A halfway decent social welfare system can have the same effect.
Food, inflation & social stbility
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
The thought of having anyone dictate the choice to reproduce, is certainly outrageous to contemplate, yet the alternative, of increasing numbers of persons starving in light of the dynamics posed by over-extending the capacity of the planet to provide may prove far uglier in future.
I have nothing to gain or lose personally in this discussion because I made the decision NOT to have children, leaving my brothers to propagate the family genetics.
Choosing whether or not to have children, at what time of life and in what number has always been an option in the developed countries.
Unfortunately, this option has not much been utilized in optimum manner.
However, our demographics have changed sufficiently in this regard, at least in Canada, that the majority of our replacement workforce is rapidly shifting to immigrants, but that is a topic for another thread.
The future of our food supply shall prove challenge enough for this one.
I have nothing to gain or lose personally in this discussion because I made the decision NOT to have children, leaving my brothers to propagate the family genetics.
Choosing whether or not to have children, at what time of life and in what number has always been an option in the developed countries.
Unfortunately, this option has not much been utilized in optimum manner.
However, our demographics have changed sufficiently in this regard, at least in Canada, that the majority of our replacement workforce is rapidly shifting to immigrants, but that is a topic for another thread.
The future of our food supply shall prove challenge enough for this one.
Our social welfare system has been criticized as being a might too good. A family of four can take home $2,500.00/month, so who in blazes is going to go and work at physical tasks for $10.00/hr starting wage.
Recruits for graveyard grocery shift are scarcer than hen's teeth, but I think we finally have a newbie. From 'the old country' and of vintage years, and mannerly. He starts tonight, so I'll get to meet him in 7 hours.
No it is based on many false assumptions of yours. So I can only again conclude you opposition to a new choice for the poor is a knee-jerk reaction with no desire to understand the proposal. I.e. no desire to learn that not one of the following you assert is true:
(1) "A program of forced sterilizations of the poor, by another name.”
No one is forced to participate. They can stay with the current system if that is their wish. Program is a new ALTERNATIVE they can CHOOSE. or choose to remain in the current assistance programs. I.e. they are NOT sterilized but can be fertile again when ever they chose.
(2) “It means the poor cannot breed, unless and until they cease to be poor. That is a repulsive exercise in social darwinism, that you ought to be ashamed to propose in public.”
No if they choose to participate and then change their mind, for example later want another child, they simply cancel their registration, automatically get any food stamps etc. they were getting before joining and return to the present system. Participation is their free and not permanent choice.
(3) “Making that assistance conditional on a birth control regimen, is thus exactly a program of forced sterilization of the poor.”
Answer to (1) applies, but here I note not one of the current assistance programs is taken away from them to force them to participate in the NEW ALTERNATVE assistance program. Again it is their choice. I also note that IF the current assistance programs were avoiding malnutrition brain damage to children, not sending many hungry children to school many mainly for the free lunch, etc. I would not suggest any alternative, but the current system is failing.
Ergo a more effective new alternative is needed.
(4) “… not just the well-off - really don't want to live in a society where their reproductive choices are dictated by government social engineers, but instead are matters of personal conscience and self-determination. Go live in China if you want some unaccountable bureaocrat deciding who can and can't have kids.”
Again replies to (1) and (3) apply. Your text I have made bold it pure fiction – a straw horse you have invented because you don’t want to understand the suggestion is a new choice offer as a supplement to the present system. You are not being rational, not trying to understand - you are attacking the straw horse you invented. If that is not a knee-jerk reaction of opposition then I don’t know what to call it. There is no need to apologize for calling a spade a spade.
As you note, the government does give some birth control free to the poor (at least in Brazil), but I am not sure about the US, where some religions, with considerable numbers of voters are opposed to that. I think only private agents give free birth control agent or information. In any case this often fails to prevent unwanted births. Hundreds if not thousands of women die annually as a result of botched illegal abortions. Others are made sterile so later when they want a child they cannot have one. These failures of the present system are what the new alternative is trying to reduce.
Certainly, when the desired birth control is not successful, the US does not give free abortions at tax-payer expenses. Many, even those who are well educated and not poor may desire to not have more children and have birth control pills available but fail to always take them correctly and become pregnant against their wishes. By putting the control agent in their food, they would not fail to take it because as you note, they must eat, and while they chose to remain in the new program they would not become pregnant against their wishes but get the agent every day without “forgetting it take it”, etc. Compliance with daily medicine requirements is a huge problem, and not just for birth control pills, but even medicine that are life-saving, like satins for high blood pressure, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I agree that is theoretically possible, but many decades of US experience has shown it not to be politically possible. I can not be sure, but think even some bigoted right wing Republicans might vole in favor of the plan I am proposing as it reduces food stamp programs, at least the every growing numbers (1 in 8 now) in the next generation, etc. I.e. it may be both more beneficial, server the users wishes better*, AND politically feasible.
