign-born parent, and analysts project that the number will soon reach 60 percent."

"But Sweden's quiet transformation has not been without problems. In Malmo, the biggest problem is unemployment. In Rosengard, the most heavily immigrant district of Malmo, the unemployment rate is around 65 percent, said Jahangir Hosseinkhah, division head of the district's employment and training office, and an ethnic Azerbaijani who emigrated from Iran."

I'm aware that a substantial part of the Scandavian birth rate has been from immigrants; but a significant part has been from Scandanavian-born women.

It now appears that as women's education level increases, the birth rate drops; but when their social and political power comes to match their education at a high level, the birth rate rises again.

When they have no education and no power (as for example, immigrants from African countries), they have lots of children; when they have lots of education and relatively low political power, they have few children (as for example, women in Japan); when they have both education and power, they have a medium number of children (as for example in Sweden).

It varies from country to country and even more between individuals, but those are the broad trends across the world.

Just as educating young people about condoms lowers the abortion rate much more effectively than waving placards at them outside abortion clinics, so too does giving girls a good general education lower the birth rate very effectively, since mass sterilisation, putting aside its gross immorality and vileness, could only be carried out in a totalitarian state (for example, China).

Quote from: James McMurrayLike I've said several times, I don't have a working model. I'm not qualified to create one. I would support a working model, created by someone who is qualified. And no, I don't know who that is.

I'll volunteer, [understatement]though I suspect it may not be politically feasible[/understatement].

The goal is to reduce the world population* without the intervention of the Four Horsemen, or their new Squires pollution, ecological collapse, climate change and economic collapse. (Sooner or later Malthus will be right, and he only has to be right once.) Success in this endeavor will reduce stress on both the planetary ecosystem and on political systems.

Note: this will put considerable strain on economies built on expansion and growth; economic practices to manage shrinking economies while maintaining living standards will need to be developed. [understatement]I suspect this will be a challenge.[/understatement]


The Program:

1. Reliable, reversible, "sterilization". At least all females, but preferably all humans.

2. Sterilization to be carried out before puberty, say age 10.

3. Each female (but not males; her body, her rules) will get one reproductive chit, entitling her to one child. If said child dies before the age or 1 (or 2, or 3, or something like that), she may have another.

4. Said chit may only be used after the age of 25. (That's enough time to finish growing up and get established in a career. Not everyone will, but it's a useful ballpark figure.)

5. If males are also sterilized, the female will designate which male is to be unsterilized for purposes of reproduction.

6. If the restrictions are circumvented (black market unsterilizations), both parents will lose all parental rights and be permenantly sterilized [sarcasm]hysterectomies and castrations would probably be going too far[/sarcasm], and all children will be removed and placed with other families.

7. When population levels drop within the goal interval*, each female will get an additional chit to bring her total to two. Should additional children be required to maintain population levels within the desired population interval, any female wanting children after giving birth to two will be eligible to enter a reproductive lottery. Should the total population exceed the goal interval, back to step 3 until it again drops within the goal interval.

Optional, but recommended in spite of the fact they would be even more politically unfeasible:

8. Reproductive rights will be permenantly denied to anyone (this is another reason it's necessary to be able to "sterilize" males as well) who would have succumbed to any medical condition (excepting trauma), without medical intervention, before reaching reproductive age, namely 25, or at any time thereafter prior to wishing to reproduce. This should improve the overall health of the population, and would reverse the at present unregulated medical experiment in which historically unfit individuals (namely those who would have succumbed to childhood and young adult diseases and medical conditions, for example me) are able to reproduce. Medical advances, including genetic engineering, may make this requirement superfluous.

9. With the passage of time, the minimum age may be increased. This should improve longevity, although medical advances may also make this superflous.



*I'd guess 800 million to 1500 million/1.5 billion, but the actual number would need to be above the minimum necessary to support an economy large enough to support a space program large enough to get some people, or at a minimum intelligence** (sentient AIs), off the planet permenantly, and may well be significantly higher.

**(Caveat: this is analogy, not teleology.) Life wants to spread, so it covers the earth. It now needs to get off the planet to spread, so it "invents" intelligence. Intelligent life may enable life to spread off the planet and out of the system. It may also invent machine intelligence, which can "survive" in conditions hostile to life, and more easily spread off the planet and out of the system. Either option is fine with me, but I suspect it will be both, separately and/or in hybrid form, or neither.

Serious problem, apparition...

by disenfranchising males you reduce them to second class citizens. Presumably, the goal for all humanity is that we are all legally equal.

Women get chits, men do not. Women decide which males get to breed, men have apparently no say.

Next, suggest that population can be controlled by simply reducing men to subliterate cattle working in menial jobs why don't ya :rolleyes:


Or to phrase it similar to how you did (her body, her choice)

For men: His sperm, his choice.  Or rather, his genetic data, his choice.  This, by the way, gives each member of a couple a chit, and thus you get two children per pairing, making for a very slow decline in population, rather than the more drastic generational halving on one chit per couple, thus less need for corrective lotteries.

Of course, if you just reduced all of humanity to the level of beasts, I'm reasonably certain the world adn species would survive reasonably well for as long as the sun holds out, some few hundred billion years.  It's not very ennobling, but it's proven reasonably effective until you introduce an immature, but very clever 'sentient' species into the environment.

QuoteI didn't tell you what your values were; you told me what your values were.

QuoteSpike and James are just hegemonised, Garry. They see themselves as middle-class and they identify with the values thereof.

Liar.

-------

Lowering world population is only part of the goal. The other part is to avoid the suffering of children by not allowing people to have them that will mistreat them.

QuoteOf course, if you just reduced all of humanity to the level of beasts, I'm reasonably certain the world adn species would survive reasonably well for as long as the sun holds out, some few hundred billion years. It's not very ennobling, but it's proven reasonably effective until you introduce an immature, but very clever 'sentient' species into the environment.

It'd be even safer for us if we were reduced to a herd beast and used as a primary source of meat by a larger species. Look at cows. Those things are stupid as hell, but they'll flourish across the globe as long as man is alive.

Well...

Apparently in my lack of whatever it is you guys have that I don't, I missed out that you seperate society into more than three classes (rich, poor, in the middle) into at least four (rich, poor, middle, and working).

Since that is the case, I must hang my head low, suggest that my eductational background and income puts me solidly into the working class.

I'm not exactly sure what my values should be since no one ever handed my a cheat sheet to follow, but I gathered here that at least one poster thinks that a solid work ethic is a bad thing. :rolleyes:

I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between middle, working, and poor. Sure, I know where middle and poor fit, but what about working? Are those the poor people with jobs, the middle class people that have to sweat at their jobs, or what?

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not entirely sure what the difference is between middle, working, and poor. Sure, I know where middle and poor fit, but what about working? Are those the poor people with jobs, the middle class people that have to sweat at their jobs, or what?

Would "white collar", "blue collar" and "underclass" be better labels?