cba going through your post history but you were supportive of population control and eugenics in general.
erm, population control sort of, eugenics no.
I'm against eugenics even knowing that ultimately that stance would cause us to become so completely integrated with electronic devices countering our own biological decadence that the question of what a life form is will have practical consequences in law. I also recognize that the universe doesn't give a flying fuck and those moral questions are only meaningful from the perspective of our flawed thought processes. There isn't much point trying to find a solution that is both moral and sustainable. About current day eugenics, I think it's okay that parents get to know which genetic diseases their children would have if any, as long as the choice of aborting remains that of the parents. I've read stories of parents aborting because their kid was going to be colorblind and I find it incredibly stupid, but to me that's within their rights as parents.
Population control is a much more immediate concern. To be honest, it's relevant in various parts of the world since ancient times. Cultures that developed in limited environments either collapsed or learned to keep their population and consumption of resources low enough to not over-stress their environment. We're in the exact same spot right now, for a ton of different reasons. I'm also a liberal (not in the retarded American sense, the actual liberal as in individual freedom) which means I really dislike rules. In practice that means I am in favor of removing children benefits, favoring adoptions and favoring birth control. I don't want a one child rule or something idiotic like that.
