Jamie_L

The problem with this concept, is who decides? How are they monitored? Do we trust a government agency with this kind of responsibility? I would be hard pressed to think of any power more easily abused by a government than deciding who gets to have kids.

The risks of implementation, I believe, far outweigh the benefits - especially if your goal is a free society.

Jamie

paul30

I have worked with sexually and physically abused children a long time.

One thing I and everyone else has noticed is that the cycle repeats. Abused children grow up to be abusers of their own children.

So two proposals:

1. If any people are disallowed not from having but from raising children, it should be those who are abusers and potentially abuse victims, since they tend to carry on this bad tradition. (By the way, 98% to 100% of people in prison were abused as children. Disallowing abusers to raise children might go far toward emptying the jails.)

2. I believe everyone should have to undergo training and get a license of minimal competency before raising children. Most countries require licenses to drive, be a plumber, be an electrician, and so on. One can do far, far more damage by raising a child badly than driving badly or plumbing badly. Yes, I know there are different theories and traditions on what constitutes good and bad child-rearing; but I think we could reach a consensus on certain things to impart and certain things to avoid--and how to do it.

christ-on-a-stick

paul30 - SOMETIMES. Possibly even "often" or "usually" depending on the stats and your definitions - but most definitely not ALWAYS.

For example, my sister was abused as a child but is currently raising 2 and 4 year old sons, the younger with special needs, and is by far the most devoted, caring and responsible parent I have ever met. I do believe she would cut her own arm off before laying a hand on either of them.

I have more thoughts on the OP but need more coffee first...

mike_decock

You're very wrong about this notion of "sexual liberty" being a modern concept. Study some ancient history and look at Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures. They were successful for millenia and were far more sexually liberated than we are today.

I would attribute the increased divorce rates more to equality of the sexes. A woman is no longer bound to a husband to provide for her livelihood.

I wouldn't restrict parenting to "families" (I'm assuming you are speaking of traditional nuclear "families"). I think we need to reevaluate family structure and take some clues from indigenous groups who have a more "communal" approach to childcare.

Besides that, there are good genetic reasons for random coupling.

I wouldn't want it to be set up to "enable by positive criteria". I would say "keep disabled by negative criteria". Only people who are violent criminals, rapists, etc, would be denied the "unlocking".

-Mike...

Misso

Well, less people might not be so bad. I believe the maximum of people that the Earth could support was calculated at some 10 billion people (this number might be totally incorrect, but I'm sure there is a maximum on what the Earth can support). Human species is almost like a plague, which is never good, so a decline in birthrate might actually be good. As for the retired people: let them work longer. The age of 65 at which most people stop working was determined years ago, when people on average lived a few years less than now. Let them work those extra few years and there's no problem anymore.

I think Psychic does have a point, raising children in a seriously defected envirnment might really screw them up, leading to more crime, more depression, stuff like that.
I think it's (nearly) impossible to put any system of this kind of birth control in practice though, people won't accept it.

Psychic

I don’t know about your background. But financial security IS, as most human characteristics, inherited genetically! I think you should dedicate more of your time to reading about Evolutionary Psychology. in short: there are differences between people regarding “how much do they value, and are willing to put effort in financial security” this difference between individuals have to elements (the environmental effect on their development, and their genes). And all human traits are a mixture of environment/genes. Of course not a gene that says “get more money” but genes like “get food for you children”, “control food resources to control the tribe”. If doesn’t make any since to you read “the moral animal” by Robert Williams.

it might sound funny! But don’t you think that the Agency IS part of nature? Aren’t we with all our actions and emotions part of nature? It is natural selection enforced by the environment on an organism.

simply: in a sexually reserved society everyone needs to get married satisfy his sexual needs, cause that’s the only way, so the intense (which is usually very intense in such a society) works as a great motive for marriage. In a sexually liberated society there is readily available (and much much easier, cheaper…etc) alternatives to marriage to satisfy your sexual desire. So why marry?
there is no space here to go through the evoultion of social psychology, but you can compare "the victorian England" with the current England. or compare the conservative societies with the less conservatives societies. the buttom line is: people tend to be less content with their spouse if other options are readily available and within reach of sight. that what produces a greater percentage of such household in liberal societies.

Psychic

I don't see how this communal approach would work. but I think it carries many solutions to many pressing issues. can you make a full picture of how would you imagine implementing such a system? I say open a thread about that.

Wonderful. I'll surely add it to the picture once we finish this discussion.

Thank you, I've always been bad with analogies. but about my Premise, I think the whole Idea of this IIDB is to discuss premises, and It would be much more of benefit if we discussed premises rather than judgin them as Lunacy

mike_decock

I started a thread called The Communal Family with a little more detail about what I'm thinking of. It's not a fully developed idea, just something I've considered from time to time.

-Mike...

nermal

Shouldn't have used that word. Didn't mean to imply that your a lunatic, just that your premise leads to lunacy. Let me clarify.

The institution of regulated reproduction leads immediately to things like forced abortion or adoption (a woman being forced to put her child up for adoption) or forced sterilization. This would, of course, be controlled by some government agency.
If a person didn't submit to forced sterilization, would we drag them in and perform surgery on them against their will? Would we hold women down and inject them with birth control drugs? Some women have very bad reactions to these by the way.
If a woman had an unauthorized pregnancy, would we tie her down and abort, or pull the newborn from her arms and cart it away?

This is why your analogy was so ill-formed. Reproduction is a physiological process. You can deny someone a driver's license easily without Orwellian consequences, but to deny someone the right to exercise bodily function requires a level of government authoritarianism that is simply lunacy.

Ed

Guillaume

No offense nermal but it would be quite dumb for any western government to restrict the right to reproduce. With the fertility rates decreasing at an alarming rate and the populace getting older and older, passing a law to further limit births would roughly be a social suicide.