Letters to the Editor
-
Sounds like what Hitler had planned
Of course liberals would never impose standards on breeding, would they?
-
Ya Know
If all governments offered free vasectomies and free tubal ligations and reliable birth control and free abortions, things would be a bit rosier, no?
-
Herself
Brazil has a not so secret tradition of offering poor women free abortions for votes.
-
Ah, eugenics.....
In an ideal world, it is the ideal solution. But in our world.... who gets to make up the qualification test?
-
Finger on it
Monkey Pants put her/his finger right on it. Knowing our world it would be s.o. like Electro Robot writing the test (and disclaiming any support for the idea all the while).
-
So...
We just let the world go to hell, is that it? Breed ourselves out of existence like the pig-headed, selfish monkeys we are, yes?
Good plan.
-
examination
I wonder if the test will be multiple choice...
-
Mountainviewer
I personally could not care how many people are on earth or what their personal capabilities are.
-
Monkey has it right
Is this a good time to point out who seem to do better on standardized exams?
-
Always with the eugenics remarks.
Why is it that when anyone tries to discuss population control, someone starts shouting about eugenics? This will probably make me horribly unpopular, but I must say that I think the fundamental idea behind eugenics - improving the human condition through selective breeding - is not a bad one. The racist, classist way in which eugenics was implemented was terribly unfortunate.
The question of who decides is indeed an important one, but I think that there are some fundamental criteria that the majority of humanity could agree on. The really difficult question is how we deal with the inherent conflict between the need for population control and the rights and liberties of individuals.
People like myself and my partner, who recognize that our genes are significantly flawed (between us we carry genes for undesirable traits including heart disease, poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, degenerative bone disease, myopia, depression, antisocial personality disorder, and alcoholism), ought to voluntarily forgo having biological children. But we all know that self-policing is rarely effective. Ask Texans how well their policy of letting polluters self-enforce environmental regulations is working.
-
a Sci-Fi story
This strip reminded me of some notes I made about a potential sci-fi story. Suppose science discovers a way to provide immortality. The only catch is that if you reproduce, you'd lose some years of life, instead of living forever.
I never wrote the story.
-
Why not go further?
If imposing control on everyone worked so well, why not extend the approach to include all life? How can uncontrolled reproduction be bad for humans yet good for all other known flora and fauna? How can the consequences of the exact same policy be horrible in one case, beautiful in another?
It could be argued that the balance is tipped too far towards the humans, i.e. "the world had too many people to survive", that they are destroying the rest of creation, and drastic measures are required to put things right. Which of course is what this strip does argue. But when almost every species of animal is extinct or endangered, and everything is polluted, It won't be because of numbers. As a species we're probably inventive enough to achieve the described state with just ten people, if we put our minds to it. We don't need billions. No, it'll happen because our philosophy is to control everything, regardless of whether it wants or needs to be controlled. An extension of that philosophy won't save us from its consequences.
Of course Carol is aware that her drastic solution would have its problems. hence her description of it as an impossible fairy tale. But it's a curiously persistent fairy tale, having been with us at least since Malthus.
V. Ryan: people are "shouting about eugenics" because that's what the strip is about. That's why it mentions a comprehensive test. You note that your own genes are "seriously flawed", which means presumably that by your own criteria it would have been better for your parents not to have had you. Now, why should anyone heed the words of a self-admitted mistake? (Answer: because you're not a mistake. The real mistakes are those people who think they are so perfect that they should be among the chosen few who are permitted to reproduce, and that they should get to decide who the other chosen few are too.)
-
Eugenics?
The whole "who gets to choose" test is problematic, but I think this might work. The "careful screening" process is really almost entirely meaningless. It has nothing to do with superior genes or anything like that. It's really just a strange and frustrating series of hoops and hurdles designed solely to test the commitment level of prospective parents. If they can't make it through the process, -- which, again, has more to do with dogged perseverance than seeing how clever, smart, wealthy or athletic applicants are -- then they probably shouldn't be allowed to become parents anyway.
Of course, it's no guaranty that things won't go wrong later, but I think it will prove more reliable than the present idea that the biological act of getting knocked up qualifies a person to raise a child.
-
who gets to choose IS the problem
This strip erroneously assumes two things that the eugenics movement did as well
1) We can accurately test "intelligence"
2) Choosing who lives and who dies based on this (or any other criteria) is a good thing. All the scientists I've ever spoken to on the subject say the best thing to do in the doomsday scenario is to take a random sample. Genes and evolution are still so poorly understood....
-
Gone To Therapy.
I really liked the 6th panel billboard sign....
It reads : *Gone to Therapy*
a small Note like that is thumb-tacked to my front door. Visitors don't knock.
I got the idea while traveling in Southeast Asia in the Bush maladministration.
`
In DC there should be huge billboards flashing signs like the one in NYC's Times Square.
a image of politico stick figures, with colored 'rubbers' talking honestly, would make a safer world for everybody. Imagine : A sign on the front door of all federal buildings, and especially the DOJ, DOD, EPA, USDA, and all FDA, and HUD, etc., and most importantly,,, nailed on the 'ole Pentagon The Wittenburg Door,,, Whoa, oh, that reformation happened in 1517 when Martin Luther 'teased' the pontifical Pope,,, hint.
Nail a note on The White House and Capital Hill,,,~,,,
a simple sign that can't hurt. It reads. Gone to Therapy!
And install billboards along Interstates where truckers and 'regular Americans' who drive along the old mule-teamsters paths, so that everyone sees... O Care.
Signs ~ The politicos wrapped up in colored life size prophylactics. Safe.