41 thoughts on “Preemptive Genocide: Preventing births in poor nations would reduce infant mortality”

  1. Mmm. That’s a bit emotionally charged mr Milloy. There is a lot to be said for this. To my mind putting a child in the world where the parents lack the capacity to provide them with even a minuscule chance of a life on more then 2$ a day amounts to childabuse. I’ll go further than that. Potential parents everywhere should pass a ‘parenting qualification examen’ to decide if you are capable to raise a child with love and care.
    Nothing political, just if you aren’t a narcissist or airhead or something.

  2. I don’t view life as child abuse. If people are concerned about the children, then poor people should be empowered to make their lives better. This business of ‘we’ll buy you birth control and make sure you can’t develop’ is gross.

  3. Just another plan of ‘THE NEW WORLD ORDER”!! The un is trying so hard to become the government of the world. And the USA ONLY has to kick in 1 billion dollars to accomplish their (un) wishes. What a bunch of crap. I pray for undeveloped countries and their people but the USA has no right to tell them how to live their lives. America should stay out of other countries business – look where this has taken America so far! So many hate us! Why? because our government has stuck their noses where they don’t belong

  4. And what if they fail your proposed test? Does the government seize their children? Force their abortion? Sterilize the parents?

    I guess I’m an airhead because that seems political to me.

  5. and I’m sure your test would align perfectly with YOUR morals and ideologies. What if it doesn’t? What if folks with names starting with P are decided to be less than ideal? tests are a nice way to homogenize the gene pool. Shades of genetic cleansing, ethnic purity you know.

  6. If. Nice word. If the sky falls we all have a blue hat. At present about 80% of the world population lives at subsistence level and no way no how is that number going to change much, just change place. So regardless of all the imaginary evils one can dream up, procreating when you’re unable to raise your progeny properly will only add to humanities misery. Which makes it an utterly selfish and mean act. Personally I’ve put my balls where my mouth is and had a vasectomy at 23. Which in my mind gives me the moral high ground to lecture you.

  7. When families have a chance to achieve affluence, they generally limit their child-bearing. I don’t know if the world’s carrying capacity of resources extends to 12 billion at a US or Western European standard of living, but we can carry a lot of people at a better standard than most have now.
    Mr. Milloy’s point is valid: let’s help provide opportunity and let people work out their family plans for themselves. The greatest barrier, he said, getting on his favorite horse, is bad governance rather than lack of resources.

  8. There are many countries where your $2/day analogy would be like winning Lotto.
    If only they could have a whole $2/day to feed their children?

  9. The are the official WHO numbers. It’s a ‘standard’ to measure subsistence by. It doesn’t mean they actually gain 2$, it means they live a subsistence level life. Which you should try once before judging if its fit for a human being.

  10. I fail to what’s gross about it. It’s not they are forced into it. You might remember that in the 1970’s ‘western’ nations contributed to a sterilization campaign in India. For each male that had a vasectomy they gave away a radio. It didn’t gain much track though, but that was mostly because having electricity and not the means to buy batteries it was a bit silly gift.
    A certain life in misery is imo beyond abuse to give to a child

  11. At the risk of invoking Goodwins law, do you realize that this test was first proposed by social darwinists and first enacted as forced sterilizations for the mentally retarded by Adolf Hitler? There is no possible way that such a “fitness for parentage” test could be adequately administered. It is guaranteed to be racist, classist, and politically charged. It is, from any angle, unspeakably evil or stupid of you to suggest.

    Oh and that 80% at subsistence level is crock. “Subsistence” is a much higher standard now than any time in history, where it traditionally meant not-starving-that much. Our poverty line is grossly inflated by our high standards. Even if we accept your numbers, then that’s far better than at any time in human history, as shown by the deaths due to starvation dropping by more than 95% during the 20th century.

  12. I am childless, so I guess that makes me equal to your moral ground. In no way would I support your idea. Yes, it would be ideal if people only had children when they could afford them. However, there is NO objective way to decide who will and will not raise children “properly”. Someone gets to decide what “proper” is and that gives them HUGE amounts of power. This has been tried–China, past dictators, Hitler (as noted below by benofhouston). Never a good outcome. Worse, is paying people to have children and become dependent on the government. It is supposed to be a bad thing when people have children they cannot afford–it used to serve as a reason to not have the children (where birth control was available). Now, not so much. Let the government pay. I don’t approve of how people often have children and abuse them (in addition, you can pass the test up front and life circumstances change and so does your parenting skill and you turn into a drunk who ignores his kids) but I find the idea of regulating procreating even more frightening.

  13. Only if you’re childless by choice, if it’s be sheer coincidence or lack of someone to mate with it doesn’t count. There is no need for objectivity because nothing humans do is objective. Humanity is totally incapable of being objective about anything, so by that standard we can’t implement no policy whatever.
    I fail to see the difference between a state that gives child benefits (positively stimulates) or withholds them (negatively stimulates). Either way it’s some entity that controls procreation. Bit weird to applaud the one and vilify the other..

