The population in America is growing only because of two factors: immigration and longer life expectancy.
The U.S., like almost all western countries, has a negative population growth. We are having fewer babies than we would need just to maintain our population.
According to the U.N. World Population survey, if their ‘low’ estimate for population trends comes to pass, the world population will begin to decline after 2050, and will drop to 3.6 billion by 2100. That has huge ramifications for the world economy.
Check out this interesting article. "Today, women on average have just half the number of children they did in 1972. In 61 countries, accounting for 44 percent of the Earth’s population, fertility rates are now at or below replacement levels. " http://www.globalaging.org/pension/world/gray.htm
From THE POPULATION IMPLOSION – NY Times Page One Special Report, 7/10/98.
"Driven largely by prosperity and freedom, millions of women throughout the developed world are having fewer children than ever before… As a result, birth rates are now in a rapid, sustained decline.
What was once regarded universally as a cherished goal – incredibly low birth rates – has suddenly become a cause for alarm. With life expectancy rising at the same time that fertility drops, most developed countries may soon find themselves with lopsided societies that will be nearly impossible to sustain: a large number of elderly and not enough young people working to support them … There is no longer a single country in Europe where people are having enough children to replace themselves when they die. Italy recently became the first nation in history where there are more people over the age of 60 than there are under the age of 20. This year Germany, Greece and Spain will probably all cross the same eerie divide … The effects of the shift will resonate far beyond Europe. Last year Japan’s fertility rate – the number of children born to the average woman in a lifetime – fell to 1.39, the lowest level it has ever reached. In the United States, where a large pool of new immigrants helps keep the birth rate higher than in any other prosperous country, the figure is still slightly below an average of 2.1 children per woman – the magic number needed to keep the population from starting to shrink."
With all this informaiton, why would the U.S. want to encourage (let alone legislate) a lowered birth rate???
China is experiencing a growing crisis due to its policy of one child per family, due to two factors:
Boys are far more valued than girls there
One of the tenets of the society is that the young care for the old
There has been a huge shift in the Chinese population toward more males, far more than can be accounted for by random statistics, implying that couples who find that their only allowed child is to be female abort it and try for a son. There will not be enough women for each man when this population grows up.
Also, whereas before the care of 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and howver many great-grandparents are around used to be spread among a number of children, now the financial burden falls to only one.
As far as passing a similar law here, the citizenry would probably just ignore it. As far as limiting the Child Tax credit, you’d have to count on people considering their tax burden when deciding whether or not to have kids. I don’t think they do, or would, so you’d end up increasing the number of children who live substandard lives, or increasing the abortion rate, neither of which Congress is going to do.
It’s always nice when people volunteer, but not everyone would. Of course, if one couple stays at the two-kid limit while another has three, there wouldn’t be a problem. However, since laws have to applied to everyone, the second family might have to abide by the rules, too. Okay, maybe they can have 3 children per family, but no more than that.
It seems to me that most of the really large families in the U.S. are made up mostly of adopted kids. As I’ve already stated, anyone would be able to adopt as many kids as they wanted since they are already alive and this can only benefit them.
In general, I think that the best course of action would be a campaign to explain to everyone the problems of overpopulation and encourage them to use contraception (or have an abortion) if have already reached the average limit.
That’s just silly, you’re starting at the wrong end. Instead of killing off people who have the potential for decades of work providing money for the government to spend ahead of them, we should club people who are on social secuity. They’re out-lived their usefulness after all. Maybe we could set a season on them, much like deer. :dubious:
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. It looks to me like you are assuming that ALL people on welfare arefamilies who have chidren under 18, when in fact a large portion of people on welfare are disabled to the point where reproduction is impossible or are old enough that their children are over 18. It looks to me like you need to compare the 1.5 figure with the .90 figure taken on the left column of your second cite.
