Coerced birthcontrol shots for those on welfare legal?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Why not? Producing kids as a "human right" is THE worst piece of illogical nonsense ever accepted by the mainstream society. Only people who can afford to provide a good life to kids should have them.

I'm not anti-welfare BTW.

Your logic is based on the notion that humans have an obligation to society. But logically, a human, as an organism, has a stronger obligation to reproduce and pass on its genes than it owes to any collective. Society is a convention that we've adapted owing to our inability to survive on our own in the wild, and it's served us well. But it's still just a social construct. The biological imperative of reproduction exists whether you're a Wall Street banker or a Nordic fisherman or a primitive tribesman, and it's stronger than any social obligation. Just look at China; one of the most communistic societies that's ever existed and they still can't enforce a "one child" policy, no matter how "logical" it may be. Trying to control reproduction does not work, period.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
We need more poor people!

Yup... You'll never eliminate poverty, but those who advocate that more spending will eliminate it fail to see that more spending over the past decades has only made the issue worse.

Unfortunately, population controls on those who can't afford to raise children is the only way to reduce poverty and it would take a generation or two to feel the results in our society. This will never happen of course, as people view it as a right to reproduce, and there is a gigantic industry with a strong lobby focused on their "servicing" the poor.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
No, they weren't more responsibile. Your argument is laughable. Someday, you might have a kid, and then you'll find out they cost a hell of a lot more than a puny welfare check.

True... But many of these welfare lifers spend very little of those benefits on their children.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,346
15,162
136
Yup... You'll never eliminate poverty, but those who advocate that more spending will eliminate it fail to see that more spending over the past decades has only made the issue worse.

Unfortunately, population controls on those who can't afford to raise children is the only way to reduce poverty and it would take a generation or two to feel the results in our society. This will never happen of course, as people view it as a right to reproduce, and there is a gigantic industry with a strong lobby focused on their "servicing" the poor.

Go ahead and help us realize this failure by posting some data backing up your claim. I'm sure your data will also address the biggest economic issue we've faced in the last 70+ years.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Coerced birthcontrol shots for those on welfare legal?

an effective way to stop the next generation of people on welfare is birthcontrol shots for any girl/woman of child bearing age. also applies to those on social security disability.

1 shot every 3months, paid for by Medicaid.

now the problem is how to get them to the clinic?

stick: threaten to reduced their welfare $?
carrot: give them an extra $25 that month for getting the shot?

and no repurcussions to the doc if the girl does get pregnant since the shots are only 97% effective.

Stop trying to stop new Democrat voters.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
Keep in mind that Eugenics fell into disfavor, it wasn't proven to not work.

It does work, there is no way for it not to work. The only way it could not work is if evolution and natural selection didn't work either. Traits are heritable. IQ is highly heritable. Criminality is even heritable. Twin studies have shown that demeanor and interests are highly heritable. Far, far more of who we are and what we will do in life is determined by our genetics than anyone cares to accept.

People don't like the idea of not being a blank slate, but instead being a slate with a lot of stuff already written before anyone even hands you the chalk.

Too bad, it's true.

And liberals are very, very good at realizing how dangerous it is to ignore ozone depletion, or carbon emissions, or deforestation, or soil erosion, or endangered species losing their habitats. They're also good at understanding evolution.

Liberals like to look at conservatives who bury their head in the sand about some or most of these issues and shake their head in disgust, "How can they not see the long term impact of us doing nothing about this issue?"

Yet, when it touches on our own species and the biological realities of it, liberals suddenly give conservatives a run for their money when it comes to denial of scientific reality and the long term implications of doing nothing about a trend, or even worse... doing things to make the trend even more damaging.

Nobody wants to live in the kind of society where the government is telling you you can't drive a certain type of car or that you have to limit your driving or get an emissions test or that by a certain date you must have switched to a newer car with better environmental impact. Yet, if everyone refuses to be willing to accept some sort of government intervention to control these things, our planet's climate may become irrevocably hostile to human life, and billions may die from our species and others. Cities may be lost to rising sea levels, etc.

Likewise, nobody wants to live in a society where the government tells you how many kids you can have, or where it takes certain people aside and sterilizes them because an understanding of heritability of traits is being utilized to maintain the health of the society/species. In fact, people don't even want to deal with the softest possible version of such policies, like government payments to incentivize certain people (like perhaps those on welfare or those with certain types of criminal records) to voluntarily be sterilized.

So in this case, both liberals and conservatives are burying their heads in the sand and pretending that you can create a civilization that effectively puts natural selection out on its ass, and then take no effort whatsoever to replace its effect - you can just let people breed willy nilly in an environment where massive amounts of calories are available even to those with the genes most threatening to a healthy, safe society. And somehow, it'll all just work out. We never need to do anything unpleasant, not even anything slightly unpleasant.

