NationStates Jolt Archive

Should we do away with fertility medicine?

The world population is growing faster than the resources. There are lots of children that need adopted. (Granted they are not perfect white babies, but plenty of colored, older or handicapped.) There are hundreds of places that the money and research time could go. Things like in vitro are like aborting 10 for every one produced. Freezers full of babies no one wants that will eventually be flushed. There tends to be more complications when fertility medicine is used. There are all sorts on emotional and legal problems with surrogate.

There really seems to be no good reason for fertility medicine. It all comes down to "I want one of my 'own'". I think if we ask any person that's used adoption, they are your "own". So we dump billions into some animal instinct to pass the genes. WHY?

Well, I happen to agree with you. But you've already named it: animal instinct. It's such a fundamental part of our existance to procreate, some have proposed that everything we do has procreation as its ultimate goal somehow. Without that instinct, we would die out (or have a Brave New World sort of society...which would be interesting at least.)

My mother has been harping on me quite a bit lately about my fertility, etc. I'm only 24, but I'm not even close to marriage and a baby yet, so I guess she's getting worried. My personal take on it is, I'll try to have a baby when--and if--I really want to have a baby (which I currently don't). It doesn't make sense to me to have one ASAP on the off chance that I eventually want a baby and am no longer fertile. If that happens, I'll live with it and channel my energy into other things.

Not everybody can do that or wants to do that, and I understand that too.

Should we do away with fertility medicine?

The world population is growing faster than the resources. There are lots of children that need adopted. (Granted they are not perfect white babies, but plenty of colored, older or handicapped.) There are hundreds of places that the money and research time could go. Things like in vitro are like aborting 10 for every one produced. Freezers full of babies no one wants that will eventually be flushed. There tends to be more complications when fertility medicine is used. There are all sorts on emotional and legal problems with surrogate.

There really seems to be no good reason for fertility medicine. It all comes down to "I want one of my 'own'". I think if we ask any person that's used adoption, they are your "own". So we dump billions into some animal instinct to pass the genes. WHY?
Personally, I don't support any form of fertility treatments. Of course, I also think it's wrong to choose to produce more than one biological child at this point. So I'm a bit of a radical on this subject.

There really seems to be no good reason for fertility medicine. It all comes down to "I want one of my 'own'".

Then maybe a better idea than banning fertility treatments is making "having children" a right that must be earned instead of granted automatically. Very Larry Niven like ;)

You want a baby ? Only if you can care for it. And pay the fertility treatment if needed.
Get a baby without permission ? To jail with you.

Of course, there are some downsides to this scenario.

The problem doesn't exist in first world countries, the only places where people can afford fertility treatments. The overpopulation problem exists in the third world. First world cities have millions of people, but cities like Lagos, Nigeria have tens of millions. Why the third world has more kids than it can feed I don't know, but something should be done before nature does something for us. One day the tens of millions of people living in sewerage-soaked, vermin infested third world cities may be eradicated by plague and pestilence. It won't be pretty. It would be nice to avoid that by helping them control their population growth.

Personally, I don't support any form of fertility treatments. Of course, I also think it's wrong to choose to produce more than one biological child at this point. So I'm a bit of a radical on this subject.

Well, a "one child" policy like China's wouldn't work too well if the entire world was doing it, cause it would dwindle the human population too much. I think a good idea is to adopt a global "heir and a spare" policy, wherein you can have TWO children. That way, kids are well-socialized and there's not so much pressure on the one child to carry on the family's legacy, etc., and of course it allows for mortality.

The problem doesn't exist in first world countries, the only places where people can afford fertility treatments. The overpopulation problem exists in the third world. First world cities have millions of people, but cities like Lagos, Nigeria have tens of millions. Why the third world has more kids than it can feed I don't know, but something should be done before nature does something for us.

Easy: women in the third world are not allowed to control their bodies.

It really is that simple. Women in the third world do not have access to safe, legal contraception and abortion services. They do not have the legal or practical ability to access such services in most cases. They frequently are not permitted to choose to use contraception or to have abortions. They often are not permitted to choose when and with whom they have sex. Women are commonly traded like property, with little say in who they will belong to and who will use them for sex.

