Parenting Licenses

[CEOofRawness]

Should would-be parents be required to have a license?

Would this even be feasible? If so, how?

I think it's a good idea, but the implementation of it is tricky.

[Jennywocky]

Should would-be parents be required to have a license? Would this even be feasible? If so, how?

I think it's a good idea, but the implementation of it is tricky.

Chemical sterilization.

[Limey]

It's inevitable with the way we as a species are reproducing and consuming, like a virus. I'm part of the problem.

[walfin]

You'd decrease the birth rate even more, and most developed countries already have an aging population problem.

But if something like that has to be done, I suppose you could criminalise unprotected sex without a permit or something.

[jyakulis]

yeah let's let the government license everything we do. who is the wise sage that gets to determine who and who isn't fit to parent.

god this country is fucked.

[wildforlemurs]

I have had this idea for a LONG time.

I think in order to obtain the license the candidates have to pass a series of tests. IE - One to prove they're not a complete moron and the stupid genes wouldn't get passed on. One to prove they're financially capable and stable enough to support a child, because they fucking expensive. And another general test of personality to weed out the crazy sadists, pedophiles and all that other stuff.

I WISH this could be implemented, but some might see it as WW2 Nazi shit, even though the intentions are pure.

[garak]

I can appreciate talking about this as a theoretical exercise in half-ironic intellectual elitism, but to seriously want to pursue it is disgusting.

[airjaw]

I don't think they should. Let the people live!!!

I think its oK to restrict the # of babies a familiy has though provided that they can't provide minimum support for the existing kids. This is becuase those kids are gonna end up being paid for by the state in some way. I'm still on the fence about that tho. Its a very touchy controversial subject, and thankfully one that I feel we don't need to visit at this time in the US

[Limey]

I don't think they should. Let the people live!!!

I think its oK to restrict the # of babies a familiy has though provided that they can't provide minimum support for the existing kids. This is becuase those kids are gonna end up being paid for by the state in some way. I'm still on the fence about that tho. Its a very touchy controversial subject, and thankfully one that I feel we don't need to visit at this time in the US

Have you seen the movie, "Idiocracy" ?

[wildforlemurs]

It would definitely stop some of the country's problems if we did though. But i guess we're a democracy for a reason. If we wanted population control we could move to China

[Limey]

It would definitely stop some of the country's problems if we did though. But i guess we're a democracy for a reason. If we wanted population control we could move to China

Trouble with humans is that they go for what they want, not what they need.
I would love to see the results of a nation that implemented strict controls on procreative licensing that included minimal IQ requirements as well as status, to finally put this environment vs. predisposition thing to bed.

[NoahFence]

who is the wise sage that gets to determine who and who isn't fit to parent.

That's really my only palpable issue with it. Even if you found such a sage, s/he would be mortal, the institution could be hijacked or corrupted, etc.

Sounds great on paper, betterment/advancement of the species and all, but ultimately this is one of those "ends don't justify the means" type of things.

[wildforlemurs]

Not to mix subjects too much here, but our who democracy is pretty much a farce. A small group of people decide what's best for the nation already, but implementing a plan like this would remove the veil so to speak.

Why not have a group of intelligent, good-natured people think up the criteria. It could start slow, like restricting parenthood to only people who can genuinely afford it. That would eliminate a lot of government aid and welfare costs right there. As that works, then move on to people who have ultra low IQs and/or psychotic/pathologic traits.

[NoahFence]

Not to mix subjects too much here, but our who democracy is pretty much a farce. A small group of people decide what's best for the nation already, but implementing a plan like this would remove the veil so to speak.

Why not have a group of intelligent, good-natured people think up the criteria. It could start slow, like restricting parenthood to only people who can genuinely afford it. That would eliminate a lot of government aid and welfare costs right there. As that works, then move on to people who have ultra low IQs and/or psychotic/pathologic traits.

Why not just shoot 'em? That'd work a lot faster, and solve a great many other issues at that.

