Should Government Limit How Many Children We May Have?

[auriga vega]

I have not thought about this until the Octuplet Mom.

Should the government limit the number of children one can have? Would that prevent irresponsible people, like the Octuplet Mom, from having so many children that would end up burdening the government?

Or should we be able to have as many children as we want, since we do have the right to have children, and how we raise them is up to us?

[Merrix]

I think the case of the Octuplet mom is rare enough so as to not warrant government intervention. Remember, even if she gets financial aid, she still has to take care of all those kids.

The issue of the number of children one should have isn't really an issue in most of the Western world because our fertility rates are already below the replacement level of 2.0(The United States is the exception with 2.1).

[TheLastMohican]

This only becomes a problem when the government takes on the responsibility of feeding the excess children. Rather than adding new restrictions to make an overburdened system functional, perhaps we should be relieving the system of its current burdens.

Assuming that we did restrict the number of children, what would people propose we do to those who defied the law?

[Rudy]

This only becomes a problem when the government takes on the responsibility of feeding the excess children. Rather than adding new restrictions to make an overburdened system functional, perhaps we should be relieving the system of its current burdens.

Right, the solution is not to put an absolute limit on the number of children, but rather to stop giving tax breaks for them. I would even propose that parents pay extra taxes for each child that they have.

This would only count for biological children, though. Parents that adopted should be rewarded with tax breaks for doing so.

[Solus]

The policy of government limiting the number of children a couple can have has already been tried in China. The consequences have already been drastic (the discrepancy between the number of male and female children) but more is probably on the way (the pension system based on solidarity will probably not be an option one day in China).
Also, in a number of Western countries people of subhuman intelligence were castrated until the 1960s in order to prevent them from producing children which, as it was wrongly believed, would also be of inferior intelligence. This also resulted in another example of a gross violation of human rights.
This may not be what Auriga had in mind when (s)he asked the question, but I think these drastic examples show that there are some things no government should try to interfere with.

[Rudy]

This may not be what Auriga had in mind when (s)he asked the question, but I think these drastic examples show that there are some things no government should try to interfere with.

I'm curious as to your thoughts about using economic incentives to limit children, such as removing tax breaks for them?

[Airfire]

No. The consequences of handing such a decision to government far outweigh its initial goals. Although, I would rather have a way to control who is able to have children or not. The number of incompetent couples having children these days is staggering...

Assuming that we did restrict the number of children, what would people propose we do to those who defied the law?

Could you imagine mandatory abortion clinic visits if discovered pregnant within an alloted timeframe? Or exponentially taxing those who do go over the supposed limit? That would never happen here in the United States.

[thod]

This only becomes a problem when the government takes on the responsibility of feeding the excess children

This of course is a natural limitation on octuplets. Eight breasted women are, unfortunately, quite rare. If a women were to produce enough milk to feed eight babies, when she has a single, they would have to milk her like a cow. Its not energy efficient to overproduce milk like that.

[Solus]

I'm curious as to your thoughts about using economic incentives to limit children, such as removing tax breaks for them?

I'd be surprised if they would make much difference. The government in my country tries to do the very opposite and encourage the rise in birth rates by using economic incentives such as tax breaks, lump sumps, paid maternity leave up to three years and so on. It doesn't work as well as one would expect. I think it's human nature. If you want to have a child, ultimately it will be your decision and economic incentives will be of secondary importance.

[TheLastMohican]

Right, the solution is not to put an absolute limit on the number of children, but rather to stop giving tax breaks for them. I would even propose that parents pay extra taxes for each child that they have.
Could you imagine mandatory abortion clinic visits if discovered pregnant within an alloted timeframe? Or exponentially taxing those who do go over the supposed limit? That would never happen here in the United States.

All of the above measures would fail to pass the legislature. If sponsored, they would be labeled "anti-family," and that's all it would take.

That said, I agree with Rudy's suggestion regarding taxes. I wouldn't call it an economic incentive to not have children; it's just removing a ridiculous incentive to have children. The status quo requires justification, while the proposed change should be the default situation.

This of course is a natural limitation on octuplets. Eight breasted women are, unfortunately, quite rare. If a women were to produce enough milk to feed eight babies, when she has a single, they would have to milk her like a cow. Its not energy efficient to overproduce milk like that.
There is baby formula, you know.

[Rudy]

All of the above measures would fail to pass the legislature. If sponsored, they would be labeled "anti-family," and that's all it would take.

That said, I agree with Rudy's suggestion regarding taxes. I wouldn't call it an economic incentive to not have children; it's just removing a ridiculous incentive to have children. The status quo requires justification, while the proposed change should be the default situation.

No, I know it would never pass. Fortunately, this is a "should" thread and not a "could" one. ;)

When you say you agree with me, I assume you are referring to the removal of tax breaks, but not the taxing extra children?

[TheLastMohican]

When you say you agree with me, I assume you are referring to the removal of tax breaks, but not the taxing extra children?
I agree with both, the latter being based on the public resources that children use but do not pay for. It would be a very small tax, of course, less than the tax break currently being provided.

[Rudy]

I agree with both, the latter being based on the public resources that children use but do not pay for. It would be a very small tax, of course, less than the tax break currently being provided.

Hmm... in my mind (since, in my copious spare time, I naturally design idealized systems of government,) it is a progressive tax based on the number of children. That is, maybe the first kid is free, then the next costs x, the next costs 1.5 or 2x, etc.

[azelismia]

Hmm... in my mind (since, in my copious spare time, I naturally design idealized systems of government,) it is a progressive tax based on the number of children. That is, maybe the first kid is free, then the next costs x, the next costs 1.5 or 2x, etc.


it would really go a long way if the media and govt started pushing negative review publicity towards having more kids. as it is it's encouraged and the feeble minded tend to do whatever the media pushes. if birth control was encouraged- Free money for having more kids than you can afford - demolished- the stigma of being a "bad" person or "selfish" for not having kids - Removed

people would have less kids.

it's all in hte media. Draconian methods are not required (although I'd personally enjoy seeing them enacted) mental manipulation is the ticket.

It all goes back to the church; it's basically a giant cult. the more people born into it and brainwashed, the more tithes they get and the richer they become.

[TheLastMohican]

Hmm... in my mind (since, in my copious spare time, I naturally design idealized systems of government,) it is a progressive tax based on the number of children. That is, maybe the first kid is free, then the next costs x, the next costs 1.5 or 2x, etc.
I see. Then I shall have no choice but to declare you an unpatriotic fascist and report you to the Ministry of Love. :)

[boldbidder]

Can we come up with a licensing process for having children? Requisite parenting and emotional counseling sessions to make sure someone is ready to have a child before they're allowed to. Enforcement would obviously be pretty problematic, but certainly would cut down on the wanton idiocracy factor.

[Mozzes]

Can we come up with a licensing process for having children? Requisite parenting and emotional counseling sessions to make sure someone is ready to have a child before they're allowed to. Enforcement would obviously be pretty problematic, but certainly would cut down on the wanton idiocracy factor.

I think that could be a good idea. But as for whether the government should set a limit on reproduction? Even though I don't want many children (two maximum) I don't think I'd live in any country which would try to exercise so much control over something that I think should be solely a matter of personal freedom.

[azelismia]

Can we come up with a licensing process for having children? Requisite parenting and emotional counseling sessions to make sure someone is ready to have a child before they're allowed to. Enforcement would obviously be pretty problematic, but certainly would cut down on the wanton idiocracy factor.


I totally agree with this. I've argued for this before. I think it would make a lot of sense. people who have htem without a liscence forfeit them to people who can't have them who fit the liscencing.

[Autoptic]

Can we come up with a licensing process for having children? Requisite parenting and emotional counseling sessions to make sure someone is ready to have a child before they're allowed to. Enforcement would obviously be pretty problematic, but certainly would cut down on the wanton idiocracy factor.

What about the idiocracy factor among shrinks? This stuff is already politically warped. Value indoctrination is apparently considered healthy to many. Deviance is considered unhealthy itself.

[dalidaisy]

Can we come up with a licensing process for having children? Requisite parenting and emotional counseling sessions to make sure someone is ready to have a child before they're allowed to. Enforcement would obviously be pretty problematic, but certainly would cut down on the wanton idiocracy factor.

Whew! This one's a hard one. I like this idea, but I'm not about government making the decisions. I like the freedom to do what I want. But, I'm not the type to have children I cannot care for or afford. I'm just torn about this. It's a shame people can't use more common sense.

I have often thought it would be best if there was some kind of law governing the ability of people already on government assistance to produce additional offspring. Maybe making Norplant or something of the like mandatory. Not sure how that would work, but I've got my own kids to feed & would really rather not pay for someone else's kids when they can't afford to be having them in the first place.

Also, how would you enforce it? What about teenagers? Would the education be mandatory in school or would it only be available to married couples seeking to have children? There are just so many facets to the issue...

[Rudy]

Also, how would you enforce it? What about teenagers? Would the education be mandatory in school or would it only be available to married couples seeking to have children? There are just so many facets to the issue...

I actually think a mandatory basic life skills class, including stuff about child care, should be included in high school. Teach kids to manage bills, and impress how hard children are, so that they are more likely to use contraception. =/

[Zombicide]

No, the government shouldn't do that, it would just get unnecessarily complicated. E.g. what do we do to people who have an illegal number of offspring? The octuplet mother was an unusual case. . .but even if it were more frequent, there doesn't seem to be any need for the government to get involved. . .at this point. If it comes down to it, maybe the government could offer people benefits for not reproducing, kind of like when people are asked to turn in their weapons for money e.g. if one is to get sterilized, they can receive a lot of moneys in exchange for sterility (be bribed with their own money) but it's already questionable as to whether or not the government should be allowed to tell us what to do in regards to our existing arbitrary laws to which we never signed up for to abide by, so I really don't think they should be expanding that already damn near unwarranted power into things like how many kids we're allowed to have. Although I did use to believe China's policy was awesome and practical everywhere. . .till I realized the Chinese kept killing their daughters so that they could have sons.

Sounds like something a dystopia would do out of desperation. Let people regulate their kids based on how many (future soldiers) they can manage or feel comfortable having. Hopefully the number of kids people can manage will reflect on the level of over population. Also making abortions more accessible is a good idea.

[dalidaisy]

I actually think a mandatory basic life skills class, including stuff about child care, should be included in high school. Teach kids to manage bills, and impress how hard children are, so that they are more likely to use contraception. =/

Me too! I've been fighting for this, especially the financial education & the realities of what sex brings. Just teaching abstinence & responsible contraceptive use isn't enough, IMO. Teaching them about how the intent of sex is to produce offsping & relating what producing offspring entails, to me, is so important.

[acyckowski]

Right, the solution is not to put an absolute limit on the number of children, but rather to stop giving tax breaks for them. I would even propose that parents pay extra taxes for each child that they have.

This would only count for biological children, though. Parents that adopted should be rewarded with tax breaks for doing so.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here...are you saying have people have children because the tax deduction outweighs the expense of caring for them? That people have large families for profit? In the absence of welfare and/or earned income tax credit (which is basically just IRS-issued welfare) I fail to see where I'm better off financially because I have children.

Seems to me there were a lot more children born per couple in the pre-income tax 19th century than there are now, so I'm kinda confused where this peculiar notion comes from.

Now, of course, if you look at the potential windfall that each child represents to the government....

Example: "Kid" was born in June 1944, entered the workforce in January 1962, and will retire in June 2009. All values adjusted to present dollars, and 2008 tax laws held constant throughout.

Let's say the kid "costs" the government $18,000 in tax deductions for the first 18 years of their life, and $6,500 each year for 12 years of school. That's $96,000. Then, they get a job for $40,000 a year for the next 37 years, paying 7.5% directly into FICA. With employer match, the government has claimed $222,000. The government is, at this point,
$126,000 to the good. Annual Social Security benefits are $12,700. With a life expectancy of 78, this represents a payout of $165,500...leaving the government short by $39,500. Now, let's say the kid's AGI falls around the $30k mark, putting him in the 15% bracket....he'll pay $166,500 in federal taxes during his working life. So, the government reaps a $127,000 net profit off the kid over the course of his life.

Assuming your premise to be correct, that child tax credits encourage more children, it appears to be a pretty sound investment.

This only becomes a problem when the government takes on the responsibility of feeding the excess children. Rather than adding new restrictions to make an overburdened system functional, perhaps we should be relieving the system of its current burdens.

Why stop at kids? Why not relieve those of us who actually pay taxes of the burden of supporting the nearly 50% of the folks who don't? After all, they contribute nothing but additional stress on the system.

It all goes back to the church; it's basically a giant cult. the more people born into it and brainwashed, the more tithes they get and the richer they become

I don't suppose that sex drive and propagation of the species have anything to do with it, then?

No, you're right. The churches need venture capital for their highly profitable soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Those are pretty competitive markets, I hear, you can't expect to run something like that on a shoestring budget and all volunteer work force.

[boldbidder]

Autoptic raises a good point regarding value indoctrination which would certainly be an issue in any sort of licensing program.

So how about we take a framework approach teach basic parenting skills, verify potential parent(s) have some form of income that is enough in the black to withstand the additional cost of a child. After that I think anything goes, no need for moral/value type coaching the thrust of the licensing/prep program would be to make sure that: A) someone knows how to care for a child (no the TV is not a babysitter and South Park is for adults) - B) Enough income and basic money management skills to provide a potential child with basic food, clothes, shelter WITHOUT any government intervention.

I also like Daisy's idea about requisite birth control for those already receiving government aid for kids already. That includes men for my dollar, if you have fathered a child and that child even while in the custody of the mother is on state aid you get chemically castrated.

[Rudy]

I'm not sure I can get behind forced birth control for anyone. It's a bad precedent. I'd rather just tax people who have biological children, and give tax credits to those who adopt...

