Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A whole lot of those 'welfare' kids are not accidents, Paravani. And I say that as one who as worked closely with the mothers who have produced a lot of them. They are a ticket to increased goverment benefits and are insurance against getting kicked off the welfare roles any time soon. Not all, but may are very much planned and wanted.
Planned but not as much wanted I would say.
Good point. Wanted for their material benefit to the parent, but not so much for themselves. Many of these kids are neglected physically, mentally, and emotionally. Too often the mom is drugged out and doesn't give a damn about the kiddies so long as they leave her alone. It is up to the school to give them breakfast and lunch, and sometimes even to find them proper shoes or a winter coat. When on the school board, I have arrived at school for an early dawn meeting, and it breaks your heart to see the little ones huddled under the bushes near the cafeteria door waiting to be admitted so they can be warm and fed. By my ethical standards, it is criminal and no child should be left with a parent who allows that.
But we live in a society who thinks the compassionate thing is to subsidize neglectful mothers and increase the subsidy the more kids they have.
Hi, Sakinago!
Problems 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in your post #134 are for the biochemists to solve -- not you or me. I did postulate that any form of UBC -- Universal Birth Control -- must have no ill effects on the general population no matter how much water they drink. So whatever they develop must be effective in small doses, with no toxicity in larger doses:
But what if... what if there were a form of universal birth control that was simply ingested by everyone, all the time, with no bad effects? What if all a woman had to do to get pregnant was just stop drinking city water, and switch to bottled water instead?
Problem 1 with this idea, it would only be effective in the city. In the suburbs and abroad there are too many areas that rely on wells, at least in older houses which there are a lot of in PA.
Yes, it would not affect anyone who drinks well water unless they regularly commute to the city for work or school and eat or drink while there. It would only affect drinking water in the cities.
I like flouride in water systems, and I think the "studies" that say its dangerous are bogus. Even if flouride is dangerous, the good outweighs the bad by a long shot, because a lot of people do not understand the importance of oral hygiene and health. You want to avoid sickness in the winter, wash you hands and keep your mouth clean.
UBC would be much like flouride in water systems. People can still opt out of the flouridation program by drinking bottled water; likewise, they could still choose not to be affected by UBC.
The biggest problem is the fact the pregnancy and fertility is so dependent on hormones, that as of now and in the foreseeable future, there is no medical way to insure contraception without tampering with hormones. I think the answer you are looking for is in IUD's, and making them more accessible.
Absolutely not. There is no way people would accept IUD's on a universal basis. I know they wouldn't, because even as concerned as I am about population control, I myself find the idea of mandatory IUDs after a girl's first menstrual cycle to be repugnant.
Any acceptable form of UBC must be ... invisible. It must be in the water or the air, something that everybody takes for granted and nobody needs to think about at all, ever, unless they want to make a baby.
Air-based UBC is problematic because it could affect animals, and we are already causing extinctions faster than I want to contemplate... which leaves water, specifically city water.
Since we're thinking more about "delivery" problems than social consequences, I assume that you and all the other posters here already recognize the obvious social benefits.
No more unplanned teen pregnancy.
No more abortions.
No more overpopulation.
No more junkie babies.
Fewer unwanted children.
Fewer children on welfare.
Not to mention, over the long run, a much smaller, much smarter population that knows how to plan ahead.
Eventually, we can expect that future population to think about solutions to longterm environmental problems, and to recognize and solve the many other problems that threaten our continued survival. A future population that has been specifically bred for the ability to think ahead would have a much different approach to the problems we so reluctantly face now...
Is there a downside to UBC? Can you think of one?
-- Paravani
Planned but not as much wanted I would say.
Good point. Wanted for their material benefit to the parent, but not so much for themselves. Many of these kids are neglected physically, mentally, and emotionally. Too often the mom is drugged out and doesn't give a damn about the kiddies so long as they leave her alone. It is up to the school to give them breakfast and lunch, and sometimes even to find them proper shoes or a winter coat. When on the school board, I have arrived at school for an early dawn meeting, and it breaks your heart to see the little ones huddled under the bushes near the cafeteria door waiting to be admitted so they can be warm and fed. By my ethical standards, it is criminal and no child should be left with a parent who allows that.
