TED Conversations

R H
  • R H
  • Chicago, IL
  • United States

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed.

Should potential parents, in an enlightened and advanced society, be licensed to have children?

So many children are left unattended because the parents are unavailable, either through both working, exhaustion, or combined. Many parents do not have adequate skills to raise children to be productive and prosperous in our society, and the schools cannot do it for them. 'Child rearing' is not even a required course in secondary school. Rampant drop-out rates, teen drug use, adolescent violence, teen pregancy and more are symptoms of the inabilty of parents to give children the tools necessary to survive and prosper in the society we've given them. These who are now criminalized and/or ostracized become adults, and put further stresses on society for their inability to perform functions needed and valuable. We therefore spend billions in police, court systems, rehab, retraining, re- everything. Should an enlightened and advanced society therefore 'screen' potential parents for their potential as parents, and regulate reproduction in society, and why? Of course there would be training for those who wish to be licensed...

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 6 2012: @ R H

    When I mentioned to look deeper meant for you to study human nature. Human nature is inclined to resist anything imposed. All ideas, good and bad, are great to aid in advancing humanity, however if an idea must be imposed instead of accepted does not substantiate the idea. We cannot alienate others to advance an idea, though as humans we occassionally will, no matter how hard we try not to. Look at an idea from this perspective. How can I market my idea so that it educates others without sounding rightious or contemptuous.

    I miss wrote when I said embraced. Rather, I should have said accepted. (Their acceptance is based on what they are told and believe the law is for.) There are many ways that central design over procreation are destructive. One way it could destroy would be those in power would get the "bright idea" as to whom they want to "breed" based upon their standards. Those standards are at the descretion of those in power. Are those standards based on race, IQ, work ethic, hygeine, physical characteristics or whatever inclination?

    Think your ideas through.

    Good Luck,

    W.P. Baldwin
    • thumb

      R H 30+

      • 0
      May 6 2012: Thanks W, but it's not an idea, it's a question. And where does the question mention that 'someone' would decide who gets to procreate? It is clearly included in the question the context of an 'enlightened and advanced' society. It could be assumed that the worn-out, antique totalitarianisms are well-documented. Regarding the concept of a license, it is merely that you have demonstrated ability to perform the task desired, with full knowledge of how it's done successfully and the repurcussions if those methods are not used. No one 'chooses' who gets a drivers license, medical license, real estate license, insurance license, teaching license, or any other kind of license. You decide what you want to do, get the training, pass the exam, get the license. The society is protected because you've been trained and demonstrated ability. So I hope that clarifies the concept of the question. Now human nature, that's the real interesting point. What is that? Could we say it's human nature to kill at will, to take what we want when we want, for men to demand sex from a woman, to pee on the sidewalk? I could go 'deeper' but I'm too tired. Thanks again for responding.
      • May 6 2012: @ R H

        You said, "And where does the question mention that 'someone' would decide who gets to procreate?" and "Regarding the concept of a license, it is merely that you have demonstrated ability to perform the task desired, with full knowledge of how it's done successfully and the repurcussions if those methods are not used."

        I still argue someone with authority must decide the standards by which a lisence is issued.

        You said, "No one 'chooses' who gets a drivers license, medical license, real estate license, insurance license, teaching license, or any other kind of license." Well, if you do not abide by the standards decided upon you then lose the license. Many times the standards are B.S..

        You said, "The society is protected because you've been trained and demonstrated ability." Again, people are killed every day by licensed drivers and doctors, cheated by real estate agents and insurance agents and get horrible educations by licensed teachers.

        I am a "licensed" builder and I will guarantee you I have seen as many incompetent builders that are licensed as there are competent builders who are not licensed.

        You said, "Could we say it's human nature to kill at will, to take what we want when we want, for men to demand sex from a woman, to pee on the sidewalk? I could go 'deeper' but I'm too tired." to deflect from having a discussion. Human nature is good, evil and everything in between. This is why your idea will not work. People will always find a way around the "law", whether they break it or know the right person.

        To the context of an enlightened and advanced society. With the type of discussion you and I just had do you really believe that either one of us is capable of being part of it?

        TedTalks is a great place where knowledge can be shared openly. If a person does not want to take advantage of that and expand upon their knowledge, that is fine; there always will be a need for people in the bottom eighty percent.

        Sincerely,

        W.P. Baldwin
        • thumb

          R H 30+

          • 0
          May 7 2012: Ok W. Three strkes you're out. I asked a question to an on-line conversational community with the highest standards of exchange. This particular community is also dedicated to comments regarding our future. Your responses are about fear of totalitarianism and cheating. I tried to clarify. This whole last comment is about those who disregard and 'work-around' the efforts of those trying to organize an effective society, and that those efforts are 'BS' anyways. You finish with insults. I think you're right in that one of us is not capable of being part of this discussion. You think it's me, I definitely think it's you. So we're done here.
      • May 7 2012: Totalitarianism and cheating are always going to be a part of society. To think otherwise would be unrealistic. A better question would have been, "Can there ever be an enlightened society where evil will never lurk within its shadows?" Then you could of had a discussion about the possibilities of this ever happening.

        By the way, another poster made the best point that in the utopia of an enlightened society there would be no need for licensing requirements, which is what your question was about, "Should potential parents, in an enlightened and advanced society, be licensed to have children?"

        I am sorry that we could not have discussed my point that to license someone there must be someone setting the standards of licensing. Your point that nobody is giving the licenses means that there will not be any licenses issued.

        Have a good day.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.