[azelismia]

I'm not sure I follow your logic here...are you saying have people have children because the tax deduction outweighs the expense of caring for them? That people have large families for profit? In the absence of welfare and/or earned income tax credit (which is basically just IRS-issued welfare) I fail to see where I'm better off financially because I have children.

Seems to me there were a lot more children born per couple in the pre-income tax 19th century than there are now, so I'm kinda confused where this peculiar notion comes from.

Now, of course, if you look at the potential windfall that each child represents to the government....

Example: "Kid" was born in June 1944, entered the workforce in January 1962, and will retire in June 2009. All values adjusted to present dollars, and 2008 tax laws held constant throughout.

Let's say the kid "costs" the government $18,000 in tax deductions for the first 18 years of their life, and $6,500 each year for 12 years of school. That's $96,000. Then, they get a job for $40,000 a year for the next 37 years, paying 7.5% directly into FICA. With employer match, the government has claimed $222,000. The government is, at this point,
$126,000 to the good. Annual Social Security benefits are $12,700. With a life expectancy of 78, this represents a payout of $165,500...leaving the government short by $39,500. Now, let's say the kid's AGI falls around the $30k mark, putting him in the 15% bracket....he'll pay $166,500 in federal taxes during his working life. So, the government reaps a $127,000 net profit off the kid over the course of his life.

Assuming your premise to be correct, that child tax credits encourage more children, it appears to be a pretty sound investment.



Why stop at kids? Why not relieve those of us who actually pay taxes of the burden of supporting the nearly 50% of the folks who don't? After all, they contribute nothing but additional stress on the system.



I don't suppose that sex drive and propagation of the species have anything to do with it, then?

No, you're right. The churches need venture capital for their highly profitable soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Those are pretty competitive markets, I hear, you can't expect to run something like that on a shoestring budget and all volunteer work force.


you are assuming that these kids are going to be fruitful members of society. Odds are against that. More likely they're going to make minimum wage and be a burden on the legal system with various abuses criminal actions.

Kids born into a house that can't support them aren't raised with a meaningful values system and have no guidance on how to succeed. their guidance is for failure. Drugs - Robbery - Physical Abuse - so on and so forth.

[boldbidder]

I'm not sure I can get behind forced birth control for anyone. It's a bad precedent. I'd rather just tax people who have biological children, and give tax credits to those who adopt...

OK, I can deal with the tax penalty.

Also just realized that we need a provision in the event of an 'oops' baby, so in the event of the 'oops' baby the parents have the chance to go through licensing/prep program before the baby is born.

[Rudy]

I figure I'll go ahead and outline my entire plan, just so people can go ahead and call me a Nazi. You know, get it over with.

1) Graduated taxes for each child. First kid is free, then you pay more for each additional kid. Maybe second kid is 1,000 per year, the third kid is an extra 2,000 a year, etc.

2) Pass simple accredation and demonstration of financial ability to support a child. Failure to do so is a criminal offense.

3) In the result of serious violations of these requirements, you are jailed, and the children taken. Harsh, but it's the only way to give a good incentive not to violate the rules. Perhaps it can just be for a year or so, but there needs to be a real consequence for violation.

4) In order to deal with the large number of adoptions necessary, families that adopt are given serious tax credits. This is easily paid for by the taxes in part 1. Such families must, of course, demonstrate their ability. This step will also encourage people to adopt rather than have children of their own.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 3 minutes and 10 seconds later...

The fair alternative to this, in my mind, is to stop giving any government support to people's children. No public school, no health care, etc. I'd rather not do that, though.

[une fille]

At first, I thought the tax idea Rudy talked about was good. I've actually argued for it in similar discussions at other times. However, what social group tends to have the highest numbers of kids...? Those at an economic and social disadvantage.. The poor. It would just fuel already existent problems.

Truly though, I do think the government should do something about population growth.. Someone above said that the U.S. only had marginal growth, but if you do the math, it adds up.

[maxpot46]

Since the justification for all this proposed coercion is that kids could be a drain on taxpayers, how about we just end wealth redistribution? It's not as fun as central planning and imposing one's values on others, but it's the only option consistent with non-aggression and that can actually deliver the ends promised (on the premise that governments can't get anything right, but can spend a whole lot of money failing).

[azelismia]

At first, I thought the tax idea Rudy talked about was good. I've actually argued for it in similar discussions at other times. However, what social group tends to have the highest numbers of kids...? Those at an economic and social disadvantage.. The poor. It would just fuel already existent problems.

Truly though, I do think the government should do something about population growth.. Someone above said that the U.S. only had marginal growth, but if you do the math, it adds up.

if they can't pay the tax take the kids away. they probably don't belong in that environment anyway.

[Rudy]

Since the justification for all this proposed coercion is that kids could be a drain on taxpayers, how about we just end wealth redistribution? It's not as fun as central planning and imposing one's values on others, but it's the only option consistent with non-aggression and that can actually deliver the ends promised (on the premise that governments can't get anything right, but can spend a whole lot of money failing).
No, that's true. It doesn't deal with the other eventual problem, though, which is overpopulation. Theoretically, though, as overpopulation becomes more critical, food prices and whatnot will rises, which will put economic pressures on families anyway.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 45 seconds later...

For the most part I'm big on ending wealth re-distribution, especially welfare and social security. I am for free primary education, though, which is the main thing the government spends money on children for.

[Storm]

With the exception of a few posts, everyone seems to be just chucking individual rights out the windrow. Jefferson weeps in his grave. Call me an extremist, but I'm against the government dictating to people how to raise kids or how many to have. The government should only take children from their parents in extreme situations, not just for having "too many." We don't really have an overpopulation problem in the U.S. or in most of the developed world. Actually, right now everyone is worried about how there are not enough people in the younger generations to support the older generations going into retirement.

Having said that, the Life Skills class in high school sounds like it could be a good idea. I wonder, does anyone have any numbers on these classes? Do kids actually learn from them? Or do they sleep through it or play hooky? I've always said the reason America is so unhealthy is because we all slept through the mandatory health class in high school. :P

Something to consider on the tax idea. It's been raised before that only people with children should have to pay school taxes. But there is no where that I know of that has actually passed such an extreme provision. The support of a nation's children, while primarily in the hands of their parents, is also partly on the people as a whole. I know this slightly contradicts with what I said previously, but it's a slightly different situation. In the one, we're talking about very personal decisions. Here, we're talking about the success of the general population, not an individual.

[boldbidder]

Since the justification for all this proposed coercion is that kids could be a drain on taxpayers, how about we just end wealth redistribution? It's not as fun as central planning and imposing one's values on others, but it's the only option consistent with non-aggression and that can actually deliver the ends promised (on the premise that governments can't get anything right, but can spend a whole lot of money failing).

Governments CAN get things right though, the problem is that there are too many morons elected to public office because people with the proper aptitude and natural intelligence would never subject themselves to painful pandering to the moronic masses.

With that said, I kind of cringe at the term of 'wealth redistribution', I mean we pay taxes to pay for everything the government provides including social programs. Is tax money going towards the next generation Reaper count as wealth redistribution or just the money going to poor kids free lunches or after school programs?

[Rudy]

I would argue that you are destroying individual rights out the window when you force one individual to financially support someone else. Individual rights are getting destroyed any way you look at it.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 49 seconds later...

EDIT:

Storm, the only way to not destroy individual rights in this situation is to stop having the government support individuals at all, including through public schools. You argue that people should support children because it is for the good of the population, but really you are just choosing which rights you are comfortable violating. My plan is for "the good of the population" too.

[Storm]

I don't think paying taxes is quite on the same level as intervening into private, family decisions.

[une fille]

if they can't pay the tax take the kids away. they probably don't belong in that environment anyway.

Punishing families for not being able to pay extra taxes, even if they're trying to provide a good home for the children they created...?
Another thought to consider would be the racial tension that such a move would create. Statistically, minorities in America have more kids at an earlier age than other members of society.

[Storm]

Life does involve choices sometimes.

[Rudy]

I don't think paying taxes is quite on the same level as intervening into private, family decisions.

Of course it is, because paying taxes interferes with private, family decisions. I'm talking about making people pay taxes anyway, so it should be alright with you.

[azelismia]

Punishing families for not being able to pay extra taxes, even if they're trying to provide a good home for the children they created...?
Another thought to consider would be the racial tension that such a move would create. Statistically, minorities in America have more kids at an earlier age than other members of society.


if you provide information and education along with consequences and penalties I don't think they'd be having those kids.

I don't think it's minorities. I think it's all poor people who fall into this. it's lack of education first and foremost.

I think changing the media influence and religious influence just as important as taxation.

[Storm]

It doesn't interfer in the same way. Pay taxes decreases how much money a person has (and theoretically, they are geting some benefit, since taxes pay for things people use). But then the person can decide what they want to do with the remaining money. Telling people how many kids they can have is a much more direct interference.

[Rudy]

I think changing the media influence and religious influence just as important as taxation.
Agreed, but that is something that needs to be done at the social level, not the governmental.

Telling people how many kids they can have is a much more direct interference.

Again, I'm not telling people how many kids they can have, I'm saying they need to be able to pay for them. If they were supporting their children completely on their own, it would be a different matter, but they are not. They are having children, and expecting the government to pay for them in many ways. Freeloaders are unacceptable.

[une fille]

I don't think it's minorities. I think it's all poor people who fall into this. it's lack of education first and foremost.
Yes, it is all poor people, but a racial divide is very clear in the United States. Minorities are statistically in a worse economic state than the other members of society.

Furthermore, those with the money to reproduce at higher numbers would be allowed to do so. Favoring the wealthy to a reproductive point? That's a travesty of social Darwinism, though the beginnings of that school of thought were never pretty.

I agree with the point concerning changing the social mood towards reproduction and family size, as well as furthering education.

[Storm]

Again, I'm not telling people how many kids they can have, I'm saying they need to be able to pay for them. If they were supporting their children completely on their own, it would be a different matter, but they are not. They are having children, and expecting the government to pay for them in many ways. Freeloaders are unacceptable.

Sorry, there are so many different theories flying around in here that I'm losing track. I think the reason the tax break exist right now is because the government wants people to have kids. For the reason I stated above. I'm not so keen on a tax increase for having kids since having kids is already a huge expense, which should be enough of a deterrence. People who can't afford it are having kids today, they aren't thinking about taxes. So, I agree with a previous poster that it sounds nice in theory, but there's too much real world in the way.

Here's the thing: children's rights. Children have a right to live with their parents, children also have the right to be fed and clothed and sheltered. It's rather cruel to take a child away from their parents who love them very much because they are poor. But we can't just let children starve. It's a tough world.

[Rudy]

Here's the thing: children's rights. Children have a right to live with their parents, children also have the right to be fed and clothed and sheltered. It's rather cruel to take a child away from their parents who love them very much because they are poor. But we can't just let children starve. It's a tough world.

Sorry, but you simply cannot make an argument based on individual rights when you are violating rights. Children have the right to stay with their parents (based on what, by the way,) so you violate the rights of others to the fruits of their labors? It doesn't work, you cannot justify the violation of an individual right based on another individual right.

I'm aware that my proposal violates individual rights, which is why it's based on utilitarian principles. You either have to do the same, or make a proposal that does not violate the individual rights of others, if you want to be consistent.

[une fille]

Here's the thing: children's rights. Children have a right to live with their parents, children also have the right to be fed and clothed and sheltered. It's rather cruel to take a child away from their parents who love them very much because they are poor. But we can't just let children starve. It's a tough world.
Seconded.
If anyone has ever been involved in child custody cases in the U.S. would be aware that the judge typically respects the wishes of the child in question, if that child is deemed competent (usually those over the age of twelve who are not mentally challenged to a significant degree.)

[Storm]

Sorry, but you simply cannot make an argument based on individual rights when you are violating rights. Children have the right to stay with their parents (based on what, by the way,) so you violate the rights of others to the fruits of their labors? It doesn't work, you cannot justify the violation of an individual right based on another individual right.

I'm aware that my proposal violates individual rights, which is why it's based on utilitarian principles. You either have to do the same, or make a proposal that does not violate the individual rights of others, if you want to be consistent.

I think we're arguing at a crosspoint here. We just have different values in this situation because my argument is also based on utilitarian principles. I am fully aware that the right to property is being partially violated in the name of the rights of children and family. I think the right of the family is so strong, that it is better for society on a whole to have as much control over it as possible (well at least in this situation) compared to a society where the government issues mandates veiled as economic incentives.

[une fille]

I'm aware that my proposal violates individual rights, which is why it's based on utilitarian principles. You either have to do the same, or make a proposal that does not violate the individual rights of others, if you want to be consistent.
I would propose that we do not add on to the tax burden of families, but that we stop offering tax deductions after one or two kids. Frankly Rudy, your proposals are radical and disturbing. I'm not sure if you're suggesting all that you have to argue in an extreme manner or if you truly think that you're within reason. The progressive goal of society is to create a fair living/working environment for the population under a competent government, not to abuse pragmatism and utilitarian principles so that anyone who burdens fellow man in any financially representable way is thrown out in the cold. What would we start doing to the disabled or the elderly if we followed your line of thought..?

[Rudy]

I think we're arguing at a crosspoint here. We just have different values in this situation because my argument is also based on utilitarian principles. I am fully aware that the right to property is being partially violated in the name of the rights of children and family. I think the right of the family is so strong, that it is better for society on a whole to have as much control over it as possible (well at least in this situation) compared to a society where the government issues mandates veiled as economic incentives.

If you say so. My point is that rights cannot be objectively compared to one another. Thus, one must consider them all equally, or discard them entirely from consideration. I chose the later route in this case.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 2 minutes and 35 seconds later...

