Sane conservatives

[Scepticalscribe]

As I remarked earlier, the single most important way to transforming a society for the better - economically, culturally, socially, politically - (and - as an aside - reducing the birthrate) is to ensure that women have education, economic independence, agency & autonomy, and access to safe, affordable and reliable birth control.

What is the income limit? Who decides who is “fit“ to reproduce?

What are the criteria for who is allowed to reproduce in your proposed system?

Yes, agreed.

I've long been amused at the extraordinarily strong - adamantine in the critical certainty of their judgmental opinions - views some men seem to have on demographics, and on issues relating to birth.

I'm also struck that those who advocate that the rght to breed be curtailed and limited (to the deserving and meritorious) rarely envisage such restrictions applying to themsleves, above all, if male.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

As I remarked earlier, the single most important way to transforming a society for the better - economically, culturally, socially, politically - (and - as an aside - reducing the birthrate) is to ensure that women have education, economic independence, agency & autonomy, and access to safe, affordable and reliable birth control.






Yes, agreed.

I've long been amused at the extraordinarily strong - adamantine in the critical certainty of their judgmental opinions - views some men seem to have on demographics, and on issues relating to birth.

I'm also struck that those who advocate that the rght to breed be curtailed and limited (to the deserving and meritorious) rarely envisage such restrictions applying to themsleves, above all, if male.

This isn’t a feminist issue. It’s a global population issue.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This isn’t a feminist issue. It’s a global population issue.

Actually, I cannot think of an issue could be regarded as a greater feminist issue than birth, birth rates, pregnancies (when to have them, and when not) and who should get to have a say in such matters.

In societies where men control such things, popuations tend to grow; in soceties where women do, populations fall becasue the birth rate does.

In any case, it is a feminist issue, because, firstly, women give birth, - and tend to be considered responsible for child rearing (bearing the economic, physical, and social costs of childbirth and child rearing to a disproportionate degree) - and some of the most repressive (and conservative) societies are those where they have little choice over whether or not to become pregnant, and have little agency, autinomy, or independence.

The bottom line is that in every society in the world where women have been educated, economically independent, have agency in society, and have access to birth control, birth rates fall. Actually, when women have a significant say in such things, birth rates tumble.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Actually, I cannot think of an issue could be regarded as a greater feminist issue than birth, birth rates, pregnancies (when to have them, and when not) and who should get to have a say in such matters.

In societies where men control such things, popuations tend to grow; in soceties where women do, populations fall becasue the birth rate does.

In any case, it is a feminist issue, because, firstly, women give birth, - and tend to be considered responsible for child rearing (bearing the economic, physical, and social costs of childbirth and child rearing to a disproportionate degree) - and some of the most repressive (and conservative) societies are those where they have little choice over whether or not to become pregnant, and have little agency, autinomy, or independence.

The bottom line is that in every society in the world where women have been educated, economically independent, have agency in society, and have access to birth control, birth rates fall. Actually, when women have a significant say in such things, birth rates tumble.

I'm mostly hard lining my view for the sake of debate.

What do you think the result would be if just all men were sterilized?

What do you think would be the result if the entire population was born sterile and it could medically be fixed but it wouldn't be cheap? I wouldn't say so expensive that it's out of reach for most people, but out of reach if you are just surviving on welfare.

 

[Eraserhead]

But does that number take expanded social safety net programs into consideration? Meaning what percentage of those people are no longer considered in absolute poverty because governments or even charity kicked in a bit more?

I read an article a while back talking about high profile democrat (not sure if that is important) philanthropists and capitalists patting themselves on the back for supposedly lifting so many people globally out of poverty. What they don't talk about is how ridiculously low the bar is, like just being able to consume enough calories a day to not starve to death is considered being lifted out of poverty. So your life and living conditions are mostly shit but you didn't die from starvation. Go you!

how much have social safety nets expanded in India, China and Africa?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

how much have social safety nets expanded in India, China and Africa?

I have no idea. Are you saying they haven't?

Some interesting info here

Global poverty: Facts, FAQs, and how to help

Find answers to questions about global poverty, including poverty facts and statistics. Discover the progress toward ending extreme poverty.

www.worldvision.org

Since 1990, more than 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty and child mortality has dropped by more than half.

Sounds great, but I can't find anything that disputes being upgraded from extreme poverty to regular poverty just means you are less likely to die from starvation. What an upgrade!

 

[Eraserhead]

I have no idea. Are you saying they haven't?

Some interesting info here

Global poverty: Facts, FAQs, and how to help

Find answers to questions about global poverty, including poverty facts and statistics. Discover the progress toward ending extreme poverty.

www.worldvision.org

Since 1990, more than 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty and child mortality has dropped by more than half.

Sounds great, but I can't find anything that disputes being upgraded from extreme poverty to regular poverty just means you are less likely to die from starvation. What an upgrade!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty explains it. There has been a big improvement over time.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty explains it. There has been a big improvement over time.

I didn't read the whole thing, but does it mention anywhere about the quality of life of those just above extreme poverty? It's almost remarkable how that's being avoided in all my searches. Coming up with a dollar amount per day pretty much tells us nothing. "Access to" is also a misleading word. Homeless people in the US have access to things that they don't in less developed countries so comparing globally they probably aren't even considered extreme poverty.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I didn't read the whole thing, but does it mention anywhere about the quality of life of those just above extreme poverty? It's almost remarkable how that's being avoided in all my searches. Coming up with a dollar amount per day pretty much tells us nothing. "Access to" is also a misleading word. Homeless people in the US have access to things that they don't in less developed countries so comparing globally they probably aren't even considered extreme poverty.

