[OP of "Incentivizing voluntary sterilization"]
Limiting people who are on welfare to one or two children (or forcing them to pay to have a child) seems one idea to combat the rise of the welfare state.
Unfortunately, that won't stop many from still having kids (by accident or otherwise), so one humane idea is to encourage people not to have babies by giving them say $1000-$100000 for sterilization. Completely voluntary of course. The people who value their heritage and place in the world won't be tempted by the offer, whilst the "live for the moment" degenerates who only think 10 seconds ahead would jump at it.
Slowly, the population will increase in quality. It's eugenics done right - no pain, no suffering, and everyone's happy.
Any thoughts? Could this work?
22 comments
Eugenics are utterly untenable not just morally, but also scientifically . Eugenicists are, by the very nature of their believes, automatically not qualified and should start with themselves.
I`m game, but you give 100,000 per person not household and we can still adopt. It takes a special kind of social retard to not understand that your children are the ones you nurture, not the ones you push out of you snatch. Eugenics is a failed idea but this way at least we could get these idiots on board to a welfare state!
I see one glaring flaw with this, among many others: Who qualifies as a degenerate. By sane people's standards, degenerates would refuse this option more often, not less. See also: Quiverfull.
Why trust them to use the money for sterilization? How about we just round them up and forcibly sterilize them? You know, we could establish camps and offer them a choice, sterilization or evacuation. Oh wait, wasn't that a line from HBO's movie "Conspiracy?"
If you add up ALL the various welfare programs it doesn't amount to more than a fraction of the total "tax expenditures" written into the tax code. These are also known as "tax breaks" and most of them benefit the wealthy far more than anyone else.
In 2015 the federal government spent $394 billion for all welfare programs while tax expenditures amounted to $1.22 trillion.
I'm not opposed to tax expenditures per se. Many of them are beneficial and even necessary but I do think their caps should be reduced dramatically so the benefit goes where it's most needed. Right now you can deduct the interest on up to $1 million in mortgage debt. That's just plain ridiculous.
I'd much rather have my tax dollars help feed hungry children than provide a fat deduction on the mortgage interest for some fat cat's ninth house.
@Pharaoh:
>The existence of humans with certain types of severe disabilities can create jobs. This could be economically and socially beneficial.
Fuck you. Fuck you forever, and your offspring, from cradle to grave, for sharing this.
First of all: Even if I would believe that Eugenics could work (it doesn't, neither scientifically nor morally) I would have to ask you why you think that "poor people" arr automatically worth less genetically than rich people. In what why does not being on welfare equate to "having favorable genes"? You know that it has much more to do with simple luck? And once there are less peoplr on wellfare will you then proceed to the people who are in the lower 50 percent in regards to their wealth? There is no logic in this and no end to it. Sooner or later it will become mandatory if you'd allow this kind of thought. People who think like this should ALWAYS start with themselves before any official enactment. Let's see whether they would still follow through.
@2073071
@ChrisBP747
I would have to ask you why you think that "poor people" arr automatically worth less genetically than rich people. image
Where does he say that?
One problem with your idea, CRISPR.
Why advocate something as disturbing as sterilization when science is making progress at changing the genetic code?
Natural selection will slowly be replaced with artificial selection. And then you won't need to pay people to have it done and you won't need to force them, because who doesn't want good genes?
So if eugenicists are right about the human gene pool decreasing in quality why not advocate for people to donate money to genetics research to speed up this transition? Once gene editing is well researched and widely available the problem will take care of itself.
Or it will if people can afford it. Personally, I support making gene editing for disease free and subsidizing a great deal of human genetic enhancement. But my guess is these same eugenicists who now advocate for sterilization will be whining about the government giving "handouts" to people once the technology gets to the point where that particular political debate is on the radar.
@ChrisBP747
OP I think you are a sick bastard and should be sterilized. and then killed
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
