[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 124 KB, 1149x1167, reproduction-credit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5049617 No.5049617 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think /g/?

I made an image because I don't want to make multiples posts. You opinion is appreciated.

>> No.5049621

Forge credits.
Acquire massive moral, monetary, legal, and political problems.
Realize this is a terrible idea.
Die.

>> No.5049635

>>5049617

In theory its a great idea but looking at larger scale its pointless

1: People would never stand for or allow the killing of a post birth infant especially in america

2: if this WERE implemented, would only one country be doing it? and if then would it be pointless in doing this since other countries are bound to be opposed to your totalitarian dictatorship and will keep on with traditional FREE KIDS FOR EVERYONE

3: what about people already with 2+ kids

4: What fucking credit? are they cards? are they on the web? how and where would they be sold/traded and what standards would those trades follow?


The biggest problem with this idea is that you need EVERYONE to do it, if just one country is doing it theres bound to be critical failures, specifically if youre trying to fix the People:Resources ratio

6/10
hopeful but impractical, would not read again

>> No.5049638

I can see a game show, "Save my twins" where parents that have twins, triplets ... compete for a credit.

>> No.5049647

>>5049635

The implementation would require global use.

You could argue for taxing certain race more than others for population control, that is up for debate.

And yes, this requires very strong authority. But let's assume we have that.

>> No.5049650

>>5049638

No need. Parents can get twin insurance. Should they get twins, they get insurance money to buy credit on the market.

>> No.5049656

lol sure is incredibly dangerous and corruptible system.

Work out insider trading + loopholes, vendor lock-in, anti-trust violations, copyright trolling, etc.. (any problem with capitalism) first before you start betting human genetics on it.

>> No.5049671

>>5049647

You cant really assume that since total world domination isn't too easy

That would be another process entirely. and even then, if it were implemented globally, it would need to be tailored to each specific regional group.

You think islamic radicals will just let you kill their infants? or that sub-Saharan Africa will be even able to use this system?

Brah

I dont see it getting off the ground

>> No.5049689

>>5049617

>Obvious allusions to China, etc, that people would pick up on and oppose on the spot
>Bureaucracy flubbing a few numbers/names and having to send teams to kill a +5 year old child
>Considering credits aren't necessary to have a child ("illegally", but still.) there will be a good many people how will fuck anyway and birth children either for personal convictions or because they honestly want children.
>Killing future generations based on current models
>Installing this anywhere other than North Korea without issue
>the whole "strong enforcement" part would require people that haven't been exposed to anything that would make them question if killing children is wrong

Just too many problems OP. People, and Ethics for that matter, are very particular things. Your plan would only work in a government that completely controls every aspect of it's citizen's lives.

>>5049647

Never mind I didn't see this:

>You could argue for taxing certain race more than others for population control, that is up for debate.

Indeed, in the same way you could argue generalizations. People would see it as racist at very best, and a eugenics plan the Nazi's would dream up at worst. No one would go for it.

>And yes, this requires very strong authority. But let's assume we have that.

How would that assumption benefit the point? If you had that much power, wouldn't it be more prudent to just kill people you don't like, burdens of the state, repeat felons, and the terminally ill?

>> No.5049704

>>5049656
>Work out insider trading + loopholes, vendor lock-in, anti-trust violations, copyright trolling, etc.. (any problem with capitalism) first before you start betting human genetics on it.

none of the listed problems is applicable to reproduction credit

>> No.5049710

>>5049689
>How would that assumption benefit the point? If you had that much power, wouldn't it be more prudent to just kill people you don't like, burdens of the state, repeat felons, and the terminally ill?

That is the worse of the 2 evils.

Just because you have that much power, doesn't mean you have to use it to kill people you don't like.

>> No.5049718

>>5049689

>, wouldn't it be more prudent to just kill people you don't like

Exactly, OP if you had absolute power, why not just get rid of the people you dont like instead of thinking up a convoluted redundant system

Dont want poor people? kill them all and later deal with the economic ramifications
Want to stop crime? go all big brother on them

>> No.5049735

>>5049689
China is a little different. It's mainly enforced on the Han Chinese (majority ethnic group in china). Minority ethnic groups don't have it enforced on them. Also the way that it's enforced is through increased taxes and general stigma (your boss won't promote you if you have had more than one child).

Supposedly it's kind of going away too since so many people are violating it and it's not being enforced very much.

>> No.5049747

>>5049704

They do when you're putting them on the market. Allowing the market to be gamed through countless methods like that --> allowing population control to be gamed.

>> No.5049757

>>5049718
>Exactly, OP if you had absolute power, why not just get rid of the people you dont like instead of thinking up a convoluted redundant system

This system is workable. If you could convince everybody that the threat of overpopulation is immediate and relevant, this is a viable solution which is the LEAST OF ALL EVIL.

