Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

+ - Should we have the right to breed? 11

Submitted by
An anonymous reader writes: I just finished reading Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons and I'm having a little trouble coming to grips with it. In the essay Hardin argues that in a world with finite resources we must stabilize the population at less than the carrying capacity in order to maintain quality of life. However, "Confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences. The differences will be accentuated, generation by generation." Hardin therefore suggests that we must legally restrict freedom to breed.

However such restrictions would require a invasion of our privacy to a degree that strikes me as simply intolerable. But I'm curious, what do slashdot readers think? Is Hardin's logic sound? If it is, is controlling the population important enough that we should give up what we have long accepted as some of our most basic rights in order to achieve it?
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should we have the right to breed?

Comments Filter:
  • Everybody I know calls it an "accident".

    But anyway, I don't think of it as an invasion of privacy that people know how often breeders bred. If you want to breed more, you should pay an offset for all the services extra that you use upon society. You should pay extra for schooling them, for example. Your taxes go way up to compensate. Those rich enough to afford lots of kids are ok. The poor only get one, and each later one is adopted into a loving family (like cats and dogs, with the humane societies)
  • The strongest proponents of eugenics or selective breeding are the least likely to get laid.
  • for debunking this sort of Malthusean crap? Made a heck of a movie too. Anyway, he argued that people tend towards an equilibreum. In other words, at some level, people always learn to share the commons.

    People that argue that the commons needs to be regulated are socialists. What they always tell you is, that, the commons can't be shared, so therefor, you need to effectively give it to one person, who will decide how to use it. Look at all the environmental, welfare, and other legislative proposals. E
    • by nagora (177841)
      Anyway, he argued that people tend towards an equilibreum. In other words, at some level, people always learn to share the commons.

      Lol. In what world?

      People that argue that the commons needs to be regulated are socialists.

      And people that think the free market works are idiots. Resources that aren't regulated end up as monopolies every single time by a very simple mathematical process.

      If you want commons then you need regulation. If you don't want regulation then you have to live with control of the ma

      • by tjstork (137384)
        If you want commons then you need regulation. If you don't want regulation then you have to live with control of the market being vested in a tiny number of aristocrats. Anything in between is dreamy-night-time-story-land.

        You and all of your socialists buddies are not just fools, you are dangerous ones at that. Basically, you argue that, geez, because something might wind up in charge of a few aristrocrats, then, we should give control of all of it to one institution. That's about as dumb as you can get.
        • by nagora (177841)
          Basically, you argue that, geez, because something might wind up in charge of a few aristrocrats, then, we should give control of all of it to one institution

          No, I'm saying that those are the only choices (and I'd not have "might" there). I don't like them, but thinking there's any other options is kidding yourself, which is more dangerous in the long run.

          TWW

    • I don't think I've ever met an intelligent person that didn't believe that there were finite resources. The only question is can technology keep up (increase the useage of finite common resources), or not? Otherwise, we'd have to head towards equilibrium eventually. Nearly all countries already have SOME regulation of Commons (The following will be the United States). The air we breath can't be polluted with deadly toxins, per regulations. You can't dig up massive holes or put skyscrapers up in parks, per
  • I've thought two things that would make a massive difference to the quality of life we have would be:

    A: Limited breeding. Everyone gets one "whole" child, each child a couple has counts as half of their right. If an area has falling population assign extra rights randomly or as rewards for benefiting the community, for instance noticeably improving peoples way of life or making a truly useful invention or a scientific breakthrough and you may earn an extra right. Have no limit on the number of foster chi

"America is a stronger nation for the ACLU's uncompromising effort." -- President John F. Kennedy

Working...