Fighting overpopulation by homosexuality

[Glassfan]

First, I believe there's a good chance that there will be a way to increase and decrease homosexuality in a population over time, with further knowledge and if it was to become desirable to do so.

An amazing assertion. Wouldn't it be easier to hand out free contraceptives than trying to "brainwash" entire populations?!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

An amazing assertion. Wouldn't it be easier to hand out free contraceptives than trying to "brainwash" entire populations?!

I've already answered why contraceptives are totally irrelevant in this thread. Didn't you understand it?

 

[Glassfan]

I've already answered why contraceptives are totally irrelevant in this thread. Didn't you understand it?

I did understand it, I just find it absurd. Try using the red-diamond thingy if you don't want anyone to object too strongly.

 

[caketastydelish]

The developed nations where this might be possible don't have a population growth problem....

No kidding. Why is there a double standard that only western countries shouldn't have children to fight overpopulation? Why can't the developing countries pitch on? Only one I see doing this is China.

 

[civ_king]

There is no way to increase homosexuality, so the only purpose of this thread would be for hypothetical scenario. Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it cannot be coerced.

So hypothetically I oppose it on moral grounds. It's not right to force people into a certain lifestyle (It's not better than expecting gays to be straight). As for overpopulation you just have to let nature run its course through disease and famine.

During pregnancy for a male reduce amount of androgens for the duration of sexual differentiation of brain and mutatis mutandis female pregnancy

No kidding. Why is there a double standard that only western countries shouldn't have children to fight overpopulation? Why can't the developing countries pitch on? Only one I see doing this is China.

Western countries are already experiencing rapidly declining birth rates (how about that Eastern Europe)

 

[innonimatu]

Someone has been reading too much Haldeman?

Since women have a moral right over the foetus' life and death - Is there any moral issue in guiding the sexual preference of the foetus?

Ah, I see what you're aiming at!

And my answer is no to your hypothetical scenario of manipulation. Then again, I've voted against legalizing abortion when the question came up in my country.

It was once legal to own slaves - it was never moral.

Sorry to spoil your belief in mankind's innate morality, but yes it was, by the standards of past eras. In fact there is scant evidence from ancient sources that the people involved in ancient slave rebellions in the area of the Mediterranean even contemplated the possibility of abolishing slavery: they just wanted to be free themselves, and if possible... acquire slaves of their own!
Morality is not absolute, it always has a context. Regardless of what you wish to believe.

But, to agree on something, I agree that contraception is the obvious answer to individual needs to limit reproduction. And I want states to keep out of planning population control, that's excessive meddling imho. Their function is supposed to be to serve the people, not to plan the people.

 

[Silurian]

Someone has been reading too much Haldeman?

You beat me to The Forever War

 

[Disgustipated]

First, I believe there's a good chance that there will be a way to increase and decrease homosexuality in a population over time, with further knowledge and if it was to become desirable to do so. This unless you believe that it's the souls that contain the preferences.

Secondly, you wouldn't be forcing any people. It's the mother and father deciding the fate of a foetus.

And a mother and father have the right to choose that for their baby? I think not. And you thought the circumcision debate was bad...

I'm actually pretty skeptical of brain science. Yes MRI can pinpoint where in the brain certain actions happen, but we can't actually reprogram a brain, and I don't think we ever will have that ability. The brain is beyond our ability to master.

During pregnancy for a male reduce amount of androgens for the duration of sexual differentiation of brain and mutatis mutandis female pregnancy

I have heard of this, I believe we could manipulate babies this way, just not manipulate their brains as I said above. And like I said, that is morally questionable.

 

[Narz]

The developed nations where this might be possible don't have a population growth problem....

The 1st world is by far the most overpopulated compared to the 3rd. One American has an eco-footprint of a whole village of Africans.

Sure places like Japan may have negative growth but the Japanese lifestyle is still massively overpopulated & unsustainable.

 

[innonimatu]

The 1st world is by far the most overpopulated compared to the 3rd. One American has an eco-footprint of a whole village of Africans.

Sure places like Japan may have negative growth but the Japanese lifestyle is still massively overpopulated & unsustainable.

And yet they live. So what exactly makes it unsustainable? It's sustainable at present levels, and you're saying that they're having "negative growth"...

It's the same old complaints since Malthus. Or probably someone else before him. And guess what: people find a way to cope. Or they perish, they don't need to be 'preemptively voided'. Indeed what was never necessary was deliberately fighting overpopulation - that is a problem which always solves itself. one way or another.

But thinking about it, it's really what we need, isn't it, now that the worldwide "war on drugs" is dying and the "war on terror" is losing its scaremongering-value: a "war on overpopulation"! All we need is to engineer some resource scarcity, which can easily be arranged by manipulating prices. It will neatly cower people into letting some "experts" plan their lives - in this case, their reproduction or their very existence. Can't get better than that!

 

[Narz]

And yet they live. So what exactly makes it unsustainable? It's sustainable at present levels, and you're saying that they're having "negative growth"...

Sustainable means future not present. Crack makes you feel awesome in the present but it's not sustainable. What makes it unsustainable is that it can't be sustained. Modern industrial life is dependent on non-renewable resources.

It's the same old complaints since Malthus. Or probably someone else before him. And guess what: people find a way to cope. Or they perish, they don't need to be 'preemptively voided'. Indeed what was never necessary was deliberately fighting overpopulation - that is a problem which always solves itself. one way or another.

