Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Make every 18 year old donate a year of public service before they are allowed
into either college or the job market. The richer the person the more they
should be involved with the truely poor and destitute.

This should include food and shelter and a minimum stipend. liesl

How would that apply to those of us who started college at 16?

    Start in your own garden.
    
    Mary

    
    That's pretty radical, Mary. :-)
    
    I heard that William F. Buckley has a new book out, something about a
    proposal for a National Service program.  I don't remember the title. 
    I think it's a little scary when I start wanting to read more of WFB's
    ideas.
    
    CQ

    Some not-yet-well-formed initial thoughts...
    
    - mandatory reversible sterilization of every child at birth (or
    whenever medically feasible, before puberty).  
    
    - you have to *earn* the privilege of having children - by contributing
    something to society, science, etc.  (Maybe include a Nivenesque
    lottery in case luck really is an inheritable attribute.  :-)
    
    - eradicate the institution of marriage
    
    - institute an anarchist penal colony similar to what Heinlein proposes
    in (er, "Time Enough For Love?  I forget...)  Criminals deemed
    nonrehbilitable have a choice - either go into this compound forever,
    or have a lobotomy (or mind-wash, or whatever.)
    
    - make voting a privilige, like having children (but not as hard to
    achieve.)  One must demonstrate a reasonable knowledge about the world
    to be allowed to vote.
    
    D!

    RE population control - at a more feasible level, I always thought
    there should be tax exemptions for a maximum of two natural (any
    number of adopted) children, with *negative* exemptions for
    numbers three and up. Just educating people about the importance
    of small families won't work until it's so late that it's too late.

    If it's permitted to discuss others' radical suggestions (at the
    risk of being deemed a nay-sayer) ...

    "Demonstrating reasonable knowledge about the world to be allowed
    to vote" seems like a good idea in principle, but that's exactly
    the kind of tactic which was used for years in the South to
    prevent blacks from voting. Just as it's hard to devise fair tests
    (not influenced by cultural differences etc.) to demonstrate
    intelligence, it's hard to devise fair test to demonstrate
    knowledge about the world ... or, rather, it's easy to devise
    tests which are actually designed to control who gets to vote and
    who doesn't along the wrong lines.

    It's not impossible to devise tests that do test world knowledge.
    But do you trust the person devising the test? And do you have a
    different suite of tests for local elections (where local
    information is crucial but knowledge of the conflict between China
    and Tibet is irrelevant)?

    Germany already has a mandatory civil service for young men who refuse
    to do the mandatory military service because of moral reasons.
    The civil service is using helping the elderly or handicapped.

    
    >It's not impossible to devise tests that do test world knowledge.
    >But do you trust the person devising the test?
    
    Yeah, I thought of that. This is my *radical* side - when I am talking
    about *any* of these canges (mandatory sterilization, etc) I envision a
    totally different government and society enacting them than the one we
    have today.  Today you can damn well bet that making people "prove"
    themselves to have children would really mean that only middle-class
    whites would be allowed to have children.  No go on that, there would
    have to be really drastic changes to make this work.  
    
    My suggestions may sound like a natural extension of that 'ren
    presented in another note, but they really aren't.  I *don't* support
    those suggestions, because, the way our government is set  up, i think
    it *does* violate our civil liberties, and we can't afford to lose a
    single *inch* in that realm, for fear of losing a mile. In my new,
    envisioned government, that wouldn't be an issue - the whole idea of
    civil liberties and the government's role in the individual's life
    would be totally reworked.
    
    Some more thoughts on the mandatory birth control - in Niven's books,
    medical science is so advanced that people live for several centuries,
    so the birth limit is absolutely vital.  In our society things are a
    little different.  If I were implementing this system, I would set the
    reproduction rate for the first generation or so at an even-rate, so
    are population stays the same, or maybe just grows a little bit.  Then,
    slowly, very slowly, start decreasing the population.  You can't just
    have one generation have half the people in it that the previous one
    did, or the economy would collapse.  My plan for population decrease is
    a very long-term one, perhaps a couple of centuries?
    
    D!

	Just to add my 2 cents.

	Though I totally grok most things Heinlein says and believe the man
was ahead of his time, ala Verne.... most people don't care if
they have the right to vote, witnessed by the average
voter turn-out being less thana third of the
registered voters, which is less than half the eligible
population.