I would propose that we do not add on to the tax burden of families, but that we stop offering tax deductions after one or two kids. Frankly Rudy, your proposals are radical and disturbing. I'm not sure if you're suggesting all that you have to argue in an extreme manner or if you truly think that you're within reason.
I put my ideas out here to be tested. I'm well aware that I could be mistaken about any of these things, which is why I'm arguing about them here. I'm not inflexible on anything; about six months ago, for example, I was convinced to support national health care based on an internet forum argument. You are not convincing me, but that does not mean I cannot be convinced.

The progressive goal of society is to create a fair living/working environment for the population under a competent government
This, at least, is entirely opinion.

[Storm]

If you say so. My point is that rights cannot be objectively compared to one another. Thus, one must consider them all equally, or discard them entirely from consideration. I chose the later route in this case.

Aw, this is one of those sticky areas of the law and society where objectivity isn't going to work. Rights have to be measured against each other. Society does it all the time in order to function because rights inevitable do bump up against each other. Free speech vs. safety? Safety wins if it's a riot situation or similar. Free speech wins otherwise. Right to a fair trial vs. freedom of the press? Right to a fair trial will win if the press is interfering. Here we've got Right to Property (in this case, an insignificant amount of taxes) vs. Rights of the Family? Rights of the Family wins. And depending on how the tax is collected and which branches it goes through, it may be so far disconnected that Right to Property can't even be considered directly competing.


This, at least, is entirely opinion.

Like everything else in the thread.

[Rudy]

I recognize that I am in the position to argue radical ideas because I am not in the position to enact them. Believe me when I say that I would require a lot more examination of it before I would be willing to put any such policy into practice.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 0 seconds later...

Actually, I am a free speech absolutist, so we'd disagree there as well.

[une fille]

I put my ideas out here to be tested.
That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure. Your ideas are coherent, but I would argue that they're impractical and insensitive to basic human rights, as has already been pointed out. As you said though, I doubt I'm convincing you.

This, at least, is entirely opinion.
Actually, it's the ideals of the Progressive party seen in the U.S. around 1901-1916 or so.

[Rudy]

Actually, I am a free speech absolutist, so we'd disagree there too. (That is addressed to Storm)

I misunderstood what Storm was saying. I am a free speech absolutist, though.


RudyHenkel added to this post, 2 minutes and 23 seconds later...

Actually, it's the ideals of the Progressive party seen in the U.S. around 1901-1916 or so.

A party does not just get to choose to represent what it means to be progressive, though they will certainly affect society's view of it.

[Storm]

Actually, I am a free speech absolutist, so we'd disagree there too. (That is addressed to Storm)

Now there's a thread I'd like to see. Do you not think that at times it is necessary to measure rights against each other? Because you're only other option is to completely get rid of rights. Seems a bit extreme...

[une fille]

A party does not just get to choose to represent what it means to be progressive, though they will certainly affect society's view of it.
Perhaps I should have capitalized my first "progressive" in the post that introduced that point of view. However, the general consensus of present day would suggest that the returning of ideas similar to China's one child family legislation wouldn't be too progressive.

[BostonIan]

With the OP, power can do whatever it pleases, the question is why, in a democracy, people would vote away their own freedom to reproduce. Likely because they don't intend to have many children, and are guarding their own assets. Me, I'm not quite a democrat (small "d"), I'm content to rebel, refuse to pay the taxes, or emigrate. In the matter of how many children I bring into the world, I refuse meddling from the ruling class.

The "public burden" is a burden placed on the public by the public. People want private funds channeled into expensive public spending, the consequences are that people on outliers will be more burdensome or burdened than the norm. The only way to have everyone pay their appropriate burden is to remove the flow of government-confiscated-money so that the exact cost of each child is paid by each parent.

The overpopulation issue is a fail. No one country limiting its own reproductive rates can stifle worldwide over-population, it simply ensures that every below-replacement civilization will be replaced by every above-replacement civilization as history unfolds. The question of why any civilization would willingly exterminate itself for a failed cause goes back to the question of why people would willingly vote away their own freedoms.

[auriga vega]

I figure I'll go ahead and outline my entire plan, just so people can go ahead and call me a Nazi. You know, get it over with.

1) Graduated taxes for each child. First kid is free, then you pay more for each additional kid. Maybe second kid is 1,000 per year, the third kid is an extra 2,000 a year, etc.

2) Pass simple accredation and demonstration of financial ability to support a child. Failure to do so is a criminal offense.

3) In the result of serious violations of these requirements, you are jailed, and the children taken. Harsh, but it's the only way to give a good incentive not to violate the rules. Perhaps it can just be for a year or so, but there needs to be a real consequence for violation.

4) In order to deal with the large number of adoptions necessary, families that adopt are given serious tax credits. This is easily paid for by the taxes in part 1. Such families must, of course, demonstrate their ability. This step will also encourage people to adopt rather than have children of their own.

I kind of agree with you there, although my ideas aren't that radical. I say we should NOT set an absolute limit on how many children people can have, but we should limit it somehow.

The question is, how many children is too many?

Here's my plan:
What I see as an ideal is to have 4 children for free, then tax each additional children. It won't discourage having kids, but it will discourage having too many kids.
Government does have to step in to help families that struggle to support their kids. In exchange for that though, the parents must work unpaid for a specified amount of hours in social services. Failure to do so is an offense. Circumstances that lead to the failure in the volunteering must be examined before taking away the kids. Because, what happen to those people who work their butt off in order to suport their family? Should we blame them for being poor? (and I'm not only talking about people who have exessive number of children). It all depends on the circumstances, things should not always be black and white.

And, just curious, why would you encourage people to adopt rather than having children of their own?


Here's the thing: children's rights. Children have a right to live with their parents, children also have the right to be fed and clothed and sheltered. It's rather cruel to take a child away from their parents who love them very much because they are poor. But we can't just let children starve. It's a tough world.

+1
That's why parents must really think about what having a child means.





auriga vega added to this post, 10 minutes and 50 seconds later...

The question of why any civilization would willingly exterminate itself for a failed cause goes back to the question of why people would willingly vote away their own freedoms.

Limiting the number of children people can have is not taking away their freedoms, because having children is NOT SUPPOSED to be about the parents. By having a child, you create another human being, that you don't own. Children are not properties. It's not like the government should limit how many cars you can have.

[maxpot46]

No, that's true. It doesn't deal with the other eventual problem, though, which is overpopulation. Theoretically, though, as overpopulation becomes more critical, food prices and whatnot will rises, which will put economic pressures on families anyway.Overpopulation isn't a problem -- every person on earth could fit into the Grand Canyon. Japan has no problem feeding its population despite living on nothing more than rocks because they are productive. People starve, not because of a lack of food, but a lack of purchasing power (usually because of a lack of property rights and/or freedom to exchange).
For the most part I'm big on ending wealth re-distribution, especially welfare and social security. I am for free primary education, though, which is the main thing the government spends money on children for.What makes education an exception? I home school precisely because the "free primary education" is pathetic and more akin to brainwashing than education. If you believe government is inefficient at distributing wealth, why should this concept not be applied consistently?


maxpot46 added to this post, 8 minutes and 11 seconds later...

Governments CAN get things right though, the problem is that there are too many morons elected to public office because people with the proper aptitude and natural intelligence would never subject themselves to painful pandering to the moronic masses.I agree that the phenomena you mention is a big problem (Hayek addressed this in Road to Serfdom chapter 10 "Why the Worst Get on Top"), but I don't think that phenomena invalidates the idea that governments are a monopoly, and even consumer-answerable monopolies (which the government isn't given that they coerce their funds) put out inferior products at inflated prices.
With that said, I kind of cringe at the term of 'wealth redistribution', I mean we pay taxes to pay for everything the government provides including social programs. Is tax money going towards the next generation Reaper count as wealth redistribution or just the money going to poor kids free lunches or after school programs?All tax expenditures are wealth redistribution because of the coercive nature of tax collection.


maxpot46 added to this post, 7 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Children have the right to stay with their parents (based on what, by the way,) Based on the property rights of the parents. People own themselves; if children are too young to exercise the accompanying rights then it falls to a guardian; the obvious guardian is the parent (who created the child and is closer to the child than any other of the 3 possibilities: another family member, the government, or a stranger).


maxpot46 added to this post, 8 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Now there's a thread I'd like to see. Do you not think that at times it is necessary to measure rights against each other? Because you're only other option is to completely get rid of rights. Seems a bit extreme...I don't agree with this. In my view all rights devolve to some sort of property rights, so one never actually measures different rights against each other. In my experience, once the property rights are clearly defined, it is quite easy to determine if there is aggression being committed, whose rights are being violated, and who is committing coercion.

[axe rive]

Hmmm...would it work like the baseball steroids scandal? I mean this would never realistically happen as widespread legislation because too many people in this country would oppose it. And politicians need to keep their jobs. So I assume it could only come to fruition by special committee.

If it is like baseball, will it be likewise absurdly obvious that we are once again refusing to encourage responsibility within our society and instead just whining that the government should fix things?

Democracy is a beautiful system with many advantages. Letting my jackass neighbor with a substance abuse problem and a history of financial delinquency have equal say to me in how I raise my own family...definitely not one of the advantages. :yuck:

[nacht]

This entire debate is a solution in search of a problem. Overpopulation is not a concern in the US and won't be for the foreseeable future. At the current rate of growth of the US, we will double our population in 80 years. Even if we built straight up (no spreading out), that would put NYC at around the density of Seoul, Korea. Los Angeles would be around Hong Kong or Istanbul.

That's with no spreading out, no additional buildings, and ignoring selective pressure against this from happening (birth rates were declining last I checked).

We hear this kind of nonsense every generation or so: overpopulation will cause death and destruction. Ehrlich predicted massive famines in the 70s with hundreds of millions dead.

That is extremely unlikely to ever be the case short of a nuclear winter, because the system has negative feedback. We won't suddenly be starving tomorrow, in part because pressure from population growth will lower the birth rate. If you can't feed your family, you are unlikely to have more children. Consequence: population reduces in size (see also, ratchet effect).

What makes those advocating population control think that overpopulation will be a problem?

[azelismia]

This entire debate is a solution in search of a problem. Overpopulation is not a concern in the US and won't be for the foreseeable future. At the current rate of growth of the US, we will double our population in 80 years. Even if we built straight up (no spreading out), that would put NYC at around the density of Seoul, Korea. Los Angeles would be around Hong Kong or Istanbul.

That's with no spreading out, no additional buildings, and ignoring selective pressure against this from happening (birth rates were declining last I checked).

We hear this kind of nonsense every generation or so: overpopulation will cause death and destruction. Ehrlich predicted massive famines in the 70s with hundreds of millions dead.

That is extremely unlikely to ever be the case short of a nuclear winter, because the system has negative feedback. We won't suddenly be starving tomorrow, in part because pressure from population growth will lower the birth rate. If you can't feed your family, you are unlikely to have more children. Consequence: population reduces in size (see also, ratchet effect).

What makes those advocating population control think that overpopulation will be a problem?



I disagree, I think we are overpopulated. sure we can make room for more but at the cost of the ecosystem and enjoyment of life. we dont' need more and it becomes much harder to sustain food and water for that many people. it's overconfidence to think it's all ok just because it can be done

[nacht]

I disagree, I think we are overpopulated. sure we can make room for more but at the cost of the ecosystem and enjoyment of life. we dont' need more and it becomes much harder to sustain food and water for that many people. it's overconfidence to think it's all ok just because it can be done

Define "overpopulated."

You state that we are overpopulated, and indicate that this is bad, but in truth the US isn't nearly as "overpopulated" by any reasonable metric as Japan, which is currently suffering from a decline in population and has no issues with food or water.

As technology advances the systems become more efficient. Consequence: less pollution, better recycling, less waste and better use of resources, including food resources.

Never mind that most overpopulation models require a well-mixed assumption, which is patently untrue and will continue to be such for the foreseeable future.

[azelismia]

Define "overpopulated."

You state that we are overpopulated, and indicate that this is bad, but in truth the US isn't nearly as "overpopulated" by any reasonable metric as Japan, which is currently suffering from a decline in population and has no issues with food or water.

As technology advances the systems become more efficient. Consequence: less pollution, better recycling, less waste and better use of resources, including food resources.

Never mind that most overpopulation models require a well-mixed assumption, which is patently untrue and will continue to be such for the foreseeable future.


Sure, we don't have it as bad as japan or china or india, do we want to be like that? is it a good thing? Just because you can have that many people doesn't mean you should. it becomes a house of cards. many of those people are starving and in poverty too because clean water and food supplies aren't that grand.

we have a choice whether or not to let the world become that crowded or not.

I don't see the need for it. I think it's a bad idea. it crowds out diversity of life on the planet. Why should we take priority over the other animals who require habitat? The ecosystem is fragile and we depend on it for health of the population and world.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I think Japan is going thru a decline in population because they are being sensible about having too many people. A decline in population is a good thing.

[maxpot46]

A decline in population is a good thing.I can't agree. You seem to see mouths; I see minds. Feeding them is a production issue easily handled by the market (if participants are allowed private property and the freedom to exchange it), not a space or resource issue requiring the beneficence of central planners.

[Rudy]

A decline in population is a good thing.

That's definitely not true, at least. I see the ideal position as a stable population. However, something that was said earlier does bother me. If a given society holds their population constant, but other societies do not, the latter will eventually overtake the first because of greater intellectual and productive capabilities. Holding one's population constant is not advantageous in inter-society competition.

My primary concern is in allowing individuals to have children that they are not paying the full cost of, or are not qualified to raise, not in overpopulation.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

What makes education an exception? I home school precisely because the "free primary education" is pathetic and more akin to brainwashing than education. If you believe government is inefficient at distributing wealth, why should this concept not be applied consistently?
My arguments are utilitarian, for the most part, which I know you do not agree with. I think that welfare and social security do not create additional efficiency in society. I think that ensuring that everyone has a base education does create a more productive, and therefore more efficient, society in the long run.

