This came up as a debate with friends…
Should family size be restricted in North America?
I am against this because look at the China example. Besides if you set a rule for everyone able to have 2 kids then everyone can go ahead and have to kids… Not everyone is qualified to have any kids…
Sorry, I know this belongs in debate. Thought thats where it went.
I’ll move it for you.
As for the idea…I think that in the United States, we should not allow any more deductions on the old income tax after three kids. Sure, you can HAVE a dozen kids, but you’ll only get three deductions.
This should probably be in IMHO, but to answer the question I think that yes, family size should be restricted to replacement numbers (2 kids per family), unless the children are adopted (since then they are already alive and adoption simply provides them with a better quality of life). It seems to me that the world population has already exceeded the amount at which everyone can live comfortably and that such restrictions are crucial to the well-being of every person on earth (so these limitations should be imposed on everyone, not just North Americans).
Who gets to decide and by what criteria do they do so?
I think the best we can hope for is increased awareness of the problem as a problem that doesn’t just matter in other, less wealthy countries, and hopefully a corresponding increase in people who voluntarily will be responsible in their family planning.
As much as I wish there could be an effective government policy that would mandate or encourage this, it’s just not possible or practical, and it has many negative side effects. Although I’m with Lynn on reducing child tax credits, that would be a start. But first, the government would have to change it’s whole outlook. For a variety of reasons (mostly economic), the general feeling right now is more US citizens/residents = better.
Another less coercive technique is possibly encouraging adoption as an option over fertility treatments, or just encouraging adoption in general.
I say start infanticide to curb population; or maybe genocide! (This is sarcasm for those that haven’t worked it out.)
I didn’t realize this overpopulation mung had become so trendy. Did it occur to anyone that if we apply even half of that cortex of ours that we could manage resources to sustain a population 10 times what we have now? I guess we’ve been too busy listening to morons that have an agenda.
It just so happens that a nation gains strenght from an increased population. Any nation that has to resort to curbing population has mismanaged thier economy. Oops, maybe politicians aren’t that great at management and economics after all.
I really want to see a reputable cite for this.
Reputable cite? You mean to tell me that you need someone else to tell you what humankinds limitations are? Just think about it. That cortex comment wasn’t just for effect. Give it some thought and see if you can imagine some ways that we might be able to better manage our resources better.
I’m not saying that politicians will actually put any useful ideas into use - i’m just saying that leadership incompetence is no excuse for measures which curb the popluation.
Attention, all Americans/Western Europeans who worry about overpopulation:
Commit suicide at once. If you really believe there are too many people on this planet, you have a duty to die, right now.
After all, you, as a Westerner, use FAR more resources, eat FAR more food, consume FAR more water, and create FAR more pollution than five Third Worlders or three tenement dwellers. Thus, YOUR death would be a major blessing for Mother Earth.
Do it now, and make the world a better place.
In California, welfare mothers no longer get more money for having more babys, so the “breeding mare” scam is no more. Before that, everytime she dropped another foal, she would get a bigger check.
Family size should be limited by the parents financial ability to raise the children.
Minor nitpick: Replacement is probably closer to 2.1 kids/family, not 2, so as to make up for children who die or adults who die without children.
In any event, it’s nice to say that you think family size should be restricted. But do you mean that in the “it would be nice if everyone did it” sense, or do you mean that in the “let’s pass a law criminalizing those who have more than 2 kids” sense?
Zev Steinhardt
I’ve never been to California, but I didn’t know that people there were so ugly that they could be mistaken for horses. All this time I thought the beautiful people lived in Cali. Learn something new everyday.
In North America, overpopulation isn’t the problem. It’s overconsumerism. I suppose you could restrict population size to treat overconsumerism, but I’m thinking the more sensible thing to do would be to treat the real problem.
Provide tax breaks to people who take massive transit.
Provide tax breaks to people who live within five miles of their place of business.
Subsidize alternative fuel industries.
Make recycling mandatory for all municipalities.
Stop making and buying all those freaking gas-greedy automobiles!
We also need to stop equating the “American dream” with excess. Big tall skyscrapers. Big McMansions. Big SUVs. Big Mac. Big-assed people. Big-headed people running the country…
On second thought, maybe population restriction is easier to pull off.
Arcana, I hate to let facts get int he way of a good rant, but families on welfare have 0.37 fewer children (1.5) than the national average (1.87). The “breeding mare” scam is a myth. This was true before “welfare reform”, and is even more true now.
But thanks for playing. Families on welfare really appreciate it when people spread lies about them.
This is ridiculous! The U.S. is supposed to be a free country with personal rights to liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness, and people are talking about restricting people’s right to have children?
The only place the government could have a say is in the area of government money, i.e. tax credits or welfare. Other than that, stay out of my home! My family is the only ones who should be deciding about how many children there will be! If the U.S. is having such a difficult time supporting its population, then why is it so easy for illegal immigrants to enter the country? The fact is that these people help support the work force. If there are jobs for them, there are jobs for our children also. It would be a waste of money and effort to spot the flow of immigrants into the U.S. The better use of the government’s time and money is to improve education! By better educating the population, we will have more competant youth that are capable of making good decisions for themselves.
Actually, at the national average of 1.87 children per family, we should not be growing very rapidly if at all. I suspect that the United States would be relatively stable in population if it were not for steadily increasing life expectancy. It’s not that we’re making too many babies, but that we’re not dying as fast as we ought to. Of course, that should eventually stabilize out.
In any case, the United States is not even remotely under a population crunch, although we do have population distribution issues (e.g. Southern California, which is overpopulated relative to the supplies of locally available clean water). I see no reason to limit family size in the United States, either in general or specifically for “poor families”.
From http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0038.html:
This is not a rate at which population growth will occur rapidly, and long-term projections of the Census Bureau bear this out. Their year 2100 estimates range from virtually no growth to quadrupling, with the middle estimate at about 120% growth. Examining their methodology, it appears that the main reason for anticipated growth is decreased mortality (they anticipate a life expectancy of 88 years for men and 91 for women by 2100 in the middle case; currently these are 74 and 79 years respectively). The “upper” estimate relies on a combination of generally increased fertility, an even higher decrease in the mortality rate, and substantial growth in immigration.
lander2k2:
#1 - could you be more specific as to the details of this new management scheme of yours?
#2 - how much is the population liable to increase while we devise and implement?
And don’t many of the same people who oppose population control also oppose government managemnt of resources (i.e. socialsm)?
No, I want to see a reputable cite about maintaing a population 10 times our present size simply by better resource management.
Most population growth in the planet is happening in thrid world countries while developed countries have birth rates just slightly higher than replacement levels and in some cases not even that. Population growth in developed countries come from immigration. Any policy to stabilize population numbers in the planet should be aimed primarily at the third world.