Has Political Correctness Gone too Far?

[Dakini]

Depends on the society, though for the most part, people have committed infanticide throughout history because they had too many unwanted children that they couldn't feed.

In urbanized environments, yes.

No, in all kinds of environments, from hunter gatherer to agrarian to urban.

Just because you grow your own food doesn't mean you have enough of it. Being a farmer might mean that you're going to be able to squirrel away more food than someone who is similarly poor and living in a city, but it doesn't mean you have infinite food.

So there goes your glorious past where sex and pregnancy are wonderfully linked and everything was sunshine and rainbows until these things "became decoupled".

I wouldn't say sex and procreation are completely disassociated as *signifiers*, but I'd say they are moreso than they were before, and that this sundering is progressing.

Good. Maybe people will stop having unwanted kids and pregnancies they don't want then.

That actually also depends on the society.

It's true across the board. If you didn't own anything in an agrarian environment, it was almost always because you were a either young man and a day laborer, or a slave, and I don't think slaves cared much about controlling birth, if they were even allowed to.

Uh, you claimed that all poor people owned property. First of all, serfs generally didn't own property (maybe some of the very few who were free did) and for some time in many places, serfs or slaves made up most of the population.

[Morr]

It's never going to become easier for most people though. IVF is not some super easy procedure, you know.

I never said it was. But I do think it is a stepping stone, and I think ultimately society will look more into artificial incubation.

That's what you're claiming people regularly did in the history of humanity?

No, I'm saying that the high rate of child production got easier as you went along, not harder.

[/quote][/quote]
In the sense of working their own land or putting their kids to work on it, there was generally a class of landowners who did that, yeah.

[Dakini]

It's never going to become easier for most people though. IVF is not some super easy procedure, you know.

I never said it was. But I do think it is a stepping stone, and I think ultimately society will look more into artificial incubation.

Good. Pregnancy looks like a huge pain in the ass and it keeps women from being as productive as we'd like.

That's what you're claiming people regularly did in the history of humanity?

No, I'm saying that the high rate of child production got easier as you went along, not harder.

Except that you end up with more mouths that you can't feed and then you're fucked.

Or you would be if half of your kids didn't die from diseases that are now preventable.

[Morr]

No, in all kinds of environments, from hunter gatherer to agrarian to urban.

Just because you grow your own food doesn't mean you have enough of it. Being a farmer might mean that you're going to be able to squirrel away more food than someone who is similarly poor and living in a city, but it doesn't mean you have infinite food.

How much food you can grow has to do with how many people you have working it.

Good. Maybe people will stop having unwanted kids and pregnancies they don't want then.

I'm concerned that pregnancies will eventually seen as obsolete altogether.

Uh, you claimed that all poor people owned property. First of all, serfs generally didn't own property (maybe some of the very few who were free did) and for some time in many places, serfs or slaves made up most of the population.

Serfs were never free, by definition. They could be promoted to aristocracy (most of the knights of Germany came from promoted serfs), but serfs were bonded, by definition. A free serf is an oxymoron.

As for slaves making up most of the population, they're kind of irrelevant here since your talking about birth control and so on for economic reasons, which would hardly apply to a slave. So the dowry issue is pointless, because it was only brought up as a matter of exposing infants and so on. When I was talking about poor people, I meant strictly the ones who would be committing infanticide.

[Morr]

Good. Pregnancy looks like a huge pain in the ass and it keeps women from being as productive as we'd like.

You aren't concerned that artificially incubated designer babies might end up forming a ruling caste over babies created by sex, given enough time?

Except that you end up with more mouths that you can't feed and then you're fucked.

Your rate of child production is limited by pregnancy rate. Once you have enough laboring kids to sustain it at full pace, that's not really going to be an issue.

[Dakini]

No, in all kinds of environments, from hunter gatherer to agrarian to urban.

Just because you grow your own food doesn't mean you have enough of it. Being a farmer might mean that you're going to be able to squirrel away more food than someone who is similarly poor and living in a city, but it doesn't mean you have infinite food.

How much food you can grow has to do with how many people you have working it.

It also depends on how much land you have, what the weather is like that year, what the climate in your region is generally like, how good the soil is...

It's not 100% humanpower.

Good. Maybe people will stop having unwanted kids and pregnancies they don't want then.

I'm concerned that pregnancies will eventually seen as obsolete altogether.

How is this a concern?