You're correct in implying that the government is terrible at it. The ideal situation, to me, is the voucher system where individuals can pick between various private schools, and be reimbursed by the government.

[azelismia]

That's definitely not true, at least. I see the ideal position as a stable population. However, something that was said earlier does bother me. If a given society holds their population constant, but other societies do not, the latter will eventually overtake the first because of greater intellectual and productive capabilities. Holding one's population constant is not advantageous in inter-society competition.

My primary concern is in allowing individuals to have children that they are not paying the full cost of, or are not qualified to raise, not in overpopulation.





I think these two things are intertwined. there aren't enough jobs or land available for all people or even most to be self sufficent. if you reduce the population more resources will become available for those who are there.

[maxpot46]

I see the ideal position as a stable population. Ceteris paribus in a truly free market, each and every one of us become better off under a growing population. It means more entrepreneurs creating products for our enjoyment; more geniuses like Mozart or Salk or Mises expanding our understanding and entertainment; more competition improving products and lowering prices; and more customers for whatever good or service it is that we provide. There is no need to worry about too many mouths because goods/services are not zero-sum, and the supply will rise to match increased demand (via an increase in prices/profits attracting new producers to enter the market).

This market would end up in a stable population, though.

[Rudy]

Shrinking population is bad, bad, bad. Industries shrink and fail because jobs have to be shut down, and demand for everything is falling. Buildings become abandoned because there are not enough people to need them. The working population becomes smaller relative to the retired population. Badness all around.

Steady population is one thing; shrinking is bad.

[nacht]

Sure, we don't have it as bad as japan or china or india, do we want to be like that? is it a good thing? Just because you can have that many people doesn't mean you should. it becomes a house of cards. many of those people are starving and in poverty too because clean water and food supplies aren't that grand.


Are you claiming that many of the people are starving and in poverty due to lack of clean water and food in Japan????


we have a choice whether or not to let the world become that crowded or not.


At what price?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Have you compared these numbers to the US (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? I'll note that Japan's Gini index is less than the US's.



I think Japan is going thru a decline in population because they are being sensible about having too many people. A decline in population is a good thing.

It has nothing to do with "being sensible about having too many people," given that it is widely viewed as a problem.

[Rudy]

Ceteris paribus in a truly free market, each and every one of us become better off under a growing population. It means more entrepreneurs creating products for our enjoyment; more geniuses like Mozart or Salk or Mises expanding our understanding and entertainment; more competition improving products and lowering prices; and more customers for whatever good or service it is that we provide. There is no need to worry about too many mouths because resources are not zero-sum, and the supply will rise to match increased demand (via an increase in prices/profits attracting new producers to enter the market).

This market would end up in a stable population, though.

Well, I think the primary thing that is missing in your argument is that some resources are not limitless. Oil and other sources of energy would be number one on this list. I agree that food and space are not an immediate concern, but surely you don't think there is no upper limit there?

[TheLastMohican]

Shrinking population is bad, bad, bad. Industries shrink and fail because jobs have to be shut down, and demand for everything is falling. Buildings become abandoned because there are not enough people to need them. The working population becomes smaller relative to the retired population. Badness all around.

Steady population is one thing; shrinking is bad.
Would you consider it worth the deviation from principle to keep the tax breaks for extra kids in order to maintain the population size? If the current fertility rate in the U.S. is only 2.1, I could see the population starting to shrink if the government removes the incentives.

[maxpot46]

The ideal situation, to me, is the voucher system where individuals can pick between various private schools, and be reimbursed by the government.I'm of the view that this will simply extend government control over private schools. He who pays the piper calls the tune, after all. I agree with you that "ensuring that everyone has a base education does create a more productive, and therefore more efficient, society in the long run", which is why I believe it to be far too important to entrust to a government monopoly. Your unspoken assumption is that government can provide such a base education, which begs my original question -- what makes education an exception to government inefficiency?


maxpot46 added to this post, 10 minutes and 50 seconds later...

Well, I think the primary thing that is missing in your argument is that some resources are not limitless. Oil and other sources of energy would be number one on this list.I don't agree. Oil supply is responsive to demand -- new wells are drilled, new areas explored (or not, when demand/price is down). That is why known reserves increase every year. I do not subscribe to "peak oil" alarmism, which I think displays a lack of understanding of the scale of the planet vs. the amount of oil extracted, as well as a lack of understanding of economic incentives (specifically, without property rights why would anyone search for oil? Now factor in how much of the world is unfree). Finally, I think such alarmism is guilty of linear-thinking, the equivalent of a man in the 19th century worrying about running out of room for train tracks. It is extremely unlikely that we will still be burning oil before we could possibly exhaust the vast amounts of known reserves.
I agree that food and space are not an immediate concern, but surely you don't think there is no upper limit there?Theoretically, but not in the real world. In a developed economy, people have better things to do than raise kids, to put it bluntly. Population is controlled by self-interest.

[Rudy]

Would you consider it worth the deviation from principle to keep the tax breaks for extra kids in order to maintain the population size? If the current fertility rate in the U.S. is only 2.1, I could see the population starting to shrink if the government removes the incentives.

Oh, I definitely want tax breaks removed from children. No question. There's no justification for the government to be encouraging population growth with the money of other people.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

I'm of the view that this will simply extend government control over private schools. He who pays the piper calls the tune, after all. I agree with you that "ensuring that everyone has a base education does create a more productive, and therefore more efficient, society in the long run", which is why I believe it to be far too important to entrust to a government monopoly. Your unspoken assumption is that government can provide such a base education, which begs my original question -- what makes education an exception to government inefficiency?
I'm not assuming that the government can provide such an education, I'm suggesting that the government gives X dollars to parents to spend on their child's education. They could do this through home schooling, or private schools, or what-have-you.

I'm honestly willing to listen to alternatives, though.

I don't agree. Oil supply is responsive to demand -- new wells are drilled, new areas explored (or not, when demand/price is down). That is why known reserves increase every year. I do not subscribe to "peak oil" alarmism, which I think displays a lack of understanding of the scale of the planet vs. the amount of oil extracted, as well as a lack of understanding of economic incentives (specifically, without property rights why would anyone search for oil? Now factor in how much of the world is unfree). Finally, I think such alarmism is guilty of linear-thinking, the equivalent of a man in the 19th century worrying about running out of room for train tracks. It is extremely unlikely that we will still be burning oil before we could possibly exhaust the vast amounts of known reserves.
I confess I'm no expert on oil reserves. I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to any links regarding known reserves increasing.

[maxpot46]

I confess I'm no expert on oil reserves. I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to any links regarding known reserves increasing.There is historical data in the British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) available in an Excel file. It shows that total world reserves were:
1987 - 910.2 billion barrels
1997 - 1069.3 billion barrels
2006 - 1239.5 billion barrels

[azelismia]

Shrinking population is bad, bad, bad. Industries shrink and fail because jobs have to be shut down, and demand for everything is falling. Buildings become abandoned because there are not enough people to need them. The working population becomes smaller relative to the retired population. Badness all around.

Steady population is one thing; shrinking is bad.


and then it will level out and be sustainable. sure it's bad at first but we'd adjust and new economies would arise. it's only bad if you're banking on the population increasing. How do you think the world survived before the amazing boom population we have now in the last 20,000 years?

Because everyone says it's bad does that make it so? I don't think so.


There is historical data in the British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) available in an Excel file. It shows that total world reserves were:
1987 - 910.2 billion barrels
1997 - 1069.3 billion barrels
2006 - 1239.5 billion barrels


because they are drilling more of it doesn't mean the supply is endless. it just means they're using what's available. it will be depleted at some point especially with increased usage. there are more reserves but they are in spots that are impossible to feasibly drill for.

[Rudy]

There is historical data in the British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) available in an Excel file. It shows that total world reserves were:
1987 - 910.2 billion barrels
1997 - 1069.3 billion barrels
2006 - 1239.5 billion barrels
@.@ I've just spent 15 minutes reading various things on this, and the situation is much more complex than I thought...

How do you think the world survived before the amazing boom population we have now in the last 20,000 years?

Because everyone says it's bad does that make it so? I don't think so.

It's not a low population that is bad, but a shrinking one. Maxpot may be able to contradict me, but I can't think of a single sociologist or economist who considers a shrinking population a good thing. Economists agree on extraordinarily little; when they do agree, they're usually right.

[azelismia]

@.@ I've just spent 15 minutes reading various things on this, and the situation is much more complex than I thought...



It's not a low population that is bad, but a shrinking one. Maxpot may be able to contradict me, but I can't think of a single sociologist or economist who considers a shrinking population a good thing. Economists agree on extraordinarily little; when they do agree, they're usually right.


That says very little other than "99 helens agree"

most of the world believes in the bible, does that make it factual?

Shrinking populations just mean change. It's going to hurt economy if economy is depending on expansion to be sustainable, but any economy that is depending on expansion is by definition a bubble is it not? it's not sustainable, at some point contraction is inevitable. it's better to be controlled and planned for.

if the systems as they stand require more people to work, then maybe the systems should be altered to be more reasonable.

[Rudy]

That says very little other than "99 helens agree"

most of the world believes in the bible, does that make it factual?

Shrinking populations just mean change. It's going to hurt economy if economy is depending on expansion to be sustainable, but any economy that is depending on expansion is by definition a bubble is it not?

I'm saying that when all economists agree on something about the economy, that is very good incentive to listen to their expertise. Dismissing it as comparable to majority opinion is comparable to dismissing the expert consensus in any field, such as those who dismiss the consensus of biologists on the reality of evolution. Creationists say the same thing about them, "oh, just because all the biologists agree doesn't mean anything."

Not all economic models require growth, but most benefit from it. There are none that I know of that are not damaged by a shrinking population, however.

You may argue that having a smaller population would be worth the economic damage, but don't think that such damage is avoidable.

[firebee]

Japan, actually, is illustrative regarding the problems of a shrinking economy. If more people were born then than are born now, it follows that the previous high population is going to age while being supported by a smaller population in the prime working years. This would be why Japan is developing robots that can care for the elderly -- a subject that is only humorous until you realize that without people who are able and willing to pick up, put down, and clean full-sized humans, this task will not get done.

And on the subject of elder care -- I'm of an age where my grand-generation is moving into the time where they need daily support. Much of this support is provided by economically disadvantaged minorities, for whom the low wages typical of the sector represent a reasonably good deal. You might say this is the responsibility of the family -- meaning it is the responsibility of the most immediately available female relative, actually, but never mind that. But because these people work for the compensation they get, my aunt is able to be the breadwinner for her family instead of doing the work of five people for no money. Given that, I'm disinclined to say that the people we pay jack to represent a burden on society -- you might almost say instead, for better or worse, that we're walking on their backs.

[Airfire]

^ Great point Firebee. To add to that:

Maybe there should be more emphasis to this discussion pertaining to the fact that both age spectrums (young and elderly, respectively) are generally superfluous to a capitalist country such as the United States. Children are inexperienced, untrained, and are not actively contributing to the economy. The elderly, on the other hand, although once working, are no longer productive as well and lack the skills and training needed to contribute to economic growth. They are both an economic drain on society. Children are required to go to school in preparation for entry to the capitalist economy, and the elderly are forced (using the term lightly) into retirement by a certain age.

I forgot where I was going with this... all that I am saying is that the two age groups are essentially competing for [dependent] scarce resources. I am curious as to what degree should an aging population receive in contrast to an influx [or lack] of children? With the firsts of the Baby Boom generation reaching retirement, and more to follow, how much money should be given to their portion of the population if the fertility rates remain the same (under non-government regulated child bearing)?

[Storm]

-- the elderly are forced (using the term lightly) into retirement by a certain age.

Not to be nitpicky, but you are a generation behind the times with this statement. The elderly use to be forced into retirement at a certain age. That was back in the days when there were too many people in the younger generation, and there was too much competition for jobs. So they decided to make older people retire and give them social security benefits.

Now, we don't have enough people in the younger generation, and people are being forced to work longer. A lot of people even want to work longer, it's no coincidence that "ageism" has sprung up recently. Of course, a lot of people are mad as hell that they don't get to retire at 60 65 70? This might affect your analysis.

[BostonIan]

Just random thoughts on the issue of population growth:

I wonder how much of the burden of sustaining the population falls on the women who have large families. If, say, the sustaining birthrate is 2.2 children per women. Let's say the population is 100 women, 100 men, 220 chldren need to be popped out. As an example:

~20% women average zero children, produce zero children, 220 remain unbirthed.
~20% women average one child, produce 20 children, 200 remain unbirthed.
~20% women average two children, produce 40 children, 160 remain unbirthed.
~20% women average three children, produce 60 children, 100 remain unbirthed

So the final fifth would require 5 children each, and they'd birth 100 of the 220 babies needed, 45% of the next generation's population. Just a thought game, but it'd be interesting to know how much of any generation (of a sustainment-level population) is birthed by unfashionably large families.

Also, what's missed in the birthrate discussion is time. It seems the number of births per year have to at least equal the number of deaths per year in order to sustain a population. Well, a TeenReproducing subset could have reproduced twice in the time it takes for the ThirtiesReproducing subset to reproduce once. That the age at birth isn't taken into account in the discussion of birthrate has always seemed odd to me.

[Undead Bonzi]

Yesh, I can't find anyone I agree with from either side. To address the false assumptions made here by both sides would force me to quote nearly the entire thread. I'll try and summarize in the name of brevity.

First my thoughts for the OP:

No the government should not limit these things. Certainly not in the US or Europe where a backwards slide is already starting to take place. Also do you really trust our inept governments to correctly and fairly manage such a system? I don't.

Corrections:

#1. China's imbalanced male to female ratio is not a result of their population control, it is a result of a cultural bias in place long before the limit was enacted. What is a result of the sever limit is a small youth generation which will have to support a very large non-productive generation upon retirement.

