They have been, for centuries or millennia. What's going to change?
Supremacists are going to wait a few centuries for the gradual reduction of the populations they dislike, rather than use a handy excuse to bomb the **** out of a country? Why would they suddenly change tactics?What I intended to denote is that, considering that a desire to clean the population of certain races or to improve it for eugenics motives is evident, that when the subject is brought into the political arena and would be accepted by a side on behalf of "over population", global warming or otherwise, that it could result in an escalation of eugenics practices on the ground that could have profound effects for many people.
You mean, if no births are prevented, some babies born will be talented, some of those talented babies will survive to adulthood and a very, very few of those talented adults will find some measure of recognition?With regard to the potential effect on society. It could be profound for diverse reasons. Imagine that a person like Beyoncé would be affected when she was little. From a human performance perspective, it may be important to consider a loss of potential for talented people.
While, if 10% of the births are prevented, 10% fewer talented babies will be born; 5% (because of increased availability of resources) fewer talented children will reach adulthood. If there are only 950 competitors, rather than 1000, for each recognized role in entertainment, sports and arts, every available position will be filled marginally faster.
I don't see that as a loss to humanity, comparable to the gain of a 5% reduction in the number [+/- 25,000 now, increasing fast due to climate change] who die of malnutrition each day.
But you have. You suppose that governments, under the cloak of increase reduction, will interfere with the racial or some other kind of diversity of their nations' population by failing to forbid contraception and/or abortion.[How would the goal to be achieved on the ground in a short time scale?]
[ empowerment of women ]
As mentioned, I am not into politics so I cannot comment on that regard.
That's gone as far as it can toward increasing food supplies. At the cost of forest, wetland, river and habitat loss, environmental degradation, catastrophic decline of insect populations and diversity in all native species. Which is pretty bad news for the planet's ability to recover.What about improved farming technologies?
Anyway, with all the coastal areas under salt water and all the inland areas drying up, there won't be any place for improvement in food production, except in urban hydroponic gardens and cloned meat factories. Don't think they'll be up to capacity in time to feed 10 billion by 2030.
You mean, persuade or prosperous populations to keep reducing their consumption, in order that the continually increasing poor ones can have the bare necessities? That's considerably less likely to succeed than lifting the anti-birth-control laws.What about improved behavior to save resources?
Many 'ones' are controlling other people's reproduction now - and have been - rigidly - for many generations.Would one logically choose to control people's reproduction before those options?
As the 'other options' are unworkable, population reduction is the only option that actually has some minute chance of producing positive results.
I didn't realize he was in any danger from birth control - at least, no more than Stalin was.I would favor the protection of people like Albert Einstein, or to seek ways to promote their development, than to mess with reproduction with the motive to select for properties.
I don't see how a 100 million births per year, rather than 140 million, qualifies for that debate.It would come down to the Nature-Nurture debate.
It just means that a larger percentage of the children born get a shot at some nurture. Some of them might be autistic; some might have their childhoods ruined by ambitious fathers; some will be gifted; most will be ordinary. Just not so many of each.
Something may happen... The influence of universities over political decisions in the course of history suggest no imminent threat to the human genome.The origin of eugenics ideologies may not originate in individual Governments, but in a global ideology that is supported and promoted by Universities around the world.
If[in the highly unlikely event that] a government sought to improve its polity, it would likely find a faster method.When a Government is to seek methods to translate an eugenics ideology into practice, it may choose to target groups of people. For example, "poor black people".
And, where, in what era, situation or condition has that not happened? When resources are scarce, the weakest are sacrificed. Not creating so many of the weak would certainly cut down on the number of sacrificed.Vulnerable people have encountered ‘shocking discrimination’ during pandemic, says Mencap charity
Discrimination is not a new invention. If it has any bearing on birth control, it's exactly those vulnerable people - the poor and minorities - who have the least access to genetic intervention. Since they can always be jailed, marginalized and neglected to death, who needs eugenics?
Perhaps not life itself, but their breeding options have been severely limited since the beginning of civilization. As technology evolved, it was brought to bear on human health, fertility and longevity, as well as the environment. At no point has any authority been able to draw an enforceable line at any morally determined limit to medical intervention.While humans have mastered their environment to serve them that does not imply that humans can master life itself.
If a species drowns itself in its own toxic waste, its evolution ceases to be of any concern to moralists.Morality is quickly forgotten when one views human history but for evolution itself it may be key.
It would have been, yes. Now that we've destroyed nature, it's a moot issue.I believe that a basis of respect for nature is essential for successful evolution.
What are the other candidates for guiding principle?At question would be whether the facts of science can possibly be a guiding principle for life/Nature.
Something will happen, either way.If not, then eugenics, when taken to the extreme, may potentially cause disastrous flaws in evolution.
Eventual flaws in eventual evolution are a remote threat compared to present disastrous overpopulation.