Uh, you claimed that all poor people owned property. First of all, serfs generally didn't own property (maybe some of the very few who were free did) and for some time in many places, serfs or slaves made up most of the population.

Serfs were never free, by definition. They could be promoted to aristocracy (most of the knights of Germany came from promoted serfs), but serfs were bonded, by definition. A free serf is an oxymoron.

Freemen often lived just like the serfs, but they could leave and go somewhere else, unlike villeins, who were the most common type of serf. Villeins did not own anything, not even the clothes they wore, but they were marginally better off than slaves.

As for slaves making up most of the population, they're kind of irrelevant here since your talking about birth control and so on for economic reasons, which would hardly apply to a slave. So the dowry issue is pointless, because it was only brought up as a matter of exposing infants and so on. When I was talking about poor people, I meant strictly the ones who would be committing infanticide.

The types of slavery that have existed throughout history are quite numerous. The reasons people committed infanticide were mostly economical, but people of all classes did that shit.

[Dakini]

Good. Pregnancy looks like a huge pain in the ass and it keeps women from being as productive as we'd like.

You aren't concerned that artificially incubated designer babies might end up forming a ruling caste over babies created by sex, given enough time?

Dude, if it means that I can have babies without spending 9 months refusing drinks at parties or people telling me I can't ride on a roller coaster or having a 5 kg screaming infant emerge from my body, sign me the fuck up.

Except that you end up with more mouths that you can't feed and then you're fucked.

Your rate of child production is limited by pregnancy rate. Once you have enough laboring kids to sustain it at full pace, that's not really going to be an issue.

I'm not sure why you think that anyone wants to produce way more children than there are right now.

[Morr]

It also depends on how much land you have, what the weather is like that year, what the climate in your region is generally like, how good the soil is...

It's not 100% humanpower.

That's true, but accounting for all other variables, more manpower was still almost always more productive.

How is this a concern?

I'm concerned that the value of a child will be derived more from their design, than by the virtue of them being a child.

Freemen often lived just like the serfs, but they could leave and go somewhere else, unlike villeins, who were the most common type of serf. Villeins did not own anything, not even the clothes they wore, but they were marginally better off than slaves.

Depending on place and period, villeins could actually own land. They weren't always serfs, they were originally a free class distinct from serfs who slowly became serfs.

The types of slavery that have existed throughout history are quite numerous. The reasons people committed infanticide were mostly economical, but people of all classes did that shit.

I really don't think slaves did, since it was most probably very illegal. The child would be the property of your master.

[Morr]

Dude, if it means that I can have babies without spending 9 months refusing drinks at parties or people telling me I can't ride on a roller coaster or having a 5 kg screaming infant emerge from my body, sign me the fuck up.

Is this a serious response? You're saying you're fine with a caste system if it means you can more freely drink alcohol and ride roller coasters?

I'm not sure why you think that anyone wants to produce way more children than there are right now.

We were talking about in an agrarian society.

[Dakini]

It also depends on how much land you have, what the weather is like that year, what the climate in your region is generally like, how good the soil is...

It's not 100% humanpower.

That's true, but accounting for all other variables, more manpower was still almost always more productive.

Not really. If your region is suffering a severe drought and there's no water available for your crops, having 1 person is going to be as productive as having 10, in that there aren't going to be any crops.

How is this a concern?

I'm concerned that the value of a child will be derived more from their design, than by the virtue of them being a child.

Designer babies is a totally separate issue from IVF or artificial incubation.

Freemen often lived just like the serfs, but they could leave and go somewhere else, unlike villeins, who were the most common type of serf. Villeins did not own anything, not even the clothes they wore, but they were marginally better off than slaves.

Depending on place and period, villeins could actually own land. They weren't always serfs, they were originally a free class distinct from serfs who slowly became serfs.

The types of slavery that have existed throughout history are quite numerous. The reasons people committed infanticide were mostly economical, but people of all classes did that shit.

I really don't think slaves did, since it was most probably very illegal. The child would be the property of your master.

That would depend on the type of slavery (not all types of slavery were inherited) and whether or not a master wanted to support more slaves, wouldn't it?

[Dakini]

Dude, if it means that I can have babies without spending 9 months refusing drinks at parties or people telling me I can't ride on a roller coaster or having a 5 kg screaming infant emerge from my body, sign me the fuck up.

Is this a serious response? You're saying you're fine with a caste system if it means you can more freely drink alcohol and ride roller coasters?

Who the fuck said anything about a caste system except for you with your paranoid delusions?