Yea, let's see how that works out for us.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0


People have no problem understanding how important it is to control the population of cats and dogs because we've created an artificial environment for them where food is plentiful, danger is minimal, and over-breeding therefore becomes a very real danger (sound familiar?)

When cats and dogs existed in their natural state or something closer to it (setting aside the genetic modifications we've made to them through selective breeding, which is another matter) these things were not an issue because limited availability of food, and in some cases even other predators, would naturally limit their numbers.

Not only did harsh conditions in a natural environment limit their numbers, as they do for all species, but these forces also helped keep their level of genetic fitness higher. This is natural selection as you all know. Those with worse genetics will tend to die out more frequently and quickly than those with better genetics. This is the honing process which is responsible for evolution even happening, and therefore we all owe this process our very existence.

Unfortunately, the mechanism for this honing process is death. It isn't pleasant. It is, however, necessary.

We understand the power of selective breeding and population control just fine when we're talking about other animals. When we're talking about dog shows and horse races which ultimately just show off the talent of the breeders who selected for the traits.

Why is it that we have fooled ourselves into thinking we don't have to apply this knowledge and understanding IN ANY WAY to our own species, and that somehow this will never have any negative impact? It is madness.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Manipulative eugenics is evil; too little space for too many people is not a problem when we have space to go to.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
Manipulative eugenics is evil; too little space for too many people is not a problem when we have space to go to.

We need high IQs to go to space, brah.

Or are you under the impression we're already technologically advanced enough to colonize other planets?

There's are little racist!

*our

I must've missed where race was discussed in this thread.

You do realize that any given group of people, no matter how you choose to group them, will have some people with better genetics than others right?

That's true if you grab a group of entirely blonde haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and it's true if you grab a group of Japanese, and anything else.
 
Last edited:

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
We need high IQs to go to space, brah.

Or are you under the impression we're already technologically advanced enough to colonize other planets?



*our

I must've missed where race was discussed in this thread.

You do realize that any given group of people, no matter how you choose to group them, will have some people with better genetics than others right?

That's true if you grab a group of entirely blonde haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and it's true if you grab a group of Japanese, and anything else.

Who needs another planet? The moon, the asteroid fields, and the moons of the gas giants are much more interesting for humanities developments in outer space. And not everyone will need be smart. In excavating the moon there will be manual work a plenty. They must be fearless however.
 
Last edited:

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
I'm actually going to school so that I can design bio reactors, and the organisms within them, to provide for humanities every need in space.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
not everyone will need be smart.

True. However, high IQ people who are capable of doing the kind of extremely advanced technological work required to achieve these sorts of things DO require a society around them which is supportive of their efforts. Which values science, education, and intelligence. And they need to be able to drive home each night after they leave work without being killed - so they need the society around them to be fairly law abiding and civil.

They also need the society to have good priorities and want to invest in their work, and as you know that work is exceptionally expensive. It requires not only a willingness to dedicate massive resources, but to do so over a very long period of time with no obvious payoff for a long period. That requires a society with an overall relatively high IQ and eye on the horizon. And a society which isn't using up all its money on social programs to ensure that everyone can breed to their heart's content.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
You are assuming they are going to be poor. Maybe not, if they get a good education.

Giving a good education to someone who has inherited a low IQ genetically from their parents is somewhat like hiring a professional trainer to try to prepare someone with Spina bifida or a congenital heart defect for the triathlon.

Will the trainer and the strict diet, intense workouts, etc improve their physical condition? Oh undoubtedly. They will be faster and stronger and more agile than they would have been if they'd just sat around. They still won't be able to compete effectively in a triathlon when up against people who had all of that stuff too PLUS no congenital defects and good genetics.

Same with education. If someone's parents both had a 70 IQ and their genetics are predisposing them to have a 70 IQ as well, and you send them to all the best schools, give them private tutors, raise them in an environment where education and intelligence are championed and prioritized... you will in fact raise their IQ and you'll certainly raise their level of knowledge from what it would have been if they'd been raised by their birth parents in a shack somewhere.

But you won't raise it that much. You may bump it up 5 points. You'll have improved them, but you won't be getting the cure for cancer out of them and they won't be inventing anything. They won't be a great writer or anything even approaching what you'd consider "an intellectual."

Your money and effort in both cases would have been much better spent on someone with a better biological starting point, who could actually take advantage of all that stuff.

This is why professional horse racers aren't about to spend their money on all the best food, stables, grooming, veterinary care, etc for anything but the most genetically fit, selectively bred specimens. They aren't going to go grab some horse which is the product of careless, unregulated breeding practices on a poor farm somewhere and try to take it to the Kentucky Derby.



