• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    any policy of population control is necessarily eugenecist. you can personally favor it, but kindly keep it away from politics.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.

      And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.

      But yeah, I’m not hopeful lol so you don’t have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits.

        what policy can you introduce that doesn’t favor a specific trait?

            • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that’s completely fine.

                • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Those questions also apply to ideas like democracy or public education… but I still think those things are pretty good ideas.

                  All systems/ideas have implementation issues in real life. But the whole point of a randomized lottery system is to intentionally not select specific traits as much as possible. And the goal would be to continually improve this hypothetical system, constantly trying to determine if there was a trait being favored and what adjustments are needed to prevent it.

                  And even something as simple as enforcing a camp fire ban during a high risk dry spell also has issues with ‘how do you know where everyone is…to see if they are having a campfire’ and ‘what if they don’t know about the ban?’. But the general concept still seems like a good idea to me.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    if one country did this it’s genocide against that country. if a pact of countries agree, it’s still genocide against them. and if every government agreed, there are still people’s who will not be effected.

                    every way you slice it, it’s genocide. stop trying to figure out how to do genocide the right way.