Bribing people to sterilise themselves, Part 2: Get the snip, win a blender says India.

Great Debates
61

I don’t see that you do. You seem to care that it’s a contest where the odds are unknown – until I ask about other contests where the odds are unknown, at which point you drop the subject. You seem to care that it offers a shot at compensation instead of being a free transaction – until I ask about other such arrangements, at which point you drop the subject to focus on something else. You seem to care that it’s a government making the offer, but don’t want to discuss whether a private entity making such offers would be problematic.

Feel free to prove me wrong here:

Again, do you actually care about folks entering contests where they don’t know the likelihood of winning or losing? Because that’s pretty commonplace; the odds often change with the number of entrants, and that fact can be disclosed up front, and people routinely consent to such conditions in raffles and lotteries.

Or our balls, right? Or even a small-but-nontrivial amount of our cash?

Still sounds like I should be able to effortlessly tantalize you with poor-odds offers — and yet, for some reason, you’ve never even participated in a raffle or a lottery? Are they, for some reason, not constructing and using such contests in such a way? Or are you just smarter than you’re giving yourself credit for?

Hold on – are you saying it’s part of your “brain thinking”, or not?

You said that “the people entering into this bargain cannot understand the terms well enough to give consent.”

It’s not my job to stop people from accepting such offers.

I’d like a cite for the obfuscation, and I’d like to know who decides which truthful details are extraneous. Maybe someone mulling the offer finds details about the prize to be anything but extraneous; I’d rather leave it up to him.

I said that – given two offers of different odds – I’d say “yes” to one and “no” to the other. Not sure how that’s not what you wanted.

Naturally I find your assumptions to be arrogant as well. I want the people in and of themselves to make their own decisions, and you want to stop them. I still can’t help but wonder what other decisions you think they can’t understand well enough for their consent to matter: shall we let them choose to marry and reproduce? If we shouldn’t care that one guy wants to gamble his balls away, why should we care that another one wants to keep his? How paternalist do you want to be?

You know my answer, of course: respectfully let them decide for themselves. Just how arrogant and disrespectful an answer can you supply?

62

No, I’d rather I die destitute. Don’t put fucking words in my mouth, or assume you’ve got me figured out, and spare me the platitudes. I’ve been dirt poor, and I’ve also had children (not at the same time). I don’t think the poor are inferior beings, but I also wouldn’t force poverty on my children just to ease my lot in life. Not everyone who disagrees with you has evil reasons for doing so.

63

Seriously, is it clean-out night at the straw-man factory? Do you have any reason at all for attributing these random statements to me, or are you just throwing up a random assortment of positions that you don’t like and pinning them on me because I’m there?

Does this have anything to do with reproductive choice? Do you have any idea of what my position on these things are? I think you might be surprised…think about it- development is by definition pretty pro-corporation and pro-democratic Western style government (and wait, aren’t people supposed to give me shit about not being enchanted with the Beijing consensus?) All I do, all day long, is development. Kind of hard to be a raging pinko when modern development work is basically about getting people a nice shoe factory or call center to work in.

If you want to take pot shots at me, do it in the pit or keep it on the snark boards. I’ll gladly state my position on whatever you want you talk about, but I don’t appreciate random statements being attributed to me, especially when they don’t reflect much of anything I believe in. Hate on me all you want, but keep it where it belongs.

64

Just arrogant. Most of the people being targeted by these campaigns probably don’t see themselves as destitute or pity-worthy. They most likely see themselves as normal people, with normal lives and normal families.

Do you look back at the times that you were dirt poor and think “Gee, I wish someone with a social engineering fetish had used mildly unfair tactics to manipulate my fertility in order to carry out their personal fantasy about what they imagine is for my own good?” Or are you pretty glad you maintained control of your own major life choices?

65

And what exactly is your understanding of “the way caste functions in India”?

(FYI: Indian political parties cannot stay in power without the support of low-caste voters. Unlike in the United States, in India, the poor are very likely to exercise their voting power.)

66

If it’s arrogant to point out that having kids to exploit them is wrong, call me arrogant all you want. Although if we’re going to throw the word around, you should probably go re-read your replies in this thread.

FTR, I never weighed in on the issue in the OP, I just commented on your rationalization for poor farmers having kids. Of course everybody should maintain control of their “major life choices”, but when those life choices negatively affect their own flesh and blood, they’re worthy of criticism.

67

In any case, I don’t actually think there are a ton of people who fall between the “I’d do it if it were free” and “I’d do it if it were free and they threw in a lottery ticket.” Like many ill thought out “development” programs, this is probably a bid for some publicity for the politician who proposed it (is he up for election soon? Wanting some notoriety?) and maybe an attempt to draw attention to the government department who proposed it and the services they offer. In a practical sense, this program is harmless, and probably will not have a major effect on the number of people being sterilized. There is a reason, after all, that sterilization programs so often end up forced sterilization programs- sterilization is generally something that only a small group of people really want.