[CEOofRawness]

Why not just shoot 'em? That'd work a lot faster, and solve a great many other issues at that.

True. But I guess some of them deserve to have kids (it is still a democracy). So how about we group up these idiots and make them have a free-for-all death match. Winner takes all and has the right to have kids.


I can appreciate talking about this as a theoretical exercise in half-ironic intellectual elitism, but to seriously want to pursue it is disgusting.

This will always remain a theoretical issue. It's the same concept as having to take a test to be able to vote (so that people actually vote on the issues and not what they hear in the media). In both cases there will be corruption. Parental licensing only looks good on paper and could never be implemented successfully.


It would definitely stop some of the country's problems if we did though. But i guess we're a democracy for a reason. If we wanted population control we could move to China

When it comes to population control, it will become a necessity at some point, though. People as a whole aren't responsible enough act in terms of the common good, and sometimes need to be forced. The alternative, of course, is overpopulation, starvation, maybe war.

In the case of war we could just stick the dumb ones on the front line, a technique similar to what NoahFence suggested.

[Chunes]

Here is all I have to say about this issue:

If you think prostitution laws are ineffective, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Make all the laws you want; people won't follow them. Nor should they.

[walfin]

I can imagine a state 10 years after the imposition of such a statute.

The SJs would be industriously applying for licenses. The Fs would cry when they're denied one, and the Ts would stoically accept the fact that the government has deemed them to be too stupid to be parents.
The SPs would be all "fuck it, let's fuck" and not give a shit.
The NFs would be busy protesting.
And the NTs? Somewhere else.

[ApeTheDog]

It's a terrible idea, best reserved for science fiction authors. Just because we're all intelligent and fit to be parents doesn't mean we shouldn't consider what this would mean to those who aren't. People have children for other reasons than because they want the human race to become supremely intelligent, you know.

Besides, the human race already won. We don't necesarily have to improve much anymore. It will be a long time before the dolphins catch up with us, and as for aliens: we don't need to worry about them. The universe is big enough for every alien species to have plenty of room and resources without having to compete over anything.

[CEOofRawness]

It's a terrible idea, best reserved for science fiction authors. Just because we're all intelligent and fit to be parents doesn't mean we shouldn't consider what this would mean to those who aren't. People have children for other reasons than because they want the human race to become supremely intelligent, you know.

I agree. I was just curious as to how this sort of thing could be implemented. There are places that have methods of population control, like limiting the number of kids a family can have, or forced sterilization.


Besides, the human race already won.

We won? I didn't get anything in the mail, not even a crackerjack prize. Though the only enemy left is ourselves.


The universe is big enough for every alien species to have plenty of room and resources without having to compete over anything.

We're using up our resources at an alarming rate, and overpopulation isn't helping. As for aliens, they would probably treat us like multinational corporations treat poor countries and exploit our resources for their own gain.

[sairane]

Possible implementation:
As Jennifer said, chemical sterilisation. A substance added to the water that would make the women infertile in such a way that it is only bypassed by IVF treatments.
There would have to be an increase in such centres and a fully drawn out system determining elegability in place.

[ApeTheDog]

I agree. I was just curious as to how this sort of thing could be implemented. There are places that have methods of population control, like limiting the number of kids a family can have, or forced sterilization.

Step 1: 100% of all babies are given to the government.
Step 2: rigorous testing in a baby selection camp.
Step 3: 20% of all babies are given back to the parents. Less if you perceive the next generation to need stronger people.


We won? I didn't get anything in the mail, not even a crackerjack prize. Though the only enemy left is ourselves.

This brings up an interesting point. Wouldn't it be in our best interest to kill off the smartest, brightest kids then? Better an enemy that can barely figure out how to start a fire than one who can build an atomic bomb, no?


We're using up our resources at an alarming rate, and overpopulation isn't helping. As for aliens, they would probably treat us like multinational corporations treat poor countries and exploit our resources for their own gain.

