I like that idea of Government handouts being tied to birth control and bonanza payments for voluntary sterilization. I’m not sure what the payment should be, statisticians would figure average number of children and the costs to the Government to raise those children, then offer a cash payment not to have the children. An eighteen year old girl with no kids could probably get upwards of $10K or more not to have her estimated 2.3 kids, but a 38 year old mother of three probably wouldn’t get a dime. The key is to link the long term costs of raising of the kids, so in the end the person can get a chuck of cash, the population growth can be controlled, and the Government is saving money in the long run.
I would also add tax benefits for childfree adults since they don’t have offspring using tax resources like education. Just for the sake of argument, say an adult has no kids and gets a tax deduction equivalent to three or four dependant deductions; if that person decides to have a child, then he/she/they loose the childfree deduction and claim the kid as a deduction, in essence raising their taxes. They would only begin to pay less tax after three or four kids.
Nobody who wants to have kids loses any benefits they have today, but those who choose not to have kids gain more benifits.
All this discussion is really fairly irrelevant since both of you are presuming developed world level of services and government capacity. Birth rates in the First World are not really a problem (except they may be falling too quickly). Frankly, where the problem is, in the Third World, the problem really is not well addressed by these methods as you have presented them.
SystemsCarl - you might want to look over your shoulder…there seems to be a large chip weighing you down. I think you assumed me to be a left-wing extremist, which is incorrect.
If you read through the thread, you would see that I acknowledged this already.
I never made such a statement.
See Kimstu’s response to this. Is there a specific statement I made for which you would like a reference?
My side? Are we taking sides here? The only thing I was asserting was that X resources can support Y population. Biology 101. I made no claim as to what X and Y may be and I made no claim that the world is already overpopulated (although I believe certain areas are overpopulated given their supply of resources and capabilities to use them).
Again, I never made that assertion. I definitely agree with you that claims need to be supported with evidence (but I’d be nicer about it). I was not casting around doom and gloom…I was trying to say that it is logical to think that there is some limit and therefore we (society) should plan our growth with a long-term view of sustainability.
I have. They have various projections based on various growth rates. Some projections flatten out soon…others keep going strong for quite some time. The further out they project, the less certainty there is in the numbers.
Yes, good for us. Can you guarantee that this will always be the case? Is it smarter to be reactive or proactive?
I think you need to look around a little harder. Many areas of the world have definite resource problems. For example, I live in the Northeast U.S. and we have continual problems of water supply, waste disposal, etc. A lot of money is already being spent to try to fix these real problems.
Now who’s the alarmist here? I do not advocate abortion. I certainly do not advocate curtailing civil rights.
Ok, let’s talk about toilets. Water is a valuable resource. And yet we toss our most foul crap (literally) into it. Wastewater goes through a cleansing process before it is returned to the environment. In other words, we get most the crap out before putting it back into the environment to be used again later. Cleaning water is difficult and expensive. Here we start with something that is about 95% solids (crap) and then dilute it down to about 3% solids when it reaches the treatment plant. Then millions of dollars are spent every year in every city to get that back to about 50% solids. A perfect system? It works well for us, but it makes economic sense to reduce the quantity of wastewater generated, especially in areas where the water supply is hard-pressed. Of course, you have to weigh the economic benefit against how well it works. But I digress…
Systems Carl brought up race: “Has anyone noticed that the population problem seems to involve those brown or yellow babys and not the pink babies?”
Carl, consider the situation in an impoverished 3rd world country where a lot of people are living in shantytowns: no schools, no jobs, no hospitals, no modern plumbing, not enough to eat, not enough clean drinking water. What little the people have will go farther if they have small families then it will if they have large families. Slowing pop growth will lead to better conditions for each individual and family. I don’t think the skin color of the people in any given shanty town has anything to do with it.
Hazel, I am sure that there are a lot of well-meaning people who think in terms just as you have described them. However, consider how the discussion gets framed, to a certain extent in this thread and clearly in John John’s 6 billion? thread.
There are several ways we can look at the question:
“What, if anything, should the First World do to aid the Third World to improve their lives?”
“What resource management is needed for the Third World to achieve First World status, (which seems to inevitably lead to lower birth rates)?”
“Is the birth rate in the Third World a serious problem?”
Other questions may also be asked.
How is the question framed in these threads, however?
“How soon will we (the world) be overpopulated?” The problem with asking the question in that way is that, since the “pink” babies are declining in number, only the non-pink babies need to have fingers pointed at them as a problem. If you look at the actual numbers provided on the other thread, you will note that the birth rates are already falling in the Third World. Will those falling birth rates automatically raise the life styles of everyone in their countries? Obviously not. However, instead of a discussion regarding the best way to assist everyone in the world to achieve a satisfactory standard of living, the discussion begins with the (incorrect) assumption that we are going to be overrun with people, soon, and then proceeds in the direction of what “we” have to tell “those people” what to do in order that “our” children not be overrun.
Want to lower the birthrate in a Third World country? We already know how to do that (and it does not take the intrusive measures of the Chinesee Communists to accomplish it). If we work to spread good old fashioned capitalism out to the Third World, instead of paying authoritarian rulers to oppress their people in the name of “fighting Communism” or imposing extreme protectionist trade laws so that those countries remain in a state of colonial dependence, then everyone’s standard of living goes up and everyone’s birth rate goes down.
People who say the world isnt overpopulated are idiots.
Yes theres enough ROOM for everyone, but see, people LIKE TO GATHER. thats why villages, towns, and cities form.
Someone obviously missed sociology class, most of history class, and a great deal of any human behavior class.
its not much fun having an acre of land if youre all alone in it, jackass. what are you gonna do, raise your own food, make your own clothes? maybe, but pray to god you dont get sick or no one will hear you moan. get my drift?
overpopulation doesnt apply to large countrysides or deserts or the tundra. it applies to cities, spilling over into what used to be farmlands, and generally ruining the planet one tiny section at a time. jeezz
Hmmm…looks as if this thread was resurrected from the dead. I’m not quite sure if you are addressing me in particular or the gist of the thread in general, but I take it from the tone of your post that you obviously looking for some kind of attention.
If you are addressing me specifically, then I would be happy to debate any issue you have regarding the OP in accordance to the rules specified for this forum.
I think you assumed me to be a left-wing extremist, which is incorrect.