QuestionIf the people of extremely poor communities are going to be helped, it should be on the condition of reducing the birth rate of said communities.
      – BorgClown, 2009-05-05 at 01:59:00   (19 comments)

On 2009-05-05 at 02:06:09, BorgClown wrote...
I picked up this opinion somewhere else. The more thought I give it, it looks as it's the right thing to do. Think about the African people, forever poor and ridden with violence, congenital diseases and AIDs. the more they are being helped, the more they reproduce and strain the new resources. Also, I have witnessed how USA raises lots of parasitic parents who get unemployment aid from the government proportional to the number of childs they have. All they have to do is have lots of children, look once for work each few months, and leech the taxpayers. It's disgusting how a single mother with lots of children is a kind of jackpot for male freeloaders.
On 2009-05-05 at 06:09:26, Baslisks wrote...
Thats why us americans are making human tags for hunting seasons. You have to check to see if you can hunt male and female and some of the variants are lottery only but mostly its a pretty fair hunt.
On 2009-05-05 at 09:25:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
From a purely moral point of view, it's wrong to tell an individual person that they cannot reproduce. The difference is that in some cases the population is too great to begin with - as is the case for the planet as a whole - and at that point it becomes a grey area. Trying to force the birth rate down leads to great injustice, so ideally it should be done by promoting education and women's rights (and preventing interference by religious 'charities'). Generally it only seems as though African aid isn't working. Africa is a lot of separate states and they go through periods of prosperity as much as desperation, although it's hardly a well-managed environment. It would be better to focus on better land management and protection against drought and famine than simply reducing the population. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/willie_smits_restores_a_rainforest.html
On 2009-05-05 at 14:15:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why can't they help themselves like everyone else in this country?
On 2009-05-05 at 14:42:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
The poor stay poor because they keep making the decisions that make them poor.
On 2009-05-06 at 01:52:20, BorgClown wrote...
@Baslisks: I fear I'm missing a joke there...
On 2009-05-06 at 02:21:07, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: What about USA's tax-subsidized breeders? I suppose education only can go so far. There should be a limit on breeders, like the support being limited to no more than two children.
On 2009-05-06 at 02:23:27, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: What do you say about cancer or accident victims? It isn't necessarily their decision, and yet the treatment/rehabilitation on each-for-their-own health systems can bring any familiar economy to its knees.
On 2009-05-06 at 07:56:20, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Realistically they're still going to have children even if you try to withhold support from them, and once they've got a child they cannot support it becomes a state problem again. It's true that career women delay having children, but as you say that doesn't apply to everyone. The other issue in the US is that the politicians don't want fewer people - they want them as voters and to supply the workforce for the growth economy.
On 2009-05-06 at 20:04:28, Thelevellers wrote...
I'm gonna have to agree with this, but with a large number of clauses! I think EVERYONE should be cutting back on kids, so this sounds good to that side of me, but then the moral issues specifically regarding trying to impose that kind of thing on developing coutries who can't really say no is an issue. The tax subsidised breeders are always an issue, and it's a tricky one to get rid of without some form of enforced sterilisation (temporary or permanent - come on magic tech!)...
On 2009-05-06 at 20:22:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Asking everyone to cut back on children is the best moral stance, although I'd say that trying to force sterilisation by any means is going to backfire. Either you end up with crippling sterility or the 'wrong' people get sterilised. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8033218.stm
On 2009-05-07 at 12:12:27, Thelevellers wrote...
That link was just what I was thinking of, I heard it in passing on the radio this week... :) Bring it on I say, I'm doing four injections a day as it is, one extra a month shouldn't be a problem! ;-) It is also the solution to the forced sterilisation - you could force that, and yet be able to give back the fertility if needs be - win win?!
On 2009-05-07 at 16:17:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
Right, you can't tell people not to reproduce, and I am a libertarian, so I don't think the government should tell anyone what to do. STAY OUT OF MY LIFE! What I do expect is for people to have personal responsibility and make good decisions in their life AND LIVE BY THEM. We call them welfare brood mares here. If you don't have a job, or a husband, why do you have 5 kids? 5 kids by 3 different men? If people go hungry by making bad decisions, maybe they will start making good decisions. AND THEN there is always the idiot that says "What about cancer or accident victims?" That is what insurance, charity, and philanthropy are for. If you are poor in the US, you have only yourself to blame.
On 2009-05-07 at 20:03:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It would certainly help if our governments distinguished between helping people that genuinely need it through no fault of their own and those who take advantage of the system. Again, though, once someone has a child you cannot really withhold support from the child just to teach the parent a lesson. A society that doesn't protect children isn't one we would really wish to live in.
On 2009-05-08 at 02:46:05, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: I take it that you prefer to live in a society where children get neglected because they're just monthly checks. The quality of life of those children is awful, they would be far better in a state house. Usually those kids work instead of their parents, 5 or 6 kids selling newspapers or begging for money can represent a significant monthly income.
On 2009-05-08 at 11:40:31, Thelevellers wrote...
@BorgClown: I don't think Lee is in support of that..? That's what we are all against - the kids for benefits people - as far as I can tell... It is hard to get the reaction right once a child has been born - you can't punish the child, but how to avoid encouraging the behaviour?
On 2009-05-09 at 06:39:27, BorgClown wrote...
Maybe gradual reduction of welfare would work. Let's say 5 kids max, then lower it by one every 20 years.
On 2009-05-09 at 15:49:02, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The idea that you can control parents once they've had the children is a bit silly, although I did previously suggest educating prospective parents. http://discussionator.com/?id=438 Perhaps there's a real issue if parents get more money than is actually needed to support a child, but so long as it's just enough to keep them fed and clothed then isn't the issue whether or not parents are required to find a job to reduce their dependence on the state?
On 2009-05-09 at 20:12:05, Thelevellers wrote...
The issue sometimes is the money doesn't go on the kids... I think making (sorry, helping) unemployed parents get jobs where possible, with childcare support etc is a good help in the right direction.