#2. Shrinking populations are BAD or a sign of something BAD happening. If you have smaller productive generations supporting larger non-productive retired generations there is increased strain and an imbalance in recourses. You are forced to consistently distribute a larger portion of your production to your non-productive generations. This is the path of stagnation and entropy.

However....

#3. Our planet is a semi-closed system. The only resource that is functionally limitless is solar energy (I say functionally because it wont matter to us if/when it dries up...we will be dead). That is the only significant resource that reliably enters our little bubble of dirt and air. Everything else has a finite sum governed by the laws of diminishing returns and entropy. Market demand won't mean shit if the resource isn't there. Thus it is possible to expand beyond your ecosystem, then BAD things will happen forcing a contraction of the system and what it can support. Humans can not increase indefinitely just because it will make the market happy, sooner or later we will hit the wall. Where that wall is, is up for debate, but the idea of infinite expansion is absurd and fly’s in the face of very real and uncaring laws of physics.

#4. Our current levels of advancement in technological and productivity expansion are illusions. Our current trends in ALL market areas are predicated upon the consumption of cheap ready to use energy (fossil fuels). No other source embodies as much energy in such an easily extracted and ready to utilize form. The sources of this energy are limited because our planet is limited. Once this source is tapped out our economies and productivity will shrink no matter what. (Examples: We can feed our current world population because of energy intensive farming by machines and artificial fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides,ect which are all based in...you guessed it...fossil fuels. If fuels become more expensive our food will as well. If fuels become limited yields will fall because the natural soil was played out long ago.)

#5. We will never use up all the oil. Why? Because at some point it will take more energy to extract the fuels than will be gained by what is extracted and this point will be reached before we can consume all the worlds oil. (physics equations could tell you exactly what the energy cost tipping point would be, but not really when we will hit them) Indeed known oil reserves are increasing with discovery. The problem is that a large portion of known oil reserves are unrecoverable without expending energy in excess of what is gained. Thus we will never run out of oil, nor will the decline be a sudden stop. We will see a day where we can't suck out quite as much oil as we did the day before...and it will cost more to do so. Then the next year the supply will shrink a bit more and the cost grow a bit more. Then after decades of decline we will look at a hole in the ground and know there is oil there, but we won't be able to get it out. When that happens please refer to the section of point #4 where I talk about agriculture.

#6. The fact that the worlds population could fit in the Grand Canyon does not prove that we are not over populated. In fact, it doesn't prove anything at all in this argument. The space a person needs to live is not defined by their body size, it is defined by the amount of land needed to support that person and the shit they need (or think they need) to live. If we dumped the worlds population AND their planes, train and automobiles AND all their buildings and structures AND the land and resources needed to support them and their activities into the Grand Canyon we would find that we would be dumping the entire planet into one hole....which doesn't quite work when the hole in question resides on the surface of the planet in question.

The point of all this is that entropy is a bitch and it doesn't give a shit what the market or people want. Wishfull thinking or idealism will not fix the problem...in fact nothing will. Our entire economy on this semi-closed system planet is based on consumption, the consumption won't stop or be curbed by anything but the laws of physics kicking us in the balls. Humanity as a whole will never voluntarily control themselves...we will simply reach the point where nature does it for us. I would also offer my opinion that the environment and its ability to support humans is elastic...it can be stretched beyond its normal size for a time before it snaps back, but I would posit that after each snap back the maximum stretch is reduced. Thus each time we exceed our environment and it snaps back, we won't be able to stretch it as far the next time, or the time after.

[azelismia]

I'm saying that when all economists agree on something about the economy, that is very good incentive to listen to their expertise. Dismissing it as comparable to majority opinion is comparable to dismissing the expert consensus in any field, such as those who dismiss the consensus of biologists on the reality of evolution. Creationists say the same thing about them, "oh, just because all the biologists agree doesn't mean anything."

Not all economic models require growth, but most benefit from it. There are none that I know of that are not damaged by a shrinking population, however.

You may argue that having a smaller population would be worth the economic damage, but don't think that such damage is avoidable.

damage will happen no matter what you do. sometimes teh right decisions cause pain.

[Phalanx]

The government should not limit how many children the public may have.

The public should limit how many children the government may have.

[Profit]

The point of all this is that entropy is a bitch and it doesn't give a shit what the market or people want.

Bonzi your rant was music to my ears, I felt the same when reading through much of this thread.

[acyckowski]

you are assuming that these kids are going to be fruitful members of society. Odds are against that. More likely they're going to make minimum wage and be a burden on the legal system with various abuses criminal actions.

Kids born into a house that can't support them aren't raised with a meaningful values system and have no guidance on how to succeed. their guidance is for failure. Drugs - Robbery - Physical Abuse - so on and so forth.

Factual correction, just because it needs to be done. I see that the conversation has moved on, so I'll hit this point quickly.

The median household income in the United States in 1999 was $42,000 dollars. The median household income for married couple households was $57,345.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

About 2/3 of children lived in married couple households.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Since I don't have access to the raw data, I can't directly calculate the actual probabilities, but from the above it seems to me that your implication that kids are most likely to be born into poverty is ill-founded.

As an aside, it's clear that you're biased towards seeing poverty as necessarily leading to crime. Poverty and crime, however, tend to be parallel offshoots of illegitimacy...our welfare cases, to whom I was not defending.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Back to the current argument: this slope is steeper than it is slippery. I am surprised that on the INTJf there would be such adamant support for a Final Solution mentality.

Although I disagree with RudyHenkel's conclusion with respect to pure cost calculations, I agree with his fundamental assertion of individual rights. This seems to be the common ground between him and MaxPot, with whom I more agree. Basically, the government has no business getting involved in my reproductive habits.

The argument that tax deductions are de facto involvement is well taken; however, it argues more towards a flat-tax or fair-tax system. Even with my child credits, I pay more into the system than I get back. If fairness is the goal, make a single tax bracket and remove all deductions.

From a political perspective, the problem stems from overall abuse of the general welfare clause of the Constitution. If tax dollars were used solely for the Constitutionally declared responsibilities of government, I'd have little to complain about. But, when the general welfare clause is used as justification to redistribute my wealth, any attempt to dress tax policy up in terms of fairness is ludicrous on its face.





acyckowski added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...

The government should not limit how many children the public may have.

The public should limit how many children the government may have.

Well put.

[azelismia]

Bonzi your rant was music to my ears, I felt the same when reading through much of this thread.


this is assumed as far as I am concerned. I know there is no hope of changing anything. I know we're on a final boat ride of destruction.

the opinions put forth here are just a stop gap measure that I think would slow things down.





azelismia added to this post, 14 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Factual correction, just because it needs to be done. I see that the conversation has moved on, so I'll hit this point quickly.

The median household income in the United States in 1999 was $42,000 dollars. The median household income for married couple households was $57,345.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

About 2/3 of children lived in married couple households.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Since I don't have access to the raw data, I can't directly calculate the actual probabilities, but from the above it seems to me that your implication that kids are most likely to be born into poverty is ill-founded.

As an aside, it's clear that you're biased towards seeing poverty as necessarily leading to crime. Poverty and crime, however, tend to be parallel offshoots of illegitimacy...our welfare cases, to whom I was not defending.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Back to the current argument: this slope is steeper than it is slippery. I am surprised that on the INTJf there would be such adamant support for a Final Solution mentality.

Although I disagree with RudyHenkel's conclusion with respect to pure cost calculations, I agree with his fundamental assertion of individual rights. This seems to be the common ground between him and MaxPot, with whom I more agree. Basically, the government has no business getting involved in my reproductive habits.

The argument that tax deductions are de facto involvement is well taken; however, it argues more towards a flat-tax or fair-tax system. Even with my child credits, I pay more into the system than I get back. If fairness is the goal, make a single tax bracket and remove all deductions.

From a political perspective, the problem stems from overall abuse of the general welfare clause of the Constitution. If tax dollars were used solely for the Constitutionally declared responsibilities of government, I'd have little to complain about. But, when the general welfare clause is used as justification to redistribute my wealth, any attempt to dress tax policy up in terms of fairness is ludicrous on its face.





acyckowski added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...



Well put.


I don't recall saying most. I said of children born in to situations where the parents were unable to pay or care for them. I said MOST of the children born into poverty were going to end up leading a bad existence.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nacht]

this is assumed as far as I am concerned. I know there is no hope of changing anything. I know we're on a final boat ride of destruction.

the opinions put forth here are just a stop gap measure that I think would slow things down.


You haven't, by chance, been reading Ehrlich, have you?

[Solus]

#1. China's imbalanced male to female ratio is not a result of their population control, it is a result of a cultural bias in place long before the limit was enacted. What is a result of the sever limit is a small youth generation which will have to support a very large non-productive generation upon retirement.

You've raised several points, but I'll address only this one as I mentioned China at the beginning of this thread.

Here is a paragraph from an article published on msnbc.com (the article is available only in google cache):

"After the Communists took power in 1949, Mao Zedong rejected traditional Malthusian arguments that population growth would eventually outrun food supply, and firmly regarded China's huge population as an asset, then with an annual birth rate of 3.7 percent. Without a state-mandated birth control program, China's sex ratio in the 60's and 70's remained normal.

Then in the early '80s, China began enforcing an ambitious demographic engineering policy to limit families to one-child, as part of its strategy to fast-track economic modernization. The policy resulted in a slashed annual birth rate of 1.29 percent by 2002, or the prevention of some 300 million births, and the current population of close to 1.3 billion.

‘Missing girls’
From a relatively normal ratio of 108.5 boys to 100 girls in the early 80s, the male surplus progressively rose to 111 in 1990, 116 in 2000, and is now is close to 120 boys for each 100 girls at the present time, according to a Chinese think-tank report."


The article suggests that China's one-child policy has been behind the country's skewed birth ratios. Could the cultural factors explain the anomaly as you suggest?

Here is a list of sex ratios for individual countries:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. Check the age brackets 15 years and above. They all show normal male to female ratios in China which seem to suggest that the imbalance is a recent phenomenon.

2. Other countries in that part of the world don't seem to register the same problem. If the culture played some role here, they would given the cultural similarities between them.

3. The above link lists only six countries in the world where the number of males exceeds the number of females at birth by more than 10 percent: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia and India. In the age-bracket 0-15 it's the same six countries. Apart from China all former Communist with some misguided family planning scheme.

I am surprised that on the INTJf there would be such adamant support for a Final Solution mentality.

Being an INTJ who values freedom I'm also surprised to find so many posters on this forum who apparently believe they can dictate to others what to do, what to believe in, how to live their lives etc. But it's even more surprising that in return they should offer some callous "Ayn Rand gone mad" solutions worthy of some primitive dictator such as Stalin, Idi Amin or Kim Il-sung. What is so intellectually superior about it?

[Tyrant Soup]

The article suggests that China's one-child policy has been behind the country's skewed birth ratios. Could the cultural factors explain the anomaly as you suggest?

Traditional cultural practices resulted in female children to be viewed as a liabilities. That's a bigger factor than government policy.


Being an INTJ who values freedom I'm also surprised to find so many posters on this forum who apparently believe they can dictate to others what to do, what to believe in, how to live their lives etc. But it's even more surprising that in return they should offer some callous "Ayn Rand gone mad" solutions worthy of some primitive dictator such as Stalin, Idi Amin or Kim Il-sung. What is so intellectually superior about it?
It is detrimental to society to encourage idiots to spawn and indoctrinate more idiots. Too many non-productive parasites running around would limit other's freedom to enjoy life. Therefore, it makes sense for society to place some restriction on the right to breed at it's expense.

[Freedom Geek]

It depends. If it comes down to a choice between forcing down the birth rate and increasing/maintaining the death rate and/or decreasing quality of life we should definitely force down the birth rate. At the moment however it seems not to be required.

[nacht]

The article suggests that China's one-child policy has been behind the country's skewed birth ratios. Could the cultural factors explain the anomaly as you suggest?


Yes.

If you find out that your family is going to have a girl and boys are more valuable, but you are limited to one child, then you get rid of that girl by one means or another.

If you find out that your family is going to have a girl and boys are more valuable, but you aren't limited to one child, then you just keep having children.

So what you get is a purely cultural phenomena stacked on top of a restriction in births.

Short of producing a Handmaid's Tale scenario, we would likely see our own cultural quirks getting in the way of any such measures as well, though not with the same effects.

[maxpot46]

Our planet is a semi-closed system. The only resource that is functionally limitless is solar energy (I say functionally because it wont matter to us if/when it dries up...we will be dead). That is the only significant resource that reliably enters our little bubble of dirt and air. Everything else has a finite sum governed by the laws of diminishing returns and entropy. Market demand won't mean shit if the resource isn't there. Resources don't go anywhere, they just change form, and many are renewable. IMO entropy has no place in a political or economic discussion.

[Storm]

Yes.
Short of producing a Handmaid's Tale scenario, we would likely see our own cultural quirks getting in the way of any such measures as well, though not with the same effects.

I'd imagine we'd see handicapped children being either aborted or given up for adoption at much higher rates than other children. Or people pouring money into labratory produced "designer" children.

[maxpot46]

Our entire economy on this semi-closed system planet is based on consumption, the consumption won't stop or be curbed by anything but the laws of physics kicking us in the balls.There is Say's Law (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to stop consumption. What must you do in order to consume anything? You must produce something to consume (or exchange for a consumable). What defines the limit of your consumption? Your ability to produce. In a truly free market (meaning a free money as well, with no means for artificial credit expansion) consumption is limited by production, and any perceived harmful effects of consumption are at least (and historically more than, hence the advancement of civilization) offset by the gains in productivity.

[Feral]

Nah, I wouldn't put a limit on it per se...

.... but I'd definitely be up for increased taxes for each one after two or three!

