Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with it is that it's basis is naive stupidity.
While it's true that poverty tends to be a generational problem (social scientists call it the poverty cycle), it's not actually genetic. People born well off can become impoverished and people born with nothing can become wealthy. Ultimately, ability to become impoverished and leave poverty is determined by your environment, meaning that this sterilization, while it would theoretically disrupt the poverty cycle, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate poverty. What's more, this shortage of people could have negative consequences on job creation, which could actually create more poverty.
And to be clear, I'm reacting almost exclusively to the sterilization aspect of this. A basic income could work, though some stipulations would be beneficial.
*Sigh*
Again, no where do I claim it is genetic. But nobody can dispute that impoverished people tend to pass on their psychological condition to the next generation. Hence we have generational poverty.
If you don't like the sterilization part, then take it out. The point is to not have people reproduce when they clearly cannot afford to. The poorest people, not just in the US but pretty much anywhere on Earth, also reproduce the most. It is a fact, fact as in nobody can dispute this and I don't care how politically incorrect this sounds, that the poorer people are the higher birthrates they have.
So, again, if you don't like the sterilization part, come up with something else to get people to stop having so many children even though they can't even afford 1.
Again, no where do I claim it is genetic. But nobody can dispute that impoverished people tend to pass on their psychological condition to the next generation. Hence we have generational poverty.
If you don't like the sterilization part, then take it out. The point is to not have people reproduce when they clearly cannot afford to. The poorest people, not just in the US but pretty much anywhere on Earth, also reproduce the most. It is a fact, fact as in nobody can dispute this and I don't care how politically incorrect this sounds, that the poorer people are the higher birthrates they have.
So, again, if you don't like the sterilization part, come up with something else to get people to stop having so many children even though they can't even afford 1.
Without sterilization and revocation of voting right, your idea won't work. Poor people will have 20 kids at 13 and take in $40,000 each month.
Again, no where do I claim it is genetic. But nobody can dispute that impoverished people tend to pass on their psychological condition to the next generation. Hence we have generational poverty.
If you don't like the sterilization part, then take it out. The point is to not have people reproduce when they clearly cannot afford to. The poorest people, not just in the US but pretty much anywhere on Earth, also reproduce the most. It is a fact, fact as in nobody can dispute this and I don't care how politically incorrect this sounds, that the poorer people are the higher birthrates they have.
So, again, if you don't like the sterilization part, come up with something else to get people to stop having so many children even though they can't even afford 1.
Ok. Improve the conditions in schools and have proper sex education. Give those schools funding and local clinics funding to over free or very cheap forms of birth control.
And when I say improve schools, I mean something more proactive than just giving more funding because that often isn't the solution. I mean going in a firing the **** out of bad teachers. Improving resources and bringing in teachers worth a damn can do a lot of improve the conditions of education. And if the sex education program approaches sex in a human and realistic way, instead of a weird inbred child of grossly over clinical and stupidly puritanical vision of sex, the likelihood that people will take birth control into their own hands will increase. Along with improving other aspects of social welfare, you may have a system where poverty isn't an aspect of culture.
Nope. Because they use violence to confiscate all properties and make people equally poor.
My family are victims of communist policy. Both of our parents were intellectuals. Professors. Well, when the communists took over... obviously they didn't like the fact that there were educated people. To give you an example, over here in the US, my brother is a brilliant engineer and manages projects that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But back in that communist country, all he was good for was removing the shell off the shrimps to be exported to western countries as cocktail shrimp. Over here, my sister is an electronic engineer who manages several teams across 2 continents. But over there, all she was good for was working in a sweat shop stitching clothing together.
My point is communism fails because the underlying ideology is to not utilize talents and make everyone "equal". My dad was a professor, but all he was good for to them was manual labor. Think of all the unused talents within their populations, like doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, engineers, etc.
The problem with it is that it's basis is naive stupidity.
While it's true that poverty tends to be a generational problem (social scientists call it the poverty cycle), it's not actually genetic. People born well off can become impoverished and people born with nothing can become wealthy.
You condescend, and then go on to make a weak, naïve argument yourself. Of course almost anyone can
become either wealthy or poor depending on the random circumstances of their lives. But this says nothing about whether or not some are better equipped for success than others based on genetic traits.
