winterene ([info]winterene) wrote,
@ 2009-11-04 20:55:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
We Can Beat the Odds
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120026976

This could be prevented. This could absolutely be prevented. Not for children already born, at least not immediately, but the government absolutely has the power to prevent the births of a large percentage of children who would otherwise be born to parents that can reasonably be judged to have a poor likelihood of being able to provide a suitable upbringing.

By preventing those births, through a combination of compulsory sex education, free contraception, free sterilization, compulsory adoption, compulsory abortion, and compulsory sterilization (for repeat offenders), the government could prevent countless children from living lives of privation and subsequently growing up to be undereducated and unskilled second-class citizens or outright criminals.

In the reality that we commonly perceive, one plus one is two no matter how much a person's misguided emotions might encourage him to believe otherwise, and probability works the same way. If this study is accurate, a certain percentage of children born to undeserving parents will end up on food stamps and will suffer the consequences. If you support allowing those children to be born, then you support allowing children to suffer privation, and you are essentially making a selfish choice, to support your emotional principles instead of supporting a childhood free of privation.

All humans are not created equal, but the government, through regulation of procreation, could do much towards increasing the likelihood that fewer children are born to inequality.

(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]cuzzakenji
2009-11-12 04:41 pm UTC (link)
n u INVITE me 2 read dhis stupid shit?!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

da gubment (virtually EVERY gov't dat has EVER existed) serves 2 enact da will of a CLASS. While some within a class might begin as IDEALISTS given to a particular school of thought, MATERIALISM n da CONCEPT of WEALTH (expressed as GREED) fuck up da program sumpn fierce.

if da above izz TRUE, den da corrective measures izz KINDA obvious--but dat path lead 2 ARMAGEDDON (minus da white noise, a FINAL battle twixt GOOD n EVIL).

almost shamefully i wonder if i aint just wasted a lil time n energy (could care less who AGREE, slightly care dat iss UNDERSTOOD).

(Reply to this)


[info]winterene
2009-11-12 04:53 pm UTC (link)
> if da above izz TRUE, den da corrective measures izz KINDA obvious--but
> dat path lead 2 ARMAGEDDON (minus da white noise, a FINAL battle twixt
> GOOD n EVIL).

If you care, even slightly, that your comment is understood, then you cannot just link my solution to ARMAGEDDON without filling in the intermediary steps.

I am not an unintelligent person, and I do not see a logical path from sensibly regulating procreation to armageddon. Rather, I see the possibility of a near utopia, for all humans, given the level of technology we possess.

Your comment is reflective of an attitude shared by the writers of countless dystopian novels and the people who reference those writings, that attitude being a tendency to immediately think of the negative consequences of any radical social change instead of speculating on all the benefits.

Furthermore, people who espouse viewpoints similar to the one you wrote about almost always fail to do one critical thing--*to propose a better solution*. If you think that unchecked procreation, which is what exists now in most of the world, is compatible with the elimination of poverty and a host of other social ills, then *explain* how that could be possible given all the evidence we have of how humans actually behave (not how they *should* behave).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cuzzakenji
2009-11-13 12:34 pm UTC (link)
my sick sense of humor often find it funny when somebody say (or do) some stupid shit n demand--wif crazy TUDE--an explanation of HOW iss STUPID as if dey DEIFINITELY gonna understand when iss clear dey probly not...

n u IZZ, 2 a degree, MOST unintelligent when u ascribe SENSIBILITY 2 something like regulatin procreation (/POPULATION, ie, eugenics).

all i'll say iss a REASON dat some peepul on dhis plane(t) have NO PROBLEM procreatin whereas others have beaucoup problems. NATURE placed a check on the womb of the woman whose children da PLANET cannot abide. da poor attempts dat sickly child make at correction serve mainly 2 hilite da need 2 reject almost all dat dey would offer (cuz izz fuckin foul--POISON).

skippin da suggestion dat u REREAD what i initially wrote, da CORRECTIVE measure i ref'd 2 dealt wif da rejection of da concept of wealth (n da opposite aint POVERTY, fool). DAT solution izz what lead 2 armageddon (albeit in a few steps).

n cuz i slightly care 2b understood izz partially a commentary on some muhfuckas capacity (or lack thereof) 2 understand...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…