[Old Father Time]

I think thats quite a radical and extreme step to take, and would even go as far to say that it is murder. It should only be used in an extreme situation where the human race would have more chance of survival by enforcing this policy, e.g. if resources are running low and overpopulation ect, however it certainly should not be used in the next 300 years at least.

[howlinwolf]

The only moderately successful form of population control (which is the only purpose of your idea) is currently the One Child Policy in China. In 20-30 years China's dependency ratio will skyrocket and I'm not entirely sure China's economy can survive it, and they've kept up 9%+ growth rates for decades.

My point being, looking past all of the issues with compulsory sterilisation (human rights etc.) it will be the economy and thus society that will suffer the most. It all seems like a good idea at the time but you would at least have to phase it in over generations to avoid the burden of loads of old people who were sterilised without kids or any young people to care for them.

[DH-Biker]

(Original post by chapman.)
Does anyone else think it should be introduced? If anything it is the one thing Hitler got right.

Stopped reading at that point, though arguably what I read before that was equally as stupid.

No one should have a monopoly on whether or not people have the right to have children. A one child policy is arguably one of the critical answers to over population, but outright enforced sterilisation is a step way over the line of human morality.

[cl_steele]

no, no, no youre going about this all wrong ... if anything stick them on a giant hampster wheel attached to a generator and hand a £5 not infront of them, or maybe a bag of crack? ... they run for said item giving us cheap renewable energy ... boom 2 birds with one stone

[mmmpie]

(Original post by cl_steele)
no, no, no youre going about this all wrong ... if anything stick them on a giant hampster wheel attached to a generator and hand a £5 not infront of them, or maybe a bag of crack? ... they run for said item giving us cheap renewable energy ... boom 2 birds with one stone

Could they be reprocessed into biofuel? Then you might not want to sterilise them, you'd want to farm them intensively.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Could they be reprocessed into biofuel? Then you might not want to sterilise them, you'd want to farm them intensively.

could work, could work ... tbh we seem to have enough of them that we wouldnt need to worry about farming them as we already have a vast surplus but then again the more the merrier and all that

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by chapman.)
Not at all. I'm not talking about creating a super race, banishing fatties from the realms of fertility. I'm talking about pruning here and there, making a better society. Not insane, just outside the box.

Nobody could ever think this is a realistic or good idea, surely. Tempted to call troll.

[Raiden10]

(Original post by chapman.)
Does anyone else think it should be introduced? If anything it is the one thing Hitler got right.

Have any of you really thought that everyone deserves a chance to breed? Like the people on Jeremy Kyle for a start - the ones who scrounge off benefits. They'll have 10 children, and then THEY will scrounge. It's an infestation in Britain! How much money could be saved and put to better use if those 5+ children scroungers were sterilised and unable to plague the world with any more of their children.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Hitler, is that you?

[Raiden10]

A really scary place this is.

"Hitler got mass sterilisation right" - 9 positives, 9 negs

"Science degrees are more worthwile than media studies" - 20 positives, 40 negs

[Raiden10]

(Original post by chapman.)
If you disagree that doesn't make me an idiot.

Nobody made you an idiot, you are one!

[DetectiveConan]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
So.. surely the more logical, reasonable, sensible and humane option is to sort out benefits, introduce better education into contraception + raising kids etc, better promoting jobs in certain areas, giving more incentives to work rather than purely get benefits and things such as that?

But ofcourse, **** that, ignore the problem, lets just stop people having kids.

What you propose though is boring and doesn't make for a good TSR troll thread. "VAT VAS VRONG VITH HITLERZ?"

[Alistair122]

(Original post by Nick100)
I don't blame them for the crisis. The responsibility for that lies with politicians.



That is not accurate; unless all economic demands have been met there is always a job to be done - unemployment is caused by political factors influencing the economy - it is not caused by economic development itself. It also isn't the case that people remain unskilled for their entire lives; people develop skills and become valuable employees over the course of their lives.


But the "poverty" which they are in is only relative; they have more wealth than their ancestors did. And over £1200/citizen/year is spent on education.



But what is the motivation to do well if one can earn a living by popping out kids? If benefits were cut off there would be an economic motivation for children to do well at school rather than (or in addition to)... whatever you're using to motivate them.

The state does not need to redistribute wages; its attempts to "help" people and "help" the economy have only created problems. The reason people have to do things like take unpaid placements at Poundland is because the government has made it illegal to hire someone for less than the minimum wage and now people must gain skills by working for free before they can get a good job.

Finally, you didn't answer my question - where are we going to get additional help from if we're already spending half of the country's output on the welfare state?

Firstly I have an issue with your economics. There is always going to be higher demand for the more skilled employees, as these are needed to organise and develop employment for the less skilled. The amount of demand in the economy doesn't have to result in deciding the level of employment due to imports/ exports. If anything has become clear, it is that Britain does not have a comparative advantage in producing good which require low skilled jobs, as these can be produced for cheaper in other less developed countries. Hence, in order to achieve income equality in Britain, a system whereby people are better educated is necessary.
Also, it is certainly the case the people will not and do not choose to have children based on their financial situation. Quite the opposite, there is a negative correlation between wealth and the amount of children. Take many sub-Saharan African countries women have far more children typically than in Britain. If benefits are cut, people will have the same number of children, those children will just be worse off.
Money paid into education pays for itself, if used effectively, and may create returns. These people are more likely to get a higher wage, which may be taxed, generating revenue. It also helps to lessen the JSA bill.
The minimum wage is necessary to maintain the welfare of millions of workers. Many companies do not have the spare capacity assumed in economic theory, so are not capable of taking on more employees at a reduced wage, and will continue to offer the lowest acceptable wage, which is increase with the implementation of the minimum wage. Figures show that when it was introduced, it had no effect on unemployment.
Furthermore, how our ancestors lived is irrelevant. If people are suffering and society has the resources to correct it, it should do so; it is morally right. Just because people suffered in the past and are currently suffering in multiple places around the globe, this does not excuse our allowance of suffering on our doorstep.