Ok. Improve the conditions in schools and have proper sex education. Give those schools funding and local clinics funding to over free or very cheap forms of birth control.
And when I say improve schools, I mean something more proactive than just giving more funding because that often isn't the solution. I mean going in a firing the **** out of bad teachers. Improving resources and bringing in teachers worth a damn can do a lot of improve the conditions of education. And if the sex education program approaches sex in a human and realistic way, instead of a weird inbred child of grossly over clinical and stupidly puritanical vision of sex, the likelihood that people will take birth control into their own hands will increase. Along with improving other aspects of social welfare, you may have a system where poverty isn't an aspect of culture.
The girls I talked about before where they couldn't wait to get pregnant actually live in one of the better areas around here. The schools are very well funded and the education is very liberal oriented. We're in a deep blue state. And they're all white, by the way, just in case anyone is wondering for whatever reason.
Sorry, your ideas are nothing new. Been tried and implemented for 5 decades already. Trust me, all the girls I have talked about were well aware of sex, birth control, etc. Your ideas are just the same old liberal ideas that simply don't work. These girls don't get pregnant because they don't know any better. They get pregnant with the intention of following the same path as their moms, sisters, aunts, etc.
The girls I talked about before where they couldn't wait to get pregnant actually live in one of the better areas around here. The schools are very well funded and the education is very liberal oriented. We're in a deep blue state. And they're all white, by the way, just in case anyone is wondering for whatever reason.
Sorry, your ideas are nothing new. Been tried and implemented for 5 decades already. Trust me, all the girls I have talked about were well aware of sex, birth control, etc. Your ideas are just the same old liberal ideas that simply don't work. These girls don't get pregnant because they don't know any better. They get pregnant with the intention of following the same path as their moms, sisters, aunts, etc.
It doesn't matter. I'm telling you now. You assume that the girls got pregnant because they didn't know what sex was, or some other liberal nonsense. I'm telling you right now. Every one of those girls knew exactly what sex was. They knew all about using protection. Heck, they knew more about it than I do.
You keep assuming that these young girls get pregnant because they were so innocent and didn't know a penis sticking into them will get them pregnant, or something like that.
Again, I'm telling you right now. They planned to get pregnant. The only path in life they saw themselves was to get pregnant so they could apply for benefits as single moms. It's the same path in life that their moms, sisters, and aunts went on. No amount of sex education will change this perspective.
It doesn't matter. I'm telling you now. You assume that the girls got pregnant because they didn't know what sex was, or some other liberal nonsense. I'm telling you right now. Every one of those girls knew exactly what sex was. They knew all about using protection. Heck, they knew more about it than I do.
You keep assuming that these young girls get pregnant because they were so innocent and didn't know a penis sticking into them will get them pregnant, or something like that.
Again, I'm telling you right now. They planned to get pregnant. The only path in life they saw themselves was to get pregnant so they could apply for benefits as single moms. It's the same path in life that their moms, sisters, and aunts went on. No amount of sex education will change this perspective.
What makes you think that sex education can't change that? Change the narrative of the education, and you can change the outlook. Sure, maybe other things need to be done too, but education is vitally important and incredibly useful in shaping how people think if it's done well. It's not done well. You can dismiss that as liberal bull**** if you want (I'm not a liberal but maybe you only think there are two options), but when I see that most people view education as being a way of getting a job, I have a problem with that. When people say they don't want kids exposed to sex, I have a problem with that. Why? Because it's dumb. People will take their 7 year old to see Transformers but the idea that they know anything about sex is too crazy to them?
And you can use your sample size all you want. I don't really care. It doesn't affect my larger point. Change the narrative. Education can do that if you invest in it properly. This probably means dumping standardized testing and telling parents who don't want their kids learning about real life to **** off. And I'm being very serious when I say that. As I already said, the big problem with education right now is that it's used as a jobs training program more than anything. This is why parents don't see the value of real sex ed taught at an early age.
What's more, a lot of kids are learning about sex from porn. The internet made that possible. This creates a wide array of problems. And if kids aren't taught what actual sex is and taught how to value it, of course you're going to have people not caring if they get pregnant or intentionally doing so to get benefits. It's because the education is sloppy. The culture is sloppy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