That's not true. We're using up our cheap resources, yeah - but there is SO much potential. It's just not economically sound to change our infrastructure. Oil is there for the scooping and sucking up - wind power or even bio-organic fuels require a lot of new
machines to be built. We have enormous resources available to us. Everything is made of energy, and none of it ever leaves the universe.

Why would aliens come here and take our iron/coal when there's plenty of it on, say, Mars? Or any billion other planets around...

[MadamI'madaM]

I don't know about this.

Part of me doesn't give a flying shit about having kids on any scale, but part of me knows how this kind of thing would actually turn out.

It comes down to two or so almost contradictory lines of reasoning: curb population growth or streamline/educate the populace.

If you just want a sustainable, smaller population, then I can only see this turning into scary, classist shit. Because once all the inferior lineage is weeded out, there will still be a constantly growing population of totally intelligent and fit parents who will eventually have to surrendur to the everlasting pyramid scheme.

If you only want to educate the public or improve children's lives, then the parents will briefly memorize the free information, prove some basic kind of employment/health status, and more or less collect their license like at the DMV. This would only ease the burden on orphanages slightly. We'd still be shooting in the streets over water and food in due time.

EDIT: I would be ALL for a Chinese style limit on kids to maybe one of each gender, but I know that the richies would still be poppin' 'em out like rabbits. Fuck that.

[Ferrus]

Ironically enough Aristotle talks about the manner in which state's neglect the control of population, to their impoverishment, in the Politics. It seems a commonplace among the half-animal idiots that make up the majority of humanity that one should be allowed to have as many children as one wants.

[wildforlemurs]

Hmm seems people are taking these ideas out of control, which tends to happen in these situations. I never intended the parenting licenses to be meant for the increase of intelligence and/or beauty in the humans; not for an evolutionary purpose at all. That type of thinking leads directly to Hitler-esque views of the world.

What I had in mind was more along the lines of responsibility. I think it's unfair to children to be born into situations where the parents are druggies and can't provide anything for the kids. Or kids who are raised in families (like mine at times) where the parents couldn't really afford much. Parents on welfare, parents who are mentally challenged or who have 'undesirable' traits like being a sociopath or being a pedophile.

People on welfare who have kids because they'll get more money don't deserve to have kids in my eyes. People who have kids but leave them with babysitters all the time because they want to go out and party or fuck don't deserve to have kids. Hence, parenting licenses.

If we wanted to modify the human race for strength and beauty and intelligence we could do that genetically. Parenting licenses would be moot in that case.

[Ferrus]

That type of thinking leads directly to Hitler-esque views of the world.
Well, good, it is the only way human civilisation can prevent itself backsliding 500 years.

[ApeTheDog]

This idea of parenting licenses is one I've heard before. And, yes, it's horrible that some children are born into families where they get abused and neglected. I think the only thing you can do against that is to do what you know is right. Raise your children well and be a good person, even if you haven't been so lucky.

To set up rules on how to be a moral person removes people from the responsability to have to think for themselves about this, which is in my opinion the very cause of people fucking each other up. I don't think it's right to impose values by rule or force. They're only effective if taken on voluntarily and taught by example...

[Zephyrus055]

Just accept reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sE1E3z7jU

There is nothing we can do about it.

[camille]

The Giver series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver)

[Bradtv]

Just implement Swifts Modest Proposal. (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

[tinribz]

I think this should be addressed first:


* More than 350 million couples worldwide do not have access to a full range of contraceptive methods and information.1
* Globally, there are an estimated 200 million pregnancies each year. About one third of these – approximately 75 million – are unwanted.1
* According to latest estimates a total of 122.7 million married women in the developing world have an unmet need for sexual and reproductive health services.2
* Women aged 15-24 years account for one third of the developing world’s unmet contraceptive needs.2
* More than 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have contraceptive prevalence rates below 10 per cent.3

And like someone already alluded to the developed nations are are already in decline with rates in the UK of about 1.6 per woman. This is going to have major repercussions in the next 50 years. Europe will be competing for immigrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png

[skip]

What's the source for what you quoted, tinribz?