	In my opinion the problem is not uninvolvement it is misinformation.
Even those people who are making "educatseemingly informed decisions
don't have access to all that is happening behind the scences.

	I'd like to see Heinlein's (were they called witnesses) idea of a
trained individual objectively observing and reporting on that observance.
But hey, let's take it one step farther and have a trained, objective politic
decision making group.  But then I guess those words are mutually exclusive.

Heavy sigh,

-Andrea

	
	Having the vote or not.................

	At the end of the day, it's not the voters who have the power, it's 
	not the governments that have the power.

	It's the power of the establishment and money behind the scenes that 
	runs the world, whoever is in Government. If anyone actually tried to 
	change this, then they'd have concrete boots on before they could 
	change anything.

	Heather

    re .6, D!, I'll remember never to vote for you if you ever run for
    public office.
    
    Lorna
    

    >re .6, D!, I'll remember never to vote for you if you ever run for
    >public office.
    
    Not to worry, Lorna, if I ever ran for public office (Goddess forbid)
    in this day and age, and this governmental structure, you can *bet* I
    would be a strong advocate of civil liberties and individual freedoms. 
    My plans would only work in a radically different structure...for now,
    I am strongly pro-choice-in-everything (which is why I object to 'rens
    mandatory birth control thing.)
      
    But I won't count on your vote anyway.  :-)
    
    D!

    The last night made me thing of something...
    
    A lot of the radical changes I want can't happen slowly.  They can't be
    worked *towards*, they have to happen all at once or not at all.  That
    is, I do *not* approve of working towards mandatory sterilization
    through little steps, like mandatory birth control for this group or
    that.  I see the little steps as being a step in the *wrong* direction;
    toward increased governmental interference in our daily lives.
    
    This is sort of hard to explain...I don't see the sterilization thing
    as an infringement on personal liberties: *in my envisioned new
    society*.  Today, however, it would be.  The thing is, to go with these
    radical governmental changes come radical changes: one of the as the
    change in viewing having children as an earned priv, not a right.  My
    "new government" would stay far away from infringing on *rights*, and
    rights would be well-defined.  Birthing isn't one of them.
    
    For this to happen, our society would have to be a lot less family- and
    child-oriented.  Most of us are raised to *expect* to raise children,
    so much so we view it as both a right and a responsibility.  A
    childless couple is seen as an anomoly and people ask "Why don't you
    have kids."  Same with a spouseless individual: "Why don't you have a
    spouse."  In My Society, the default question would be "Why do you
    have (want) kids?" and "Why do you have (want) a spouse?"  (Actually I
    like Niven's ideas of "contracts" much better than life-long
    marriages.)
    
    My society would value children much more, for their scarcity.  This
    isn't just wishful thinking...I think it would necessarily fall out of
    a society that made birthing a *privilege* rather than a *right*. 
    Child abuse, neglect, etc...abominations!  They simply wouldn't occur! 
    (If they did, you can damn well bet they would get the *attention* of
    the powers-that-be.)
    
    So as long as having a child remains a right, then any attempt to limit
    that by the government would be an infringement on personal liberties. 
    No small steps in that direction.  Instead, radical change all at once:
    kids are *not* a right.  (Any more than it is a *right* to damage the
    environment or other things that hurt *everyone*.)
    
    D!

    
    
    D!
    
    RE ...."*in my envisioned society....the change in viewing having
    childrenas an erned privledge, not a right.  My government would stay
    far away from infringing on rights and rights would be well defined..."
    
    Quibble/Nit/Major problem... is it just me, or does this have a
    distincly Orwellian flavor?  It is 'goodspeak' to talk about children
    as a privledge, and not a right...??
    
    To add to that, *in my opinion*, rights are by deinition somewhat
    vague.  they are an expressed belief, and value system, and not a
    codified list of whats is allowed and what's not.  To take it to a
    ludicrous extreme, "Babies are allowed on tuesday in months endning
    with an "r"... youget my drift.. or am I JUST drifting?
    
    jamd
    
    
    {note - BTW - how do you seasoned note-ers do copies from the current
    notes, so you don't have to copy down the passages and then rewrite it
    back in...??}

    Rights are always relative to some frame of reference. The classic
    example is freedom of speech not permitting the shouting of "Fire"
    in a crowded theater or "I've got a bomb" on an airplane.

