Debate:Industrialize human reproduction?

Proposition
US population is in decline. The birth rate is falling. Without a strong population, there will not be a strong economy. In such a scenario, should we commercialize and industrialize human reproduction? If human reproduction is commericialized, we will see many women are chosing surrogacy as a career option. This will help in population growth. --LobPo (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to begin the rebuttal with "What the ever loving fuck" but I'm better than that. My short answer will be no, and I can even explain it while not having to resort to the moral issue at hand. I'm just going to go ahead and borrow Occam's Razor here and say if the population of the US is in decline, why must the population growth stimulate from America itself? Surely it'd be simpler to just lessen the grip on American borders and allow people from outside the US to take up these jobs and become American citizens themselves thus increasing the population without having to resort to commercialized impregnation. A hell of a lot easier than having to set up the infrastructure for such an industry, and faster as well. This is of course still the short answer without having to go into semantics such as the vagueness of the question. The C autiously C apricious C rowley  	Alliteration is Always Appreciated  20:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "People given the choice seem to be having less children.  Obviously the problem is a lack of arbitrage in childbearing." is the most classically fucked up libertarian thinking I've ever seen.  There's not a market failing here.  People don't want children and it's not because women aren't being paid for it.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like LP isn't actually for "industrializing" reproduction, but commercializing it. Given that surrogacy already occurs (though I'm not sure about the legality of commercial surrogacy), that there are many better alternatives (such as immigration), and that we may not even want to boost population (given potentially vastly diminished mineral, food, and water production in the future), this seems unnecessary.
 * Industrializing reproduction is another thing. I wouldn't mind a world where nobody got pregnant and babies were instead made in artificial wombs. Yeah, yeah, it's straight out of an industrial dystopia, but it would prevent fetal alcohol syndrome and other problems caused to children from bad maternal nutrition, remove any need for abortions, allow better monitoring during pregnancy for birth defects, prevent cerebral palsy (etc.) during delivery, remove the need for unsafe or preterm (etc.) births, and remove any justification for paying mothers less than fathers. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from being farcical the suggestion has a major flaw - the idea that falling birthrates are a bad thing. The world has all the people it needs.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Declining Population Could Reduce Global Economic Growth By 40%. --LobPo (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even better.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LobPo, do you really think economic activity is all that matters? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with your proposal is that it assumes strong economies rely on large amounts of people. Automation and robotics, however, is eliminating the necessity of having large amounts of people in manufacturing/labor and retail. So, if we increase the birthrate, who exactly is going to employ all these people? Not everyone can be a boss or a creative type. --Castaigne (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right about automation and robotics. But a country with high level of automation and low population have to be an export-driven economy. But rising population of Asians countries coupled with low labor cost will encourage industries to shift their production plants to those countries. How will US compete in such a world? --LobPo (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why must the countries with low populations and high automation be exporters? They could just consume more per person.  You know, like we have ALWAYS done.  Until about 500 years ago, public nudity was a common occurrence because people had the choice between food and clothing.  But we automated the looms, and now even the poor have several sets of clothing.  We automated planting and harvesting, and we grew fat.  We replaced the coal miners (British coal employed MILLIONS, including children) with heavy machinery, and barely anyone cares if a mine shaft collapses.  Do you really believe that there is no work left to be done?  Automation frees up human resources for things like education, police, inspectors, etc. CorruptUser (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope
Good old fucking is more fun.Arisboch (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)