And yes, I would totally be happy to not have to deal with pregnancy and all of its pitfalls if there was an alternative that resulted in children that were biologically mine.

I'm not sure why you think that anyone wants to produce way more children than there are right now.

We were talking about in an agrarian society.

No we're not. We're talking about a society in which artificial wombs exist and you think that for some reason someone's going to be making a whole pile of excess children for... I don't know what reason. In the increasingly mechanized and automated times we live in, I don't think anyone's going to be creating a giant pile of extra children, designer or not. If artificial wombs become a thing, you're just going to see couples who can afford to avoid pregnancies reproduce that way instead of hiring surrogate mothers.

[Morr]

Not really. If your region is suffering a severe drought and there's no water available for your crops, having 1 person is going to be as productive as having 10, in that there aren't going to be any crops.

But such conditions were presumably counted exceptions, not standard.

Designer babies is a totally separate issue from IVF or artificial incubation.

I don't think so at all. Sperm donors are already somewhat vetted to produce optimal offspring, I think if design becomes more advanced and practical, it will propagate, especially when you aren't even talking about babies you're personally bringing into the world.

That would depend on the type of slavery (not all types of slavery were inherited) and whether or not a master wanted to support more slaves, wouldn't it?

That would be like killing your horses because you don't want to support them.

[Brickistan]

No, in all kinds of environments, from hunter gatherer to agrarian to urban.

Just because you grow your own food doesn't mean you have enough of it. Being a farmer might mean that you're going to be able to squirrel away more food than someone who is similarly poor and living in a city, but it doesn't mean you have infinite food.

Yes and no.

While the amount of food you can produce does depend on the number of working hands you have, it also very much depends on just how many natural resources a given area has.

Good. Maybe people will stop having unwanted kids and pregnancies they don't want then.

I'm concerned that pregnancies will eventually seen as obsolete altogether.

The drive to procreate is pretty strong in much people, even though they don't have as many kids as they used to. So I don't really see that as an issue.

Good. Pregnancy looks like a huge pain in the ass and it keeps women from being as productive as we'd like.

You aren't concerned that artificially incubated designer babies might end up forming a ruling caste over babies created by sex, given enough time?

No.

Why do you think that will ever become a problem?

Firstly, we're a long way away from being able to do a full 9 months pregnancy in an artificial womb. Secondly, even if we could, I'd imagine it would still be a lot more of a hassle than doing it the old fashioned way.

Besides, as a personal opinion, if we ever got to that point I'd imagine that it would actually be the artificially created people who would be discriminated against. If we did start doing that sort of stuff on a massive scale it would most likely be to create a class of workers / slaves / soldiers / spare parts or something like that. Basically, expendable pseudo-humans.

Except that you end up with more mouths that you can't feed and then you're fucked.

Your rate of child production is limited by pregnancy rate. Once you have enough laboring kids to sustain it at full pace, that's not really going to be an issue.

Again, yes and no.

There is a sweet spot where you have enough people working to extract the maximum amount of resources from the area but few enough to ensure that you have a modets surplus. If you continue to have kids beyond that point your surplus will quickly disappear and then you'll have to reduce your population again. This can be done through hunger and war over resources, by deliberately killing your own children, or by sending part or your tribe away to settle a new area.

With the industrialisation, the number of people we could support grew dramatically and so did the population, leading to rapid urbanisation (as the cities were where stuff was happening and there were few places left to go - the mass immigration to America in the early 20. century being one of the last big migration of people).

However, ironically, we're now seeing a slow reversal. Automatization is rapidly creating a surplus of humans who have no work. We can still feed them, but they can't pay for it.

And so, society is most likely heading towards another contraction as the need for manual labour disappears and birth rates continue to go down.

But now, I think, we're way off topic...

[Morr]

Who the fuck said anything about a caste system except for you with your paranoid delusions?

You were answering a question I addressed to, so I'd think there would be some continuity between the answer and the question.

No we're not. We're talking about a society in which artificial wombs exist and you think that for some reason someone's going to be making a whole pile of excess children for... I don't know what reason. In the increasingly mechanized and automated times we live in, I don't think anyone's going to be creating a giant pile of extra children, designer or not. If artificial wombs become a thing, you're just going to see couples who can afford to avoid pregnancies reproduce that way instead of hiring surrogate mothers.

I don't really think people are going to continue to see a point in even contributing anything to the child's production. It would be like it is with sperm donors, the optimum are chosen, and the parents get to raise the kid.

