On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring > a child > into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive > contribution, > there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need > fewer > people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution > and fewer > whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable).
That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
