• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Mandatory training/certification to have children?

Instead of trying to pass licenses to have children, which will never fly politically, why not have the US government fund more research into birth control, especially reversible sterility for men and women.

It would probably do more good.

As for the eugenics argument, I always loved the eugenics in the book "Beyond this Horizon". Basically, anyone could have kids, but only the "best" gene out of the pairs of genes every individual has was selected to pass down to their children. So if you had a gene for cystic fibrosis and a normal gene, your child would only get the normal gene. To prevent society from screwing itself over by selecting the wrong gene, a small percentage of the population was given a stipend to have kids the old-fashioned (random gene mix) way.

It's beyond our current technology, but its a good way of weeding out bad genes in the absence of (say) random lion attacks our ancestors faced.
 
DOB, I knew you'd say that and that's why I wrote "nature AND society" help to shape our genetics. The concrete jungle is still a damn effective natural selector, if you ask me!
 
B9 said:
Couldn't be implemented, maybe to a certain extent in the first world it could.
I envision womenn hiding in caves clutching beloved infants to their breasts as the kaywholed Unofficial Infant Extermination Unit secure the area & begin their search. They carry painless transdermal euthanising chemicals & place these on the child to die by crossing the forehead with the chemical.
Click to expand...

lol, that's very similar to the picture I got in my head

What might seem like utopia to some, could turn ugly really fast. I hope empathy is the way of the future. If we all based our actions on empathy to our fellow humans, then we wouldn't need these licenses. We need to cultivate empathy in ourselves as that would allow us to solve our problems together without all this unproductive hostility.

More law is hardly what we need.
 
^ agreed. in fact I think it's heading in that direction. there might always be people who crave fascism and a harsh and merciless master, though.
 
Z Y G G Y said:
lol, that's very similar to the picture I got in my head

What might seem like utopia to some, could turn ugly really fast. I hope empathy is the way of the future. If we all based our actions on empathy to our fellow humans, then we wouldn't need these licenses. We need to cultivate empathy in ourselves as that would allow us to solve our problems together without all this unproductive hostility.

More law is hardly what we need.
Click to expand...


The theme of non-romantic ectogenesis is cental to Huxley's 'A Brave New World'
http://www.huxley.net/bnw/
One of the most prescient texts of the 20th century Huxley's Dystopia is illustrative of various means of state-sanctioned engineering, whose cumalative effect is emergent.

It is well worth a reread if only to be repeatedly exposed to Huxley's fiction, as emerging trend in most modern Western Societies - a world inhabited by Hedonistic, amoral, emotionless pseudo-clones who are deferential to their elites...kept in a stupefied torpor and surreptitiously made to accept their lot by mental conditioning and drugs.

Here the whole business of procreation and child rearing is given over to the state suggesting a neo-Spartan assumption of procreative rights, in this sense it reflected Huxley's real-life world where Eugenics found favour

Aldous' brother Julian was the father of eugenics and headed national and international eugenics societies and movements, inserted Eugenics into UNESCOs founding charter whilst promoting his positive views on Eugenics to national bodies across the world.

Aldous Huxley is on record on confirming that 'A Brave New World' was his Dystopian vision of a future of scientific dictatorships.

It seems to me that literature such as 'A Brave New World' and 'Nineteen Eighty Four' remind us of the slippery soap argument as to where Eugenics might lead a society.

PAX
 
@ControlDenied

In what way are death and taxes a new human habitat that leads to the natural selection of humans to best fit this environment, selecting advantageous physiological change?

Or are you talking strictly of psychological evolution, brought about by Death and Taxes?

Just trying to understand your perspective more clearly.:)

PAX
 
I guess I have an Asian perspective on technology and society. It's very different from our natural roots [the jungle], but its still an extension of it; they're not separate. So society is nature. In that sense, in fact, "society" doesn't even exist. It's a bunch of street and buildings with humans living there who believe in stuff in order to make sense to each other.

So even though it's true that there's much less HARSH natural selection than before, it's still there. And survival isn't the same as truly living [much less reproducing].

For example, who is it easiest, in a general way, to have the most kids? Poor people [slaves], and rich people [masters]. The middle class barely even produce offspring. So the most important shoes are still being manufactured and filled with human feet: labourers and masterminds. Simple as that. Middle class is in danger I think. But my point is, things balance out, just like they did in the jungle, because there's no true boundary, only a change [if very radical, granted]/

I hope that makes sense. I'm no political scientist or sociologist. This is my intuitive take on things and nothing less or more. And I'm using my own voice not an academic one. hehe.
 
^^

Okay, I see what you mean now, that a non-urbanised society does select for physiological strengths, usually (but not exclusively) in the first year of someone's life - due to diminished access to healthcare resources (which is one of the greatest counterweights against natural selection).

In the equatorial 'East', where man a nature have a more symbiotic relationship natural selection still occurs at some level, whereas the urbanised Occident, in the absence of Eugenics, and with the provisions of free ante-natal support + paediatrics artificially interfere with natural selection.

If this is the case you were making then its a highly relevant point. No need to have an academic voice - I was simply unclear what you meant by uour comment.
 
no, I - we- was/were talking about Western society, right? which is at least 2/3 urban basically. so I was talking about the concrete jungle just like in the last post

natural selection doesnt occur just by trees falling on your head and killing you...there's also selection for mates and reproduction..... and speaking of which I sure could use some of that...
 