That way people aren't having a cow because people are encroaching on their right to breed like rabbits, they're just having a cow because they have to pay more for them.

Make people accountable.
Vagina is not a clown car.
That extra revenue from people continuing to pop out chilluns can go to more birth control and education.

[Undead Bonzi]

Resources don't go anywhere, they just change form, and many are renewable. IMO entropy has no place in a political or economic discussion.

Indeed resources don't go anywhere...but they do change form and composition. You could take the oil you burn, caputre all its resultant components and reconsititute the oil...but it would take more energy to do so than you would gain from the oil you created. ENTROPY! It takes more energy to make things go back to the way they were than you gain from what you created. In the cycle of nature this is not a problem because the planet has billions of years to absorb solar energy and reconstitute resources (see my reference to earth being a semi-closed system). Human consumption happens in terms of centuries, outpacing the supply by a margin of billions of years.

Entropy is the ruling force of the universe. All life operates by its rule and nothing can change it. Any action or law which does not take entropy into account is short term and delusional. You can't ignore laws of physics, they effect you regardless of if you take them into account or not.

There is Say's Law (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to stop consumption. What must you do in order to consume anything? You must produce something to consume (or exchange for a consumable). What defines the limit of your consumption? Your ability to produce. In a truly free market (meaning a free money as well, with no means for artificial credit expansion) consumption is limited by production, and any perceived harmful effects of consumption are at least (and historically more than, hence the advancement of civilization) offset by the gains in productivity.

False. You can build as many factories as you like and employ as many people as you like....if you don't have the raw materials needed to produce the product nothing can be made. The limit to consumption is the total amount of resource being consumed. If you consume all the resources needed to make something, then there is nothing left with which you can produce.

No resource is infinite, thus the true limit to productivity is the resources themselves.

[maxpot46]

Entropy is the ruling force of the universe. All life operates by its rule and nothing can change it. Any action or law which does not take entropy into account is short term and delusional. You can't ignore laws of physics, they effect you regardless of if you take them into account or not.Of course entropy is a factor in the universe. The point is that it can only be a factor in economics or politics under unrealistic conditions. Specifically, under the assumption that we must continue to use specific factors, in this case oil. There are already energy substitutes for oil, most notably nuclear. They are not chosen because they are either more expensive or more distasteful than oil. But if we ever actually start running out of oil, this will be reflected by a rise in price. When the price exceeds that of substitutes, substitutes will be chosen.
False. You can build as many factories as you like and employ as many people as you like....if you don't have the raw materials needed to produce the product nothing can be made. The limit to consumption is the total amount of resource being consumed. If you consume all the resources needed to make something, then there is nothing left with which you can produce.

No resource is infinite, thus the true limit to productivity is the resources themselves.Human ingenuity is infinite, and it is ingenuity and labor that are combined with resources to produce goods and services. Computers were once sand, skyscrapers once rocks.

[BallentineChen]

She's an outlier, I don't think it's a valuable use of legislative time.

[azelismia]

You haven't, by chance, been reading Ehrlich, have you?

no I haven't. this isn't the sort of thing I study for fun. I don't even know who Ehrlich is. I honestly do think there is no chance of change for this sort of thing and thus it's not worth really spending time on or getting worked up over.

[Rudy]

no I haven't. this isn't the sort of thing I study for fun. I don't even know who Ehrlich is. I honestly do think there is no chance of change for this sort of thing and thus it's not worth really spending time on or getting worked up over.

I'm not quite so pessimistic. Is disaster in our future? Quite possibly. Will it spell the end of the human race? Doubtful. As long as there is a future for humanity, these kind of questions are always worth asking.

[azelismia]

I'm not quite so pessimistic. Is disaster in our future? Quite possibly. Will it spell the end of the human race? Doubtful. As long as there is a future for humanity, these kind of questions are always worth asking.


unless nuclear warfare is unleashed I don't think we're at the end of our line. but, if we make the world toxic and kill out the majority of other species including plantlife.. it might be better if there were no survivors. I think given a thousand years or so that's a very likely ending.

[Rudy]

Hmm. I'm of the opinion that humanity surviving in any form is superior to it being wiped out completely. I don't think that efficiently synthesizing oxygen is very far out of reach. That, combined with continuing advances in solar power, probably colonial expansion to the moon and likely mars (maybe Mercury, though that would require some serious technological advances,) means that I don't see the extinction of humanity as either likely, or desirable, anywhere in the realm of thousands of years.

That doesn't mean the next few hundred years won't really, really suck, though.

[azelismia]

Hmm. I'm of the opinion that humanity surviving in any form is superior to it being wiped out completely. I don't think that efficiently synthesizing oxygen is very far out of reach. That, combined with continuing advances in solar power, probably colonial expansion to the moon and likely mars (maybe Mercury, though that would require some serious technological advances,) means that I don't see the extinction of humanity as either likely, or desirable, anywhere in the realm of thousands of years.

That doesn't mean the next few hundred years won't really, really suck, though.


Why, what's so special about the human race really? we are just a giant parasite.. What is so special about us that it justifies our existence over everything else out there? Is life really worth living with out the earth as we know it?

[Rudy]

Why, what's so special about the human race really? we are just a giant parasite.. What is so special about us that it justifies our existence over everything else out there? Is life really worth living with out the earth as we know it?

Asking what is special about the human race is comparable to asking what the point of life is. I mean, there really isn't a point to any of our lives; we live, die, and are forgotten. Why not just kill yourself, if it's all the same?

The reason I find that sort of question absurd is that I have an emotional attachment to myself, and to the human race. Neither has any real purpose, but I want to see my life, and humanity, go on regardless. I cannot logically defend either of these positions, nor do I need to. We are naturally egocentric. This is not logical, but it is not illogical either.

I want to see humanity continue to grow, and expand, because in a purposeless universe, I derive contentment from seeing will, decision and action. A universe without self-aware creatures is a very bleak place for me indeed. One of the reasons I would be so pleased to receive signs of intelligent alien life (though I don't think that any such signs have been received,) is that I could think: "Well, even if humanity kills itself off, there's still other creatures out there, striving and expanding, higher and higher."

[TheLastMohican]

Why, what's so special about the human race really?
We humans are.

[LaoTzu]

Or should we be able to have as many children as we want, since we do have the right to have children, and how we raise them is up to us?

We're in negative pop. replenishment territory as it is in the west...
We are seriously THAT selfish :P

We need not just one Octuplet Mom.... we need thousands!!! :)


I'm willing to provide the DNA !!



On the other side of it.... I support China's attempts to limit children. (just not the practical application of it)

[azelismia]

Asking what is special about the human race is comparable to asking what the point of life is. I mean, there really isn't a point to any of our lives; we live, die, and are forgotten. Why not just kill yourself, if it's all the same?

The reason I find that sort of question absurd is that I have an emotional attachment to myself, and to the human race. Neither has any real purpose, but I want to see my life, and humanity, go on regardless. I cannot logically defend either of these positions, nor do I need to. We are naturally egocentric. This is not logical, but it is not illogical either.

I want to see humanity continue to grow, and expand, because in a purposeless universe, I derive contentment from seeing will, decision and action. A universe without self-aware creatures is a very bleak place for me indeed. One of the reasons I would be so pleased to receive signs of intelligent alien life (though I don't think that any such signs have been received,) is that I could think: "Well, even if humanity kills itself off, there's still other creatures out there, striving and expanding, higher and higher."


I don't think it's the same as saying why don't we commit suicide. I am saying we should limit our numbers so we don't ruin what we have for future generations. Why is quantity more important than quality? We have a garden planet, isn't it a travesty to destroy it when we really don't have any other options for the sake of mere numbers? Are we locusts? You seem to be saying we are.

there is no argument of my comparison of the human race to parasites, just a hedonistic revel of our parasiticness.

limiting our numbers now means we have a far greater chance of survival as a species than if we encourage overcrowding.

any animal population that starts to grow beyond the point of feasibility for food and water and basic necessities will raise in crime, violence, war, and pestilence. If we do manage to survive past that with too many people then we soil the planet with toxic wastes to the point when no green things will survive and no other animals survive. What then?

we die off slowly and painfully in a wasteland.

it's all short sighted.

[Rudy]

I don't think it's the same as saying why don't we commit suicide. I am saying we should limit our numbers so we don't ruin what we have for future generations. Why is quantity more important than quality? We have a garden planet, isn't it a travesty to destroy it when we really don't have any other options for the sake of mere numbers? Are we locusts? You seem to be saying we are.

there is no argument of my comparison of the human race to parasites, just a hedonistic revel of our parasiticness.

limiting our numbers now means we have a far greater chance of survival as a species than if we encourage overcrowding.

any animal population that starts to grow beyond the point of feasibility for food and water and basic necessities will raise in crime, violence, war, and pestilence. If we do manage to survive past that with too many people then we soil the planet with toxic wastes to the point when no green things will survive and no other animals survive. What then?

we die off slowly and painfully in a wasteland.

it's all short sighted.
I wasn't suggesting that limiting our numbers was a bad thing, just that it wouldn't happen voluntarily. I never said that quantity was better than quality, only that I don't want the human race to end for any reason. I want us to go on, no matter what. Ideally, this would be while allowing other things to live as well.

I think that disaster will eventually force us to limit our numbers, but that we will recover from it to some extent. I think your wasteland scenario is a bit unlikely, that's all.

[acyckowski]

I don't recall saying most. I said of children born in to situations where the parents were unable to pay or care for them. I said MOST of the children born into poverty were going to end up leading a bad existence.

No, you did not use the word most. What you said was:

you are assuming that these kids are going to be fruitful members of society. Odds are against that. More likely they're going to make minimum wage and be a burden on the legal system with various abuses criminal actions.

That sounds like "most of all children" to me, since I made no distinction that the child was born into poverty, wealth, or any such thing.

Have you actually run the numbers on this article you cited? They don't add up. They claim to be taking info from a 1996 release from the census bureau. On one line, 15 million kids are poor, on the next line, 17.5 million are (2660x365.25x18). On one line, 48% of the 13.8% of the population that is poor are also children...at 15 million, this equates to a U.S. population of 226M....the U.S. population according to the 1980 census.

Don't take your stats from these people. They're either fundamentally incompetent or intentionally dishonest.

[The Irish Lands]

No, because having as many children as you want is a basic right of all people, imo - and government should definately not be deciding the choices that need to be done by free man and women.

I know why you are asking this question. There are some families in my country that have many children and not care about them properly, too.
But if reason can not stop them from doing that, than nothing can.

[RBM]

The issue of the number of children one should have isn't really an issue in most of the Western world because our fertility rates are already below the replacement level of 2.0(The United States is the exception with 2.1).

What is an issue for those who study such things is per capita energy usage - the 'Western world' is much greater consumers of energy. Or another, related matter, is carbon footprint.

[azelismia]

No, you did not use the word most. What you said was:



That sounds like "most of all children" to me, since I made no distinction that the child was born into poverty, wealth, or any such thing.

Have you actually run the numbers on this article you cited? They don't add up. They claim to be taking info from a 1996 release from the census bureau. On one line, 15 million kids are poor, on the next line, 17.5 million are (2660x365.25x18). On one line, 48% of the 13.8% of the population that is poor are also children...at 15 million, this equates to a U.S. population of 226M....the U.S. population according to the 1980 census.

Don't take your stats from these people. They're either fundamentally incompetent or intentionally dishonest.


in context we were discussing people who could not afford to have kids who were having them anyway along with unwanted children.

Here is a different more reliable link

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[goulas]

The short answer, in my opinion, is No. "Should they" can be debated all day long but the bottom line is that it would never pass legislation. Limiting how many children one has is a form of placing restrictions on a female's reproductive rights. This issue has already been argued in the Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which references an implied constitutional right to privacy. In order for the government to restrict the number of children a woman has, they would have to change their interpretation of privacy of the woman and her womb. In doing so, the sole basis for argument in granting abortion rights to women would be eliminated thus leaving the door open to reverse Roe v. Wade. In anticipation of this reversal, one can only conclude that the government's attempt to regulate the number of children a woman has would in turn eliminate the only medically reliable method of terminating excess pregnancies. No matter what personal opinions you have, you cannot reasonably have one without the absence of the other.

[The Irish Lands]

The issue of the number of children one should have isn't really an issue in most of the Western world because our fertility rates are already below the replacement level of 2.0(The United States is the exception with 2.1).

Yeah. In Czech Republic, where I live, we only have about 1.4!
This way, it is more likely that we will have some "minimum amount of children" set by our government (J/K of course - but it definately looks terrible)

[RBM]

azeliasmia

Ever heard of Jay Hanson original author of dieoff.org ?

[SeaCzar]

This has gotten a bit off track from the OP, but here's my $0.02...

Should the government be in the business of limiting the amount of children a woman can have? No.

As for those who have commented about school classes on the upbringing of children, this is an excellent idea, if it can teach those (male and female) some responsibility. That is the issue in a nutshell. Women, preferably couples, should have as many (or as few) children as they want, as long as they can care for those children responsibly. Given the training and licencing requirements needed to carry out various tasks and professions in the US, its unconscionable that this is not the case, in that being a responsible parent is job one. I see the irresponsibility daily, kids running in the streets, all hours, all kinds of weather.

Again, as in so many other aspects of life, what's needed is education, which is the parent's duty,. You can see the vicious cycle this creates. The government should be more involved here.

[azelismia]

azeliasmia

Ever heard of Jay Hanson original author of dieoff.org ?


nope. I really don't follow any of this sort of thing. I think it's a waste of time. I have opinions on the matter but I do not think it's worthy of getting one's knickers in a knot over as there is nothing to be done about it.