The population stabilization in what we consider the developed world is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people WANT to control the number of children they have. When they are able to do so, they do. When women are able to limit the number of children they bear, they do. Most developed nations have legal equality between the sexes, at least nominally, and this makes it possible for women to have real freedom of choice about when (and if) they have sex and/or have children.

If you want to reduce overpopulation (and all the resultant problems), then educate and liberate the women of the third world. They'll do the rest.

Easy: women in the third world are not allowed to control their bodies.

It really is that simple. Women in the third world do not have access to safe, legal contraception and abortion services. They do not have the legal or practical ability to access such services in most cases. They frequently are not permitted to choose to use contraception or to have abortions. They often are not permitted to choose when and with whom they have sex. Women are commonly traded like property, with little say in who they will belong to and who will use them for sex.

The population stabilization in what we consider the developed world is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people WANT to control the number of children they have. When they are able to do so, they do. When women are able to limit the number of children they bear, they do.

If you want to reduce overpopulation (and all the resultant problems), then educate and liberate the women of the third world. They'll do the rest.

Sounds good. Now how do we convince the third world uneducated men to stop treating women the same as livesock?

Why the third world has more kids than it can feed I don't know, but something should be done before nature does something for us.

Well, it probably has something to do with:

1) not much birth control being bandied around (the stuff they have is likely fairly ineffective), cause it's expensive or not allowed religiously or whatever.

2) if you are living in an agricultural society, you'd want lots of kids to grow up to help with the farm or rice paddy or mud flat or whatever the hell you've got going.

Might I add that children in third world countries die like crazy before their 5th birthdays due to disease/malnutrition/war/what-have-you, so they don't end up with all that many kids after a while anyway.

Well, a "one child" policy like China's wouldn't work too well if the entire world was doing it, cause it would dwindle the human population too much.

Personally, I disagree. I believe the research I've read, which leads me to agree that the ideal carrying capacity for this planet is approximately 2.5 billion humans. We have almost three times that. A "one child" policy wouldn't dwindle the human population enough unless we maintained it for more than one generation. Once carrying capacity is reached, zero population would suggest a 2-biological-child limit.

Of course, this is all assuming conditions that we consider "developed." In third-world countries, infant and child mortality are high enough that a one-child policy effectively means no children for most people.

Sounds good. Now how do we convince the third world uneducated men to stop treating women the same as livesock?
It's gonna take a damn long time, particularly since we haven't even managed to convince all the first-world educated men to stop treating women like livestock.

It's gonna take a damn long time, particularly since we haven't even managed to convince all the first-world educated men to stop treating women like livestock.

I'm not sure the third world city dwellers have that long. I guess mother nature will take care of the problem.

why not just get rid of medical treatment all together? That'll help curb the population problem.

The places where fertility treatments are used are places where population is either not growing or is barely above replacement; they have no reason to slow or reduce their population growth since it's already at equilibrium.

Almost all of the world's population growth occurs in places where fertility medicine is nonexistent; they're simply having a lot of kids due to poverty and the need for big families. If you want to slow population growth, develop those regions economically.

Personally, I disagree. I believe the research I've read, which leads me to agree that the ideal carrying capacity for this planet is approximately 2.5 billion humans. We have almost three times that. A "one child" policy wouldn't dwindle the human population enough unless we maintained it for more than one generation. Once carrying capacity is reached, zero population would suggest a 2-biological-child limit.

Of course, this is all assuming conditions that we consider "developed." In third-world countries, infant and child mortality are high enough that a one-child policy effectively means no children for most people.

Well, yeah. That's the point.

Personally, I disagree. I believe the research I've read, which leads me to agree that the ideal carrying capacity for this planet is approximately 2.5 billion humans. We have almost three times that. A "one child" policy wouldn't dwindle the human population enough unless we maintained it for more than one generation. Once carrying capacity is reached, zero population would suggest a 2-biological-child limit.

Massive leaps in industrial and agricultural technology push that limit upwards in developed regions; of course, the thing is that those regions already are no longer growing in population. The places that are growing practice very destructive environmental and agricultural methods that actively reduce their capacity rather than increase it.

Technology and productivity growth are removing the need for additional population in order to drive economic growth. Going in to the future, our population will be able safely decline without causing our economy to slow due to the acceleration of productive and technological development.