    There will come a time when population pressures are so great that
    the "right" to have more children will be controlled, one way or
    the other. Although the above is an opinion, it's one I have
    trouble seeing a way to contradict ... the trickiest question is
    how to "gently" reduce population growth early enough and
    effectively enough to avoid (or postpone) the institution of the
    more Draconian measures being discussed.

    >To add to that, *in my opinion*, rights are by deinition somewhat
    >    vague.  they are an expressed belief, and value system, and not a
    >    codified list of whats is allowed and what's not.  To take it to a
    >    ludicrous extreme, "Babies are allowed on tuesday in months endning
    >    with an "r"... youget my drift.. or am I JUST drifting?
    
    No I don't get your drift, can you clarify?
    
    Sure, rights are vague.  But if a government is responsible to *defend*
    rights, then those rights must be enumerated and defined.
    
    In our society/government, the Bill of Rights constitutes (in part) an
    enumeration and definition of various rights.  
    
    In current society, some things are considered rights, and
    (theoretically) the only way you can loose those rights are by becoming
    a non-citizen of the government enforcing them (ie: by breaking it's
    laws.)  Some other things are consider privileges, such as driving, and
    there are many ways you can loose (or not be granted in the first
    place) such a privilege.
    
    I propose moving "birthing" from one status to the other, not just
    legally but societally.  Sounds simple, but it isn't, given how
    child-oriented our society is.
    
    Continuing this thought further, imagine this: by nature of making
    children hard to come by (so to speak) women will no longer be defined
    in terms of their children!  Also in my society tthere is no marriage,
    therefore women aren't defined by their husbands.  For once and for
    all, women are defined by themselves!  :-)
    
    >{note - BTW - how do you seasoned note-ers do copies from the current
    >notes, so you don't have to copy down the passages and then rewrite
    >it back in...??}
    
    Two ways (I use both at different times.)  When replying type
    REPLY/EXTRACT, and (if you are using EVE) the note you are replying to
    will appear in the notes$scratch buffer, above your editing buffer, and
    you can copy portions of it down by typing NEXT WINDOW to move up to
    that window, select the text using the SELECT button, REMOVE it, do
    NEXT WINDOW again and INSERT HERE/PASTE.  Or you can EXTRACT the note
    you are reading to a temporary file, and then later on say REPLY
    mytempfile, and edit it as you wish.
    
    D!

    So where did our overpopulation problem come from?  Did we not create
    it in the first place?  There are *natural* population controls built
    in to all forms of life on earth, and humankind is no exception.  Is it
    a good idea to send food to starving victims of famine?  Doesn't that
    just prolong the problem?  Pretty radical suggestion here, but what
    would happen if we just let it be, and made no attempt to override the
    natural controls?  Let each person be responsible for themselves.
    
    Mary

    re .19

    You'd start by shutting down all the hospitals and letting all the
    doctors get real jobs ... lawyers, maybe.

    re: .20
    
    I guess you've got a good point there.  We certainly don't need any
    more lawyers :-)
    
    Mary

    I agree that there are natural population controls.  But they aren't
    necessarily starvation.  Our population is *still* growing.  We might
    not limit ourselves until we reach 10 billion or 100 billion. The
    problem with letting so-called "natural" poulation controls take
    effect....
    
    1) The "natural" effect might very well be that we all kill eachother
    off.  Rats, when faced with overrowded conditions, become aggressive an
    tend to kill eachother.  Nuclear war would certainly end the population 
    problem, eh?  Sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think, sure,
    let's just have at eachother, kill eachother off, and let the earth go
    on with it's evolution without us (where "us" in this case means all
    living things on the planet except cockroaches.)  But that's just too
    depressing.
    
    2) the "natural" control might be killing *ourselves*, through
    destroying the environment.  Once again, this might be a way to do it,
    but I have problems with suggesting a method of controlling *our*
    population that also harms or destroys the populations of other living
    creatures.
    