But I find the conversation around this fundamentally misunderstands the causes of high birthrates in poor rural areas, and that misunderstanding probably stems from a historical but still pretty offensive idea that the poor just don’t have enough sense to know what’s good for them.

68

Not entirely, I view civilization as a contract in which we give up some freedoms through laws in return for a higher degree of safety and comfort than we would experience in the raw wild. If an individual cannot responsibly manage their “major life choices”, the rest of society has the right to step in and do something about it.

69

What is good for an individual poor person (lioting a store) may not be good for everyone else.

70

There’s nothing to prove. I am stringing together a series of criticisms of this contest that I find as a whole unethical. On the other hand, you are completely unable to string together a series of analogous features that shows how this contest is ethical and should hinge on giving consent. I can’t help it if you are only able to focus on single details while not holding the whole in your head (See? Since you assume everyone only focuses on single details to make decisions you end up labeling somebody as being ‘disingenuous’, or saying that they only care about some arguments but not others). Additionally, although not explicitly so, I have rank ordered what I find rank about this contest. The first among these is that it is offered up.

I’ll play “focus on a tiny detail of the whole” with you for a moment to say that I do not like agreements where people do not understand what they are getting into; my concern is modified by what stands to be lost.

I have to say I am gaining a sort of respect for how you select only bits and pieces to reply to. Reread the whole sentence and you have your answer.

Oh, going after typos now are we?

I see you are looking for the extremes of my ‘arrogance’ that wants to governments to allow people to make their reproductive choices in a supportive fashion and not a manipulative one. You think it’s respectful to let people make decisions to consent to the offers presented them. That sounds fine by itself, but the presentation of the offer matters, the design of the offer matters, the outcomes of the offer matters, the intent of those making the offer matters, and the ability of the individuals giving consent to understand the bargain matters. In all its features I see this contest as failing as a legitimate and ethical use of government time and resources.

A responsible government solves this problem by addressing the issues that lead to the high birth rate. It attempts to improve on those features that are known to help reduce the birth rate. If conditions permit, people will take their government up on these offers of their own will; there is no need to mix things up with other inducements. Such inducements can confuse the process by getting people to focus on an extraneous factor.

I really have nothing else to say about the topic. Whatever else I could say is better said by people with actual experience.

71

When questioning each of your one-feature-at-a-time objections, I focus on one feature at a time. By contrast, my own – unified – defense of the contest as ethical is that such questions should hinge on giving consent, full stop.

Precisely.

I disagree with the first and second so long as you’re not crossing the line into fraud. I disagree with the third and fourth altogether. I of course agree with the fifth, since that’s my entire “hinge”.

So, as for the fourth: why should the intent of those making the offer matter? How is it relevant to whether the offer is genuinely accepted? As for the third, why should the outcomes of the offer matter to anyone other than the person choosing to accept or reject the offer? As to design and presentation, why shouldn’t content be king?

But what if I do understand what I’m getting into? I’m perfectly aware that the odds of winning a raffle change with the number of entrants, such that it’s unknown. Can I give consent under those circumstances, where I understand that I don’t know the answer?

Er, no. I honestly didn’t understand the point you were making with what struck me as an odd phrase, and likewise didn’t realize it was a typo. Let me rephrase: are you saying you’re capable of weighing the odds and deciding accordingly, or are you saying you’re not?

No, I don’t; I’m asking because I truly don’t get your point: if it’s possible to construct and use such contests in ways that even somewhat part you from your money, then why aren’t people busily making offers that do win you over? You keep turning down raffles and lotteries designed to be appealing; by your logic, shouldn’t you be incapable of making such wise choices?

You find details about the inducement to be extraneous. The people making the choice may or may not find them extraneous. Why should I let you decide what’s extraneous when I can let them decide what’s extraneous?

72

I was being facetious. Forgot the smilie face for those who can’t tell the difference.

73

Using a blender to sterilize people would be a great solution. It would be next years reality show.

74

I really love how well your “Don’t judge other cultures” thing is going.

75

(Bolding mine.)

Though I concede that the ethos that calls for moving “in the way” family members into closets is a deeply chilling one, it’s inappropriate to call for the annihilation of a culture.

76

Ths is an amazing display of ignorance. No one “breeds” children" just “to be pack animals.” They have children to survive. In a place with labor intensive agriculture, many hands are needed just to get this year’s crop into the ground and this year’s harvest collected. In a region with high death rates for children, the only way to have sufficient workers is to give birth to them. We did the same thing prior to the Industrial Revolution and there is a significant lack of censure heaped on North Americans or Europeans prior to 1940, or so.
If you want them to stop having so many kids, then send them enough tractors, harvesters, and seed to grow sufficient crops to keep themselves alive. (Of course, you will also have to arrange to create a market for their surplus crops, so that they can continue to pay for the fuel, maintenance, and more seed to keep their operations running with fewer people.) Otherwise, silly claims about exploitation are just that, silly.

77

For the “without math” part:

Say you and this other guy are equally good at target shooting with bow and arrow. He gets to shoot tries at a tough target all day, you get one shot. That’s about your 1 in 1000 odds, of you beating him in that situation.