And if you walk up to them and try to tell them that you know better, that all their expertise in horse breeding and spotting the characteristics of good breeding, and knowing how to select for better traits... well, that that's all just hogwash. A bunch of racist eugenics clap trap! And that they should really give that shitty horse a chance! Give it all that money and pampering and just see what happens!

They're going to laugh you out of the room, as well they should.

I know a lot of people desperately want to pretend that intelligence is not governed by the same biological realities that more obviously physical things like height, hair color, bone density, etc are... I know that you do. I know WHY you do.

But it simply isn't reality. IQ has been determined by all serious research to be VERY heritable. The American Psychological Association estimates it at 75% heritable.

This is one of those really uncomfortable facts which has a lot of important implications which require unpleasant steps now to avoid FAR MORE unpleasant situations in the future. The same people who understand this exact dynamic with global warming, simply cannot accept it with this. I wish they would learn to. The future of civilization depends on them doing so.
 
Last edited:

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Giving a good education to someone who has inherited a low IQ genetically from their parents is somewhat like hiring a professional trainer to try to prepare someone with Spina bifida or a congenital heart defect for the triathlon.

Will the trainer and the strict diet, intense workouts, etc improve their physical condition? Oh undoubtedly. They will be faster and stronger and more agile than they would have been if they'd just sat around. They still won't be able to compete effectively in a triathlon when up against people who had all of that stuff too PLUS no congenital defects and good genetics.

Same with education. If someone's parents both had a 70 IQ and their genetics are predisposing them to have a 70 IQ as well, and you send them to all the best schools, give them private tutors, raise them in an environment where education and intelligence are championed and prioritized... you will in fact raise their IQ and you'll certainly raise their level of knowledge from what it would have been if they'd been raised by their birth parents in a shack somewhere.

But you won't raise it that much. You may bump it up 5 points. You'll have improved them, but you won't be getting the cure for cancer out of them and they won't be inventing anything. They won't be a great writer or anything even approaching what you'd consider "an intellectual."

Your money and effort in both cases would have been much better spent on someone with a better biological starting point, who could actually take advantage of all that stuff.

This is why professional horse racers aren't about to spend their money on all the best food, stables, grooming, veterinary care, etc for anything but the most genetically fit, selectively bred specimens. They aren't going to go grab some horse which is the product of careless, unregulated breeding practices on a poor farm somewhere and try to take it to the Kentucky Derby.

And if you walk up to them and try to tell them that you know better, that all their expertise in horse breeding and spotting the characteristics of good breeding, and knowing how to select for better traits... well, that that's all just hogwash. A bunch of racist eugenics clap trap! And that they should really give that shitty horse a chance! Give it all that money and pampering and just see what happens!

They're going to laugh you out of the room, as well they should.

Genetics are not so simple. Perhaps both parents each have a copy of one or more recessive genes for brilliance? One day the complete genome for all mankind will be complete, accessible, and then we will see people performing eugenics through free will interactions as an Übermensch should.
 
Last edited:

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
Genetics are not so simple. Perhaps both parents each have a copy of one or more recessive genes for brilliance?

Is it possible those parents might produce a super genius? Sure. However, the probability is so low as to be laughable. If you want to rest your hopes on your civilization having enough really high IQ people to do what it needs to do technologically and with space exploration, etc... on those kind of odds, you're going to get burned.

The horse breeder who keeps rolling the dice by having shitty horses reproduce, each time hoping he's going to get that "Seabiscuit" to pop out, is going to be waiting an awfully long time.

Intelligence isn't magical, it is just as susceptible to heritability and the forces of biological reality as anything else is. Our brains are just another organ. There is no soul, there is no god, there is no supernatural to appeal to. Only cold, hard reality and nature doesn't do equal. Nor does nature give a shit about our feelings.

The sooner our species realizes this and starts to take it into account in our planning for the future, the better that future will be. Refusal to do so will ensure that future is nothing short of a nightmare.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
You are assuming people on welfare are stupid. But who is stupider, a single mom who leaves her kids alone all day to work some dead end low paying job, or a single mom who stays at home on welfare to take care of her kids and maybe study for a better job down the road?
Aside from which parent is stupider, which kid is going to develop better, one with an absentee mother who is working all day, or one who can stay at home and raise him?
 
Last edited:

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Genetics are not so simple. Perhaps both parents each have a copy of one or more recessive genes for brilliance? One day the complete genome for all mankind will be complete, accessible, and then we will see people performing eugenics through free will interactions as an Übermensch should.

The genome is complete and accessible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/proteins/51?project_id=20837

You go figure it out.

Not for all mankind ofc but first you need to figure out which protein is doing what exactly wrt to intelligence if that's how you think it works. Its probably easier to just use standardized tests but go get'r done yeah.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |