Institutionalized Reproduction

[naronic]

Our species is on the brink of being wiped out with only a few thousand people remaining, just pretend that scenario is reality because here's the actual question you have to answer. Say the survivors (we) are isolated and the species has to survive in such a scenario we would have to implement institutionalized reproduction, mandatory reproduction controlled by some sort of government.
You'd be at least asked your preference in women down to at least race, fitness, health etc.

Questions:
What do you think about it?
Do you think it would cause discrimination? Such as homophobia?
Do you think it would work if our species were in danger?
Would you do it? And if so would you like or dislike it?
How would you escape if you wouldn't do it?

[Entice]

At 12/29/12 09:25 PM, naronic wrote: Questions:
What do you think about it?

I don't think that if people were in that situation they'd need additional incentive to reproduce.

Do you think it would cause discrimination? Such as homophobia?

Probably.

Do you think it would work if our species were in danger?

It'd accomplish the goal of producing more people.

Would you do it? And if so would you like or dislike it?

No. I'd like to be able to choose my own partner.

How would you escape if you wouldn't do it?

By rebelling.

[orangebomb]

At 12/29/12 09:25 PM, naronic wrote: Questions:
What do you think about it?

Only in that type of situation would it be a good idea, because the more people you have, the better the chances of survival as a species, usually.

Do you think it would cause discrimination? Such as homophobia?

Homophobia, definitely. As for other forms of discrimination, that depends.

Do you think it would work if our species were in danger?

It should. As I said, the more people you have, the better chance that the species survives.

Would you do it? And if so would you like or dislike it?

I wouldn't be a fan of it, but in the big picture, you pretty much have to. I would imagine that it would be the case for everyone who isn't married, and even some who are in that situation.

How would you escape if you wouldn't do it?

You could rebel, but at that point it wouldn't make sense to do such a thing, unless you can find another civilization to live off of. Survival comes first, then what comes after that, comes after that.

[theburningliberal]

I've done a fair bit of research on this kind of situation, both because of personal research interests but also in the examination of biblical stories. There is a concept that is floated by geneticists that in order for a species to survive long-term on a genetic level without the risk of the population diminishing to such a point where further existence is impossible, there is a "point-of-no-return." Once you get down below a certain percentage of what the original gene pool was before civilization ended (or whatever catastrophe happens), there would not be enough variety left in the gene pool to sustain us more than a few generations.

What do you think about it?

I think it would depend on how you did it. Is there going to be some sort of lottery system where, if you are female, your number gets called once a year and you get matched up with someone who you are to mate with based on scientist recommendations for expanding the gene pool? That would require a lot of technical knowledge that we might not have access to following annihiliation. So, what then? Just require that men and women both contribute in certain ways to repopulating the planet? Maybe a woman would have to have 10 kids in her lifetime, and a man would have to father 20? '

It would certainly lead to the breakdown of the family as we know it today. How the unit would change would depend on the system instituted and how it was adminstered, but I definitely see a lot lighter meaning attached to fatherhood as a social construction.

Do you think it would cause discrimination? Such as homophobia?

I think it would depend on the political tendencies of those who were left. If you have a lot of people who were opposed to it before annihilation, sure. If it is a bunch of progressives, maybe not so much. I do agree that it would change society's recent acceptance of homosexuality, but I don't know that people who are real progressives, even following such a situation, would be willing to totally outlaw it. I could see progressives still requiring gays and lesbians to procreate, but I don't see homophobia existing as a personal fear unless homosexuals are simply unwilling to procreate for the good of the species.

Do you think it would work if our species were in danger?

If we are above the "point of no return" it wouldn't matter. At such a level we would still have enough genetic code left to sustain the gene pool. If we are far below it, then it might help us last a few more generations, but ultimately we would still die out. If we are on the borderline, it might prove to be the difference between survival and eventual extinction.

Would you do it? And if so would you like or dislike it?

Being a guy I wouldn't have a problem with it. Although, politically I would be less likely to do it, I think I would still end up falling in line just because there are larger concerns at work, and the last thing society needs is for non-conformists like me to make a stand about personal liberty when the survival of our species may be at stake.

How would you escape if you wouldn't do it?

You would probably have to find somewhere to live and try to sustain yourself outside of society. I would imagine the penalties for non-compliance would be pretty stiff, so to avoid punishment you would have to leave, especially in a small society.

[Entice]

At 12/29/12 11:05 PM, theburningliberal wrote: If we are above the "point of no return" it wouldn't matter. At such a level we would still have enough genetic code left to sustain the gene pool. If we are far below it, then it might help us last a few more generations, but ultimately we would still die out. If we are on the borderline, it might prove to be the difference between survival and eventual extinction.