Now say he gets to shoot every day all day for three years and you get one chance to beat him. That’s the 1 in 1,000,000.

For the “respect” part:

There is no convincing evidence that math is not part of normal human thinking, to the extent that no one can do it intuitively. If you define “normal” that way, you’re the one being (what you call) arrogant and refusing to understand that some people can use intuition with regards to mathematics. There is, however, good evidence that some people - the majority of people, even - do have the problem you speak of, but there are ways around that such as the example above.

If you still feel that my story about the bow and arrow contest does not give any sense of a difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 odds, then please consider the possibility that you have some kind of unusual learning disability with regards to odds comprehension. I think if you did a survey of your rural friends, asked if they felt there was any difference in the way they felt about taking one shot vs the other guy’s all day, or taking one shot vs the other guy’s 3 years of all day, they might just surprise you…

78

Are you high? “there is a significant lack of censure heaped on North Americans or Europeans prior to 1940, or so”? In what Bizarro World is this true? Those conditions are precisely why child labor laws were enacted. I have no problem heaping scorn upon those practices.It has nothing to do with any ideas of cultural superiority you seem to think I hold.

You say they don’t breed children to be pack animals, and then go on to say they have children to survive - by having the children work the fields. Please explain to me how this differs in any way from what I said. And then you go on to cite the high death rates for children, further strengthening my point. Who’s being ignorant, again?

Anyway, I’m not advocating forced sterilization, I’m just saying their system is inhumane. Did you argue it was OK for China to kill female babies because there was an overpopulation problem? They were just doing what they needed to do to sustain themselves. It’s the same thing, just to different degrees.

79

If you would like to cite the numerous occasions, then or now, when Europeans and North Americans prior to 1940 were censured for having large families, please do so. Otherwise, please refrain from replying to something other than what I posted.

Breeding children to be pack animals would involve simply pumping out children, then setting them to work with no effort to educate them, no actions to celebrate their lives or mourn their deaths, or engaging in any other human expressions and interactions. I have never seen any indication that this has ever happened in any subsistence farming society. Beyond that, I said nothing about putting children in the fields. I noted that they needed more people and that birth was the way to produce more people. It is not necessary to place children in the fields, but to have an adult worker, one must first give birth to a child.
On the other hand, if there are not enough people to cultivate food, everyone will die. So you appear to be saying that because life is difficult and failing to meet your standards of comfort, everyone living on low technology subsistence farms should simply die out. High death rates for children fails to support your claim in any way. People are born, they live for some period of time, and they die. You are claiming great indignation that some societies, today, are behaving in the same manner as the overwhelming majority of farming societies throughout history. There is ample evidence that as modern technology reaches subsistence farmers, they adopt it, (provided it is affordable), reducing the need for larger families without any external pressure, yet you are simply choosing to condemn as evil everyone who has not yet had the opportunity to partake of higher technology.

Piffle. China embarked on a seriously flawed campaign to reduce births. In the regions of India where the technology has been introduced to alleviate subsistence farming, they have reduced their growth rate, (birth rate offset by death rate), without any government interference. In those parts of India where subsistence farming continues, (mostly in the North), their growth rates remain high while in the more technologically advanced South, the rates have fallen. India’s growth rate is still about twice as high as that of China, (1.68% vs China’s .77%), but that is in comparison to the 6% that each country had in the early 1950s, and it is mostly driven by the low technology regions. Several higher technology regions actually have growth rates lower than that of China.

80

I am, and have been, talking about exploiting children by making them work. This is what I was meant in regards to censuring the people involved in the industrial revolution, and why I brought up child labor laws. If you’re just talking about people having large families, I’m sure you’re right, but it has nothing to do with the topic I’m discussing.

You’ve never seen any indication this has happened? I have. My girlfriend’s father is from a rural village in China, where he was forced to drop out of school at an early age to help out with the work. He ran away at 13 to Hong Kong, where there were better opportunities, and eventually made it to the U.S. His brothers weren’t so lucky, and still live in poverty in that shithole village with no education. I’ve been to the village, and that seems to be the case for most of the people still living there. Maybe you could check out the literacy rates in many western African countries as well - no doubt lack of infrastructure plays a part, but the fact is there are many children in the world denied an education because they’re needed to work at home. Why you feel the need to paint these parents as altruistic pragmatists who wait until their kids have finished high school before they put them to work is a mystery to me, and quite demonstrably false. Of course parents can still love their children, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re exploiting them. Your view sounds simplistically “noble savage” and much more condescending than mine, IMO.

What does the fact that the majority of farming societies did something throughout history have to do with it? They were still wrong. History has much longer periods where slavery was encouraged than when it wasn’t. Wrong is wrong. Do I think subsistence farmers are going to stop having children to use in the fields? No. But it’s still fucked up. There can be situations where both options are morally unjust, you know.

My point was about cultural relativism. It’s OK to call something wrong without automatically calling for that culture to be annihilated.