[searching]

I have 4. We are not on welfare. We are not rich. We manage.
The octomom? I think everyone should leave her alone. The doctor is the criminal

[Maybe to Dream]

No. The thing is although I'm not sure that I neccesarily agree with the whole licensing premise, I do strongly support the idea of having a class taught in all schools-I can maybe get behind the idea of those classes acting as a credit towards a license or something but to me it seems wrong to have the government telling people how they should raise their own children. I mean what could a government class really teach that the high school class couldn't cover in terms of balancing budgets, practical childcare, etc.? In fact, make it a class that has to be taken before any student drops out or leaves. Done and done...I think.

[Undead Bonzi]

This has gotten a bit off track from the OP, but here's my $0.02...

Should the government be in the business of limiting the amount of children a woman can have? No.

As for those who have commented about school classes on the upbringing of children, this is an excellent idea, if it can teach those (male and female) some responsibility. That is the issue in a nutshell. Women, preferably couples, should have as many (or as few) children as they want, as long as they can care for those children responsibly. Given the training and licencing requirements needed to carry out various tasks and professions in the US, its unconscionable that this is not the case, in that being a responsible parent is job one. I see the irresponsibility daily, kids running in the streets, all hours, all kinds of weather-

Again, as in so many other aspects of life, what's needed is education, which is the parent's duty,. You can see the vicious cycle this creates. The government should be more involved here.

I see some level of contradition in this line of thinking. You don't trust the government to limit the number of children but you do trust them to educated them correctly on the subject. I am not really impressed by any of the government education programs. At some point parents need to step in and pull their weight, but then we have the porblem of all the worthless parents which brings us full circle again to population control.

[yondyr]

The rights of any child should be paramount and it could be removed and placed with someone capable of supporting it financially and emotionally and physically instead of the sanctity of motherhood/ownership being respected to a detrimental point at the expense of the public purse.

[jesse]

Should government limit the number of children we may have? My answer is No.

If you do not want children, fine. If you want to have 20 children, that's just dandy. Now, the big question is: can you manage to bring up such a horde of children, while providing an environment which educates them (I do not simply mean shipping them off to the local public school system), love them and care for them? I'm sure it has been done before and not without everyone in the family doing their bit.

Assume we would vote to give congress, or equivalent, the mandate to limit the number of children born to each family and enforce such limits. It could get very ugly very fast. Oh well, might as well order everyone to wear a chastity belt or have their genitals hacked off! :idea: Government knows what is best for us all doesn't it not?

[acyckowski]

in context we were discussing people who could not afford to have kids who were having them anyway along with unwanted children.

Here is a different more reliable link

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Their data checks out with the 2007 census report, from what I can see, but it flows from an unsubstantiated opening assumption...
Research suggests that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to meet their most basic needs.
....and all the mathematics in the world can't fix faulty logic.

What research? Done by whom? What are "basic needs"? How much do basic needs cost, and how much should they cost?

Let's look at the cost of food. Assuming these NCCP yahoos used the 2007 USDA cost of food report to arrive at a grocery bill...my family of 5 on a "modest" food plan will spend a $1,010 a month on food--just food. I actually spend about $500 on food every month, and we eat pretty darned well. If people think they "need" $1,000 a month for groceries, they have either a highly inflated notion of need or no clue how to shop.

Okay, enough about their bizarre assumption. Let's grant that you need twice the poverty level of income to be "secure," and see how that ripples out through the entire population.

According to the same census report, their definition of "low-income" applies to about the 44% of the families in the U.S. making under $44,100. Is that what we mean by "poor"? Somebody scraping by on $22 an hour? Really? That's a whole lot of people who shouldn't be having kids.

When you define nearly half the population as poor, it stands to reason that you will find a lot of poor kids. By the same logic the NCCP uses, the 44% of families that make $58,600 or more would be "high-income." I guess the middle class is that 12.2% of the country that makes between $44.1k and $58.6k.

Interestingly, although 44% of the families in the US were "low-income," only 39% of the kids were part of "low-income" families. Whatever happened to that sweet romantic notion that poor people kept pumping out kids they couldn't afford...seems to me like they're having kids at about the same rate as the affluent making $58k.

[fomatizer]

Rudy, it strikes me as funny that an atheist is proposing (by taxing those that procreate and rewarding those that adopt), what amounts to a "Sin Tax" and a "Good Samaritan" reward. Or on another level, this is just a carrot and a stick. Parent government models imply that people need the government to tell them what to do and further, that the government has the right to tax people for moral reasons that favor a particular religious bias.

Regarding the sin angle, there was no greater sin in the Judeo-Christian belief system than the disobedience (caused by a woman's curiosity) that led to carnal knowledge and procreation. God had to come to earth and died on the cross to atone (pay) the penalty for Original Sin.

Interesting that when young, unwed mothers bear children under your system, they will be the only of the two collaborators to bear the burden of the sin of procreation and the faithful males are penalized for taking responsibility, in addition to the cost of raising the child. If they admit no part in it, the male remains sin-free in the eyes of the gov/god. How predictably Judeo-Christian.

The ones who started having children early made the mistake of succumbing to temptation. Realizing the consequences too late, most would prefer a do-over: sex with no penalties. Today, we have the ability to do just that and end this long fixation on sex and procreation.

Rather than taking a heavy-handed approach, wouldn't it be cheaper overall and less biasedly moral for the government to simply dispense free birth control, sex education, and campaign against unwanted pregnancies in the media (as A. suggested) and see how that goes?

[azelismia]

Their data checks out with the 2007 census report, from what I can see, but it flows from an unsubstantiated opening assumption...

....and all the mathematics in the world can't fix faulty logic.

What research? Done by whom? What are "basic needs"? How much do basic needs cost, and how much should they cost?

Let's look at the cost of food. Assuming these NCCP yahoos used the 2007 USDA cost of food report to arrive at a grocery bill...my family of 5 on a "modest" food plan will spend a $1,010 a month on food--just food. I actually spend about $500 on food every month, and we eat pretty darned well. If people think they "need" $1,000 a month for groceries, they have either a highly inflated notion of need or no clue how to shop.

Okay, enough about their bizarre assumption. Let's grant that you need twice the poverty level of income to be "secure," and see how that ripples out through the entire population.

According to the same census report, their definition of "low-income" applies to about the 44% of the families in the U.S. making under $44,100. Is that what we mean by "poor"? Somebody scraping by on $22 an hour? Really? That's a whole lot of people who shouldn't be having kids.

When you define nearly half the population as poor, it stands to reason that you will find a lot of poor kids. By the same logic the NCCP uses, the 44% of families that make $58,600 or more would be "high-income." I guess the middle class is that 12.2% of the country that makes between $44.1k and $58.6k.

Interestingly, although 44% of the families in the US were "low-income," only 39% of the kids were part of "low-income" families. Whatever happened to that sweet romantic notion that poor people kept pumping out kids they couldn't afford...seems to me like they're having kids at about the same rate as the affluent making $58k.


depends on where you live. Around here, pacific northwest, it would be scraping by for me to live on that amount of money 44k a year and as a family of four.. forget it. you'd be hurting.

I think it's like that pretty much all up and down either coast line. Which is also where a high percentage of the population actually lives.

[jesse]

Rudy, it strikes me as funny that an atheist is proposing (by taxing those that procreate and rewarding those that adopt), what amounts to a "Sin Tax" and a "Good Samaritan" reward. Or on another level, this is just a carrot and a stick. Parent government models imply that people need the government to tell them what to do and further, that the government has the right to tax people for moral reasons that favor a particular religious bias.

Regarding the sin angle, there was no greater sin in the Judeo-Christian belief system than the disobedience (caused by a woman's curiosity) that led to carnal knowledge and procreation. God had to come to earth and died on the cross to atone (pay) the penalty for Original Sin.

Interesting that when young, unwed mothers bear children under your system, they will be the only of the two collaborators to bear the burden of the sin of procreation and the faithful males are penalized for taking responsibility, in addition to the cost of raising the child. If they admit no part in it, the male remains sin-free in the eyes of the gov/god. How predictably Judeo-Christian.

The ones who started having children early made the mistake of succumbing to temptation. Realizing the consequences too late, most would prefer a do-over: sex with no penalties. Today, we have the ability to do just that and end this long fixation on sex and procreation.

Rather than taking a heavy-handed approach, wouldn't it be cheaper overall and less biasedly moral for the government to simply dispense free birth control, sex education, and campaign against unwanted pregnancies in the media (as A. suggested) and see how that goes?

A sin tax you say? Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like something a theocratic rule in a transition period before enacting, oh let's say, capital punishment for adultery and so forth. Besides, taxing procreation does turn children into a financial liability as if it were something which can be traded as a commodity at the drop of a hat. I've heard somee stories and reports of this happening in some developing countries out of desperation, or as a way to get rid of a child born out of wedlock especially if it is severely ostracized within a culture.

Whenever deeply religious individuals infer that women are the root of all evil and of all temptation, it smacks of a cop out answer which absolves men of any wrongdoing whatsoever. It takes two to tango as I'm not aware of people possessing the innate ability to asexually reproduce without IVF and a donor.

As you mention government bias and preference, I concur that it would make more sense to educate the population on sex and reproduction than to implement a bizarre scheme derived from religious belief, not to mention the obligatory "it's tradition" clause thrown in to somehow provide that one extra bit of justification.

[Snowdragon]

Certain people should be kept from reproducing (Octomom, welfare queens, crack junkies...)

[eternaltriangle]

What is an issue for those who study such things is per capita energy usage - the 'Western world' is much greater consumers of energy. Or another, related matter, is carbon footprint.

Which is why arguing for limits on human reproduction is a very indirect way of dealing with the problem population limiters are trying to solve (overpopulation). Want to limit the population? Levy a carbon tax. Raise consumption taxes. Eliminate mortgage interest deductability (and that insane $7500 tax credit for first-time home-buyers). Child-birth is, according to opponents of population growth, a negative externality - children are lovely, but they make society as a whole worse off. The solution is to change incentives by altering the tax structure. That way, even if people do produce "too many children" (or if people overconsume in other ways), they pay enough in taxes to fund green R&D, etc.

Directly limiting population a la China (it might be necessary there) is a bad approach. People may have fewer children but still consume the same amount. After all, it isn't as if having children raises a family's income (and one's income is the long-term limit of how much one can consume). Indeed, I would argue that people have a stronger incentive to save when they have kids, because they know their children will inherit their wealth.

[reb]

the fact that humanity must discuss the topic of overpopulation at such length without clear consensus is indicative that we will never do anything about the matter. it's indicative of.........other things, as well. and, on this forum, with this level of intelligence...imagine trying to have any kind of serious discussion with 'the population at large'. how funny....

[uncon]

Certain people should be kept from reproducing (Octomom, welfare queens, crack junkies...)

I hereby put you in charge of enforcement of this. ;)

[firebee]

Certain people should be kept from reproducing (Octomom, welfare queens, crack junkies...)

That seems to be a not-uncommon idea. How do you intend to enforce this, though? Octomom wasn't Octomom until she was already pregnant, and last I heard the speculation was that she had acquired fertility drugs without medical supervision and inseminated the resulting eggs the old-fashioned way. So what are you proposing to keep her from reproducing? Preemptive sterilization or mandatory abortion?

Sterilizing drug addicts is a bit 1930s. Sterilizing poor black women (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is quite a lot 1930s. And that is what you're talking about, basically. Our default condition is that reproduction is entertaining and inexpensive, at least regarding the initial cost. Keeping "undesirables" from reproducing requires concerted action to prevent nature from taking its course.

Are you really willing to do what would be necessary to implement this idea?

[Pandemonium]

The problem with population growth is that it is an exponential function. The more people the greater impact on the carrying capacity of the earth. There are such things called limiting factors. There is normally a lag period before limiting factors start to take effect. By then, due the resource drain would alter the limiting factors. We either limit population growth or severely invest in new efficient technologies and systems to enable sustainable growth. Many argue that any growth in population is unsustainable even if we heavily invested in new technologies such as sustainable farming practices and or what ever technologies that increase the sustainability coefficient.

A social aspect is that the more people that are born into the world the less value the individual has. I don't really see how we can sustain population growth in our current financial system based on self-interest. Companies invest in machinery to cut down production cost limiting the amount of workers. Less people working means less liquidity in the system.

An idea would be to have a two child policy or maybe even a one child policy. People can still have children and get satisfied in an Freudian manner. By doing so we can also have a population cap and start allocating resources based on the population cap. After all economics is the study about how societies allocate resources.

We just can't afford exponential growth of population.

[JustMel]

Some states are already discussing regulating IVF and not allowing women over 30 to be implanted with more than 2-3 eggs at a time. I agree with this. I think that implanting a woman who already had 6 children who is receiving SSI for three of them, and food stamps simply because she could pay the fee was irresponsible of the Dr's part.

I wouldn't say chemically castrate a guy because his baby's mama is receiving government assistance. That's beyond control I want to give the government. Some women can meet the requirements for government assistance regardless of whether the guy is paying child support or providing health insurance. I know a woman who has 4 kids by 4 different dads. One of the dads pays $1000 a month, half of daycare, and medical insurance. The other three are deadbeats who don't pay support or are in prison. She receives government assistance for daycare, food stamps, lives in section 8 housing and medicaid for her kids. Why should the one dad that is paying be forced to be chemically castrated because the mother couldn't/wouldn't keep her legs closed? We shouldn't.

There are no more kids getting pregnant or having kids than there were in our grandparent's day. The difference is they aren't getting married and creating family units. You have guys sleeping with everything that has a heartbeat and a hole and girls sleeping with every guy that buys them a bracelet or says "I love you" and kids being born that weren't really planned. Then the relationship ends and she has another child by someone else, he impregantes someone else and the cycle continues until the kids have so many halves and steps they don't know what a functional family is anymore. You can have good single parent homes. I provided my daughter with a good single parent home when she was younger but I didn't have anymore kids either. I didn't date a lot or introduce her to a new partner every other month. I facilitated her relationship with my ex who wasn't her biological father but helped raise her and they were close. We divorced each other, he didn't divorce her. They still talk and we've been divorced 12years. It comes down to teaching our kids morals and leading by example.





