Bruce wrote: > > 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?
Absolutely not, but I had the wherewithal to make that decision for myself. > 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. > I don't see very much merit there. That sounds like eugenics to me. All I'm saying is that if I believe I'm capable of raising good kids then it does not benefit society for me to decide not to do so. The corollary being that if you're capable of raising good kids and you decide not to because you think bringing another person into the world is harmful, I think you're fooling yourself and depriving the world of a good people. These are personal decisions, not to be dictated by religions or governments. If I were president of the world, I'd endeavor to set a good example. 8^) Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
