Any politically conservative psychiatrists?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Wouldn't a good Darwinist conclude that natural selection will tackle the exponential population issue?

not among us humans, because people would start crying "what about children?!!!". Out of goodness of our hearts we interfere with evolution, so eventually I foresee the high SES layer will continue to shrink (low birth rate due to high career aspirations) and low SES layer will continue to expand (high birth rate due to welfare and no aspirations), so the top 10 per cent of the population will feed the bottom 50%.

Sorry for a rant.

Members don't see this ad.
 
There's a movie that covers this called Idiocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

2 characters are frozen, wake up 500 years later to find that humanity has evolved into idiots. After all, its not the Einsteins having 10 kids, its people who are impulsive & aren't planning their future.

This sound harsh & draconian but a drug addicted woman 100 years ago having a child in the mamner I mentioned would pretty much simply be dead in addition to her child. Thanks to our modern society, a woman like this can survive, even have more children in the manner she chooses which isn't exactly in her, the child's or in society's interest. She continues this road because she has the freedom to not make a change.

I'm not advocating she be sterilized. Again, I said I'm neutral on that tactic.

But then--what is the solution? I don't see anyone coming up with one. If anyone really thinks the DYFS system is the best solution, jeez, I hope that person would actually work in it and see the problems. The best solution is for this woman to not have children in the first place. How do you stop that?

Its often times in life where the "force of reality" comes in that whacks us in the butt is where we often learn responsibility, moderation among other things.
 
not among us humans, because people would start crying "what about children?!!!" out of goodness of our hearts we intervene with evolution, so eventually I foresee the high SES layer will continue to shrink (low birth rate due to high career aspirations) and low SES layer will continue to expand (high birth rate due to welfare and no aspirations), so the top 10 per cent of the population will feed the bottom 50%.

Sorry for a rant.

This has been a fear expressed by dominant groups through the centuries: "The Irish/Chinese/Blacks/Mexicans/<insert feared ethnicity here> are breeding so fast they are sure to outnumber us in the next generation!" :eek: In fact, there is plenty of evidence that addressing disenfranchisement and POVERTY (the real enemy, IMHO) actually lowers birth rates, and improves standards of living. Now I know there are divergent philosophies about just how poverty ought to be addressed (ranging, it seems, from ethnic cleansing to gross enablement and everything in between), but I do not believe that the "Idiocracy" model has ever been anywhere near realized in history.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This has been a fear expressed by dominant groups through the centuries: "The Irish/Chinese/Blacks/Mexicans/<insert feared ethnicity here> are breeding so fast they are sure to outnumber us in the next generation!" :eek: In fact, there is plenty of evidence that addressing disenfranchisement and POVERTY (the real enemy, IMHO) actually lowers birth rates, and improves standards of living. Now I know there are divergent philosophies about just how poverty ought to be addressed (ranging, it seems, from ethnic cleansing to gross enablement and everything in between), but I do not believe that the "Idiocracy" model has ever been anywhere near realized in history.

OPD, I really respect you and your opinion. I agree that poverty is indeed the real problem that needs to be addressed, and I agree that addressing that problem would lower birth rate. (I think, I already said that poor = high birth rate, wealthy = low birth rate, did not I?) I have to say, though, that in the developed world there are relatively few poor people that do not have an option to get out of poverty and earn their living legally. Please note that I was not referring to any particular ethnic group (as you seem to in your post), but "the Western poor" in general.

Perhaps, I should provide a little bit of a background... I have seen REAL poverty. I saw pensioners in my country begging on the streets because their pension would barely cover their rent, let alone heating (with -20 celcius outside), water or food. I saw families raising their kids on bread and sweet tea, not having money for even simple things like vegetables, let alone luxuries such as meat. I saw a family selling their modest business (three pigs and chickens) to pay for the treatment of their little boy with osteomyelitis - and then struggling to survive with virtually no income and no support from the government. I saw my father's life-time savings go bust overnight once the Soviet Union collapsed, and saw him live for several years in poverty, working full-time but having his salary only paid to him every three or four months - and he was so scared to lose his job, a highly qualified engineer working as a foreman in the new economy, that he put up with it, to put me through the medical school. So, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to the poor in the developed nations; the poor with a car, and a cable, and better home electronic equipment than I have - all of it bought with welfare money (my money, at least partially). Most American (British/fill in the blank developed nation) poor DO have a choice and CAN improve their lives if they put some effort into it. Most of them simply do not want to. And those are the people that myself (and whopper, I assume) were talking about in our posts.