[Morr]

The drive to procreate is pretty strong in much people, even though they don't have as many kids as they used to. So I don't really see that as an issue.

I do, since sex and reproduction will have become very separated in public consciousness. Part of the drive to procreate has to do with the sexual aspect of it. That sexual aspect has also long been engaged in for its own sake, but the reproductive action without the sexual act really hasn't, and that is where it becomes possible to divorce the two as unrelated.

Why do you think that will ever become a problem?

Because sperm donors are already vetted by their genetics, it's just not done with precision.

Firstly, we're a long way away from being able to do a full 9 months pregnancy in an artificial womb. Secondly, even if we could, I'd imagine it would still be a lot more of a hassle than doing it the old fashioned way.

Given time, a lot can happen. I'm not talking about my lifetime.

Besides, as a personal opinion, if we ever got to that point I'd imagine that it would actually be the artificially created people who would be discriminated against. If we did start doing that sort of stuff on a massive scale it would most likely be to create a class of workers / slaves / soldiers / spare parts or something like that. Basically, expendable pseudo-humans.

That seems unlikely, unless the people were designed by the government instead of their parents, in which case there's no reason why you wouldn't also be designing the administrators.

There is a sweet spot where you have enough people working to extract the maximum amount of resources from the area but few enough to ensure that you have a modets surplus. If you continue to have kids beyond that point your surplus will quickly disappear and then you'll have to reduce your population again. This can be done through hunger and war over resources, by deliberately killing your own children, or by sending part or your tribe away to settle a new area.

Are you talking about farming societies, or hunter-gatherer?

[Dakini]

Not really. If your region is suffering a severe drought and there's no water available for your crops, having 1 person is going to be as productive as having 10, in that there aren't going to be any crops.

But such conditions were presumably counted exceptions, not standard.

That would depend a lot.

Designer babies is a totally separate issue from IVF or artificial incubation.

I don't think so at all. Sperm donors are already somewhat vetted to produce optimal offspring, I think if design becomes more advanced and practical, it will propagate, especially when you aren't even talking about babies you're personally bringing into the world.

How is the vetting process for sperm donors actually different from what people do when selecting someone to have babies with normally, exactly?

Also, I'm not sure why you think couples will suddenly stop making children with each other and rely on sperm donors when they have another option... or whatever you're getting at here, I don't really understand what you're on about, to be honest.

That would depend on the type of slavery (not all types of slavery were inherited) and whether or not a master wanted to support more slaves, wouldn't it?

That would be like killing your horses because you don't want to support them.

It's a lot easier to separate your studs from your mares and fillies than it is to keep your human slaves from finding some time for some recreation.

[Dakini]

Who the fuck said anything about a caste system except for you with your paranoid delusions?

You were answering a question I addressed to, so I'd think there would be some continuity between the answer and the question.

I would expect that people would ignore the batshit insane parts of my questions and answer the rest of my post if I was posing batshit insane questions like you just did.

No we're not. We're talking about a society in which artificial wombs exist and you think that for some reason someone's going to be making a whole pile of excess children for... I don't know what reason. In the increasingly mechanized and automated times we live in, I don't think anyone's going to be creating a giant pile of extra children, designer or not. If artificial wombs become a thing, you're just going to see couples who can afford to avoid pregnancies reproduce that way instead of hiring surrogate mothers.

I don't really think people are going to continue to see a point in even contributing anything to the child's production. It would be like it is with sperm donors, the optimum are chosen, and the parents get to raise the kid.

Uh... so you're aware that in heterosexual couples, sperm/egg donors are mostly just used when the man/woman is not capable of producing sperm/eggs that work, right? If people wanted children that were just entirely unrelated to them, they'd just adopt them, but generally, when people go the IVF route, they want a child who is related to at least one party in the couple (more often, the couple gets a child that's related to both parties though).

When it comes to same sex couples (or heterosexual couples where one party does not have gametes that work so well), I think it's totally fine for them to choose whoever they think will produce the best gametes to match the ones that they provide.

[Frank Zipper]

People who use terms like "political correctness", "social justice warrior", and on the other end of the political spectrum "fascist", are just lazy thinkers repeating clichés they have heard rather than thinking for themselves.

[Brickistan]

The drive to procreate is pretty strong in much people, even though they don't have as many kids as they used to. So I don't really see that as an issue.

