It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.
And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.
But yeah, I’m not hopeful lol so you don’t have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.
Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that’s completely fine.
Those questions also apply to ideas like democracy or public education… but I still think those things are pretty good ideas.
All systems/ideas have implementation issues in real life. But the whole point of a randomized lottery system is to intentionally not select specific traits as much as possible. And the goal would be to continually improve this hypothetical system, constantly trying to determine if there was a trait being favored and what adjustments are needed to prevent it.
And even something as simple as enforcing a camp fire ban during a high risk dry spell also has issues with ‘how do you know where everyone is…to see if they are having a campfire’ and ‘what if they don’t know about the ban?’. But the general concept still seems like a good idea to me.
if one country did this it’s genocide against that country. if a pact of countries agree, it’s still genocide against them. and if every government agreed, there are still people’s who will not be effected.
every way you slice it, it’s genocide. stop trying to figure out how to do genocide the right way.
I’m only suggesting this in an all countries agree environment, otherwise it’s pointless. The other countries with the infinite growth mindset will always out compete the ones with population controls in place. And then take those resources by force. And even if they didn’t, the atmosphere is shared and there is no way around that.
And genocide against who exactly? Everyone? There is no group being specifically targeted which is a requirement to meet the definition of genocide.
It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.
And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.
But yeah, I’m not hopeful lol so you don’t have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.
what policy can you introduce that doesn’t favor a specific trait?
A randomized lottery system.
who gets enrolled?
Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that’s completely fine.
how do you know where everyone is? what if someone is unaware of the lottery system?
Those questions also apply to ideas like democracy or public education… but I still think those things are pretty good ideas.
All systems/ideas have implementation issues in real life. But the whole point of a randomized lottery system is to intentionally not select specific traits as much as possible. And the goal would be to continually improve this hypothetical system, constantly trying to determine if there was a trait being favored and what adjustments are needed to prevent it.
And even something as simple as enforcing a camp fire ban during a high risk dry spell also has issues with ‘how do you know where everyone is…to see if they are having a campfire’ and ‘what if they don’t know about the ban?’. But the general concept still seems like a good idea to me.
if one country did this it’s genocide against that country. if a pact of countries agree, it’s still genocide against them. and if every government agreed, there are still people’s who will not be effected.
every way you slice it, it’s genocide. stop trying to figure out how to do genocide the right way.
I’m only suggesting this in an all countries agree environment, otherwise it’s pointless. The other countries with the infinite growth mindset will always out compete the ones with population controls in place. And then take those resources by force. And even if they didn’t, the atmosphere is shared and there is no way around that.
And genocide against who exactly? Everyone? There is no group being specifically targeted which is a requirement to meet the definition of genocide.
this isn’t a campfire ban: it’s genocide