TED Conversations

Nelson Hyde Chick

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Preventing those that would be bad parents from becoming parents

Take a survey of our thousand most successful people about the parenting they received as children; then compare those experiences with the parenting received from our thousand worst criminals. The successful people will tell stories mostly of decent to great parenting, while the criminals will be telling stories about abandonment, abuse and neglect. Also, all those stories we read about people that were about to overcome the obstacles of poverty to go on to do great thing, they all had some good parenting in their past. Society’s worst problem is bad parenting.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 15 2013: Agreed, you are not going to or should pass legislation to change that. It is what it is...
    • thumb
      Jul 15 2013: How about this: A man is convicted of a felony, and the conviction is thrown out because he agrees to getting a vasectomy. This would reduce the people currently in prison, and thus save us money now, while helping reduce future prison populations, and saving us money down the road. We could give the felon the option of freezing some of his swimmers, and then if he turns his life around he can start a family; this would reduce unplanned pregnancies, lower abortion operations and lower welfare customers. Theoretically it could even produce healthier children: As we age we are bombarded by radiation, and this is why the children conceived from the sperm of a twenty year old man is going to be healthier than the sperm from that same man when he is forty. A man in his twenties commits a felony, is convicted, and he gets a pass because he got a vasectomy. He turns his life around and decides he wants to have a child when he is forty, but he uses his frozen when he was twenty sperm, the child more likely than not will be healthier than if he had just used his forty year old sperm.
      • thumb
        Jul 15 2013: That sounds unusual.

        There are always unintended consequences to laws or policies. China started a policy of one child per family, which left a huge imbalance in the demographics, this is going to be huge problem in the future as their population will have many old people at the same time.

        Populations naturally decline as the standard of living improves.

        I hear what you are saying but it is not the place of government.
        • thumb
          Jul 15 2013: As standards of living improve they expand environmental footprints. What happens when there is no more room for environmental footprints to expand? Standards of living will start to fall till they collapse. If government was looking out for future generations it would do something to limit their expansion. You see the greatest determining factor in the quality of life for future generation will be how many of them are not born. I guarantee you a world where humanity tops out at eight billion will be much better than an Earth of nine billion humans and off the scale better than one of ten billion.
      • thumb
        Jul 15 2013: Predictions of the future are always dire.

        You assume the environmental foot print will be bigger, I say it won't be.

        The world population is getting older and will likely be shrinking.

        I will agree to disagree

        http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: So you are telling me for instance that even thought our oceans are dying from overfishing, agriculture chemical runoff created dead zones, coral reef bleaching and Global Warming caused acidification we will be able to save our oceans as demand for their products increase by 30%? You are delusional, pal.

          Regarding the link, another sufferer of the TED delusion that says all our problems can bew cured through technology, which is kind of odd considering most of our problems stem from technology.
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: I'm not your pal. I'm quite lucid.

        I have been hearing this type of negative thinking for a long time yet we are still here with a longer life expectancy than ever before.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Pat,
      I agree that it is not the place of government to dictate forced sterilization. In fact, reproduction, I believe, is considered a human right, so if any government began to sterilize people, there may be some challenges (understandably) from the global community.

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

      http://www.unfpa.org/rights/rights.htm

      http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature/repro-rights-are-human-rights

      http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14623.html


      Nelson,
      You say..."A man is convicted of a felony, and the conviction is thrown out because he agrees to getting a vasectomy"

      Basically, what you are suggesting is a plea bargain, so a felon would "pay" for his crime by having a vasectomy, then would be free. I suggest that there are felons who have had vasectomies, and it does not stop them from offending again.
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Yes, some will offend again, but at least they won't leave children to follow in their footsteps.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: OK. So, is your plan meant as population control? Is it meant to punish the offenders? Is it meant to find a solution to re-offending?

          Your topic is:
          "Preventing those that would be bad parents from becoming parents".

          Your plan would ONLY be preventing felons from becoming parents, and I do not believe that it is only felons who are not good parents. Is that discrimination?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.