Slashdot Mirror
Robot Babies Not Effective Birth Control, Australian Study Finds (sky.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Girls given imitation babies to look after in an effort to deter teenage pregnancy could actually be more likely to get pregnant, according to a study. Researchers in Australia found 8% of girls who used the dolls were expecting by the age of 20, compared with 4% of those who did not. The number of girls having at least one abortion was also higher among girls given the dolls: 9% compared to 6%. 'Baby Think It Over' dolls were used in a Virtual Infant Parenting (VIP) programme which began in 57 schools in Western Australia in 2003. During the three-year study, published in The Lancet, 1267 girls aged 13 to 15 used the simulators -- which need to be fed and changed, while 1567 learned the normal health curriculum. The idea originated in the United States and is used in 89 countries. Researchers from the Telethon Kids Institute in Western Australia are now warning that such programmes may be a waste of public money.
I find robots very effective at birth control. I've not managed to get one pregnant yet.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It would be nice if the conservatives started admitting that birth control is effective birth control.
Until the dolls literally spray genuine, authentic baby shit and vomit on you in the middle of the night, they are going to be inadequate to the task of dissuading girls from wanting to make babies.
If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Schools should stick to Reading, Writing and Math, and drop the stupid social experiments that usually cause more problems than they solve.
If we do that, where else can we attain such valuable data that benefits society?
Not to mention more efficient?
Handing out condoms and showing how to use them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm a centrist. I believe in birth control and sex ed for all children.
However, before today's results, I would have thought the robot baby IN ADDITION to sex ed and teaching about birth control was a good idea. I've not read the nitty-gritty of Australia's tests. (Are the robot baby girls getting less Sex Ed teaching) so I won't rule out Robot Babies as a viable option- it certainly shouldn't replace learning.
I'd be interested in knowing WHY the robot babies failed. Do the girls consider the experience "not that bad". Do they think "I've done it with a robot, I can handle my own child". Or is it simply that they didn't receive as good sex ed teaching as the control group?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Sounds plausible doesn't it? Show the young lady exactly what it is like to have a child, but without them having one. That should scare them into not wanting children, right?
However, when I read about this I thought "Aren't they risking priming and further activating all of the reproductive programming that women (and men) are subject to at that age?" I mean really, haven't we noticed yet that reproduction is a dirty trick that our biology plays on us? The drive to procreate is definitely not rational, in light of population pressure, economic well being, and lost opportunities swallowed up in the time it takes to raise young. But in spite of this it persists at a rate that is greater than necessary to sustain the species. What does that tell you? It tells me that reproductive motivations have root access to the wetware OS and are using that access to control the system subtly and pervasively.
Personally, I am surprised it isn't more effective at driving up pregnancy rates than it is.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
1) Expecting young humans to be rational
2) Expecting humans of any age to be rational about one of the most powerful hardwired instincts: reproduction.
Girls that are going to give in to their hormone-driven instincts are going to do so no matter what you do, unless you physically or medically restrain them somehow. Giving girls in that category babydolls like they did just 'trains' them to take care of the infants they'll eventually have too soon anyway, it doesn't deter them; more likely it just softens the impact of the reality of having a child to take care of.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
That's unfair, the underage pregnancy problem apparently existed already whereas the some-company-doesn't-have-lots-of-public-sector-cash has likely been fixed.
Potentially, various other corollary issues involving politicians lacking holiday homes have been at least partially remedied.
Requiem for the American Dream
'Cause in modern society children are much, much, much, much better off if they are born to parents that have built up some emotional, personal and financial stability.
When we were evolving, that was not the case - your stability mostly came from living within a small tribe that helped you when you needed it. Far more critical back then was for the mother to be healthy enough and fast-healing enough to handle a pregnancy.
Now we have modern medicine to take care of the "need to be healthy" part, but we no longer have the tribe to help take care of you and your new family. So now the outcome is better if the parents are older.
anything else that qualifies them to be parents
Not strictly true. They have young healthy fertile bodies.
Historically that's counted for far more than wisdom, common sense or other skills.