JustMel added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

I do think that if you're receiving state assistance birth control should be mandatory.

[Lohengram]

I think not, apart from the moral arguments against it which are fairly obvious, in practical terms it is an absurdly short sighted policy. China has such a policy in action and has had it for some 30 years. What's the result? the 1st massive problem is the demographic time bomb. With a rising standard of living and lengthening average life spans they add an inverted pyramid structure to their population age structure. It took other countries generations for the gradual imbalances in their population structure for them to start to shrink (presently Japan is naturally shrinking in population terms). China will, in the not so distant future, have a fairly typical family structure of 1 grandchild; 2 parents and 4 grandparents. This will cause immense economic and social problems. A 2nd major problem in the China experience has been the imbalance in the male to female population ratio. While this might not apply equally elsewhere if it were tried, it is a worthwhile example of the principle of unintended consequences that result from authoritarian actions. Families generally prefer for their 1 child to be male, consequently there is a massive imbalance in China with young males far outnumbering young females.

In addition, it is a commonly observed trend across the world and even looking into civilisations of the past. That as societies become more wealthy the population as a whole has fewer and fewer children. In the long term, provided economic policies permit it. Rising living standards naturally push down average family sizes, so if anything the long term future for the human race is expansion up to a point, then a contraction in global population.

[Xaleph]

If the people didn't have a safety net they'd be more careful with their lives and the lives of their children. Government in this case is the problem - adding more government won't fix irresponsibility, it'll make it worse.

[Storm]

You think that children whose parents can not provide for them should starve to death?

[qwerty123]

the octuplet mom is a fat tail or black swan that came at a time when the world itself is tripping over the fat tails.

What her doctor did is what should be illegal.

Having children repeatedly should be up to the parents. Birth control should be readily and cheaply available, and most will fall within reason. Significant incentive stands against having more than a few children. Still for those who do, they might think that nothing is wrong with it, or they're looking for some sort of "F the system" attention. Incentives can be established to curb certain behavior. This is what China did. People are allowed to have multiple children, but a single child is heavily incentivized. This leads to female infanticide and the shortage of 30+ million women (don't quote me on that) that china is soon to confront.

That being said, I know a very religious family with 11 children. The older are through college and others are heading soon. They were home-schooled and have for the most part excelled in school and their careers.

I'm generally libertarian, so what can I say.

[acyckowski]

depends on where you live. Around here, pacific northwest, it would be scraping by for me to live on that amount of money 44k a year and as a family of four.. forget it. you'd be hurting.

I think it's like that pretty much all up and down either coast line. Which is also where a high percentage of the population actually lives.

Oh, absolutely on the coasts it's different. From Richmond all the way up to New England on this side of the continent.

By definition, though, half the population falls below the median, and half falls above it, minus the one guy in the middle. In flyover country, 44k is enough to live on.

Yet more reason government shouldn't be involved. A 750k home in the DC area would fetch about 350k here in the Richmond suburbs and about 220 in southeast Georgia. Are we to expect that people who think it's reasonable to pay over $200 per square foot have any basis to judge what people can afford elsewhere?

Just to bring the numbers up to date, I've seen on the news recently that 52k was the 2008 median...I don't know the source, though. I'm a bit suspicious of that number, seeing as we're in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. (Excluding all the recessions between then and now, of course.)

If the people didn't have a safety net they'd be more careful with their lives and the lives of their children. Government in this case is the problem - adding more government won't fix irresponsibility, it'll make it worse.

You're right, of course, but expect some backlash for pointing out the obvious.





acyckowski added to this post, 3 minutes and 21 seconds later...

Birth control should be readily and cheaply available, and most will fall within reason.

Figure $6-7 bucks for a 12-pack of Trojans, that'll last your average married couple a few months. Sounds cheap and readily available to me.

[qwerty123]

Figure $6-7 bucks for a 12-pack of Trojans, that'll last your average married couple a few months. Sounds cheap and readily available to me.



Although certainly not universally available in less developed countries. Africa?

[Rudy]

Although certainly not universally available in less developed countries. Africa?

Don't forget, AIDS in Africa may be bad, but condoms are worse. At least, that's what the church says. =/

[kedelfor]

I think that peple should be allowed to do what they want and have as much freedom as possible. When I start getting irritated is when it effects me. I think the government should have as little to do with people personal choices and freedoms, but also people shouldn't expect the government to come in and help them either. IE you can have as many children as you want, but the government won't give you money to raise them. This allows for a survivial of the fittest type mentality. I think the major problem with society today is the fact no body wants to take responsibility with themselves.

[qwerty123]

I think the major problem with society today is the fact no body wants to take responsibility with themselves.


Responsibility is a big word.

Accountability is another.

[carmen2u]

Brilliant. Rudy, you have the right idea. Tax those who burden the system, while rewarding those who ease its burdens. What a breath of fresh air you are!

[Snowdragon]

Certain people should be kept from reproducing (Octomom, welfare queens, crack junkies...)





What I meant by welfare queen is a woman regardless of race, has baby after baby after baby after baby to avoid having to work.


This video should explain everything.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There should be a consequence for irresponsible behavior, like being neutered like a dog (at the very least).

[errrzarrr]

I think government somehow must limit how many children the families may have. But do not limit any kind of family, just the obviously less smart, irresponsibles and more poor ones.

I am not pretty sure if taxing them is the best way, it may only make things worse. Let's say is one of may ways. Irresponsible and stupid people are irresponsible and stupid anyway. In the end they will do what the already do anyway, they will leave the baby in a thrash-can, in the door of a church or make some friend/familiar pay those taxes for them, leaving that charge to a more responsible one.





errrzarrr added to this post, 9 minutes and 30 seconds later...

(...continuing)

I should give massive amounts of free condoms and sexual education to the less educated and irresponsibles, dispite what Puritans and Pope says. This also prevents diseases.

If I'd tax them (wich I think is an incomplete idea) I would put that money to more prevention/education programs and would use it for making more easy the life of those that work and assume the big burden of taxes, ie middle and working class.

[Vayate]

Should the government limit the number of children one can have?
Yes. The number should be determined by the average IQ of the couple having the child. If it's under 130, that limit should be 0.

[Brittle]

Should the goverment limit how many children one can have?

Probably not, but should they have to be financially support them when someone has too many?

I was watching the news last night and there was a story about a women who has 15 kids and had to give some of them away (some to other family, some to welfare) because she couldn't look after them all in her 4 bedroom house. It was then revealed she was receiving over $216,000 a year in government support - more than $4,150 a week, which is a hell of a lot more than most people with both parents working make - yet she claimed she couldn't afford to feed, clothe and house them all. It was stated she had so many kids because she didn't believe in abortion... but geez... ever heard of birth control?!!!

I think when taxpayers are forking out such a phenomenal amount to support one couple's family, there needs to be some kind of regulations in place.

I do think that if you're receiving state assistance birth control should be mandatory.

That's not a bad idea.

China has such a policy in action and has had it for some 30 years. What's the result? China will, in the not so distant future, have a fairly typical family structure of 1 grandchild; 2 parents and 4 grandparents. This will cause immense economic and social problems. A 2nd major problem in the China experience has been the imbalance in the male to female population ratio... consequently there is a massive imbalance in China with young males far outnumbering young females.

These are relatively short-term problems of a long-term strategy. Not ideal, but compared to the alternative perhaps the lesser of 2 evils. Once the older generations have passed on, the demographic imbalance will right itself.

As far as the gender imbalance, perhaps this culture will now place more recognition on the value of women in their society. Again, the relatively short-term imbalance may reap long-term rewards by balancing out the gender inequalities.

[MaleVolentworld]

China do this or used to do this...I remember because I saw a newspaper article with a dead baby in the street, the parents couldn't take care of it since they were only allowed one child. Instead I say government ministers have no children and also no salary, they should also stop picking up babies everywhere they go for a camera shot.

[Ersatz]

I think it would be fair to have individuals who plan on having children declare this fact to social services before pregnancy and pay a higher tax rate than those who choose not to have children. Those children who were not planned would have to be educated and taken care of exclusively by another source (parents, non-profits, etc.) This would create less demand for government services. But even if it makes sense, doesn't make it right. So many problems in society are caused by people slipping through the cracks of society and the selfish (in the objectivist way) responsibility of a people, whether government is involved or not, is to ensure that all people have equal opportunity. This is not only because of the value of human life, but to ensure societal stability.

Now, with that being said, humanity will eventually have to choose between a high birth rate or a high death rate as demand for scarce resources hits us hard in the middle of this century.

[Brittle]

Now, with that being said, humanity will eventually have to choose between a high birth rate or a high death rate as demand for scarce resources hits us hard in the middle of this century.

And herein lies the problem, everyone wants to live forever but still retain their right to have as many kids as they like. At some point, something's gotta give.

[maxpot46]

And herein lies the problem, everyone wants to live forever but still retain their right to have as many kids as they like. At some point, something's gotta give.Not if capitalism continues to spread, as looking at birth rates in developed nations makes clear that people in modern economies have better things to do than raise kids. This type of Malthusian scaremongering is the product of linear and static thinking.

[Maybe to Dream]

^This is what I'm thinking at the moment.

I'm not terribly educated on the subject though, but from what I understand I don't think it's so much an issue of too many to feed with too little as it is those who starve lacking purchasing power. I remember reading somewhere that if food was evenly distributed that there would be enough to feed people and I think that if clean energy was to be developed the number of children people have wouldn't be an issue.

I think it's more that people should maybe take classes in high school and learn something about budgeting and all the rest.

And anyway, I would call this a bad idea because it is dangerous to have any government playing this type of role in the personal lives of its citizens- once it starts expanding I imagine it is very hard to limit.

[Ersatz]

Not if capitalism continues to spread, as looking at birth rates in developed nations makes clear that people in modern economies have better things to do than raise kids. This type of Malthusian scaremongering is the product of linear and static thinking.

I agree that capitalism has a way of producing the resources needed to sustain growth. However, with the exponential population growth in just the last century, and population projections of over 20 billion in 50 years, we will need to find more resources somewhere. Where is this somewhere? Mars. Go now, go strong. And this type of shift witnessed in developed nations is precisely the point I'm trying to make. The difference between developed and developing nations is family size.

[Rudy]

I agree that capitalism has a way of producing the resources needed to sustain growth. However, with the exponential population growth in just the last century, and population projections of over 20 billion in 50 years, we will need to find more resources somewhere. Where is this somewhere? Mars. Go now, go strong. And this type of shift witnessed in developed nations is precisely the point I'm trying to make. The difference between developed and developing nations is family size.

The point is that developed countries have very slow population growths. The solution, then, is to develop the world, and then population growth will slow incredibly. I've come around to this line of thinking since my original posts in this forum.

[2obvious]

Sorry, I'm late to the party. I've given a lot of thought to this subject.
...in my copious spare time, I naturally design idealized systems of government...
(Glad to see I'm not the only one.)

I have two plans: one idealistic (utopian, to my warped mind), the other more pragmatic.

Mandatory birth control for all post-adolescent, pre-menopausal women.
Frankly...your proposals are radical and disturbing. I'm not sure if you're suggesting all that you have to argue in an extreme manner or if you truly think that you're within reason.
Yes...go live in Rome, Catholics.
That includes men for my dollar, if you have fathered a child and that child even while in the custody of the mother is on state aid you get chemically castrated.
Involving both parties would lead to a mountain of legal precedents--too many "he said/she said"s.

(I know it sounds sexist; I'm not trying to be. Women get pregnant, men do not.) Recognizing that chemically-induced harmones can affect different women in horrible ways, the government would supply a plethora of options: pills, rings, Norplant, the whole gamut, at the cost of the taxpayers.
Can we come up with a licensing process for having children?
Yes, and this is the first step to enforcing it.
So how about we take a framework approach teach basic parenting skills, verify potential parent(s) have some form of income that is enough in the black to withstand the additional cost of a child. After that I think anything goes, no need for moral/value type coaching...
I say forget the classes, the government completely breaks it down financially, depending on the cost of living in the area of the country where you reside.
This entire debate is a solution in search of a problem. Overpopulation is not a concern in the US and won't be for the foreseeable future.
The original post said nothing about overpopulation. Personally, I'm attacking poverty, crime, teenage pregnancy, abortion, unwanted children,...overpopulation doesn't even make my list of concerns.

I have often thought it would be best if there was some kind of law governing the ability of people already on government assistance to produce additional offspring. Maybe making Norplant or something of the like mandatory. Not sure how that would work...
That's my second plan, daisy: mandatory birth control for all families receiving government assistance. (This has far less of the "guilty until proven innocent" stigma of my first plan. Plus, it'll cost less.)

The birth control options are greatly reduced, in favor of those that can be easily monitored: Norplant, the Nuvo Ring, once-a-month solutions.

Get off the welfare, get your body back.

Assuming that we did restrict the number of children, what would people propose we do to those who defied the law?
Neither of my plans involves an explicit cap in the number of kids you can have. And if you somehow manage to still get pregnant: huzzah. I'm not abolishing welfare.

(Two separate pregnancies, and I might consider granting the government the legal recourse to tie your tubes, however.)

Please, tell me how draconian I am.

[Rudy]

The point is that developed countries have very slow population growths. The solution, then, is to develop the world, and then population growth will slow incredibly. I've come around to this line of thinking since my original posts in this forum.

I should say, though, that despite the partial softening of my original position, I'm still opposed to tax breaks being given for having children.

[Daimai]

I think that this problem has more to do with the enviroment and the earth than the goverment of X country. As it is now we already use much the resources of the earth. If the population continues to rise we will use more resources and we will end up starving and we will be dying like flies. The enviroment problems will also keep getting worse.

Stupid spelling -.-