    A government doesn’t have money, it only (re)distributes the money of the inhabitants. So if you say let the government pay, you say in effect let my neighbor pay. And as your world neighbor i say, pay for your own kids why bother me with it. Worse, as a bachelor you pay more taxes and therefor pay more towards people who procreate.

    A very unequal system, those that cause the least burden pay the most and those that cause the most burden pay the least.

  14. And you know this how? You calculated that on the back of a beercoaster? We pumped trillions into Africa over the last century to buy of our guilt. The result?
    Africa’s Forever Wars
    Why the continent’s conflicts never end. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/africas_forever_wars plus raging famine and poverty.
    Even South-Africe is incapable of getting their act together. Still actively slaughtering white farmers this is what the reality is:
    “Cape Town – The “use it or lose it” principle will be applied firmly to redistribute farmland to ensure South Africa’s agricultural output does not decline further, minister of land reform and rural development, Gugile Nkwinti, said on Tuesday.”
    http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/24d92ba55201445bb68b4c62c213f8ec/02-03-2010-07-04/Use_land_or_lose_it_-_Nkwinti

    So even with all the guiltmoney over the better part of a century nothing came of it.

  15. Tha tis indeed a godwin but i’ll take it up anyway. Just because a bad person used a system that doesn’t mean the system is bad. Eugenetics is being applied today on an almost daily basis. Down syndrome, spina bifida, a whole range of afflictions are valid legal reasons for abortion. And i am 100% sure that as genetic testing on fetuses advances and can detect more serious illnesses more abortions will take place. I am perfectly fine with that. To me eugenetics is another way to prevent unnecessary suffering for the infant, the parents and society.

  16. I am childless by choice.

    I agree that paying people to have children or not have them is equal. The government needs to stay out totally–no tax deductions for kids, etc. Flat tax. I fully agree that if my neighbor or relative lives off government money, they are living off me. However, I don’t see the solution as not allowing people to have children unless they can pass a test as a solution. We let people deal with their children on their own, without government money. If the children live in poverty, it is the fault of the parents, not society. Make people responsible for their own actions.

    No, we cannot decide “objectively” procreates or who does not. The best we can do is make everyone responsible for their own choices. We do have some responsibility to protect children from sexual abuse and beatings, but beyond that, it gets far too complicated to decide who is “worthy” of parenting and who is not. So yes, I suppose I am saying that the best action is as little as we can possibly take. In the end, the people who gave birth to the children are responsible for the children and their failure is theirs alone. Society may deal with the aftermath, but in the long run, it seems to be the least oppressive way.

    (I do understand wanting to “save” kids from stupid parents. I just realize how very complex and in the end, how very bad this has always turned out in history.)

  17. Nowhere did i say ‘not allowing to procreate’. I stated that qualified parents could get child benefits etc. and unqualified couldn’t. So free choice to procreate all over the place, just put a brake in place to prevent a nutcase and a nutjob making babies which they proceed to lock up in a cellar for 15 years. For example.

    As for the OP, providing contraceptives is the best aid you can give. Many women in impoverished parts of the world get pregnant because they do, not because they made a qualified choice.

    Nobody in the world is capable to make any kind of far reaching decision, and yet countless millions go to vote anyway after which another narcissistic moron comes to power. If that’s fine by you, why be bothered by something as comparative trivial as deciding who’d make a better parent?

    You can begin by doing a thorough personality test to see which kind of possible personality disorders they have. Nobody can deny that the likelihood of an ASPD,BPD,Schizophrenic etc. being a good parent is way smaller than someone who isn’t. Doesn’t mean the others will be necessarily good parents, but you for sure have reduced the chances.
    To my mind a very powerful instinct/emotion is playing up in this conversation, that of procreation, rendering it cloudy.

    As i said before, being objective is an human impossibility but at least try and keep emotions out of it.

  18. I don’t think I’m understanding you. Are you advocating a system like China where the second child has no support from the government? You seem to be saying that we don’t allow some people to make babies.

    As for “nut cases”, psychology is nearly as undefined as climate change. Labels can be attached to people very easily. If it were hard science, then maybe one would have a chance at less abuse of the system. Right now, anyone can be painted as mentally ill–there’s hundreds of diagnosis. Even if we stick to psychosis (assuming there is such diagnosis anymore), there is still potential for abuse. Look at the system the “protects” children now–taking away 4 hyperactive children from their parents and giving them to a single mom.

  19. Petrossa, I think that we can agree that endless aid hasn’t worked and cannot work (for many of the same reasons that pure communism is idle fantasy). For a longer-term example, see the American Indian Tribes, which have 80+% unemployment on the reservations and no real upward mobility. If some anecdotal sources are to be trusted, there is outright hostility towards people seeking to better themselves because it almost necessarily leaves the reservation. Investment is b far the better solution. See China. We used their cheap labor, and now their factories are producing at greater and greater rates. In a few years, hopefully, they will be wealthy enough to enact real environmental legislation.. Not ideal, but a far sight better than the innumerable charity acts visited on Africa.

    However, that’s all beside the point. The point of which is that eugenics movements in poor countries are nothing but a classist method of reduing population without actually addressing any of the problems faced by the population.

