Is the goal of trying to reach zero population growth a worthy one?
Every 20 minutes, the world adds another 3,500 human lives but loses one or more entire species of animal or plant life-- at least 27,000 species per year. (Source: http://www.overpopulation.org/) And half of the world’s population is under the age of 25. (Source: http://www.planetwire.org/details/2613)
However, the growth rate in the U.S. and most of western Europe are below replacement levels. Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania and Spain have a rate of only 1.2 children per woman, and other countries, such as Japan, are only slightly higher.
So, should our effort to control population growth be centered in countries where the population growth is really high (like the United Arab Emirates with an annual average growth rate of 5.3)? http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/datamide.html
Or should an attempt be made to reduce the population growth in countries like the U.S., France and Russia? Even if their population isn’t currently growing, a reduction in those countries would still lessen the number of overall people in the world.
Should the government take any steps to lessen the birth rate? How about giving tax deductions for the first 2 children, then none for any subsequent children.
There is a dilemma of having too many people to sustain the planet vs. the rights of the individual to have as large a family as they choose.
P.S. Just as full disclosure, I have 3 children and am planning to have another.