Should the poor be discouraged from having children?

Wouldn't that be... all of them?

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

@Bobby: Obviously, otherwise there's no political gain to be had in supporting a given stance, now is there?

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

True. I think it's an oversimplification and assuming too much to presume that such people are acting purely out of rational self-interest, though, given that they are still products of the same general culture and social structure as the rest of us.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

A billionaire is part of "same culture" as the working class? Pshht.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I wouldn't go so far as to assume ALL of them are, but don't you find it suspicious when two normally disparate philosophical viewpoints just so happen to align together in a way that's personally convenient for the person proposing both those views? And then continues to do so throughout an entire faction of politicians?

Also, what Love said. Don't underestimate how much money can insulate you from the outside world. Because it can insulate a freaking lot.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

The poor having many children is a survival tactic used across the globe. More children = more labor and more people to take care of you. Additionally, kids in impoverished areas tend to die off easily. It's a matter of statistics. We're not even getting to the lack of sex education these individuals.

The best solution is to create a better quality of life for the poor. Letting them die off seems...unethical.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time

As has been noted, I think you're confusing the cause and effect- they have more kids because they're poor, for extra hands to work.

I think we should be discouraging everyone from having children, because I'm not entirely sure the world can support this level of population at a very high standard of living. Sure, the planet could have 12 billion people on it, but unless technology advances incredibly fast they'll all be fairly poor relative to us.

Even 9 billion would be pretty problematic, I think.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Oi, less of the pshhting. I said "general culture". Which is true; they aren't space aliens. Wealth insulates, sure, but they have been exposed to many of the same values, concepts and practices as the rest of us.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

This has the potential of getting worryingly close to Eugenics.

Which isn't to say they're exposed to the same world we are, or even follow those values.

Of course, that's true for anyone.

edited 18th Jul '11 8:39:19 AM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Anybody familiar with The Marching Morons debate?

We should ALL be discouraged from having children, if only for the environmental implications of having them.

As for the poor in particular having children, I say it depends on the individual. Have a psychology expert interview such potential parents; if they find that said parents would not make good parents, take their children away BEFORE said parents can neglect them. That ought to deter all but the best of parents.

This one does not think that any coercive method should be used to encourage/discourage anyone from having children, period. Whether to breed or not is individual's decision.

However, this one does think that "babies make everything better" and "you must have children, everything else is secondary" are stupid and dangerous ideas that should be discouraged.

Umm, that sounds dangerous. State really does not need an additional leverage. Such system will be abused, and quickly. This one thinks that the possibility of having to pay a bribe and/or be in a good standing with those making the decision would be quite high.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:14:49 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Ugh. I don't think having snotty bureaucrats and "experts" decide who is allowed to have kids would be very popular. High-level incentives like tax credits and paying people for not having children would probably pass much better, and be much less of an encroachement on personal freedom.

There are plenty of ways to avoid a long-term result of a small rich elite and poor overcrowded unwashed masses, may as well choose the ones that are a bit less tyrannical.

I'd be in favor of allowing lifelong welfare for anybody who doesn't have children and agrees to be sterilized, and increasing the taxes on rich people who don't have a minimum amount of children (top income bracket and above 40: you gotta have at least 5 children; you can adopt though). That way it's only coercive on the rich, and in the long term, it discourages the creation of dynasties and should increase the size of the middle class.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:15:16 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

I can support voluntary sterilization, but I think it is a very bad idea to penalize people for not having enough kids. What is there stopping them from adopting kids for tax reasons and then abusing/exploiting them for all they are worth? I think it will do far more harm then any possible benefit.

That's why we have social services, and they are supposed to inspect foster children.

Sadly, they are rather underfunded, which creates a downward spiral.

"Umm, that sounds dangerous. State really does not need an additional leverage. Such system will be abused, and quickly." - Beholderess

Well, the "right to breed" is getting abused now. Either approach is open to misuse, it's just a matter of priorities.

Besides, we take children away when they ARE being neglected; taking them away to PREVENT neglect seems more practical if you ask me.

What we need is a method for separating good parents from bad ones. That far more than any population control based on arbitrary measures like "rich" and "poor".

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm with LH (surprisingly). Destorying poverty is the way to go.

Though they are sterilizing people in India, an unfortunately nessacary thing to do.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:27:44 AM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Keep in mind that we're nowhere near India's level of overpopulation, thankfully. America has plenty of wide open space left. Some might say too much.

The real worry of increasing population in the immediate future is the lack of jobs.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

No one can be guilty of something they haven't actually done; someone cannot be punished for neglect if they have not been neglectful. Arbitrary and unreliable psychiatric pre-assessments that will no doubt be obsolete in ten years is not a fair means of determining potential risk.

Edit - must learn to spell.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:58:13 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

@Jauce: Good point. The rich are probably a bit less likely to violently abuse adopted children the way the poor and uneducated may, but I wouldn't count on that too much.

I guess the tax incentive should be carefully calculated so that it's still more profitable to pay the extra taxes then raise a kid. There are probably also better possible incentives (probably one reason why some rich and educated people don't have kids is not lack of money but lack of time).

edited 18th Jul '11 9:38:10 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

So, we've gone over some reasons why poor people have babies, but why is it that the rich *don't* have a lot of children even though they have the capacity to support them? I'd like to think that most poor people at least realize that they can't afford children, so I'd imagine that a lot of children are born into poverty by accident. What is it about money that stops the condom from breaking? Are rich people, as a rule, just more responsible than the poor? (I don't think so.) Are they too career oriented to consider children? Is it just that there are far, far more poor people than rich, so it's just a numbers game?

Now this is horrible. No, really. Taking away a person's right to reproduce solely based on his social status is just... gross. By the way, I know many who grew up in poor, but caring families, and have grown up to be good and humble people, and also many spoiled Complete Monsters from wealthy families, so this makes no sense at all.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

Not to be a devil's advocate here..but Good and Humble arent the best of qualities if you're still stuck being poor and desperate.