In fact, in double-checking my figures, I see your first cite specifically states that only 65% of the households in the study have chidren under 18, so you ARE comparing apples and oranges. Sorry, I can’t agree with your argument, at least not on the basis of your cites.
It seems like sleeping is really living up to her name.
So how is this going to be enforced?
Besides the fact that there is no need to restrict family size in America (see my previous post), how on earth would you propose enforcing this limit?
Here’s a nice family, with enough money and love to provide a good environment for 6 children if they want. How are you going to prevent them from having that many?
American women already have below replacement level number of children. Countries where there aren’t enough babies being born are having lots of problems because of this!
Why on earth would it be a good thing to attempt to require American women to have even fewer babies???
I have still seen no evidence proffered by evidence of population control that the United States has any need for such measures! We aren’t overpopulated as a country, and our birth/immigration rate is not high enough to ensure that we will come anywhere close to our carrying capacity.
I’m curious as to the possibility of factors such as wars or diseases cropping up as overpopulation sets in.
If you look at how widespread humans are, and how many of us there are on this planet, it comes out to be a rather disturbing abundance. I mean, is there any species of mammal approximately our mass that is more abundant than we are? I doubt it- chances are we probably ate them all already. Hey, survival of the fittest and all that
#1 – My new management scheme: Take the international banking community, roast them on a spit and feed their flesh to the needy. #2 – The population will decrease as the bankers are killed off.
(Please note: this is not to be taken seriously. This is meant to be a parody of mindless solutions to simple problems.)
There’s one thing that you have to grasp, sqweels. Government management of resources = vested interests of the rich election campaign contributors control the resources and leave many people hungry and starving. You don’t seem to understand that socialism promotes the goal of the super-wealthy capitalist bankers; the ultimate monopoly! The super-wealthy make their money most often by trading currencies, i.e. trading money. This siphons wealth out of economies without reciprocating any valuable product or service.
Picture a small tribe of natives (analogous to the world’s population) that has a hierarchy of fat men (the bankers and traders and politicians who don’t do shit) who demand to be fed and well cared for without contributing anything. The rest of the tribe must provide for these fat men and give them the very finest food and comforts. The tribesmen are so busy building elaborate huts for the fat men that they have to sleep on the ground themselves.
Economies have been exploited and perverted to the point where the world’s population is having trouble maintaining viability. Then the fat men say, “Well the reason that there are people starving is that there are too many people.” And you buy it? Damn! Look around you! The world resources are super-abundant. Next time you’re in a plane, look out the window and notice how much of the Earth has been “raped” by man. Compound the situation by ignoring any developments in energy technologies (so as to safe-guard the fat men’s oil) and you are really playing into the fat men’s hands.
Saying that curbing population so as to make sure everyone has enough to eat is like the government passing legislation limiting how often people can drive their cars so as to limit precious oil consumption. How about just implementing more effective means of energy production. Just because Ford Motor Corp isn’t using it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exit. Maybe it is not in their interest for anything viable to be developed. Never thought of that?
I’m going to assume that you’re being serious with your response. If you are playing around, then the joke is on me and I will feel very foolish.
I will concede at the outset that I cannot provide a link to any website that has a plan for the management of resources for a population 10 times Earth’s current population. Nor do I have a link to some anti-gravitational technology that will help us with inter-galactic travel.
I guess I better concede, then, that the best way to handle our problems is to limit ourselves and make our race smaller and less abundant. I see you point now. The less people we have, the better our chances to create solutions. The smaller our numbers the greater our creative and inventive ability.
It’s a question that rides upon a fundamental mindset. If you lost all of your money and you no longer had enough money to feed your children, would you get creative and find a way to acquire food for your children, or would you kill half of your kids so that the rest could survive?
I want to see a reputable cite about killing half of your children so as to save the rest of your children.
Most outstanding solution! Kill the elderly. They are only using up resources. We could re-implement the old Coliseum-style shows. Instead of Christians being fed to the lions, we’ll just throw retired pensioners to the lions.