------------
*reduce back alley abortions, deaths, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Our social welfare system has been criticized as being a might too good. A family of four can take home $2,500.00/month, so who in blazes is going to go and work at physical tasks for $10.00/hr starting wage.
Recruits for graveyard grocery shift are scarcer than hen's teeth, but I think we finally have a newbie. From 'the old country' and of vintage years, and mannerly. He starts tonight, so I'll get to meet him in 7 hours.
There will always be freeloaders whom seek to take advantage of any such system, however, 'social welfare' isn't neccessarily about direct handouts, it includes concepts as free or low cost heallthcare and education, removing taxes such as GST from goods such as fresh fruit and vegetables.
And controls can be tightened - for example, one might provide incentive by a number of ways, which make going out and finding a job more appealing than being appointed to a job that you dislike.
Might I ask where you are, incidentaly?
The US isn't the only country in the world.
There are literaly dozens of countries around the world that have strong social welfare traditions, and beat the US in terms of things like economic freedom, press freedom, civil liberties, life span, education and the such.
What's needed in the US is a fundamental paradigm shift.
What's needed in the US is for people to get their collective heads out of their collective arses and take a moment to look around them.
Free health care is not the end of health insurance or the open market in health. Where I live, in NZ, we have free healthcare, and private hospitals are available. Going through the public system, even for elective surgery is great, but if you have health insurance, you can pay to get it done a dam site quicker.
If you fall below an income threshold, you qualify for a card that entitles you to subsidized (or in some cases free) Dr's visits. You can get subsidies if you have a medical condition that means that you have to have frequent medication.
We have a government subsidized company - Pharmac, that in essence bulk buys certain drugs, then on-sells them to New Zealand consumers at reduced cost, but you don't have to settle for the Pharmac subsidized drugs if you don't want to, you're free to pay more, and get the drug of your choice.
Children under the age of 5 in NZ qualify for free Dr's visits.
But can you imagine how much controversy trying to introduce some of these in the US would cause?
Then you are against fluoridating the water at water treatment plants too huh? And I must say, all these pesky hormones showing up in our meat, milk, and community water supply, affecting our children's growth rates? This is seriously offensive, isn't it?
Cocaine, Spices, Hormones Found in Drinking Water
Can Birth Control Hormones Be Filtered from the Water Supply?
Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies
My only hope is the spring from which I get my spring water is not polluted. lol
Either way, the modern world has polluted our food and water supply, and it is offensive. Unless you take responsibility for securing your own food and water and making sure you know what is in it, you are going to be drugged, poisoned, etc., so your objections to BillyT's novel idea seem a bit over stated. The ruling elites are already conducting many such programs already with out even making them public. To believe otherwise is to live in a fairytale land. Hell, look up, can't you see what they are spraying in the sky? lol
What would one expect from the government? Most of the people that would elect to be on this program? They'd eat at McDonald's and keep having kids just to get an extra welfare check. I've worked in those neighborhoods, seriously. You have a good point though, the program should maybe only be for women of child bearing age. Maybe it could be incorporated into WIC somehow?
Then you are against fluoridating the water at water treatment plants too huh? And I must say, all these pesky hormones showing up in our meat, milk, and community water supply, affecting our children's growth rates? This is seriously offensive, isn't it?
Cocaine, Spices, Hormones Found in Drinking Water
Can Birth Control Hormones Be Filtered from the Water Supply?
Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies
My only hope is the spring from which I get my spring water is not polluted. lol
Either way, the modern world has polluted our food and water supply, and it is offensive. Unless you take responsibility for securing your own food and water and making sure you know what is in it, you are going to be drugged, poisoned, etc., so your objections to BillyT's novel idea seem a bit over stated. The ruling elites are already conducting many such programs already with out even making them public. To believe otherwise is to live in a fairytale land. Hell, look up, can't you see what they are spraying in the sky? lol
What would one expect from the government? Most of the people that would elect to be on this program? They'd eat at McDonald's and keep having kids just to get an extra welfare check. I've worked in those neighborhoods, seriously. You have a good point though, the program should maybe only be for women of child bearing age. Maybe it could be incorporated into WIC somehow?
Then stop urinating.
Yes, it is pretty much that simple - most drugs that humans take are eliminated by the addition of glucose to the molecule, however, there are a number of bacterial species (for example) for which it is energetically favourable to cleave the glucose from the drug - the net result being that for some drugs, the concentration in the discharge is higher than the concentration in the influent, and excrete the drug. These drugs are only in the environment because humans use them in the first place, and insist on urinating, and insist on collecting said urine into centralized plant for treatment.
Why not close down the pharmaceutical industry?
Because it's safer for me to get ACE inhibitors from the chemist then it is for me to try and milk the venom of the Gila monster, which also happens to have a whole bunch of other chemicals in it that cause less than pleasant synergistic effects.
Why not just let the central government do its job and legislate tighter controls on discharges to water?
