Responsible Breeding - Socially authorised procreation

[Sweetdeath]

What incentivization are we talking about here?  I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death.  Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard."  How do we enforce that?  Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving.   You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms.  Food is not a priviledge.  Children are not a priviledge.  We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat.  Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality.  When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished.  Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.

Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.

Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!

Children are not a privilege. What makes you think they are?

Is there anything else to which we have a right which it would not be acceptable to rescind if proven to be injurious in any way to other people?

I, and millions of other hardworking, tax-paying citizens are most certainly injured by irresponsible reproduction.

Where's the social justice there?

Exactly. I shouldn't have to pay for someone's else's kids just because they  had poor judgment.

[Ali]

Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth in regards to calling poor people lazy!  You said

Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.

and

we have a generation of lazy scroungers

But perhaps you're just not being very clear as you have referred to spending more money helping the working poor - so you are okay with partially funding someone (and presumably allowing them to have children) as long as they have a job?  Or do you still think that even the working poor should be barred from procreation?

[Siz]

In the OP I asked:

Are we to value the freedom of choice to have children OVER social wellbeing?

I take it the majority verdict is "Yes". Even if it really IS ultimately an either/or decision which I believe it to be?

In that case, we must agree to disagree.

[Siz]

Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth in regards to calling poor people lazy!  You said

Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.

and

we have a generation of lazy scroungers

But perhaps you're just not being very clear as you have referred to spending more money helping the working poor - so you are okay with partially funding someone (and presumably allowing them to have children) as long as they have a job?  Or do you still think that even the working poor should be barred from procreation?

OK, perhaps I should have said "Let's not blame the rich for the faults of the welfare-bolstered lazy poor" and I've no problem helping those that help themselves.

Otherwise, you get the gist.

I'm not a fascist and I'm not poorist. I am flying the flag (seemingly single handed) for social justice. Rough justice perhaps, but the problem is only going to get worse without tough intervention. The future - on its current course - is pretty bleak.

[Ali]

Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?

I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children.  So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?

[Sweetdeath]

I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?

Yikes, that is a very real thing to think about.
Reminds me of a japanese series where they created a virus to kill off old people because they were useless to society.

[En_Route]

I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?

Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly  people wouldn't  be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.

[Siz]

Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?

Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.

I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children.  So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.

That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.

But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.

[Siz]

I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?

Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly  people wouldn't  be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.

I'm sure DJ was playing devils advocate with her post.  Edit: weren't you?
But to answer it for myself, my answer is NO (Voluntary euthanasia accepted), because that is murder.

[Sweetdeath]

Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?

Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.

I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children.  So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.

That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.

But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.

That's how it is in the US. why is it harder to raise no kids than a woman getting paid to raise three?  I find that repulsive.
I shouldnt have to pay for iresponsible person who wont stop popping out kids because they know the gov will give them a check for each one.

[Ali]

Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?

Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.

I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children.  So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.

That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.

But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.

That's how it is in the US. why is it harder to raise no kids than a woman getting paid to raise three?  I find that repulsive.
I shouldnt have to pay for iresponsible person who wont stop popping out kids because they know the gov will give them a check for each one.

MYTH: Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers who have extra children so that they can get more money.

FACT: Although one in four children under 18 receives welfare benefits, that does not mean that a few women on welfare have lots of children. From official government figures, "The average monthly number of TANF families was 3,176,000 in fiscal year (FY) 1998. The estimated total number of TANF recipients was 2,631,000 adults and 6,273,000 children. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.8 persons. The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which remained unchanged. Two in five families had only one child. One in 10 families had more than three children."

http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html

What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is.  For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance.  That's just math.  Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.

http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/places/0803120000

[Dobermonster]

Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?

Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.

I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children.  So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.

That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.

But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.

That's how it is in the US. why is it harder to raise no kids than a woman getting paid to raise three?  I find that repulsive.
I shouldnt have to pay for iresponsible person who wont stop popping out kids because they know the gov will give them a check for each one.

I've witnessed this kind of situation - a young woman (say 19), living with her mother, her mother's boyfriend, and her boyfriend. The young woman already has a tot, everyone is on welfare (and cheating the system by claiming to all live separately), and the woman is trying to get pregnant again for the extra cash.

So yes, these people exist. The system isn't perfect, because it can be so easily manipulated. However, not everybody on welfare is a "welfare bum". There are a lot of individuals who do genuinely need the assistance due to no fault of their own. We cannot punish all for the sins of the few (or even many). There has to be change - there must be less motivation to stay on welfare, and more to work. What kind of change that is, I'm not sure. Government subsidized daycare? I think there would be a lot more parents keen to work if they didn't have their efforts countered by $50/day daycare. For people working minimum wage (or a little above), it's just not worth it.

[Siz]

Edit: Hrm... never mind. I'll leave this alone.

Aww, c'mon Dav. I've been looking forward to another incisive pasting...

[DeterminedJuliet]

I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?

Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly  people wouldn't  be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.

Well, I guess we'd have to draw up a list of what's "good" for society. When I say "elderly", by the way, I don't mean 60 years old, or an active 85 year old, I mean a measurable amount of the population that "takes" more than it "gives". Children take a lot from society, but you could argue that their potential and future helpfulness balances out that issue a little bit. Even the odd "welfare kid" might grow up to make a meaningful contribution. What about a 100 year old on a pension that doesn't go out and doesn't interact with society? Plenty of them exist.  

I'm playing devil's advocate ( a little), but if we're going to approach the management of society from a totally pragmatic perspective, we'd better consider it for every segment of the population. Not just those in their child-bearing years.