The problem with our concept of human rights is that it is too egalitarian and not selective enough to whom what rights are given, and it makes no exceptions when these rights become detrimental to our collective health or to the health of the world's ecosystems. If it is maintained that all humans have the right to not die of starvation, and we believe it is our duty to feed those in need of food, it is easy for us, in attempting to treat an effect, inadvertently create an even bigger problem further down the road. We heal the sick so they may breed, a million more mouths we must feed - this is one of the myopic delusions of Humanism. Healthy people breed more people. To send aid to a region impacted by overpopulation is the start of a concatenation of disastrous effects that impact our environment in a negative way. We would do much better to destroy large numbers of inhabitants in any region that has more people than available resources.
As for eugenics, anything that reestablishes as much as possible our susceptibility to the mechanisms of natural selection previous to almost the whole of modern medicinal practices would be welcomed. In addition, perhaps something such as a grades-based breeding policy would work as an incentive for would-be slackers to start paying attention in class while at the same time denying failing or incompetent students reproductive opportunity, but I'm not very sure about that. Seemingly, such a policy would at least result in a better educated populace.
Anti-Humanism is the way to go..
You have made a (sort of) case for the need for population control and proposed methods for both overpopulation and for positive eugenics.
You have not made a case for anti-humanism.
I suggest that if you wish to discuss population control and/or eugenics, you do so in either the science or the morality ethics forum and try to read up on the subjects first then think them through carefully so that your arguments are a bit better informed.
If you want to promote 'anti-humanism', I suggest you try again with reference to what humanism is actually about. You might, for example, address the article on the main website. When presenting an opposing view to a particular philosophical stance, it behoves one to know what one is talking about, if one wishes to be taken seriously.
Actually, it is precisely the reverse. In general, the more likely one's children are to survive, the fewer children one chooses to have.da_man wrote:Healthy people breed more people.
Why should we not start correcting the problem you envisage by eliminating you?
Well, quite. Is da_man perhaps thinking of humanitarianism, rather than humanism? There might be an interesting argument to be had, somewhere else, about the pros and cons of foreign aid.Maria wrote:You have not made a case for anti-humanism.
Yes, and in particular the better educated one is (especially if one is female) the fewer children one chooses to have. They showed that in Kerala. And according to Professor M A Ooman, an economist from the Centre for Social Studies, "The key features of Kerala’s model of development ... have been based on solidly Humanist principles of education, public co-operation with responsible non-government organisations (NGOs) and the empowerment of women." (Indian Rationalist Association, 28 May 2006)Nick wrote:In general, the more likely one's children are to survive, the fewer children one chooses to have.
A positive eugenics programme would presumably have incentives to encourage those who are fit, healthy, intelligent and educated to produce more children while making sure 'undesirables' have fewer or none. The question it raises (amongst others) is, 'Why?'Emma W wrote: Yes, and in particular the better educated one is (especially if one is female) the fewer children one chooses to have.
Steady on, man!da_man wrote:We would do much better to destroy large numbers of inhabitants in any region that has more people than available resources.