Well, I can't say I disagree with you in the least. But that was my point earlier. It is, in the end, every citizens job, in this modern high tech world to be aware of what is in their food and water. To assume that what is coming out of your tap is "safe," or that what you buy in your stores to eat is likewise safe, b/c your government says it is, is probably fool hardy. (Unless you buy it fresh from the farmer.) The planners don't care about the individuals. We all need to look out for number one, and not depend on the government to do it for us.
BTW. . . have you tried the venom?
Yes. There are plenty of other incentives and subsidized education and retraining among them, our basic medical in this territory is paid for though not dental and we have no taxes on most food save packaged junk food.
I reside in the southwest Yukon, Canada.
No, I can't say that I have - on account of some of the other chemicals present in them - I only need the oneBTW. . . have you tried the venom?
.As or the rest of it, IMO that comes down to education, and I could go on a lengthy monologue regarding that.
To the other, it is my understanding that the fate of pharmaceuticals in the environment, and the study there of is all very new, and many of the results were unexpected.
We pay 15% Goods and Services Tax on, well, all goods and services, but there's a movement that is rapidly gaining momentum to remove GST on some produce such as fresh fruit and vegetables, because the belief is that GST unfairly targets people in low income brackets and makes healthy food more difficult for those people to obtain (which is going to have obvious flow on effects).
First let me clarify: The program I am suggesting should be considered by many countries with excessive population growth.
In Vietnam’s exports to China, third only to rice and bicycles I think, is females purchased as brides. Go here and see photos of about 1000 currently offered by just one mail order bride company: WWW.cqxghj.com/productlist.asp If “google translate” option does not appear, click on the third from top entry in the list on left side of home page –that translates as “Vietnamese girl" and will cause first of many pages of photos to appear. At bottom of page, 2nd from right, if clicked will bring up the next page of photos.
I would like that the present system be improved, but decades of trying in the US (and some other countries), have not been very successful so realistically I suggested a supplemental alternative the people can chose to join for a year , for 5 years, until woman is non fertile naturally, or for interrupted periods E.g. on for two years, then off to have child, then back on for 2 more years, then off again to have a second child, rather than child every year as often happens among the ill-educated and poor. The people, who are eligible, use this new alternative for-what every period THEY, not the government, CHOOSE.
Something must be done differently, and soon, or there will be mass starvations. Compared to that even the Chinese approach is to be preferred.
I would be very opposed to the government deciding who could have children or how many, or even when, although that governmental dictation draconian approach has worked in China if you ignore the female infanticides and sex based abortions that has now only 9 girls for 10 boys.
In Vietnam’s exports to China, third only to rice and bicycles I think, is females purchased as brides. Go here and see photos of about 1000 currently offered by just one mail order bride company: WWW.cqxghj.com/productlist.asp If “google translate” option does not appear, click on the third from top entry in the list on left side of home page –that translates as “Vietnamese girl" and will cause first of many pages of photos to appear. At bottom of page, 2nd from right, if clicked will bring up the next page of photos.
I would like that the present system be improved, but decades of trying in the US (and some other countries), have not been very successful so realistically I suggested a supplemental alternative the people can chose to join for a year , for 5 years, until woman is non fertile naturally, or for interrupted periods E.g. on for two years, then off to have child, then back on for 2 more years, then off again to have a second child, rather than child every year as often happens among the ill-educated and poor. The people, who are eligible, use this new alternative for-what every period THEY, not the government, CHOOSE.
Something must be done differently, and soon, or there will be mass starvations. Compared to that even the Chinese approach is to be preferred.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. I have many posts, some in thread "How DUMB can American voters be?" that point out most advanced countries have "out of pocket free or nearly so" socialized medical services, which have total cost to the society of less than half that in the US AND typically provide 2 or 3 years greater life expectancy.
The US's "for profit" system provides little care for the poor. Because they do not get preventive care or go to doctor when first sick, they often eventually end up at the hospital's emergency room, and make taxpayer pay 20 to 80 times more than if they had gotten preventive care or early treatment.
The medical insurance industry make a big profit too. All these profits and extra cost is why the US system is twice as costly. Doctors fees in the US are several times higher than in other advanced countries where doctors are on salary because the AMA must approve the opening of a new medical school (In almost all states) and does not approve any as it wants there not to be an adequate supply of doctors to cause price competition.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have stated that in more than one post.
My understanding is that population growth in the US is being driven by three factors.
1) Immigration.
2) Baby Boomers
3) Religiosity.
To the first, it can be dealt with through laws, and as neighbouring countries become increasingly prosperous, immigration pressure tends to lesson.
To the next, baby boomers are a glut moving through the system, when they have moved through the system, growth pressures will eases substantialy.
To the last. Religous extremism. What, precisely can be done about it? Not a lot really, however perhaps worthy of note is the fact that even the Iranian government has recognized the need to control the level or population and has introduced family planning laws.