  20. Hoity toity…how do you know I haven’t lived below subsistence? I went through a period of time when eating cardboard was sooo inviting – anything to stop the hunger pangs – but I drank lots of water instead: really fills up the tummy.
    Many people may consider this a diet; mine was out of necessity: I had no money.

  21. Stupid idea then, stupid idea now. Beside, a child doesn’t understand he or she is living in misery or poverty.

  22. I agree. Children often don’t realize they are living in poverty, especially if it’s the only thing they have ever seen. Someone has to come in and demonstrate there is more to life than what the child has now.

  23. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In my home country post natal abortion is allowed and in some cases advised by doctors. I again fail to see the problem. Anyway the OP was about voluntary profilactics not eugenics. Beats plonking cash in the pockets of dictators anyday

  24. Excesses are no reason to dismiss a system, if so let’s do away with democracy. They should be learning experiences leading to a better system.
    The 1 child policy was bound to fail it’s an idiotic population control system.

  25. You mean wait till it’s old enough and ask it if it wants euthanasia? So you keep a seriously handicapped child alive at great suffering & cost and then you give it a mortal injection? Yeah, that sounds great :-

  26. lol. You actually compare yourself with one of the millions of people starving to death in abject poverty devoid of any outlook on betterment? I went through such a period too, eating out of garbagecans, sleeping in abandoned cars. Since we both are now in a position we have time on our hands discussing this is proof in itself we have been nowhere near those circumstances

  27. Petrossa: You are still not answering my question–what exactly do you propose as a policy? From some of the other comments, I get the feeling you are okay with killing infants that will cost society money. So, are you for limiting child numbers, infanticide, forced serialization or what? If you have a policy, state clearly and stop with the sound bites. If you have no policy, then there’s no need to continue this charade.

  28. It appears that Petrossa considers “legal” to be acceptable or moral. Which is not the case. Many legal activities are not beneficial to society or to individuals (like narcotic medications, which replace “illegal” drugs as the addiction of choice now–a doctor prescribes them, they must be okay, right? It’s legal.) However, it seems apparent that in Petrossa’s mind, there is a right to kill those who cost society too much money. It’s not clear when that death sentence ends, if ever. But he assures us we need not worry about systems that were misused in the past?

  29. Morality is a cultural thing and as such has no intrinsic value. Morals vary from group to group. So as a guideline they are useless. legal has as an advantage that it has been reached by consensus (at least in a democracy) and is therefor a less subjective standard . Not well, i say ‘less subjective’ not objective. Euthanasia is also allowed by law, as is assisted suicide. Devoid of the emotions these subjects arouse, the law gives everyone a clear frame of reference.

    Not acting because a system ‘might’ be misused? By that measure we wouldn’t have cd players, fast internet, space travel you name it, it can be misused.

  30. So, Petrossa, you say morality “has no intrinsic value”, yet your original comment about parents having to pass some sort of test in order to be allowed to raise children was a moral argument. You called it “childabuse [sic]” for the poor to be allowed to procreate.

    Also, it seems that you have made the case that morality and law are inherently political whereas you originally said your argument was: “Nothing political, just if you aren’t a narcissist or airhead or something.”

    I believe that by your own logic, then, your original argument had “no intrinsic value” and that you are a narcissistic airhead.

    This is the most obnoxious thing about the left. They pretend their contempt for freedom and humanity are based in some sort of unassailable scientific proof and sneer at anyone who would dare question them. Then when you try and nail down what the hell they are saying, they throw out some nihilistic gobbledygook that negates the whole thing.

  31. Nope, no moral test. A psychiatric evaluation. Weed out the potential wacko’s. As for the poor, that is selfevident. And by poor i don’t mean the luxury poor one finds in the western world, but the real poor.

    How you come to the conclusion based on my description that the law and morals are political is beyond me so i can’t respond to that.

    I have no political affiliation, i don’t vote. I have an opinion based on my own idea’s not those of someone else. I follow the Groucho Marx line of thinking about joining clubs.

    The only narcissistic airhead that comes to mind is Obama. Pity he procreated already, he would have been prevented procreating via the psy evaluation system.

  32. You are indeed naive if you think there is no morality or politics in psychiatry. It’s all morality, desires, money, politics. There are no set guidelines for “mentally ill”. Homosexuality was voted out as a mental illness. Voted. Mental illnesses are added or expanded as medications to treat them become available–ADHD, autism. It’s as big a farce as climate change when it comes to objective measurements. The field defines whatever it chooses as mentally ill–and these are the people you want choosing who should parent? Brave New World here we come (actually, no one parented in BNW but rather the state did, so perhaps that is your utopia?)
    There has been a push to declare skeptics mentally ill–guess if you don’t believe in AGW, don’t believe in socialism, don’t believe in government, you are mentally ill. We can add religion to the list (it’s already there with delusional behaviour–short step to defining all of it as mentally ill.) We can limit parenting to a few hundred “chosen” people.

  33. Well, that is some rant. More emotionally charged is hardly possible. Since à sane discussion is only possible when participants keep their cool I guess this thread has ran it’s course.

Comments are closed.