That' true, urban areas in 2nd/3rd world countries do have harsher, or more present, natural selection because they just have less means of alleviating deformities of various kinds, and also less of a desire too [they're more old fashioned/primitive...in the West there is a ridiculous and self-defeating "life is worth clinging to at all costs" mentality, which, with its anti-euthanisation policies and whatnot, is actually less humane, not more humane, than the alternative [killing off those born with insanely painful deformities; vegetables; etc]

its like the old saying... often, the mercy of the wise is apparent to the naked eye as brutality.


*
hold on...are you saying they use eugenics in the east? I can't tell by your wording exactly. I don't think eugenics as such is in practice anywhere in the world, as far as I know, except in North Korea.
 
^^

Sorry if my wording confused you. I was making the point that the absence of Eugenics in the West (or lack thereof) and was making no comparison with the 'East' as regards eugenics.

Hope that's clear.

PAX
 
oh ok.
crystal clear [salutes]
anyway im done with this thread... i dont wanna entertain even the possibility of eugenics.
 
It seems to me that governmental interference within natural 'procreative rights', not only opens the door for the return of Classical Eugenics (An idea I find morally bankrupt), but leaves that door wide open to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats to interfere with one's private life.

What would be next, I licence for coitus??
 
Yet I still think something like licenses have to be enacted, not so much as a means of taking it away from people, but as education and continuous updating of that information to those people. That is my main reason for holding this point of view.
Click to expand...
while i understand your position and i like its motivations, i'm hopeful that the internet (and a "new form of culture") will develop that will facilitate us creating/using this very function (keeping anybody who wants a child updated with vital information*).

this means a more de-centralized organization of information... someone in orlando will be raised by a population given much different information than someone in seattle... let alone hong kong. but i think that adequate centralization of information** can exist in this decentralized scheme (due to the internet)

** some centralization is needed so that time/effort/efficiency is not wasted on finding the same conclusion many times needlessly, so that we learn from each others' work and mistakes, etc. but full (forced) centralization of information (whether provincial, national, or global) is of course something to be avoided as a "protection against ourselves"

* parenting techniques are not aligned with what science has found to produce healthy, creative, explorative, curious individuals. in fact, we as both individual parents, and as a culture in our schools, unfortunately reverse this aspect of our personalities.

what the science shows we need, for normal neurological development (and most don't get):

- movement, warmth, touch
- no "toughening up"... give the baby what he needs at all times, and he'll likely carry the attitude forward that the world is a generally good place, and behave accordingly (which will help make the world a good place...)
- any inflicted pain on extremely young people will severely damage them. the bond of trust between the parents and the child is, existentially, crucial

there are so many other very important factors, and if society was up to date on the science, it's possible that we could raise a new "happy generation" with alarmingly low rates of addiction, suicide, and high rates of discoveries, cures for cancer, whatever.

so it's quite important. but the freedom is important too. hopefully the internet as a tool will allow us to really distribute this information we're learning about ourselves... and as for licenses and involving the government in the birth process, i'd rather the govt simply keep track of births (which we do) and the situation and do what it can, than move in a direction of change where we have more government regulation into our personal lives.

the drug war is economically and racially tilted; parenting regulations would be the same. also, it'd be dangerous when white conservative christians would find no "higher cause" than fighting to instill their parenting styles onto the public "official guidelines", like they've been doing with the texas board of education for K-12 students, shoving science (things we know from empirical tested data) right out the window.
 
Not Eugenics but Education

When I made this thread, the idea I had in mind (and now I see the flaws in my original presentation) was to make sure that everyone who was going to have a child be given mandatory training of some sort so they can know how to raise the kid. I think its to much of a gamble to let people do it themselves.

This is not about restricting peoples freedom to have kids.
Its about making sure they have the proper training to have kids.
 
Thanks for the clarification, as you can see everyone was working om different assumptions regarding your question, which is now much clearer.

Requiring a licence in the sense of having to have attended some compulsory classes on child rearing techniques and reinforcement of the responsibilities of childrearing.

Out of interest would the licence have some test at the end, that one could 'fail', denying one the right to have children until one passed the test?.

Would a licence be required for each child? Could one have a time-limited ban of having a child if one displayed negligence in bringing up extant children?
Could a licence be circumvented if having a child abroad?

And ultimately who would set the minimum standards for what child-bearing responsibilities are required for a licence?

I posit these questions here not necessarily for the OP, but to narrow the debate on some of the issues I see arising from the OP's original intent when posing the thread title.

To Quantum Perception, I hope you don't mind if I alter the heading to reflect your intentions better?
 
Last edited:
Take a baby for a test drive?

This web page explores the use of electronic baby dolls for sex ed purposes.

"The Baby Think It Over infant simulator is a lifelike, life-size baby doll with realistic computerized responses, which allows teens to experience some of the demands of infant care.

It is being used by schools and other organizations to help adolescents appreciate the responsibilities involved with parenthood.

After spending a couple of days and nights with the Baby Think It Over infant simulator, many teens come to realize that they are not yet ready to take on the pressures and responsibilities of parenting"
http://www.solutions-site.org/kids/stories/KScat3_sol72.htm/


One could see this as a form of test drive in educating teens and adults alike. It may only be a simulator but I have heard one of those things scream/cry and it was enough to curdle the blood!!. I think a three day/night stint with this simulator would bring home the reality with a mere glimpse at what early motherhood/fatherhood is like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top