[chapman.]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to kill the people you disapprove of, rather than sterilising them?

No, that's murder.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[chapman.]

(Original post by Old Father Time)
I think thats quite a radical and extreme step to take, and would even go as far to say that it is murder. It should only be used in an extreme situation where the human race would have more chance of survival by enforcing this policy, e.g. if resources are running low and overpopulation ect, however it certainly should not be used in the next 300 years at least.

I don't think it's anything like murder. Are you ending a life? No. Are you preventing people from creating children who will drain resources and add nothing to society? Yes.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[chapman.]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Stopped reading at that point, though arguably what I read before that was equally as stupid.

No one should have a monopoly on whether or not people have the right to have children. A one child policy is arguably one of the critical answers to over population, but outright enforced sterilisation is a step way over the line of human morality.

Why does that sentence stand out to you? I'm not lauding anything else he's done, most definitely not.
All I said was he got one thing right - but of course, once someone does some things wrong, everything they've done is wrong?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[chapman.]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
Nobody could ever think this is a realistic or good idea, surely. Tempted to call troll.

I don't necessarily agree with it - I'm using this as a test for my debate.
I don't see how this is unrealistic - we have the resources.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[chapman.]

(Original post by Raiden10)
Nobody made you an idiot, you are one!

I can see you have strong views.
Until you can actually put them into words though I'd just stay and watch without getting involved.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Nick100]

(Original post by Alistair122)
Firstly I have an issue with your economics. There is always going to be higher demand for the more skilled employees, as these are needed to organise and develop employment for the less skilled. The amount of demand in the economy doesn't have to result in deciding the level of employment due to imports/ exports. If anything has become clear, it is that Britain does not have a comparative advantage in producing good which require low skilled jobs, as these can be produced for cheaper in other less developed countries. Hence, in order to achieve income equality in Britain, a system whereby people are better educated is necessary.

The amount of demand in the economy (not just the UK economy but the world economy) would prevent unemployment provided if there were no political factors preventing full employment (currently there are such factors). If someone has a job they want done and there is a large source of cheap labour to do it why would't they employ that labour? If the demand for certain skills is high then there is an incentive for people to develop those skills where possible. And we don't have a comparative advantage because our government consumes half of the country's income. If what you were saying is true then the Hong Kong economy would be expected to stagnate rather than grow at 6% for the next few years.

Furthermore if there was low demand for unskilled labour in the UK there would be a much lower amount of illegal immigration.

Income equality is not as important as increasing income. If the poor doubled their wealth while the rich tripled their wealth do you consider that to be a negative outcome?

Also, it is certainly the case the people will not and do not choose to have children based on their financial situation. Quite the opposite, there is a negative correlation between wealth and the amount of children. Take many sub-Saharan African countries women have far more children typically than in Britain. If benefits are cut, people will have the same number of children, those children will just be worse off.

The purpose of cutting off the benefits is so that those people cannot consume more than they produce and have a negative impact on more responsible people. And those children will still be better off than the average African, South American, or Asian.

Money paid into education pays for itself, if used effectively, and may create returns. These people are more likely to get a higher wage, which may be taxed, generating revenue. It also helps to lessen the JSA bill.

It doesn't necessarily pay for itself; government education is inefficient and costly and varies drastically from region to region. And given that we already give people all the educational opportunities they could possibly need I don't see why we need to put more money into the system.

The minimum wage is necessary to maintain the welfare of millions of workers. Many companies do not have the spare capacity assumed in economic theory, so are not capable of taking on more employees at a reduced wage, and will continue to offer the lowest acceptable wage, which is increase with the implementation of the minimum wage. Figures show that when it was introduced, it had no effect on unemployment.

And yet youth unemployment is at a record high and it is difficult for people with a lack of experience to find any work. If the minimum wage has no effect on unemployment why not raise it to £50/hour?

Furthermore, how our ancestors lived is irrelevant. If people are suffering and society has the resources to correct it, it should do so; it is morally right. Just because people suffered in the past and are currently suffering in multiple places around the globe, this does not excuse our allowance of suffering on our doorstep.

But society would correct it if the government stopped interfering because that's what society was doing for a hundred years before the government decided that it had to be responsible for our welfare. If we want to make people richer then we need to grow the economy; if we could achieve the same level of growth as Hong Kong then we could double our wealth in a little over ten years. And "suffering on our doorstep" is complete hyperbole and leads me to ask why you don't think the UK government should send hundreds of billions of pounds overseas to help people who are actually in poverty in other countries?

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
So.. surely the more logical, reasonable, sensible and humane option is to sort out benefits, introduce better education into contraception + raising kids etc, better promoting jobs in certain areas, giving more incentives to work rather than purely get benefits and things such as that?

But ofcourse, **** that, ignore the problem, lets just stop people having kids.

So long as benefits and number of children are linked, it will continue. Whether or not this is a problem is another issue, I mean, they can still contribute.

[Old Father Time]

(Original post by chapman.)
I don't think it's anything like murder. Are you ending a life? No. Are you preventing people from creating children who will drain resources and add nothing to society? Yes.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

In my opinion, life begins at conception, therefore I firmly believe that to sterilize an individual, is preventing life from being created and therefore murder. Using condoms too, prevents life being created, and is murder, however these are necessary to prevent diseases such as HIV from spreading, whereas sterilization is totally preventable, and even unethical to decide that one person is not allowed to reproduce, but another is.