[tinribz]

What's the source for what you quoted, tinribz?
http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Statements/The+Right+to+Decide+whether+or+when+to+have+Children.htm

At the bottom.

[skip]

Thanks. You might want to consider the source on those figures.

[CEOofRawness]

Step 1: 100% of all babies are given to the government.
Step 2: rigorous testing in a baby selection camp.
Step 3: 20% of all babies are given back to the parents. Less if you perceive the next generation to need stronger people.
What are parents gonna do with one fifth of a baby? :confused:


That's not true. We're using up our cheap resources, yeah - but there is SO much potential. It's just not economically sound to change our infrastructure. Oil is there for the scooping and sucking up - wind power or even bio-organic fuels require a lot of new
machines to be built. We have enormous resources available to us. Everything is made of energy, and none of it ever leaves the universe.
We're also using up our fresh water. Water tables continue to be drained while rainfall only adds a few inches each year. Over-irrigation will lead to drought and famine. It's naive to think that we can take a shortcut when it comes to nature and not have to pay the price at some point.

Why would aliens come here and take our iron/coal when there's plenty of it on, say, Mars? Or any billion other planets around...
They may want to enslave our race, though. You know, cheap labor?

[Leafknight]

I know I'm probably in the camp of people who could get lambasted here as Evil Overlord wannabes (at best) or dangerous flakes (at worst) but truthfully, as an INTP, and what's more as a PARENT who has seen some of the horrors that other parents inflict on the world by spawning with no intention of TEACHING their child anything but solipsism, I support the original posters idea.

I do NOT think there should be enforced sterlization, that's tyrannical and oppressive. But I DO think there should be a parenting license with testing, etc. My answer to those who fail would be fines (heavily enforced).

Best I can come up with and I've thought about this one a LOT because some of the parents of my child's schoolmates just downright make me think sometimes that we need a good purging via asteroid collision or some such extinction event. They literally allow their kids to get away with ANYTHING. It's like they AREN'T parents, except in the biological sense. They seem to have ZERO concept that they have created a being that is part of a group of other beings and that there is a world/society beyond their own lives.

It just is one of my biggest pet peeves/fears. :banghead:

[Chunes]

Every time someone poops out another kid, everyone on earth has less resources, less space, and has to be more aware of other people.

I think it'd be better to purge the population than brainwash people with inane, overpopulation-necessitated ettiquette.

[Faust06]

Forget liscencing, but population control could work. One child per couple until the numbers go down, and contraceptive methods accessible to all. If a couple happens to get an extra kid, they lose it (the "fee" isn't good enough).

I don't think it'll happen until we're as fucked as other countries with a population crisis. It may not happen at all.. in which case you'd better hope we can start mining ressources on another planet or something.

One effective way to convince the population (one demographic that is) is to insist that having too many kids is morally wrong.

[MoneyJungle]

I don't know if any of you have driven a car ever, but the fact that the government has given licenses to these people on the road (unlicensed drivers aside) gives me little confidence that its screening process for parents would be anything more than a sham. Do we really want to give them that much power, anyway? This reeks of the type of elitism epoused by eugenics supporters. What is the good in "success" if it is the only option?

[mgb]

I find it interesting that the underlying assumption with this thread is that people here are assuming that they'll qualify for a having a child license. I find that interesting because there is a strong chance that most of the people here wouldn't.

The easy way out is to say that "I didn't want kids anyways." But in truth, I bet you'd prefer to have the option of having kids rather than having it ruled out completely.

While agree that there are people in society that do make some horrible decisions with regards to their lives and the lives of their offspring or lack the ability to make those decisions, outlawing people from having children, or even chemically castrating them probably isn't the way to solve that problem. Previous attempts at creating some sort of master race (I mean, that has to be the end goal here, right?) were misguided at best and disastrous and inhumane at their worst.

[wreckoning]

I do NOT think there should be enforced sterlization, that's tyrannical and oppressive. But I DO think there should be a parenting license with testing, etc. My answer to those who fail would be fines (heavily enforced).