That's a pretty important detail. If there's at least a few thousand people such an exercise would be pointless.

More numbers =/= better chance of survival if we're already above the point of no return anyways. The last thing you would want in that situation is to expand beyond your resources or expand beyond your new society's ability to govern.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/29/12 09:25 PM, naronic wrote: What do you think about it?

I'm not sure I see any problem here. Are you trying to ask if people would have qualms with the style of relatively anonymous sex that may be required? In that case, I seriously doubt that people will be claiming "I'm saving myself until marriage" or any moral adultery stuff. If the technology for artificial insemination stil is accessible, then I dont see any qualm at all.

Let's also remember, choice is a luxury of the wealthy.

Do you think it would cause discrimination? Such as homophobia?

If it's only intercourse based insemination then I would see rampant homphobic discrimination. Not the tradition God Hates Fags stuff, but more of homosexuals not contributing to the future of humanity when the future is hanging by a thread.

If artificial insemination exists, then I would say it depends on the views of those who survive.

Do you think it would work if our species were in danger?

Yes.

Would you do it? And if so would you like or dislike it?

Why would I nessecarily dislike it? At worst it'd be like just another job.

How would you escape if you wouldn't do it?

Become a Grizzly Adams Mountain man. If you aren't going to contribute to survival of humanity you might as well not be part of humanity.

[Jmayer20]

At 12/29/12 09:25 PM, naronic wrote: Our species is on the brink of being wiped out with only a few thousand people remaining, just pretend that scenario is reality because here's the actual question you have to answer. Say the survivors (we) are isolated and the species has to survive in such a scenario we would have to implement institutionalized reproduction, mandatory reproduction controlled by some sort of government.
You'd be at least asked your preference in women down to at least race, fitness, health etc.

I don't think it would be needed. Under this scenario most of humanity would have been wiped out. What was left would have lost most of there friends and loved ones. Its only natural that people would start to form relationships with the remaining survivors. They would try to comfort one another and part of that would be alot of sex. Assuming that what ever kill off most of humanity was no longer a factor then humanity would naturally multiply.

Now onto race I don't think that should be important. Are main concern should be preserving humanity as a species. Now if for some reason there was no other way to bring humanity back from the brick of extinction then I would be all for these reproductive centers and I would be willing to do my part.

[morefngdbs]

At 12/29/12 09:25 PM, naronic wrote: Questions:
What do you think about it?

;;;
I can't believe no one has pointed out , that in the B.I.B.L.E. Adam & Eve were the first man & woman ... so it only takes 2 to populate the earth ~;p

Do you think it would cause discrimination? Such as homophobia?

;;;
Whats the problem there ?
you only need their sperm or womb right ?
let them be in a relationship with whomever they wish ...they just gotta breed for the good of the race

Do you think it would work if our species were in danger?

;;;
Nope, but it sure would make a great case for multiple partners o_O

Would you do it? And if so would you like or dislike it?

;;;
I'm all for multiple partners & gangbangs ...yeah, drunkin' partner swapping parties ... that way people could experiment . ~:)

How would you escape if you wouldn't do it?

How do I join ?

[Jmayer20]

At 12/30/12 05:00 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
I can't believe no one has pointed out , that in the B.I.B.L.E. Adam & Eve were the first man & woman ... so it only takes 2 to populate the earth

Along with a shit load of inbreeding for Adam and Eves children and grandchildren. Before there gens became more diverse. Apparently god saw nothing wrong with incest. Which is ironic since the church and most cultures look at it as being a bad thing.

[theburningliberal]

At 12/30/12 08:49 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 12/30/12 05:00 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
I can't believe no one has pointed out , that in the B.I.B.L.E. Adam & Eve were the first man & woman ... so it only takes 2 to populate the earth

Along with a shit load of inbreeding for Adam and Eves children and grandchildren. Before there gens became more diverse. Apparently god saw nothing wrong with incest. Which is ironic since the church and most cultures look at it as being a bad thing.

Indeed. Besides the fact that the Bible is not a history textbook, its legitimacy is questioned by all those who are not believers in a Christian faith. Even some Christians question certain aspects of the Bible, and there are many parts of what were intended to be part of it that have never seen the light of day.

Aside from that, though, there is a wee bit of a problem with the creationist story... Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, so the story goes, and all humans are descended from them. But... After Cain killed Abel, he just went into the next town and found a wife there? Is there another God that created them? So either (as Jmayer pointed out), the Bible condones incest through the actions of some of its major characters (at which point most of the other historical and moral lessons found in the Christian religion become suspect), or the Bible is a flawed piece of archaic literature, written not as a history textbook but a guidebook on how to control the masses through religious subjugation. In either case, its validity in trying to prove historical points is dubious at best.