> Cash handouts to encourage poor men to receive vasectomies for example.

Yikes.

There is a better alternative: it is very well known/studied that women that have a strong position and are educated have less children.

One (poor; your words) man without a vasectomy can knock up many women. Hence I think it's better to focus on the women.

I totally cringe at your focus on poor/rich. Rich peeps are so much worse for the environment than the poor. Look at what an average Bangladeshi cranks out in CO2-equivalent, water use, landfill contribution and compare that to an average USer.

Sure I get that having many children is a multiplier, but even if that average Bangladeshi couple has 4 they still dont contribute as much to environmental destruction as an average US couple without kids.

My solution would be (as only picking on someone's solution is not nice in a discussion): only tax pollution, scarce resources and stuff that otherwise needs to be disincentivized. Only. So no tax on wholesome behavior like income from labor or housing. And yes: money is a scarce resource (tax the shit out of it over say 5 or 10MM USD). This will rearrange the economy to do good for us all + nature.

I see the parent comment is removed ([flagged]).

The author mentioned paying poor men for vasectomies as the quickest and pretty much only solution to environmental problems.

Have you ever heard of the term "eco-fascism"?

i have.

Why is a different method any less "yikes" for govt action attempting essentially the same goal?

One uses coerced sterilizations and the other is about raising the level of education of half the population?

It should be pretty clear why improving education is not a yikes while eugenics is.

It's still coercion, if that's the purpose. I'm not suggesting we not educate people.

I am suggesting that the attempt of suppressing reproduction within a particular demographic, no matter the incentive or perceived "good" that results (cash or education), is walking a very fine line.

Both are not coercion. One is paying poor (cash hungry) men for something irriversible they may later regret. The other is providing education to poor women, and empowering them so they will (statistically) decide to have less babies.

Coercion is waaaay less, to the point that I'd like to say educating is not coercing. Education can be undone, unused, forgotten. Vasectomies not so much. I dont think "totally" suppressing reproduction is what happens: those women still want/can/will have babies, just not so many.

Oh, I see the point you are raising. Yes, if your reason for educating and empowering women is so they will have fewer children (statistically) then yeah, definitely need to questioned.

I was hoping you would say education for both men and women so that women realize they have better options than just staying at home but what you said will never work.

The sequel to borat was basically about borat lying to his daughter about what women can and should do and her seeing through the lies eventually. Some countries are really behind the times and "backwards" ideas that were common in Europe 200 years ago can still be found there today.

A very modest proposal.

> Cash handouts to encourage poor men to receive vasectomies for example.

Why poor men?

Because he is not poor.

Yep. I asked because I wanted to hear IronRanger's reasoning.

Good point. Corporations can still raze the rainforest.

I would suggest you take a look at the definition of genocide, and reconsider whether sterilising nations of people (the fact you pay them to do it is immaterial) is in any way a sane thing to recommend. I'm honestly shocked someone would publicly suggest it.

You might find this article relevant to your interests[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

Sperm granuloma A sperm granuloma is a lump of sperm that can cause small bumps or cysts that range from 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter in size. A person can experience multiple lesions. They don’t usually cause any symptoms. However, some men may have pain at the granuloma areas.

Experts estimate 15 to 40 percent of men undergoing vasectomy experience a sperm granuloma. In some instances, a man may have to have the granuloma surgically removed.

Ja, ze goode olde Final Solution.