The measurement here is one of "comparative poverty" - i.e. how your standard of living and quality of life compares with others in your country or culture, not "absolute poverty".

And, I do not understand this punitive mindset so prevalent in the US, whereby one seeks to punish the poor, humiliate them, limit their choices and life chances and control their lives, - so much for the land of freedoms - instead of affording them a decent quality of life, better life chances and the means (education, economic support, social capital etc) to achieve that.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The measurement here is one of "comparative poverty" - i.e. how your standard of living and quality of life compares with others in your country or culture, not "absolute poverty".

And, I do not understand this punitive mindset so prevalent in the US, whereby one seeks to punish the poor, humiliate them, limit their choices and life chances and control their lives, - so much for the land of freedoms - instead of affording them a decent quality of life, better life chances and the means (education, economic support, social capital etc) to achieve that.

When the right hears about expanded social welfare programs their mind instantly zips to some (most likely minority) individual playing video games all day while smoking weed on the government checks with no effort or desire to change that. When I bring up the ludicrous idea of rendering the entire population (reversibly) sterile the left's thoughts go to some poor loving family that should be able to have children because, I don't know, they're loving. The left is also the side of panic alarm global warming and taking drastic measures. Less people on the planet is a drastic measure and is also a recently proven solution when Covid caused global shut downs and stay at home orders. In a very short time period after that the planet's health improved.

I had some more thought about what should the standard be. How about a median of whatever adoption requirements are out there? I think I can safely assume people would be horrified if children were just handed out to anybody who wanted one without any requirements or background check. So why wouldn't you be horrified having zero requirements for people creating even more people?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

To achieve population reduction, you don't have to control, curtail, regulate, punish or limit people, least of all the poor; insted, it is very simple: You merely have to empower women.

(Empower = Education, which means economic opportunities which, in turn, means agency, and economic autonomy, and also access to safe, reliable and affordable birth control).

Once you do that, economies improve, - as women participate in the economy - as does standard of living, and their families have better health, housing, educational and life opportunities, and - yes - family size decreases, sometmes drastically, and quite rapidly, usually taking just a generation or two, to do so.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

To achieve population reduction, you don't have to control, curtail, regulate, punish or limit people, least of all the poor; insted, it is very simple: You merely have to empower women.

(Empower = Education, which means economic opportunities which, in turn, means agency, and economic autonomy, and also access to safe, reliable and affordable birth control).

Once you do that, economies improve, - as women participate in the economy - as does standard of living, and their families have better health, housing, educational and life opportunities, and - yes - family size decreases, sometmes drastically, and quite rapidly, usually taking just a generation or two, to do so.

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion, but more women have been empowered over time and yet the global population has only grown. What does that tell you? The less equipped, educated, and responsible people are the ones continuing to reproduce coupled with a system that is expanding mortality. Which do you think is going to happen first, more women get empowered to decrease the global population or the population is going to continue to increase along with increasing human suffering and damage to the planet? I'm asking for a factual answer, not an idealistic answer.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion, but more women have been empowered over time and yet the global population has only grown. What does that tell you? The less equipped, educated, and responsible people are the ones continuing to reproduce coupled with a system that is expanding mortality. Which do you think is going to happen first, more women get empowered to decrease the global population or the population is going to continue to increase along with increasing human suffering and damage to the planet? I'm asking for a factual answer, not an idealistic answer.

Women are still not empowered in vast parts of the planet, - and, nowhere in the world are they yet entirely equal, not even in Scandinavia.

Besides, even in some supposedly advanced countries (Poland, the US) hard fought gains on issues such as access to birth control, and the right to abortion, are being rolled back as controlling, misogynistic conservatives succeed in passing legislation to overturn such hard fought gains.

Change can go in both directions, and rights - if conditional and if context changes - can be removed every bit as swiftly (and as completely) as they were granted.

I'm giving you a factual answer.

Anywhere where women's rights have increased, the birth rate has fallen. There is a direct relationship between the power (agency, independence, rights) enjoyed by women, and family size and demographics.

This is why aid agencies - belatedly, very belatedly - woke up to the fact that educating and empowering women was, and is, the key, the single most important key - to bringing about social, economic, and political progress in a country.

And that is also one of the reasons that conservatives are so opposed to this.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Women are still not empowered in vast parts of the planet, - and, nowhere in the world are they yet entirely equal, not even in Scandinavia.

Besides, even in some supposedly advanced countries (Poland, the US) hard fought gains on issues such as access to birth control, and the right to abortion, are being rolled back as controlling, misogynistic conservatives succeed in passing legislation to overturn such hard fought gains.

Change can go in both directions, and rights - if conditional and if context changes - can be removed every bit as swiftly (and as completely) as they were granted.

I'm giving you a factual answer.

Anywhere where women's rights have increased, the birth rate has fallen. There is a direct relationship between the power (agency, independence, rights) enjoyed by women, and family size and demographics.

This is why aid agencies - belatedly, very belatedly - woke up to the fact that educating and empowering women was, and is, the key, the single most important key - to bringing about social, economic, and political progress in a country.

And that is also one of the reasons that conservatives are so opposed to this.

You're not giving me a factual answer. You are continuing on your crusade. I asked you which do you think is going to happen first, globally women are going to gain more rights to decrease or stop population growth or the population growth will continue to crisis level and more suffering?