All this means is that irresponsible parenting becomes the privilege of the wealthy.

Either irresponsible parenting is immoral to the degree that the state should intervene, or it is not. It is not something that can be alleviated by taxes in my opinion. Just as there could not be a monetary fine to appease the murder of another person.


I find that interesting because there is a strong chance that most of the people here wouldn't.

The easy way out is to say that "I didn't want kids anyways." But in truth, I bet you'd prefer to have the option of having kids rather than having it ruled out completely.

You would lose your bet. If it is true that I would be an irresponsible parent, then no, I do not want the option made available to me. If I am an unfit driver then I don't want to have the option to drive and possibly damage someone's life ...

---

I think there are three separate issues here.

1. Licences to determine parenting ability (responsibility, psychological fitness, appropriate income to support a child)
2. Licences as a method of population control (restricting # of children allowed to any one person)
3. Licences to determine biological fitness (on a small scale this would mean screening out hereditary defects; on a more extreme level it could mean creating a master race)

I happen to theoretically support #1 & #3, and I believe that if both of these licences were in effect, #2 would probably not be necessary. Parties who are not able to reproduce under #3 can easily adopt children if they qualify for #1. I think these licences will inevitably come up when our society is more advanced.

But is any of it feasible in today's less-than-ideal society? Certainly not. It is extremely dangerous and I could not comfortably support these licences as conditions stand. It's too much power to give to our corrupt governments. #2 is has the best rewards for the lowest risks, but still not something I would wish for.

[mgb]

You would lose your bet. If it is true that I would be an irresponsible parent, then no, I do not want the option made available to me. If I am an unfit driver then I don't want to have the option to drive and possibly damage someone's life ...

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Maybe not the most, but it's up there. No one thinks they are going to be an irresponsible parent. Hell, you could have some really responsible parents do some really irresponsible things. Are you willing to have someone decide that for you? And who would that be? Are you willing to risk chemical castration because there was some sort of paper work screw up? I mean, that stuff happens right?

And tying this in with driver's licenses? Christ. If it doesn't kill your point, it's just ends up being a horrible analogy. Find an unfit driver that would declare themselves an unfit driver.

As for it being a horrible analogy, to get a driver's license you basically need to read a 30 page booklet to get some of the signs and rules down and have some road practice. Could you condense raising a child down to 30 pages? And how would you give them actual practice at taking care of and raising a kid. You could get a doll, but that doll isn't going to grow and need new clothes every few months, develop a personality and require your constant attention until it's old enough to take care of itself.



---

I think there are three separate issues here.

1. Licences to determine parenting ability (responsibility, psychological fitness, appropriate income to support a child)
2. Licences as a method of population control (restricting # of children allowed to any one person)
3. Licences to determine biological fitness (on a small scale this would mean screening out hereditary defects; on a more extreme level it could mean creating a master race)

I happen to theoretically support #1 & #3, and I believe that if both of these licences were in effect, #2 would probably not be necessary. Parties who are not able to reproduce under #3 can easily adopt children if they qualify for #1. I think these licences will inevitably come up when our society is more advanced.

But is any of it feasible in today's less-than-ideal society? Certainly not. It is extremely dangerous and I could not comfortably support these licences as conditions stand. It's too much power to give to our corrupt governments. #2 is has the best rewards for the lowest risks, but still not something I would wish for.

All of the issues you are putting forward as being different really end up in the same place. You'll have a class of people who can breed and a class that can't. You can dress it up however you want but it really boils down to the same thing.

[CoHo]

Then what? Back alley pregnancies? Abortions dictated by judges? Mandatory birth control?


Sounds fantastic.

You fuckheads represent the backwash that never remembers why all this shit was a bad idea. The nuclear family with the horned rimmed glasses making BBQs to the backdrop of a nuclear cooling tower, the smiling kids swimming in a pool contaminated with synthetic estrogen, fucking Gary Numan for christs sakes?! This was the stuff that the 80's kids made fun of, then the 90's kids got high, now the 00's are trying to reset the fucking nintendo. GAAAAH!