I do not think we are going to address poverty by keeping pumping welfare money into the system. The poor need to get off their asses and start working. This is my solution to the problem. Very enlightened, is not it?:rolleyes: As a GP - or, indeed, as a psychiatrist - I will be very happy to try and help the afflicted poor find their niche in life, but as the old saying goes, "the bulb has to want to change"...
 
OPD, I really respect you and your opinion. I agree that poverty is indeed the real problem that needs to be addressed, and I agree that addressing that problem would lower birth rate. (I think, I already said that poor = high birth rate, wealthy = low birth rate, did not I?) I have to say, though, that in the developed world there are relatively few poor people that do not have an option to get out of poverty and earn their living legally. Please note that I was not referring to any particular ethnic group (as you seem to in your post), but "the Western poor" in general.

Perhaps, I should provide a little bit of a background... I have seen REAL poverty. I saw pensioners in my country begging on the streets because their pension would barely cover their rent, let alone heating (with -20 celcius outside), water or food. I saw families raising their kids on bread and sweet tea, not having money for even simple things like vegetables, let alone luxuries such as meat. I saw a family selling their modest business (three pigs and chickens) to pay for the treatment of their little boy with osteomyelitis - and then struggling to survive with virtually no income and no support from the government. I saw my father's life-time savings go bust overnight once the Soviet Union collapsed, and saw him live for several years in poverty, working full-time but having his salary only paid to him every three or four months - and he was so scared to lose his job, a highly qualified engineer working as a foreman in the new economy, that he put up with it, to put me through the medical school. So, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to the poor in the developed nations; the poor with a car, and a cable, and better home electronic equipment than I have - all of it bought with welfare money (my money, at least partially). Most American (British/fill in the blank developed nation) poor DO have a choice and CAN improve their lives if they put some effort into it. Most of them simply do not want to. And those are the people that myself (and whopper, I assume) were talking about in our posts.

I do not think we are going to address poverty by keeping pumping welfare money into the system. The poor need to get off their asses and start working. This is my solution to the problem. Very enlightened, is not it?:rolleyes: As a GP - or, indeed, as a psychiatrist - I will be very happy to try and help the afflicted poor find their niche in life, but as the old saying goes, "the bulb has to want to change"...

So, why do the poor = high birth rate, and the wealthy = low birth rate? What is different about these two general categories of people? Education perhaps? Maybe the endless cycle of poverty....you are raised by wealthy/poor people, and learn/imitate their behaviour?

I assume we're cool with the great number of folks who are neither poor nor wealthy. Quite frankly I would prefer to see both the poor and the wealthy birth rates go down.

So, is the only solution infantcide? There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where this occurs. Personally I think we're better then this, but I'm obviously a bleeding heart liberal.

I think the OP's original question has been answered by many posts...indeed there are many politically conservative psychiatrists or psychiatrists to be out there.
 
So, why do the poor = high birth rate, and the wealthy = low birth rate? What is different about these two general categories of people? Education perhaps? Maybe the endless cycle of poverty....you are raised by wealthy/poor people, and learn/imitate their behaviour?
Was it really necessary to state the obvious?

I assume we're cool with the great number of folks who are neither poor nor wealthy. Quite frankly I would prefer to see both the poor and the wealthy birth rates go down.
:eek::confused: Let's rid Mother Earth of human race altogether?

So, is the only solution infantcide? There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where this occurs. Personally I think we're better then this, but I'm obviously a bleeding heart liberal.

You know, nowhere in my posts I have been advocating infanticide. I advocate decreased dependency on public support and increased personal responsibility - which may have to be promoted by such harsh measures as imposing time limits on the said public support. I appreciate you may not agree with my point of view, but I do not think you are taking a reasonable approach to the discussion. You asked why not let evolution take care of things, and I answered your question in my previous post. If you perceived my reply as infanticide promotion - I apologize, and let me reassure you, this was not what I meant.
 
Top