First off: I--not being british--don't have a clue what you mean by townies or lower orders, but I'm guessing its similair to rednecks. I have no problem with a large variety of people never having children, but to base it on social class seems reckless and counter-productive. I also disagree with the idea of giving them back the right to breed if they're a good part of society. That's crap. Saying you're a productive member of society means you're judging success based on worldy possessions or how often you volunteer to help homeless people.
I just don't think that anyone's got a right to judge how worthwhile a person is, unless you're going to be purely utilitarian about it, in which case the thread's major point about attractiveness is thrown out the window.
And I don't think keeping people you don't like from breeding will stop people you don't like from existing. (Even if you waited a hundred generations, much less the one to three you'll be alive for.)
So basically, while I think there should be less people overall, I don't think neutering a social group would be a fair or even successful solution. I'd settle for people being neutered after having one child.
Oh, and I don't think we should drop everyone in the desert, either. I mean, if they grew up there, maybe, but how're a bunch of inner-city people supposed to adapt to a desert environment before they die of dehydration? I don't think they are. And Survival of the Fittest has never really been a trademark of humanity. Societies have--for an extended period of time--taken care of the young, elderly and stupid who weren't necessarily cut out for surviving. So saying we should live like people did when they were "primitive" (a term that can't effectively be applied to hunting and gathering people) is kind of missing the point.
But chances are I'm taking this too seriously. (Even though I'm not.)
|