(Please note: This is not serious. This is a parody of the moronic standpoint that the best way to promote mankind is to reduce its population.)
I don’t want personal reproductive decisions to be out of the hands of the individuals concerned and in the hands of government employees.
“Restricting family size” in terms of forcibly aborting, sterilising or removing ‘extra’ children is as repugnant to me as is forcing a woman to carry to term (IMO). Whether the choice is to have none, one, or ten, it shouldn’t be the government’s decision.
As the above methods are outrageous, and no method for restricting family size has been put forward by the OP, I would have to argue for a big “No” on this one. I can’t think of any other method which would “restrict family size”, though I’m all easr if the OP can come up with different alternative.
Oh, and lorinade, it would be grossly inappropriate to compare the 1.5 with the .9, because most (but not all) means-tested programs in that study are only available to families with children under 18. The needed statistic is the average number of children in families receiving TANF, which I cannot find at this time.
Wow! What a classic example of a straw man argument!
You made a claim and admit that you have no way to back it up.
Then you put words in another poster’s mouth, and ask her to give a cite for a claim she never made.
Amazing. lander, you’re pretty new around here. So your incredibly bad form is slightly excusable. But try to learn from other posters how to make a logically coherent argument.
I have brought htis debate up plenty of times with friends and such, and it’s a very emotive subject.
Firstly: It’s not something you can impose on people. Education, education, education. Teach everyone what overpopulation does, how it affects everyone and everything
Secondly, and I know this is a very dangerous statement to make, I don’t think everyone should be allowed to have kids. When a couple wants to adopt, they need to go through a rigorous approval scheme, have countless psych evaluations, you name it. But when it’s your own, heck, you can do with it as you please (no, I’m not tarring everyone wit the same brush, but kids dying of neglect in a first world country? Sorry, but that **should not ** happen. And I know of 2 such kids, personally.)
I think there needs to be bigger focus on parenting. Governments should insist on parenting classes for parents-to-be, things like that.
I’d like to point out that this will limit population growth (though it’s a horror to me).
By artifically restricting the number of child-bearers (females … medical breakthroughs notwithstanding) one can severely limit the size of the upcoming generation.
This could lead to larger families in the future as well as societal pressures for group marriage and suchlike.
It’ll be sort of interesting in a train-wreck sort of way to watch over the next 50 years.
Here’s a formula:
Population: 10000 mixed 50-50 M/F.
If each woman has 2.5 children: Population 12500
or
Population 10000 mixed 90-10 M/F
If each woman has 2.5 children: Population 2500
It can have dramatic consequences quickly.
I just wish they’d let the local hunters bring down the female deer around here, dammit.
Absolutely not, never. It isn’t the government business to tell people how many kids they can have. Is having 12 stupid? Yes, utterly. But that doesn’t mean it can or should be outlawed. Do we have to discuss the horrors of forced sterilization in India?
Elfje - are you suggesting I trust the government to decide whether or not I can have kids? I don’t want them, but it’s a disgusting idea. No government is qualified to determine things like that on behalf of its citizens, and none ever will be.
The infanticide thing in China is overstated - if it goes on, it’s not the regular occurrance that some people over here think it is. The government, especially in such a large country, should do everything in its power to educate people regarding birth control, and perhaps incentives are in order (i.e. tax breaks for people who have small families or no kids). By the way, many families in China have more than one child, that stuff is not as rigid as it used to be.
Lander2k2 is sort of right, and also wrong. The Earth could never support 65 billion people, but it won’t have to. Our population should peak during the middle to latter part of this century, and I think 15 billion is a high figure (11 is a more optimistic one). The way things are going, most of them will live in lousy conditions, which will make everybody’s life worse for a myriad of reasons.
Are there enough natural resources to support 11 to 15 billion people? Yes. Are there enough resources for 11 billion people the way we’re using them now? No, not at all. Not even close. We need to get smart and do it now now now.
