# Fit to reproduce?



## prawn_86 (28 September 2007)

OK, I am seeking ASFers opions on the following and am not endorsing it. It may be somewhat controversial but i am interested to know others thoughts.

This afternoon i was coming home on the bus in peak hour. in the middle of the standing area was a family of 2 adults a toddler and a child of about 8. Lets just say they were 'lower class' for lack of better wording. But you could see all the people surronding them just cringe with the way they treated their children. They were swearing constantly loud enough to be heard by all etc etc.

Now the following may sound draconian or even 'communist' but here is my question:

*Would society be better off,  if there was a criteria put on those who were allowed to reproduce?*

Not based upon an intelligence or looks, but perhaps on something such as contribution to society throughout your life. This way creative people who are not materially rich, but have far greater comprehension of some things than people like myself, would not be discriminated against.

Perhaps before you were to have kids you had to send a letter detailing why and work history/contributions/designs/creative work somewhere so it was not based on personality or looks. Obviously i have not thought in detail about it.

I am very interested to hear opinions, and apologise if this blog offends anyone. 

Please comment


----------



## moneymajix (28 September 2007)

Hi Prawn

Could be dangerous. 

Who decides who is an appropriate person to have children?   Standards would differ amongst people. 
How do you decide what is appropriate?

Screenings too, for potential parents, could easily fail to detect secret abusers, alcoholics etc. 

On the other hand, sometimes children with difficult upbringings, end up making magnificient contributions to society.

Maybe more education for young people about parenting, budgeting and other life skills might be useful for some.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 September 2007)

I agree that there are many unknowns, I am just interested in others opinions.

thankyou for yours.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 September 2007)

The nature/nurture debate is interesting. Resilience also plays a major part in outcomes in the children you described on the bus today. Singapore has tried to encourage high SE/IQ groups to reproduce without much success. I take your point about the possible adverse outlook for the kids but at the other extreme you have eugenics.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 September 2007)

Drugs, alcohol and lack of morals will undo anybody. 
Prawn I am glad I am not the only one who despises those who don't help theselves. 

I think what you propose is draconian, and perhaps there are other alternatives that I won't go into.
Cheers...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 September 2007)

Also,

Didn't Hitler try something like this over 60 years agao?


----------



## prawn_86 (29 September 2007)

I thought that someone might mention Hitler, hence why i tried to lean my idea towards those that contribute to society rather than a specific set criteria.

Garpal, I would be interested to know what Singapore tried to do. Would you be able to PM me with the link or post it here?

Thankyou both ofr your thoughts.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 September 2007)

Heres a link to eugenics which includes the Singapore experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I'm not a believer in eugenics, I wouldn't be here if it been in practice prior to my conception.

garpal


----------



## theasxgorilla (8 October 2007)

"Would society be better off, if there was a criteria put on those who were allowed to reproduce?"

No, society would be better off if everyone was fit enough to reproduce.


----------



## theasxgorilla (8 October 2007)

"Didn't Hitler try something like this over 60 years agao?"

Oh the Germans the Swedes of the 1930's went one better...involuntary euthanasia.


----------



## PortfolioPlus (4 January 2008)

Here's a different slant:

Rather than "prevent" those who would be the "effect" of a system gone wrong...let's solve the "cause".

Society didn't always contain misfits in the volume it does today. Somebody changed the ground rules of what is decent and responsible.

The fact is your folk on the bus are just acting as they have been brought up. Society, over their lives, bestowed on them a much more liberal "don't care" approach and they are now acting it out. 

Yep, we can play the blame game as to why this has occurred but that solves nothing...though for the exercise we have to look at the liberals and left-leaning members of our society as well as those who peddle teh drugs that destryu the fabric of our society (alcohol, pot and ice to name but three). 

BTW the real costs to society of Ice are yet to be felt but rthey will be massive.  

We need to change society to get back to the simple rules that have worked for thousands of years:

(1) Accept total responsibility for yourself and your actions

When we do this the amount of frivolous litigation will drop dramatically as will the number of people who are bludging when they shoud be working. 

(2) Bear your share of the costs of operating our society

(3) Respect others & their belongings    

(4) In difficult decisions (such as the location of a dam) the common good must always prevail

(5) The laws of the land are respected and applied without fear or favour. 

(6) Those who offend the rules of the society are dealt with appropriately

Of course...there will be no change in western society...our law makers are just too gutless and the left leaning "do-gooders" have a way of grabbing the spotlight and manilpulating the issues their way. All of which gives the fundamentalists plenty of ammunition to stir up their troops.

And sadly, that been the case, your bus-people won't be volunteering for military servcie because they expect the government (and others) to solve all of their problems.

Yep...it's a responsibility issue allright.


