Talk-Polywell.org

Gina Rinehart thinks anybody who makes less than $100k per should be prevented from having children.

http://www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk ... f-the-poor

Eugenics should be based on BMI

Doesn't she realize that if the lower classes have no children there will be no servants for the future?

The article calls her "conservative". Maybe in the sense that anyone, especially the wealthy, who takes positions the left is ashamed of is "conservative". She sounds to me like a wack job elitist.

I first saw this article on a satire news site. So, I don't know that this is even for real.

The world we live in now seems more and more blurred between reality and fantasy. That is what really worries me.

Wonder if ladajo agrees with this (though his $ amount cutoff is probably lower).

Was it Diogenes who argued something like this?

I will point out that this is from the Daily Currant, which is a site filled with a sort of sick desire that they try to reflect on to conservatives. I will also add that eugenics was a progressive idea, that the perpetrators of actions based on eugenics were Progreswsive idols, at least until the grim consequences came out and that the body count of Progressives is approximately 200 million or so.

Jccarlton wrote:I will point out that this is from the Daily Currant, which is a site filled with a sort of sick desire that they try to reflect on to conservatives. I will also add that eugenics was a progressive idea, that the perpetrators of actions based on eugenics were Progreswsive idols, at least until the grim consequences came out and that the body count of Progressives is approximately 200 million or so.

Shut up!!! you keep telling the truth and people are not going to like you. Its much funner to use a yellow journalism instead of facts. Its so much easier to slam people you do not know instead of finding out the facts and basing your opinion on them.

Gina Rinehart is insane. She's known for saying that mine workers in Australia should be happy to work for $2 a day like they do in Africa. This coming from a woman whose entire fortune was inherited from her father who built it from nothing.

I wouldn't put a statement like this past her. That said, I don't trust crazies to report the news either. A Google News search for Gina Rinehart Eugenics returns nothing.

Maybe she ate the news.

She may be insane but she's rated as the 16th most influential woman in the world. Debating left vs right on her statements is irrelevant since 99% of both sides becomes extinct under her policy.

t
This seems to be a problem with hereditary wealth, the receivers tend to be far less qualified to manage the money than the original makers. I like warren buffet solution. he is only giving his kin a small portion and the rest he is giving it away.

Maui wrote:Wonder if ladajo agrees with this (though his $ amount cutoff is probably lower).

???

She is an idiot. It is not about the money. So to answer you, "nope, don't agree".

Let me ask you this, If someone is on state provided subsistance and support, should they be allowed to have kids (in addition to any they already may have)? Should they be allowed to become a further burden and dig a deeper whole for those who support them?

It is a tough topic, and I personally don't have a position yet even though some courts have. I do for voting. And that answer is "they give up voting for support". If they give up support, then they get to vote again. Kids however, are a different thing. One should not punish the child for the sins of the parent, although that is the historical and contemporary preference.

paperburn1 wrote:This seems to be a problem with hereditary wealth ...

The "Simple Solution" is large inheritance taxes for the "wealthy", but that creates other problems, such as with family owned businesses.

A better solution is to realize that a fool is a fool, and write them off as a societal influence.

"they give up voting for support"

As long as the law still applies equally, I have a hard time seeing a problem with that.

should they be allowed to have kids

The problem there is the state imposing will on individuals' most basic biological functions. I understand that there are people largely dependent on the community for their survival, but to remove their reproductive choice is a massive step. There have to be very very good reasons to do so. Personally I don't believe we're anywhere near that being reasonable.

Now, encouraging certain individuals (couples rather) to have children vs others not to is another matter. I've no problem with the organizations which pay drug addicted women for long term or permanent sterilization. If an individual is in such a bad state of mind that they're willing to sell their ability to procreate, then they're in a state of mind such that they should not be responsible for other human beings.

Likewise, subsidies for those who are likely to be good parents are useful. We already provide this in the form of a free universal education up through age 18. Early childhood education has its own added benefits. There are also the obvious tax benefits provided to parents. It would be possible to target these more directly, but then you really are playing very close to the eugenics game. These methods create incentives to be productive, and have generally positive effects on society as a whole.