The welfare state, population control and condoms

[fwgx]

I've just been reading (and still am) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. He mentions a bit about population control and how this happens in 'nature' (I'm excluding humands from this definition of nature). The ideas are based around how populations are kept in check in species. He proposes that self regualtion of population occurs in species through a 'selfish want' to propogate their own genes. That is an animal will bear enough children as to maximise the spread of their genes, not too few and not too many as to over strech resources in caring for their young, and thus reducing the chances of the young making it to adulthood. This means the most efficient way of propogating your genes is not to just breed like crazy - as this would over stretch you in caring for them and will lead to more dying than would survive if they had fewer births.

Then he mentions the wonderful thing us humans have developed - the welfare state. That is we have eliminated the possibility for over stretching yourself in propogating your genes. Whereas a few hundred years ago if you had too many kids they'd die, now you can have as many as you like and be almost certain they'll all survive because the state will give you the resourses for the caring of them. So in effect the welfare state has removed the main population control mechanism we once had as a species giving the possibility for unheard of population increases before we either run out of space, all die of horrible diseases, starve or die in war.

Now I know there are people who don't agree with China once (or still?) limiting each household to only two children as a way of limiting the population, which for China has spiralled out of control. What are your views on this method of unatural form of population control and condoms as another method of unatural birth control - some people after all refuse to use them because they are unatural and yet the very system that enables them to raise twelve healthy kids is initself unatural.

[griffinn]

The book only discusses the welfare system within the context of its unidirectional effect on population control, but didn't consider the cause-and-effect in the opposite direction -- when you have an unchecked boom of population, eventually the state pours all its cash into taking care of losers' babies, and has to (1) raise more money and/or (2) reduce its spending.

(1) Raising money
Obviously, the government raises taxes. So those who can still earn enough money to support their own kids suffer. There will be a group of taxpayers at the lower end of the tax bracket who will no longer be able to just barely make it. So what do they do? The Canadian experience tells us that they say "fuck it" and go out of work and goes into welfare. So the government ends up getting less tax than before.

Doesn't look like a sustainable system, does it? The vicious cycle will have to stop. Either the population boom has to be in check (which China opted for), or the welfare system has to change.

... which brings us into...

(2) Cutting spending
The answer is simple. A welfare system that unconditionally provides for you simply doesn't work. Somehow the government will have to find ways to say, "If you're too much of a loser, you'll have to be left to die." And countries around the world, even the omnipotent U.S. of A., are finding ways to stop spending on losers -- with the introduction of "work for the dole" or similar systems where those who can't keep their job will have their welfare terminated.

End result...
Loser: gone.
Loser's gene pool: dried up.
Population problem: solved.
Welfare system: rationalised.

A happy ending, is it not?

[Artan]

wtf?

[BlueTape]

Originally posted by Artan
wtf?

read the book and find out

[Vie]

China's intentions are, at least as I am concerned, all for the good.

However I strongly dissagree with SOME of there methods, one child households are a good idea, Forced abortion is not.

[godoncrack]

i think the way shit is right now is fucked.
as above, when people are allowed to propogate on the states buck,
you get substandard product, they pass on to there kin that you don't have to work, just ride the state and do nothing.
i work and i have to support shit like this
but this is america.....its all balanced out

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I love how I have to give my hard-earned tax dollars to losers that don't give a fuck, to other countries, and to greedy politicians' pockets... I don't remember signing up for this. Where's the fucking contract?

[ShyShy]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Where's the fucking contract?

Being used to wipe said politicians' asses.

[steak]

I think that we have put far too much value on human life. We can’t stand the idea that a human being might be wronged in some way and heaven forbid one actually dies.

This has lead to the over population you speak of. We have to face facts that we really aren’t ‘that important’

[Cylob]

The welfare state is a sign of hope - man being able to take care of the less fortunate. However, people have to constantly moan about their tax dollars being used for welfare. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?????? The day may come when you find yourself without a job and in need of support. My view is, looking after others is also looking after yourself.

What's wrong with a bit of compassion?

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by godoncrack
i think the way shit is right now is fucked.

Very profound.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

However, people have to constantly moan about their tax dollars being used for welfare. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?????? The day may come when you find yourself without a job and in need of support.

Trust me, I'd be much better off if I didn't have to give up a quarter of my paycheck to people that think it's ok to have a dozen kids because the government will take care of them. I'm not that goddamn irresponsible. And you know damn good and well that most of the people on welfare are perfectly capable of finding a job and supporting themselves, so don't give me that shit.