[Dr. Haight]

CW, calm down. You won't have to take a licensing test. You already have a kid.

[CoHo]

CW, calm down. You won't have to take a licensing test. You already have a kid.

I think you're late for an Obama rally.

[Dr. Haight]

I thought that was on Monday?

[CoHo]

Naw, if you checke alt.misc.jew you would have known there was a Obama Webinar. I'm going to text message the Rabbi, I bet it costs you your Brugger's Bagel's Gift Card.

[Arachne]

What are we talking about here? Preventing incompetent, poor and/or genetically inferior parents from reproducing... or general population control?

I find the idea of the government having the power to sterilize people based on popular morality rather frightening. Then you hear stories about the homeless drug addict that just gave birth to her eighth brain damaged baby and you have to wonder why someone doesn't intervene. Maybe the problem is that we are only thinking of uteruses and not of mothers. The most ethical intervention might be removing the woman from the street life that perpetuates the cycle.

As to the general population problem, birth rates are lowest when women have options... legal rights, education, jobs and access to health care/birth control. Enough said.

[wreckoning]

No one thinks they are going to be an irresponsible parent.

Heh ... I do think that ... it's one of the reasons I don't have children.


Are you willing to have someone decide that for you?

Absolutely.


And who would that be?

I'm not sure.

As I said, I don't think it would work in today's conditions. But that doesn't mean it couldn't work in a different society.


Are you willing to risk chemical castration because there was some sort of paper work screw up? I mean, that stuff happens right?

I was imagining the process to be reversible. If someone is declared unfit, they might be able to work on it and reapply.


And tying this in with driver's licenses? Christ. If it doesn't kill your point, it's just ends up being a horrible analogy. Find an unfit driver that would declare themselves an unfit driver.

I'm not sure I follow ... There are many people who keep themselves off the road because they believe themselves to be unfit.

As to the beliefs of an unfit driver ... that is besides the point, isn't it? If someone is unsafe on the roadway, they should be off the road. They may not like it, or agree with it, but why should their erroneous, conceited beliefs allow them to persist in endangering the rest of society? And why should the mass belief that those born with a working uterus somehow have the right to spawn and control as many fellow human beings as they please ... why should that belief continue to destroy the lives of innocent children?

What constitutes a responsible parent? I am not sure. I am not sure that I am fit to participate in the discussion. But I do think that it is something that can be defined, and identified.


As for it being a horrible analogy, to get a driver's license you basically need to read a 30 page booklet to get some of the signs and rules down and have some road practice.

I didn't say that the driver's testing programs are ideal. They are not. I don't think the parenting licences should work like that.

Consider adoption. It is a very drawn out process, from what I understand, in Canada at least. Individuals are screened, assessed to make sure they will be responsible, that they can physically provide for a child, and so on. Is it a perfect system? No. But it is better than the no process system that exists for those who give birth to their own children? I think so. If you gave birth to a child, would you be willing to hand it to anyone who simply wanted it, with no type of screening done? Or would you want the child to go to an adoption agency that selected potential parents with care? If you would choose the latter, why would you be so indifferent to the fates of those children that the "unscreened" parents could potentially produce on their own?


Could you condense raising a child down to 30 pages? And how would you give them actual practice at taking care of and raising a kid. You could get a doll, but that doll isn't going to grow and need new clothes every few months, develop a personality and require your constant attention until it's old enough to take care of itself.

I am not sure as to the actual logistics of how it should work. I am not the right person to decide these things. Nor would I be the right person to decide how a driver's test should be conducted... all that I could say is that more effort could be spent in both areas, in developing a screening process. Something that examined a person not looking for rote answers, but a clear understanding for the subject at hand. Someone who will have the capacity to adapt in trying circumstances.


You'll have a class of people who can breed and a class that can't. You can dress it up however you want but it really boils down to the same thing.

Yes. I think that's exactly how it should be.