Should all newborn males be given vasectomies

Probably give the contract to the British rather than the US.

 

Might not be a bad idea. Have robots randomly kill off 40% of the worlds population then self destruct. The odds are still in your favor.

 

as if the british have more concern for mankind than people in the us, for instance.

 

Who ratifies environmental treaties and who doesn't?...for e.g.
You'll probably also find US citizens use more resources than UK citizens.


US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oMEuyhBkRo"]YouTube - Freeland - We Want Your Soul (Official Video)

UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1gPT6pTTB8"]YouTube - Morris Dancers

Just sayin'

 

dude, don't take on an argument that really needs to be its own thread.

 

Think about it logically

- 'uk?'

Britain is a caring nation.


- US atriot:

America answers the question as to who are the most important people in the whole universe.

 

once again, this isn't about britain v. us and who is the bigger humanitarian, b/c let's face it, neither is.

this is about sterilizing male children and robots...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdsbuJfMpr0"]YouTube - Over Population Nightmare from 1960s - Star Trek's Mark of Gideon



Hotwater

 

How about temporary sterilization of both sexes reversible only upon issuance of a breading permit that would be issued based on the individuals level of education financial resources, and physical/psychological health?
Then only smart successful mentally/physically fit people could have children.. (with each other)
Ensuring that every subsequent generation had only the best chance for a healthy upbringing (and positive contribution to society)..
It would be like instituting an artificial form of natural selection...


We could make sure they were all tall and fare skinned...

 

got eugenics?

 

hahahahhaha

 

If you really have to snip somebody, how about the people who keeping on popping out the children. Not fair for a child to pay for their parents idiocies.

 

ok, so we've moved from sterilizing all males to selective sterilization based on arbitrary characteristics.

 

people that are already living made this thread...




Do the globe a favor and kill yourself..

 

So it appears. I thought that this had already been tried and was a dismal failure.

 

This is a very bad idea.

Sterilising males is just pointless, because at the end of the day it's females who produce kids, and having less fertile males around just means that those males individually impregnate more females, putting you back to square one but with less genetic diversity.

Also, the areas of the world that would likely do this are the areas of the world that least need to do so. Europe, America, etc are not suffering from huge population booms.
Something like this would just skew the birth rates towards other parts of the world which already have excessive population growth relative to resource availability, effectively making the problem worse.

Then there's the issue of age-distribution. Having a population with an average age in the 50s is not really desirable.

In a word, I'd say no. It'd be a far better idea to bring the rest of the world up to speed on education and resource distribution, and get rid of idiotic institutions that push the idea of large families and preach against contraception/abortion/common sense.

 

We don't produce kids by ourselves, they just happen to gestate inside of us. Babies are still egg + sperm.

Though I'm against it, sterilizing the males would make more sense because women can only produce a child every 9 months, plus recovery time, or even longer if she nurses. Men however, are open for business 24/7.

 

I was taking the piss, don't worry.

 

(no rep left)

 

Did you really think this was a serious discussion?