    These "natural" controls might make us totally extinct, or cut our
    population down so far that we can't achieve even the wildest
    definition of "civilization."  Maybe this is good.  It certainly is
    radical.  but I wanted to point out that you that it isn't just a
    matter of "naturally" letting our population stablize and after that
    we'll all be comfy and cozy.  I doubt the stabilization process would
    produce much comfort for everyone.  I'd prefer to stop it
    "unnaturally".
    
    D!
    
    [PS: And on the subject of natural vs. unnatural...what does it mean? 
    If I stop population growth by becoming a dictator and sterilizing
    everyone, that's very natural.  It is a result of my hunger for power
    (a natural human instinct), my intelligence, luck and ability (traits
    we evolved "naturally"), etc.  Why is one solution [letting people
    starve] more natural than another [mass genocide] or another [limitting
    births through laws.] ]
     

    I firmly believe that the world would be a better place if people (rich
    and poor) had fewer children. I feel sad when I see women having kids
    year after year or very young teenagers having kids.  I've been
    frustrated enough at times to say there should be a law limiting the
    number of kids people can have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not propsing
    such a scheme and wouldn't vote for one. I don't think this is
    something that can be legislated. It is very easy to say that those who
    cannot afford children shouldn't haver them. But who's to decide
    whether someone can afford or not. People have very different needs. I
    think I cannot afford to have a child, yet I'm sure plenty of families
    live on less than my income.

    Any attempt at making reproduction a privilege will only make the
    powerful even more powerful. It's the privileged who make the laws.
    D! even in your ideal world, the criteria for having kids will be
    prejudiced. It's not as easy as a driving test.
    
    Education is the only way to go, even though it doesn't seem to work as
    fast and is very frustrating. We need to know why people have children
    and work on the root causes.  For teenagers this could mean role
    models, developing job skills etc. For the developing countries it
    might mean clean water and food to improve infant mortality. A while
    back someone mentioned starving them. Part of the reason people have
    lots of kids is they know some of them are going to die.
    
    manisha

  What's so ironic is that the "modest proposals" advanced in the past about
limiting women's option to have children have been made, in general, by
upper-middle income whites.  The goals were to keep the gene pool from being
degraded, from preventing the "lower income" people from swaying the voter
registration statistics, and to reduce the number of people on welfare.  I'm
sure that there are others, but I can't recall them right now.  Essentially,
all of them are perceived as "bad reasons."

  On the other end of the spectrum, its my belief -- maybe mistaken -- that
one of the reasons the Catholic church is so adamant against abortion and BC
is because it helps keep the supply of Catholics growing.  I'd WAG that one
of the reasons why people like Ronald Reagan and other "supply-side" 
individuals are against abortion and birth control are to keep the supply of
workers high to help grow the GNP and have cheap labor.

  I really think that at some point the World community is going to have to
face the fact that we can't keep growing.  Not 1%/year.  Not 0.1%/year.  Zero
percent.  I dread how bad things will get before that realization sets in.

Jim

    Get rid of everyone who doesn't follow the teaching of the bible....
    
    (sound scary, no more so than the previous notes. Don't ask for
    something you really don't want cause you just might get it)
    
    
    		Wayne

    >    Get rid of everyone who doesn't follow the teaching of the bible....
    
    Everybody?  You want us to 'get rid of' everybody?
    
    DougO

    Re: .25
    
    Gee, Wayne.  By "get rid of" do you mean "kill"?
    
    -Mary

    Wayne,
    
    can you explain what you just wrote? it sounds to 
    me like you are making a statement of faith according
    to your belief as a Christian, but that is totally
    different from my experiences.
    
    Bonnie

        To me .25 sounded like he was trying to warn people about
        what their notes sounded like to him.
        
        Dan

    What I meant was...be very carefull who you declare unacceptable
    because someone may just do that to you. Variety is truly the spice of
    life. I just have a problem with tunnel vision. IMHO...
    
    
    		valuing differences is more than just words
    			Wayne

    Thanks for the explanation Wayne, I don't know you and I actually
    thought you might be seriously suggesting extermination which is
    in itself against the teaching of the Bible.
    
    -Mary

    Just the opposite. Everyone has a right to be.
    
    
    
    		wayne

    1 child, 1 deduction
    2 children, lose deduction
    3 children, penalty=worth of deduction
    4 children, 2x penalty
      .
      .
      .