But we live in a society who thinks the compassionate thing is to subsidize neglectful mothers and increase the subsidy the more kids they have.
You pretty much nailed it, thats what I was getting at. I truly believe if we stopped rewarding these people with cash for each baby they pop out alot of them would just stop having so many kids, never mind the illegals that sneak in here to deliver their babies. Fuck the daughter of one of Mexicos top drug lords came across to deliver her baby in Los Angeles, she had dual citizenship so they let her across.
Good point. Wanted for their material benefit to the parent, but not so much for themselves. Many of these kids are neglected physically, mentally, and emotionally. Too often the mom is drugged out and doesn't give a damn about the kiddies so long as they leave her alone. It is up to the school to give them breakfast and lunch, and sometimes even to find them proper shoes or a winter coat. When on the school board, I have arrived at school for an early dawn meeting, and it breaks your heart to see the little ones huddled under the bushes near the cafeteria door waiting to be admitted so they can be warm and fed. By my ethical standards, it is criminal and no child should be left with a parent who allows that.
But we live in a society who thinks the compassionate thing is to subsidize neglectful mothers and increase the subsidy the more kids they have.
You pretty much nailed it, thats what I was getting at. I truly believe if we stopped rewarding these people with cash for each baby they pop out alot of them would just stop having so many kids, never mind the illegals that sneak in here to deliver their babies. Fuck the daughter of one of Mexicos top drug lords came across to deliver her baby in Los Angeles, she had dual citizenship so they let her across.
And too many of these kids grow up to run with gangs and wind up dead far too soon or in prison. Those who escape that too often grow up believing such a way of life is normal and, having little or no opportunity to see a much brighter, more prosperous world available to them out there, become resigned to the same way of life their mother lived. And thus they are doomed to be assigned as permanent fixtures of the nation's less intelligent.
I had an opportunity to work with and become well acquainted with a young women who was a Katrina refugees. They had grown up with a welfare mom in one of the poorer areas of New Orleans. Their mom died of a drug overdose when she was a teen. She went to work at a menial job and lived in her mom's subsidized apartment and got by, but she said she was mentally dull and stuck. It never occurred to her that there was anything better, that she was capable of anything better. It was only after she was evacuated to Houston and eventually Albuquerque that the mental shackles began to fall away and she began to see possibilities for herself. We helped her get her G.E.D. and some vocational training and she went on to land a really good job in Denver and was on her way. She was pretty, bright, and most capable, but as long as she was stuck in her previous environment, I'm sure she would have been rated one of the nation's dull and less intelligent.
And that is why I think no amount of government programs or medical intervention or any other artificial means will correct the problem or raise the national intelligence. It has to be a cultural change, a return to a different value system, and a social contract that does not reward and encourage stupidity and bad choices and that does encourage and reward smart choices.
^^^ In my opinion, those who refuse to accept a homework assignment that isn't in print shouldn't be a teacher. To me, them being like that is like forcing someone to do things with their right hand when they are really a left handed person.
^^^ In my opinion, those who refuse to accept a homework assignment that isn't in print shouldn't be a teacher. To me, them being like that is like forcing someone to do things with their right hand when they are really a left handed person.
Your conclusion is irrational and that analogy makes no sense whatsoever.
No more overpopulation.
^^^ In my opinion, those who refuse to accept a homework assignment that isn't in print shouldn't be a teacher. To me, them being like that is like forcing someone to do things with their right hand when they are really a left handed person.
Your conclusion is irrational and that analogy makes no sense whatsoever.
I love the way you break fools down on this board.
And that is why I think no amount of government programs or medical intervention or any other artificial means will correct the problem or raise the national intelligence. It has to be a cultural change, a return to a different value system, and a social contract that does not reward and encourage stupidity and bad choices and that does encourage and reward smart choices.
How would we even start to get there? when I was in California the first thing pregnant teens used to do was go down to the WIC office.
