Forced birthcontrol

In the Netherlands a professor raised the following:
Parents who have shown that they are not capable of raising children, should be forced not having any children in the future.
This when repeated child abuse of all sorts, neglect and more of this kind has been proven by the court of law.
Debate.

Sure, in cases of extreme child abuse and/or neglect, it seems like a good idea.

Originally posted by Sake
In the Netherlands a professor raised the following:
Parents who have shown that they are not capable of raising children, should be forced not having any children in the future.
This when repeated child abuse of all sorts, neglect and more of this kind has been proven by the court of law.
Debate.

Citation needed: Did this professor indicate what would be a legitimate "force" to be applied? That might affect the debate.

Sounds interesting but is politically impossible, and maybe that's a good thing.

Originally posted by Sake
In the Netherlands a professor raised the following:
Parents who have shown that they are not capable of raising children, should be forced not having any children in the future.
This when repeated child abuse of all sorts, neglect and more of this kind has been proven by the court of law.
Debate.

Social science has come quite far in the last 40-50 years, increasing our understanding how even the earliest of childhood experiences affects our behaviour as adults. By giving the parents the proper tools to raise their children (not just the scientific insight to the subject, but the actual environment to relieve the oh too common social stress) all these problems disappear. There isn't a parent alive who'd harm his/her child, given the right environmental circumstances. It's never the parent that is a "bad person by nature", it's the social environment (cultural imprinting) that's the underlying causal mechanism for all human behaviour (distorted or not; explicitly or not).

You may ask yourself how any human culture can be said to promote abusive behaviour against its own children. You need only look as far as the backbone of society for an answer to that question.

/Proud member of the Zeitgeist movement (let's all join in peaceful effort and change the entire world for the better)

He came with this example: a woman had 14 (!) children. Thirteen had been taken away from her. He was not explicite why they had been taken out. When she was aloud to keep the 14th (why?), she spoiled him that much, that he weighed 70kg at his 9th birthday.
He mentioned cases where children were abused and neglected systematicly.
But I can come up with a few examples myself. A woman, 46yr, wants a child desperately and screwes around unsafe. She has a history of violence, jail, Korsakov, borderline, an IQ of 64 and now in a psychiatric hospital. She has the right to get pregnant. A universal right. Should she? I think not. She is absolutely not fit for the job. But she has the law on her side.
Dutroux, the worldfamous Belgian childabuser and killer. Should he become a father, even when he's in jail?

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Social science has come quite far in the last 40-50 years, increasing our understanding how even the earliest of childhood experiences affects our behaviour as adults. By giving the parents the proper tools to raise their children (not just the scientific insight to the subject, but the actual environment to relieve the oh too common social stress) all the ...[text shortened]... movement (let's all join in peaceful effort and change the entire world for the better)

Should wannabe parents do exam in childcare?
There are so many people on the planet who have a pretty hidden live. Most of the abuse happens behind closed doors. How to get this in the open? And who needs to take care? Society has chosen not to pay for this all.

Originally posted by Sake
Should wannabe parents do exam in childcare?
There are so many people on the planet who have a pretty hidden live. Most of the abuse happens behind closed doors. How to get this in the open? And who needs to take care? Society has chosen not to pay for this all.

The problem goes much deeper than the observable symptoms. While it's absolutely essential not to allow more children to suffer, any effort to prevent that will be completely and utterly unsuccessful, unless it's based on a scientific understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms. We must redesign society itself to support preventive measures through a common deeper understanding, rather than constantly dealing with the symptoms through legislation and force. There's no end to child abuse, or any other violent, aberrant human behaviour, until we create a society that puts the welfare of all human beings, in all aspects of being human, before anything else.

As for the immediate problem of parents not being able to raise their children in a prosperous, intellectually challenging, emotionally inspiring, socially relaxed and educational environment (without even the realisation that maybe bringing more children to the world is not the answer), we must not make the problem worse through yet more legislation and state abuse (which clearly has no effect), but through education and friendly efforts of support for those who's trying to change.

I'm not writing this in a disgusting Disney-style sense, but in basic empathy for all people, realising that we're all victims of our own life experiences, and that our own ability to deal with them in a constructive, positive manner depends almost entirely on our given cultural influences.

Eugenics is a serious matter.

This sort of thing was promoted before during the American Eugenics Movement. How far some people are willing to take this always reminds me to be cynical. Here is a link to an excerpt of Tomorrow's Children, a pro eugenics propaganda film that promotes forced sterilization.

YouTube

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Proud member of the Zeitgeist movement (let's all join in peaceful effort and change the entire world for the better)

LOL, I can't wait for Social Cybernation. 😕

Originally posted by Zenarctic
The problem goes much deeper than the observable symptoms. While it's absolutely essential not to allow more children to suffer, any effort to prevent that will be completely and utterly unsuccessful, unless it's based on a scientific understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms. We must redesign society itself to support preventive measures through a ...[text shortened]... a constructive, positive manner depends almost entirely on our given cultural influences.

Very idealistic, beautiful even. Love to live in such a world. Unfortunately I'm not that optimistic. There will always be people who can't be reached through education and a loving enviroment. Let them?

Originally posted by Palynka
LOL, I can't wait for Social Cybernation. 😕

Um, that's sarcasm, isn't it? A very strange thing to be sarcastic about, so I have to ask. That's sarcasm, right? Right?

Originally posted by Sake
Very idealistic, beautiful even. Love to live in such a world. Unfortunately I'm not that optimistic. There will always be people who can't be reached through education and a loving enviroment. Let them?

We'd all love to live in such a world, yet few are willing (or capable) to put down the social effort required. Isn't that interesting though. To figure out the actual problems underlying aberrant behaviour and restructure society accordingly, will quite naturally lead to stability and social progress, without the need for anyone to be optimistic about it.

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Um, that's sarcasm, isn't it? A very strange thing to be sarcastic about, so I have to ask. That's sarcasm, right? Right?

Yes, of course it's sarcasm.

Tell me, Zenartic, how would this global demand system determine demand? By asking right? Easy.

Or is it? How do you go about it in practice?

Originally posted by Palynka
Tell me, Zenartic, how would this global demand system determine demand?

You actually get the answer in the "Zeitgeist Moving Forward" and "Zeitgeist Where are we going?", but both are at least two hours in length, so I wouldn't ask you to watch them unless you're sincerely curious.

There are several possible, practical solutions to the problem, and I suspect there would be more than one practical way of acquiring goods in a resource based economy. For one, imagine that we have stores, much like we do today, but remove the counter and connect each item to a system so that when you grab a camera, say, it's noted by the system that the camera is currently being used by someone. If no camera is currently available, the person in need of one can "order" a camera through the system and have it delivered as soon as possible. Items that are hardly ever noted as used will eventually be deemed unnecessary, and taken for recycling (or sent to another city where the demand for said item might be higher - as determined by the number of "orders" for the item in question). This can all be automated.

Another idea is to have a web based interface, where you can plan ahead. You can state that you'll be in this or that city at a certain date, and you expect a certain set of resources to be available to you when you get there (even the transport there can be determined through this interface). The data pertaining to this "web transaction" will be saved in the global resource management system, indicating demand and helping it to determine how to allocate and produce resources for the future.