If you are given the choice of a all-you-can-kill and this system, i am sure you would choose the former.

>> No.5049761

>>5049747

how can this system be open to anti-trust, copyright trolling or insider trading?

don't just use terms you don't understand.

>> No.5049766

>>5049757

>This system is workable. If you could convince everybody that the threat of overpopulation is immediate and relevant, this is a viable solution which is the LEAST OF ALL EVIL.

Yeah, good luck with that. Might as well have everyone in the world transform into a perfect little hivemind as well because order would always be kept and the act of birth would be unnecessary.

>If you are given the choice of a all-you-can-kill and this system, i am sure you would choose the former.

Almost a loaded question. I wouldn't choose either if I truly had a choice. They're both the same amount of evil, they just have different operating procedures.

>> No.5049769

>>5049761

Game the economy through those methods, use gained money to buy birth credits. Control birth credits through broken economic system that douchebags neglect to fix.

>> No.5049777

>>5049757
>This system is workable. If you could convince everybody that the threat of overpopulation is immediate and relevant, this is a viable solution which is the LEAST OF ALL EVIL.

If you are given the choice of a all-you-can-kill and this system, i am sure you would choose the former.

Very good point, that is a capitalist solution.
We could just stick to the old-fashioned way and cull people off with war.

>> No.5049778

Overpopulation is a non-issue. If anything, dropping birthrates in good people is the problem.

If you want to make a population more manageable, look into fixing racial and religious tension.

>> No.5049780

>>5049769

What do you do with said birth credits?

just sit on them?

You can just issue more if some people are sitting on them.

>> No.5049783

>>5049777
>We could just stick to the old-fashioned way and cull people off with war.

war doesn't really kill that much people.

even modern war pales in comparison to birth.

>> No.5049784

>>5049778
>Overpopulation is a non-issue

It is an issue. we are at higher than carrying-capacity.

>> No.5049791

>>5049783
Well it is an issue and we do need some method of democratic birth control, other than war between countries.
Unless our medicine suddenly gets worse and longevity decreases..

>> No.5049800

>>5049780
What is federal reserve banking?

>> No.5049802

>>5049784
No we aren't. Most of the resources are being used by a relatively small amount of the population, less people does not automatically mean less waste.

>> No.5049807

>>5049802
this, not to mention we're still overproducing shit like crazy.

>> No.5049817

>>5049791

The reason for increase in population is food availability, not medicine.

Without medicine, there would be a lot of death but even more births, as long as food is available.

>> No.5049821

>>5049802
>No we aren't. Most of the resources are being used by a relatively small amount of the population, less people does not automatically mean less waste.

Well less people can only mean less waste, more waste or the same amount of waste.

One of them is the answer, i hope you can see which it is.

>> No.5049832

>>5049778

>look into fixing racial and religious tension.

Again, massive waste of time. Being optimistic you could at least hope to help them get along better, but you know how that always goes.

>>5049791
>we do need some method of democratic birth control

Except we don't. People can't just be controlled like that (unless we all have crazy god-powers like OP wants to assume.). If anything people won't have more children now because of how expensive it is. School, food, unexpected things, wants, etc etc. It costs a lot. People realize this.

>> No.5049892
File: 48 KB, 240x240, mmpf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5049892

The first world has average fertility rates way below replacement rate; it doesn't have a overpopulation problem. Only third world countries where niggers breed like rabbits is there overpopulation.

>> No.5049945

Wouldn't it cost shit tonnes more than it would ever realistically produce? I imagine it's not going to be easy tracking down people who have kids without credit, I mean, who's going to stop them? I guess you could have some system that prevented them from getting education. But then you just end up with even dumber poor white trash.

>> No.5049953

The real population problems are all in East Asia and Africa anyway.

>> No.5049955
File: 62 KB, 400x400, troll-alien.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5049955

>>5049892

>mfw overpopulation is the problem because it leads to overconsumption
>mfw overpopulation is far worse in first world countries as consumption per population is far higher

standard blame-the-third-world first worlders

>> No.5049956
File: 587 KB, 2288x2559, africa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5049956

>>5049953
>africa

Actually no. China/India yes.

As far as consumption/waste per capita though you're looking entirely at the western world.

>> No.5049961

Would we deny illegal children healthcare of any kind, education, essentially any chance at a life? No access to rights? Hell yes, we could see the widespread resurfacing of slavery!

>> No.5049964

>>5049961
>Would we deny illegal children healthcare of any kind, education, essentially any chance at a life? No access to rights? Hell yes, we could see the widespread resurfacing of slavery!

uncredited children are terminated.

>> No.5049967

Stormfag fantasy land.

3/10 would not read again

>> No.5049994

>>5049964
I imagine there'd be a black market for selling illegal kids though. Unless we watch everyone and make sure they're not getting pregnant without our permission/knowledge.