----------



## Sean K (6 January 2008)

The earth needs a serious culling of humans in order to survive and it will find a way.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 January 2008)

Totally agree Kennas.

I can remember watching National Press Club way back when i was in Year 8 and there was an international professor speaking, whose name i have forgotten unfortunately, that said for the world to live comfortably in a western lifestyle, it can only support 2 - 3 billion people.


----------



## Happy (21 January 2009)

Eugenics, forced euthanasia selective breeding doesn't worry me a bit.
Should it happen to get me before conception or my parents before theirs so be it.
I just grew to accept things and death is one of them. 
Precious unique snowflakes comparison of human beings doesn’t move me too much, if you consider that we are 80% genetically identical to pigs, 98% to great apes and so on.

About 1000 people dies on our roads, many of them innocent as only some hoons kill themselves. In US it was something like 25,000 few years before the turn of last century.

I strongly believe that society needs to pull the same way, too many freeloaders and it will disintegrate from within.

And we will be surprised to see that 'underprivileged' will be the anarchistic destructive fighting force, not the law obeying and productive members of our society.

To have license to produce CO2 and use resources, renewable or not we have to deserve it.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 January 2009)

I personally dont think it will reach a point where Eugenics is implemented on a mass scale, due to the fragemented govs of the Earth.

Personally i think it will just come down to over-population and resources use, a big wipe out, then start again (or not) same as with when any other species becomes critically overpopulated.


----------



## Happy (21 January 2009)

It is amazing that with all the knowledge we have, all we can do is wait for the inevitable rules of nature, when overpopulation hits the fan.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 January 2009)

To me its amazing that with all the knowledge we have we are still so short sighted. Thats the problem with democratic elections, no long term view

These problems could be overcome, but people are too busy looking out for themselves (and who can really blame them).


----------



## MRC & Co (21 January 2009)

You and your families will be culled first.  

How does that sound to you?  

If these were laws, perhaps you wouldn't be here, as I'm sure some of your previous relatives were not aristocracy?

A lot of hard stances in such a gray world.  There is no good and bad, it's all relative, depends on your perspective and which side of the fence you sit on.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 January 2009)

Well i suppose we have to do our bit to stop over-population 

Im not talking about culling, merely not reproducing.


----------



## MRC & Co (22 January 2009)

lol, but is there a difference between culling, and telling a potential parent they cannot give life?

Here is a good example in reply to your initial post, which illustrates perceptions.  

My first descendent to arrive in Australia, came here for steeling a loaf of bread and an orange.  Considered a crime by such rats by the Brittish arrogance of the time.  His perspective, needed food.  He was only a kid, about 16, and when he got to Australia, as a practical joke, he stole a soldiers (his guards) uniform and wore it.  He could well be considered one of the first Aussie "larakins", a practical joker, but he obtained public lashings and further imprisonment.  Was he a criminal not capable of reproducing?  Or a guy born into hard circumstances with a good sense of humor?    Completely depends on which side of the fence you sit.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 January 2009)

I can see what your saying MRC and im not advocating either position, merely throwing some discussion out there. But i would argue that it is becoming more important to think about now as population is growing at an exponential rate.

What do you propose we do to solve over population?


----------



## MRC & Co (22 January 2009)

Perhaps an inter-governmental cap on children per person.  One per person...........


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 February 2009)

Let me tell you a little true story.

There's a really bad stretch of road out near Toowoomba in QLD, where a number of very serious accidents have occurred over the years.  One of these accidents was a mother with two kids in the back, who got clipped by a tourist bus and smashed into a railway crossing support back in the mid 90's I think. The mother was knocked unconscious in the accident and of course the two little  kids were frozen in shock in the back seat of the small hatchback they were in.

The tourist bus stopped but no one got out and took any action beyond calling the police and ambulance. A grey ute passing in the other direction, stopped and a guy got out wearing boots and overalls and ran over to help. He couldn't get the doors open and the engine caught on fire. (still no one from the tourist bus acted). The guy kicked out the back window and dived in, unclipping the mother and dragging her through the backseat, then unclipping the kids and pulling them free. 

He made sure they were clear (and a few people from the tourist bus finally exited and helped the woman and her children), whereupon the guy got back in his ute and drove away.

When the cops arrived of course they needed this heroic good samaritan to write a statement so they got on the horn and had the police near Toowoomba pick up the grey ute and the guy, tell him he'd done a great job and get a statement from him. He was pretty nervous during all this backslapping and something about that made one of the officers suspicious and do a little checking...whereupon they found out that he'd escaped from Wacol maximum security prison about 10 hours earlier.

You never know what people are capable of - I find it best not to judge them.

Sir O


----------



## MRC & Co (3 February 2009)

Great story Sir O.


----------