"Solves itself" is generally at the expense of the poor & unprepared. No reason we have to suffer collapse & catastrophe if we're smart. Unfortunately collectively, we aren't smart. People are so used to propaganda they can't tell the difference between it & reality so when they hear about global warming & the decline of the fossil fuel age their overtaxed minds can't muster the proper response.

But thinking about it, it's really what we need, isn't it, now that the worldwide "war on drugs" is dying and the "war on terror" is losing its scaremongering-value: a "war on overpopulation"! All we need is to engineer some resource scarcity, which can easily be arranged by manipulating prices. It will neatly cower people into letting some "experts" plan their lives - in this case, their reproduction or their very existence. Can't get better than that!

This is too dumb for me to try to even formulate a coherent response to.

 

[innonimatu]

Sustainable means future not present. Crack makes you feel awesome in the present but it's not sustainable. What makes it unsustainable is that it can't be sustained. Modern industrial life is dependent on non-renewable resources.

All resources are renewable. We just don't recycle much stuff because we don't need to. Yet. When we have to we'll adapt our use of resources. We won't give um industry.

"Solves itself" is generally at the expense of the poor & unprepared. No reason we have to suffer collapse & catastrophe if we're smart. Unfortunately collectively, we aren't smart. People are so used to propaganda they can't tell the difference between it & reality so when they hear about global warming & the decline of the fossil fuel age their overtaxed minds can't muster the proper response.

This is too dumb for me to try to even formulate a coherent response to.

For someone who is aware of the power of propaganda and the vulnerability of the poor and unprepared, you're awfully willing to trust the powerful and influential with the preparations for dealing with this supposed overpopulation. Guess who'll get sacrificed if ever an "war on overpopulation" is declared. Not that it'll be called that, it'll be made up of many less dramatic named.

In fact it's already happening: CO2 is a problem? Let's trade emissions rights, instead of investing on alternatives to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Energy efficiency is a problem? Let's forbid a large list of "inefficient" appliances, which just so happen to be products with expired patents, and replace them with more expensive and more material-intensive new products. Bonus for forcing people to trade their still-functional ones for new ones, and collecting and destroying the old ones instead of allowing reuse and resale.

And overpopulation is a problem? Let's mandate a one-child for couple policy and let parents without their traditional safety net, while failing to replace it with state-provided services (chinese version). Or let's round up all the pool inhabitants of the slums and force sterilize them (Indira Gandhi version).

 

[Narz]

Your problem is that you think that acknowledging a problem means I support the most draconian measure you can think of. I think it's known as a strawman.

And it's humorous you think there is "tons of propaganda" about overpopulation. I've read newspapers (online & otherwise) for a dozen or so years & only a few times have I ever seen anything about overpopulation (and mostly its because someone on FB on here on CFC posted about it). It's simply a taboo subject.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You're not playing ball. If you did, you'd consider the questions asked rather than comparing promotion of homosexuality to promotion of suicide. Is it that bad in your opinion?

I have considered it and I find it crazy. If you want to live and prospere you have to have healthy mind and thoughts but this one is just the opposite. Its perverted and it will surely bring down any civilization....

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Someone has been reading too much Haldeman?

Not sure if aimed at me, but - no.

Ah, I see what you're aiming at!

I know what you are getting at, but it isn't anything I'm aiming for. Could you make a similar hypothetical any more neutral or set the premises with less bias?

And my answer is no to your hypothetical scenario of manipulation. Then again, I've voted against legalizing abortion when the question came up in my country.

*cut*

 

[Cutlass]

The 1st world is by far the most overpopulated compared to the 3rd. One American has an eco-footprint of a whole village of Africans.

Sure places like Japan may have negative growth but the Japanese lifestyle is still massively overpopulated & unsustainable.

And yet there's no population growth. So in the long run it's much more sustainable. Those poorer people in the 3rd world are trying to be in the developed world. If there's no population growth, then people will immigrate to replace the missing bodies.

 

[Monsterzuma]

why are we debating this thread

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

why are we debating this thread

No we are not...

 

[innonimatu]

Your problem is that you think that acknowledging a problem means I support the most draconian measure you can think of. I think it's known as a strawman.

No, I'm not saying that you will support draconian measures. I'm saying that if ever that ball gets rolling there will be people pushing for those. And if enough alarm about overpopulation has been creating beforehand some will go through. I've given you two real world recent historical examples.

And it's humorous you think there is "tons of propaganda" about overpopulation. I've read newspapers (online & otherwise) for a dozen or so years & only a few times have I ever seen anything about overpopulation (and mostly its because someone on FB on here on CFC posted about it). It's simply a taboo subject.

"If ever", I said. You are right, there isn't yet, and I'd prefer things to remain this way.

 

[caketastydelish]

During pregnancy for a male reduce amount of androgens for the duration of sexual differentiation of brain and mutatis mutandis female pregnancy

Western countries are already experiencing rapidly declining birth rates (how about that Eastern Europe)

That's my point. Western countries are either only replacing themselves (or not even doing that) while developing countries have sky high birth rate. Thus the double standard that western countries should "have low birth rates to fight overpopulation" but when developing countries have absurdly high birth rates, it's ok.