Should the Means of Human Reproduction be Centralised? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should the Means of Human Reproduction be Centralised?

1. I am a leftist and human reproduction should be more centralised
2
11%
2. I am not a leftist and human reproduction should be more centralised
No votes
0%
3. I am a leftist and human reproduction should NOT be centralised
6
33%
4. I am not a leftist and human reproduction should NOT be centralised
6
33%
5. other
4
22%
#14992756
Some people talk about centralising the means of production presumably meaning tools, materials, labour, real estate and whatnot, but what about the means of human production?

Arguably new generations of humans are the most important things which humans produce, should that not also be taken over as a government monopoly? What are the arguments in favour? What are the arguments against? Which do you prefer?

If you are having trouble imagining what a centralisation of human reproduction might look like then Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is the best and probably the only fictional depiction.
#14992757
Oops, I voted for #1 in the poll by mistake... sorry!

I have an unusual position on this for a western conservative, I'm really curious about how China's system works out. Although this may not be what you mean by centralizing reproduction.

Basically I think that reproduction presumably needs to be controlled and that it's not the kind of thing that can be left to private enterprise, which generally manages things better than a centralized authority.
#14992772
Most people reproduce irresponsibly and that does create a lot of problems and a lot of unnecessary suffering but setting up a central authority with the power to regulate reproduction would be ill advised for a number of reasons and it's not really necessary to begin with because there are plenty of noncoercive ways of addressing the problem that would be just as effective.
#14992891
Hong Wu wrote:Oops, I voted for #1 in the poll by mistake... sorry!

I have an unusual position on this for a western conservative, I'm really curious about how China's system works out. Although this may not be what you mean by centralizing reproduction.

Basically I think that reproduction presumably needs to be controlled and that it's not the kind of thing that can be left to private enterprise, which generally manages things better than a centralized authority.

China is attempting to regulate human reproduction to an extent rarely seen in human history but yet actual production of people is still done in the usual de-centralised way, so it isn't really what I am talking about. Also that regulation is just a production cap, they are not saying when you can reproduce, or controling which people can breed with which people and many other factors are left to the discretion of the individuals concerned.

To borrow from economic paradigms the human default for people production is laissez-faire, China is attempting Keynesianism but nowhere yet is trying for a full state monopoly, a planned economy in people production. This would be a centralised state owned people factory, probably producing clones genetically engineered for particular jobs and these clones would be designed to be infertile to prevent independent reproduction, except for specialised breeder clones kept and closely controlled in the factory.

It is nowhere seen in humans though this model is ubiquitous amongst the hive insects, such as ants and bees.
#14992897
SolarCross wrote:China is attempting to regulate human reproduction to an extent rarely seen in human history but yet actual production of people is still done in the usual de-centralised way, so it isn't really what I am talking about. Also that regulation is just a production cap, they are not saying when you can reproduce, or controling which people can breed with which people and many other factors are left to the discretion of the individuals concerned.

To borrow from economic paradigms the human default for people production is laissez-faire, China is attempting Keynesianism but nowhere yet is trying for a full state monopoly, a planned economy in people production. This would be a centralised state owned people factory, probably producing clones genetically engineered for particular jobs and these clones would be designed to be infertile to prevent independent reproduction, except for specialised breeder clones kept and closely controlled in the factory.

It is nowhere seen in humans though this model is ubiquitous amongst the hive insects, such as ants and bees.

I see, my concern with this kind of idea is that humans just aren't hive insects... for example, all hive insects are often "clones" of each other. Of course, since we're talking SF right now, the people produced in such a setting would also be clones... if we throw in some kind of brain-to-internet interface it could get pretty weird but might be theoretically workable.
#14992975
SSDR wrote:SolarCross, Well, you don't want criminals to reproduce, do you?


I am completely fine with criminals reproducing. :eh: What kind of barbarian inflicts sterilisation on people just because they crossed a legal line or two?

How is your question even related to the OP when the vast majority of people never pick up the label "criminal" anyway?
#14992985
:knife: @Hindsite You don't need to have kids, to have sex. :lol: It seems that you think the two are the same. That's a dumb connection to make.

Also, you don't even know what left means, so maybe you should not "remove all doubt".
#14993035
@SolarCross, Usually criminals tend to reproduce criminals because criminals teach their children on how to be criminals.

A criminal is someone who is a threat to the survival of humanity. Criminals slack off of society's labour, and cause social decay. If the means of human reproduction are centralized, this would also PREVENT child abuse because I don't want potential domestic abusers to have children.

Oh wait I forgot, you ultraconservatives don't even recognize domestic abuse. :roll:
#14993039
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, Usually criminals tend to reproduce criminals because criminals teach their children on how to be criminals.

A criminal is someone who is a threat to the survival of humanity. Criminals slack off of society's labour, and cause social decay. If the means of human reproduction are centralized, this would also PREVENT child abuse because I don't want potential domestic abusers to have children.

Oh wait I forgot, you ultraconservatives don't even recognize domestic abuse. :roll:


That is a stupidly brutal and simplistic way to look at it. We are all potential criminals depending on what the law happens to be at the time, the vigour of enforcement and dumb luck. Aside from that the qualities that can propel one towards "criminality" in one context can propel one towards success in others. From all that I see of your mind present in your posts I am not even sure you are human let alone a saintly one, should I castrate you for that?

Even the most serious of criminals are nuisance value to humanity as a whole so that much is gross hyperbole. Bad laws and misgovernance are a more serious threat to humanity and those are two things you would do if you could.

This is however a tangent because the policy of castrating or sterilising prisoners that you are promoting has nothing to do with the OP as far I can tell.
#14993318
@SolarCross, Yes any human could potentially be a criminal. No one can force anyone to do anything. People break laws, people get death penalties, and people also get corporal punishments, yet this still doesn't stop crime 100 percent (although it would be effective if it did).

I am a human being. I am just not some emotional, dramatic nut job who uses emotions to control other people's destinies. Just because a mother doesn't judge her daughter's aggression doesn't mean the mother is not a human being. If anything, you're not a human being because you are against the progression of humanity, since humanity always changes.

Laws that do not prevent social decay and activities that are dangerous to the survival of humanity are more of a serious threat because the most evil people are not those who do evil, but rather those who let evil slide.

Sterilising prisoners is a excellent idea. Do you really want those horrible criminals to reproduce? :hmm:
#14993345
SSDR wrote:Sterilising prisoners is a excellent idea. Do you really want those horrible criminals to reproduce?
Many criminals are simply people who made mistakes. Many learn not to repeat the crime and become good members of society. Your idea is ridiculous and ill-conceived.
#14993528
@SSDR It's not a viewpoint. It's fact. Many criminals are people who make mistakes, or people who are mentally ill and need help to become functioning members of society.

Criminal behavior is not "genetic" either, and I challenge you to prove that, if you think it is.

Your sterilizing idea is very stupid. The ones who are already in prison for the rest of their lives aren't going to procreate, anyhow. :knife:
Atheism is Evil

Babies aren't evil but most of them are stupid as[…]

Who would have thought! No difference between a […]

@Drlee Pelosi is a very experienced politicia[…]

Will Africa ever lose third world status?

I understand, and folks who are retarded are now […]