>> No.5050010

>>5049994

There might be uncredited people who run from the laws and live in a sewer.

>> No.5050034

kidnapping black market

nope nope nope

>> No.5050054

>>5050034

Why would there be a kidnapping black market.

are you retarded?

>> No.5050283

>>5049832
So capitalism has cured it already then, no money no food.
I may have to become a betafag vegetarian, food for the world!

>> No.5050406

>Implying socioeconomic background usually correlates with intelligence and other desirable traits

Even remarkably talented entrepreneurs often have dull minded kids. It's the 'regression to the mean' principle. Any statistical IQ disparity between social classes could be largely attributed to environmental differences.
This system would create a gigantic gulf between rich and poor. The poor would continue to reproduce, frequently clashing with authorities.
It sounds like a recipe for revolution.

>> No.5050408

The only way to tackle overpopulation (that doesn't involve annual culling/forced sterilization) is to empower women in developing countries. This could be achieved through aggressive education programs and the broad distribution of contraception.

>> No.5050430

>>5049617
I wish your mother had lost her credit working as crackhore and the police had forced her to abort, in order to never let your authoritarian ass see the sunlight.

Apart from being sociopathic and batshit insane there are some other problems:

To keep popualtion constant you need a bit more than 2 kids per mother (something like 2.14 iirc) to account for random deaths.

You assume that wealthy people will bring wealth producing children, and poor people won't.

Mass abortions will completely destroy the peoples' morale.

Are you really trying to stop people from having sex? Not only that, but stopping them with the one tool goverments have a repuation for handling horribly: the economy?

Lastly, how on earth does this sound logical to you: "Overpopulation and scarcity of resources may threat the life of our people, let's kill them instead!

I hope you will never hold any position of power you dimwit.

>> No.5050434

>>5050430

but OP is correct.

and it could lead to world peace, and more habitat for endagnered speces, less pollutian, less gloabel warming

what is wrong with that? are you a liberal?

>> No.5050462

>>5050434
>b-but OP is correct
>pulling out the liberal card
>implying you're not the OP

So rich = intelligent, people are going to willingly legislate away their right to reproduce, and we're going to have a bloated system to monitor every single person in the population?
Sounds great. Can't wait to get started. Just jack my taxes up to 84% of my income and put a steel clamp on my penis that I can only remove if I have sufficient reproduction credits in my bank account.

>> No.5050542
File: 176 KB, 1027x772, 1298658296817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5050542

Much easier sollutions:

1.Easiest: Promote the use of condoms and hormonal birth control. If must, give state sposnored condoms on the street corners.

2. Quite easy. Spike watersources, and food with sterilizing drugs, making certain populations infertile, or less-fertile. There are substances that seem realitively safe and are hard to spot by forensics, that cause stillbirth, reduce spermcount etc.

3. Harder. Design a virus that attacks human testicles, causing men to become infertile, and male fetuses to get an inflamation and be stillborn. Deign a vaccine obviously. Spray the virus over Africa, Asia and USA. Reducing the number of fertile males (or simply reducing the number of males) would reduce the overall population slightly, without the risk of imlposion.

>> No.5050557

Sounds like a good idea OP. Might work in China. Not sure about other countries where human rights are respected.

>> No.5050662

>>5050462
it's a troll

>> No.5050676

ITT: OP is a complete sociopath.

>> No.5050723

I am not sure where the "overpopulation myth" arises or where it maintains, but it's been proven rubbish for at least 2000 years now: ancient Greeks and Romans wondered if there was already too many people in the world back then.

There is very little hard evidence of overpopulation anywhere in the world: evidence that any particular region contains more people than it can support (think about that for a moment).

You do see occasional starvation from weather variations, but mostly the instances of continual mass-starvation are not limitations of physics, but of governmental ineptitude: Cuba and North Korea are two wonderful examples. Africa has been getting food donations for decades now, and starvation is still a problem there.

>> No.5050747

>>5049617
Forgive me if im being dumb but I don't understand the tax system.

Is the tax on the money that is profited from reproduction credit transactions or is it on the credit itself?

>> No.5050752

poorly disguised plotline for that movie about time as money.

>> No.5051513

>>5050723
The idea that overpopulation is a myth is itself, a myth, promoted by religious motivations against contraception. Humans are very capable for their own survival, but from the point of view of other species that we have crowded out, many made entirely extinct over the years, there are too damn many of us. We don't need even more.

>> No.5051550

World population growth is slowing and will begin shrinking by 2050 and level out at about 8 or 9 billion.

Malthusian fearmongering is so last century.

>> No.5051568

>>5051550
*ugh* just because some guy from a hundred years ago didn't foresee agricultural developments and fuel sources doesn't mean that there will never be lots of people dying at once somewhere in the future forever. The future is big and the whole point long ago was "if upward growth rates continue". We consider consequences and then decide on mitigation. Just prudence.