I am under the impression that a time will come when the human species shall no longer rule this planet, be it from us following the ways of the dinosaurs or the forces of nature becoming overwhelming for our existance.
Now between now and then is there an ideal system that may ensure that the resources are distributed equally, knowledge is dispersed indiscriminately , human life( and animals and fauna, for that matter) span is prolonged (not only for those who are in countries that are more scientifically progressed). What are your take on capitalism, has it failed or has it been abused? Do humans have a better system? Or is this the beginning of the end of the great Homo Sapiens? Should we just embrace what we have and enjoy this life knowing that in a few generations after us there shall be no human life in this planet?
To those who are in the field of science: Is there any hope of human survival even after some great nature disasters that are emminent in the future?
"What evidence supports a conclusion that your regime will reduce birth rates more effectively than existing methods?"
Um, I'm afraid I don't need to waste my time finding "evidence" that sterilization is more effective at preventing unwanted births than ANY other method. Geez. What's your preferred alternative? Voluntary abstinence?
"What are your regime's estimated costs? Who will pay those costs?"
Again, it's patently obvious to the most casual observer that the one-time costs of sterilizing those who WANT to be sterilized anyway would be a whole lot cheaper supporting the unwanted human (very possibly MANY unwanted humans) for several decades (each). In other words the regime would not COST - it would SAVE billions. You might contend that, what if some of these unwanted people were to ADD to the society rather than detracting? I think it's clear that, as things stand, the most productive segments of society need no assistance to limit their progeny. Unwanted births mostly affect those who are too poorly educated or poorly motivated to take charge of their reproductive processes.
Mike, though you protest, you've now given us something to discuss.
Do you want us to accept your regime without evidence? On faith?
Sterilization probably will cost less than supporting unwanted children for several decades.
1. Will it cost less than the other alternatives?
2. Without cost figures your conclusion isn't patently obvious; it requires faith.
There are data in favor of reducing unwanted births, in whatever way this result is achieved. Twenty years after Roe v. Wade, crime decreased. This suggests a link between unwanted births and criminal behavior.
Tom, you act like a true capitalist, through and through. "Cost" appears at least three times in your short screed.
I'm not a government minister looking to implement this as policy. I'm not even a politician trying to work this policy plank into my platform. We are PURELY in the throwing-around-ideas phase. At this stage COST does not even enter into it. It FIRST has to be accepted that it's a good idea. Next I expected comments relating to the morality of the scheme. Then I figured someone might pipe in with health concerns. Then religious and establishment opposition to such an idea.
COST?? It once again has to be explained that money is NEVER the only metric and is SELDOM the most appropriate one at ANY stage of a discussion. Trying to discuss social policy with an arithmetician. Priceless.
Mike, you said no one was willing to discuss.
You did not say no one was willing to brainstorm.
@MikeLong, costs matter, and there are different kinds of costs (like environmental or human health), but one cannot ask for a cancer diagnosis if it's going to cost $100,000. Another characteristic of (say) health care, is that long queues (and "rationing") are a direct, to-be-expected result of health care.
I mention health care, especially because it affects economies, and world productivity. (Is productivity a bad word? I know it can be, but we'd still be cave dwellers if we didn't appreciate productivity.)
Politics, economics, mathematics, productivity and risk/cost management, health, science... being good at all of these areas of expertise make a difference a modern world's population health. In fact, population growth rate itself decreases as it modernizes.
If only we could say the same about carbon footprint, and other environmental and health costs.
Of course "costs matter". Just not at the what-if stage of a conversation.
but one cannot ask for a cancer diagnosis if it's going to cost $100,000.
Not true. There are in existence cancer treatments which cost close to $100,000. (I assume you meant treatment - not diagnosis). That's actually a very good analogy because, in the research stage, very little if any attention is paid to what the final treatment costs might be. Once a treatment is actually developed and tested, attempts are then made to address the more mundane matters such as production and distribution cost. It is assumed (rightly) that, if the treatment is sufficiently efficacious, those costs can usually be dramatically reduced.
No, I meant diagnosis, but gave an extreme example. I'll reword anyway, using your example for treatment: Some people cannot afford, or should not be given a $100k cancer treatment, or organ transplant, etc.
... [cost] is SELDOM the most appropriate [issue] at ANY stage of a discussion. Trying to discuss social policy with an arithmetician. Priceless.
Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant. No matter.
Lewal, you identified several needed actions. Reason has not yet persuaded and probably won't persuade enough people to accept them.
Ma and Pa Nature might do the job. A parallel between human and bacterial populations will illustrate.
In a newly evolved species, reproduction does little more than maintain a population. Natural selection very gradually results in increasing immunity to fatal conditions and an increasing birth rate. Finally, the still increasing immunities allow an explosive population growth.
Despite the evidence in favor of reducing the human population, the impulse to reproduce is so strong that only a tyrannically-imposed policy (such as China's) offers real hope.
I fear that increasing competition for resources (resulting in wars) and increasing production of greenhouse gases (resulting in more violent weather) will produce the result that reason failed to produce.
I'm in my eightiea and won't be here to see it.
P.S. I've ruled out Anarchy because once you analyze it, it's really just disorganized Democracy. There has to be rules, laws, and codes of conduct, and they cannot discriminate against people. They also cannot be written in stone. The law has to be flexible and living, so that it can evolve and change over time, to suit the changing Zeitgeist. It can't be too flexible, otherwise it will be easily uprooted and replaced, but it can't be to(o) rigid either, because it would then be toppled over and replaced.
I disagree with your assessment of Anarchism and think that is an important political ideology. There are different streams of Anarchist thought, all of which, apart from Individualism, are not disorganised. The idea of Anarchy equating to civil war is a common misconception. In Social Anarchism the rule of law is still upheld, but the law and policies are decided directly in some way such as by Direct Democracy. Organisation is at the level of the people, which is opposed to a strong central authority.
You've just described what I mean by disorganized democracy. When compared to monarchy and oligarchy, Democracy and Anarchy are very similar, but Democracy has the benefit of being easier to manage. There has to be a government, because that is the only way for a mass of people to govern themselves. I support dismantling the electoral college, and going with a popular vote, but only if political commercials and campaigns are taken out of the private domain. Equality is the magic ingredient for stable, fair government. No one can be superior to anyone else.
@H3xx (I like your ideas and your writing. I nitpick because it might generate more.)
the only way for a mass of people to govern themselves
I think this represents a fundamental problem with the way government is perceived. We don't need governing. People need to think of government, not as their boss, but as several service providers with a three or four-year contracts. We are THEIR boss! I view government as having two major functions - control and service. Both are needed to a degree, but the more service the better; the less control the better.
I've been wondering if PURE democracy is now possible. I'm talking NO elected officials - just administrators. EVERYTHING could be decided by popular vote. Not many people would be interested in participating in huge detail except, perhaps, in regard to "pet" issues. The few who were truly interested in specific details could decide those issues. "Should We Invade Iran?" might attract quite a number, while, "Should we extend the water main an extra kilometer out of town?" not so much.
@Steve Armitstead Is this anarchy?
Would this limit or even eliminate that dangerous religion called patriotism?