And that is why I think no amount of government programs or medical intervention or any other artificial means will correct the problem or raise the national intelligence. It has to be a cultural change, a return to a different value system, and a social contract that does not reward and encourage stupidity and bad choices and that does encourage and reward smart choices.
How would we even start to get there? when I was in California the first thing pregnant teens used to do was go down to the WIC office.
The only solution I see is an iron clad law or Constitutional Amendment that would prevent the federal gpvernment from using the people's money for any purpose that does not benefit all equally regardless of political leanings or socioenomic status. In other words, the billionaire gets the benefit along with the gardener. And that would pretty much bust all social services back to the states where they once all were and where they did not do near the damage that federal programs do. I think that would restore the previous far more productive American culture and value system.
Any acceptable form of UBC must be ... invisible. It must be in the water or the air, something that everybody takes for granted and nobody needs to think about at all, ever, unless they want to make a baby.
Air-based UBC is problematic because it could affect animals, and we are already causing extinctions faster than I want to contemplate... which leaves water, specifically city water.
Since we're thinking more about "delivery" problems than social consequences, I assume that you and all the other posters here already recognize the obvious social benefits.
No more unplanned teen pregnancy.
No more abortions.
No more overpopulation.
No more junkie babies.
Fewer unwanted children.
Fewer children on welfare.
Not to mention, over the long run, a much smaller, much smarter population that knows how to plan ahead.
Eventually, we can expect that future population to think about solutions to longterm environmental problems, and to recognize and solve the many other problems that threaten our continued survival. A future population that has been specifically bred for the ability to think ahead would have a much different approach to the problems we so reluctantly face now...
Is there a downside to UBC? Can you think of one?
-- Paravani
Like I said before there is no way to do a sort of UBC that you are looking for, since it is based on tampering with hormones. There is not a feasible way to control the intake of the hormones (like daily pills), and it is not good for men to be constantly ingesting these hormones, or for women to be getting excess. UBC is a nice concept, but what you are looking for is not going to work out, since it is based on hormones.
I have a HUGE problem with UBC, perfected or not, as I am an American who believes people should be responsible for their own choices and the government must never have power to make those choices for the people. But neither should government reward those who make poor choices. So focus the remedy there and not through artificial manipulation of the population.
I have a HUGE problem with UBC, perfected or not, as I am an American who believes people should be responsible for their own choices and the government must never have power to make those choices for the people. But neither should government reward those who make poor choices. So focus the remedy there and not through artificial manipulation of the population.
It's my personal belief that we as a nation are getting stupider by the day.
But referring to your earlier observation about the riots, HG, you are absolutely right. Once you condition people to get comfortable with the freebies, they quickly adopt an entitlement mentality and don't easily give them up. That not only includes the welfare queens but also the working people who are receiving some kind of subsidy or government benefit. Try to reduce these or take them away and they react, sometimes violently. Which of course has put us in the economic mess we are in and has contributed to almost all of the dumbing down of Americans.
But I think we're going to have to go through that in order to fix it.
Hi, Foxfyre!
I have a HUGE problem with UBC, perfected or not, as I am an American who believes people should be responsible for their own choices and the government must never have power to make those choices for the people. But neither should government reward those who make poor choices. So focus the remedy there and not through artificial manipulation of the population.
I personally have a problem with letting children starve simply because their parents made a poor choice and became pregnant as a consequence.
The only solution to irresponsible parenthood is to make it impossible, or at least unlikely. You cannot simply starve children because you don't like the fact that their parents didn't plan ahead.
It could soon be possible, however, to make sure that no one can claim that a child was "an accident". It could be possible to ensure that fewer federal dollars are spent on unwanted children, and the social consequences of unwanted children -- like increased crime and increased poverty.
And again, I want to stress that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to UBC would still have the CHOICE of opting out, via bottled water -- which is cheap and easily available everywhere in gallon jugs.
UBC is also much less likely to cause the widespread social harm that your proposed Constitutional Amendment would cause. As HG points out, there would be riots... and if the riots are not successful, there would be a LOT of bodies to burn...
-- Paravani
