Me and my wife have pretty high IQs and we plan on having a large family. I see the point in population control but I would rather focus it towards people who obviously shouldn't reproduce.
You talk like having a professor assign you a number actually means something. IQ only measures a very specific splinter of your intellect; specifically, how well you take tests, even more specifically, how well you take IQ tests. Even within academics, IQ falls flat on its face. I know; I was given an IQ in the mid-130s when I was 12, and I've always been in the lower half of my class grades wise.
Then there's the "obviously shouldn't reproduce." I don't mean this as an insult, but that phrase just makes me think of a white couple driving a sports car through city slums, taunting the lower class with fistfuls of cash.
Whether or not you and your wife are well-off, no matter how smart you two are, I seriously doubt you can judge yourselves as being more viable for reproduction than other chunks of the world's population. EVERYONE would think they're more viable for reproduction. Who's to be the judge of who can have large families and who can't?
This is what caught my attention browsing this thread. When we start talking selective population controls, we start infringing on people's natural rights. You know, all humans are created equal and all that? There's a reason why eugenics was ignored.
Natural selection will quickly over-rule all of these unnecessary people in the form of a pandemic or in the less likely scenarios a zombie apocalypse.
"All those unnecessary people."
Hey, I'm not that book smart. I sure as hell don't have a green thumb, and I can't learn foreign languages for shit. I'm not good with money, and I'm a terrible driver. I'm starting to realize that I kinda suck at living. Does that make me one of those unnecessary people? What about the father who's not smart enough to graduate college, not lucky enough for his wife to survive that mugging, and now has to work 2 and a half full time jobs to keep food on the table for his three kids, all the while hoping they'll turn out luckier than he was? Is he unnecessary too?
Really, I'd say he's more deserving of life than you, me, or any of us who have free time to post on a website.
I once saw some statistics compiled by the UN, and it basically went like this: if you have a roof over your heads, food in the fridge, and clothes to change into, you are richer than 75% of the world. If you have money in your wallet, the bank, or even a cup of spare change you're saving for a rainy day, you are among the top 8% wealthiest people on the planet. Just keep that in mind.
Is population control eugenics on a mass-scale, or is it necessary to preserve a minimum quality of life?
On the one hand, and a few posters intimated such, the population control should be targeted against those "that shouldn't reproduce." That sounds a bit like eugenics. On the other hand, however, at what point does the population explosion become dangerous for everyone, thereby creating a need for action? It's not an easy question, and I'm very glad I don't have to make the decision.
It is eugenics. The moment you start selectively breeding people like farm animals, it's eugenics.
IMHO, China's on the right path. Institute a country-wide, no exceptions limit on children, while focusing parts of your budget on accommodating a large population - cheaper houses, agriculture and energy research, creating jobs, etc.