I do, since sex and reproduction will have become very separated in public consciousness. Part of the drive to procreate has to do with the sexual aspect of it. That sexual aspect has also long been engaged in for its own sake, but the reproductive action without the sexual act really hasn't, and that is where it becomes possible to divorce the two as unrelated.

Sigh...

We've been over this multiple times. Sex and reproduction is ALREADY separate. In fact, many people try their best to keep them separate so as to be able to enjoy sex without the fear of getting pregnant.

Why do you think that will ever become a problem?

Because sperm donors are already vetted by their genetics, it's just not done with precision.

Here's a hint, "donors" are already vetted. Most women won't consent to having children with random strangers you know.

Besides, as a personal opinion, if we ever got to that point I'd imagine that it would actually be the artificially created people who would be discriminated against. If we did start doing that sort of stuff on a massive scale it would most likely be to create a class of workers / slaves / soldiers / spare parts or something like that. Basically, expendable pseudo-humans.

That seems unlikely, unless the people were designed by the government instead of their parents, in which case there's no reason why you wouldn't also be designing the administrators.

Actually, the government are those most likely to do such a thing. Running a big laboratory with artificial wombs is pretty expensive and most likely won't be anything that Joe Average would be able to do.

So it would be reserved for the government to do large scale breeding or, even more scary, the rich in order to breed "spare parts".

There is a sweet spot where you have enough people working to extract the maximum amount of resources from the area but few enough to ensure that you have a modets surplus. If you continue to have kids beyond that point your surplus will quickly disappear and then you'll have to reduce your population again. This can be done through hunger and war over resources, by deliberately killing your own children, or by sending part or your tribe away to settle a new area.

Are you talking about farming societies, or hunter-gatherer?

Both, really.

In this regard, they're fairly similar in that the society is organised around small tribes / villages, surviving mostly on locally produced food. It wasn't until around the industrialization that we developed the capacity to move both people and food on a massive scale.

[Dakini]

Here's a hint, "donors" are already vetted. Most women won't consent to having children with random strangers you know.

Yeah, I'm not sure how Morr thinks sperm banks work. There's definitely going to be a bit more medical screening type stuff, but for the most part, people choose whoever they think is attractive and seems healthy. That's about the same way people choose partners, except that they also generally like their partners.

[Zottistan]

Good. Pregnancy looks like a huge pain in the ass and it keeps women from being as productive as we'd like.

You aren't concerned that artificially incubated designer babies might end up forming a ruling caste over babies created by sex, given enough time?

Tbh once we have the technology to artificially engineer and produce babies, reproduction through traditional means will become a very irresponsible, almost cruel thing to do, never mind completely obsolete and pointlessly unpleasant.

[Gauthier]

You aren't concerned that artificially incubated designer babies might end up forming a ruling caste over babies created by sex, given enough time?

Tbh once we have the technology to artificially engineer and produce babies, reproduction through traditional means will become a very irresponsible, almost cruel thing to do, never mind completely obsolete and pointlessly unpleasant.

Battletech is not a guideline on human reproduction.

[Zottistan]

Tbh once we have the technology to artificially engineer and produce babies, reproduction through traditional means will become a very irresponsible, almost cruel thing to do, never mind completely obsolete and pointlessly unpleasant.

Battletech is not a guideline on human reproduction.

Haven't seen, read or heard of it.

[Zottistan]

Tbh once we have the technology to artificially engineer and produce babies, reproduction through traditional means will become a very irresponsible, almost cruel thing to do, never mind completely obsolete and pointlessly unpleasant.

Battletech is not a guideline on human reproduction.

Haven't seen, read or heard of it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Tbh once we have the technology to artificially engineer and produce babies, reproduction through traditional means will become a very irresponsible, almost cruel thing to do, never mind completely obsolete and pointlessly unpleasant.

Battletech is not a guideline on human reproduction.

The Clan sibko system is not the functional equivalent of IVF procedures and genetic engineering by itself, but rather a hyper-stylized form of eugenics focused around behavioral characteristics as opposed to physical or genetic ones. It's somewhat of a Godwin-style stretch to compare their warrior-caste genetic engineering programs to a more mundane usage of slightly similar techniques (absent the genetic database centered focus) for purposes of child (and mother) health and safety, which would be enhanced by the removal of the complications and threats to both mother and child that can occur in a natural birth.
...
...
Plus 'freebirth scum' is just too good an insult not to make practical by any method we can! Nor should it be legislated against or condemned in the name of 'political correctness'. CLANNERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!