quote:The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.
This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.
Jesus. Finally. It's baffling why they should even have to fear some sort of backlash for opposing overpopulation -- every single crisis in existence today would be easier and better addressed by a smaller population competing for a proportionally larger resource pool.
I'd really like to see UN aid handed out only on the condition that all receiving males get vasectomies. Surely that's not unreasonable.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Sweet!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
As much as I love children, I think we need to curb the amount we have until we can feasibly colonize other planets.
If we worked to get childbirth down to one child per couple within the next 10 years, in 100 years we could drop the population of Earth down to 2 or 3 billion, easily.
I think the main reason this is still controversial is that people hear "population control" and automatically think "genocide." But it would involve nothing of the sort... and parents that wanted big families could buy childbearing rights from singles who don't want to reproduce, so nobody would feel like they can't have as many kids as they want.
Admittedly, I dislike the idea of government regulating anything that personal, but if the alternative is overcrowding, rapid resource depletion, starvation, and genocide - I'd rather have a little regulation.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dogbreath- having to buy the rights from someone else does limit how many kids someone can have. And most people I know don't think "genocide" they think abortion. How do you enforce the 1 kid per couple? Also, the couple part is sticky- what if a women divorces, or doesn't know who the father is?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I'd really like to see UN aid handed out only on the condition that all receiving males get vasectomies. Surely that's not unreasonable.
That's a dangerous policy. Even if people agreed, you'd be accused of attempting to commit a cultural genocide... and in a way you might be doing that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dogbreath, I think most people would be against buying and selling childbearing rights. The evidences shows that in societies where the standard of living is such that parents can reasonably expect their children to survive to adulthood and where birth control is available, the birthrate will fall to less than 2 per couple on average, which will reduce population overall. That's enough.
Now, I wouldn't be averse to reversing the tax benefit of having children, but that's not the same as buying and selling the right to have children. you can't regulate a biological process like childbearing any more than you can regulate breathing.
That said I applaud this effort by Gates and anyone who is in a better position to make it happen. It's long overdue, and so far China is the only country that had made a serious effort.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
By improving health care and education across the world, the birthrate will naturally drop to what it is in Western Countries. No need for population caps, vasectomies, or anything like that. People who want larger families can still have them, because enough adults choose to be childless or have one child.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:No need for population caps, vasectomies, or anything like that.
Vasectomies would fall under the category of "availability of birth control." In and of itself, that's not a bad thing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Dogbreath- having to buy the rights from someone else does limit how many kids someone can have. And most people I know don't think "genocide" they think abortion. How do you enforce the 1 kid per couple?
Contraception.
Seriously, it works something like 99.7% of the time, and vasectomies/tubal ligations eliminate that risk all together. (though I think, at present, tubal ligation is far too dangerous and damaging)
I would under no circumstances *ever* support forced abortion. If a couple ended up having an extra kid, so be it. OSC has already gone over all the social, economic, and political stigmas related to having a "third" in his books, so I won't detail the strategies. I don't think such extreme measures should be implemented unless there are a lot of people defying the 1 child requirement.
Just remove the tax benefits for having children (which would make raising more than one or two children in a middle class home substantially harder) and let things play out at first. Good propaganda and an efficient adoption system would work wonders, too. (again, no forced adoptions either, just an imo better alternative to "unwanted pregnancies)
quote:Also, the couple part is sticky- what if a women divorces, or doesn't know who the father is?
Genetic testing is quickly making that obsolete. Divorce would work as normal (though IMO, government should try to emphasize being in a stable, lifelong marriage *before* having kid(s), instead of the current policy of ever increasing teen pregnancies and throwaway marriages), each person involved in reproduction would have equal custody rights, and the child would still count as their .50 of a person.
quote:Dogbreath, I think most people would be against buying and selling childbearing rights. The evidences shows that in societies where the standard of living is such that parents can reasonably expect their children to survive to adulthood and where birth control is available, the birthrate will fall to less than 2 per couple on average, which will reduce population overall. That's enough.
I also think that the rest of the world will never reach Western European/N. American living standards exactly because of the population crisis making commodities rarer and rarer. A bit of a catch 22.
I've read that the U.S. and most European countries would actually have declining populations if not for immigrants - I think the number of children needed to replace the old generation is 2.2 per couple (since about one in ten die before reproducing). I think this is mostly a problem in Asia and Africa.
quote:Now, I wouldn't be averse to reversing the tax benefit of having children, but that's not the same as buying and selling the right to have children. you can't regulate a biological process like childbearing any more than you can regulate breathing.
Really? We buy and sell our time, chunks of our lives. You most likely sell 1/3rd of your day 5 days a week in exchange for financial capital. And living is a pretty biological process IMO. We regulate urination and defecation, consumption of substances, even what we can and can't eat, as far as the FDA goes, anyway. Why is reproduction any different? In fact, marriage and certain sexual taboos (incest, for example) are some of the only universal societal standards.
Look, I know most people reading this are going to be offset and think of me as some sort of totalitarian, which I'm really not. I believe in freedom as much as possible, as free of regulation as possible, especially freedom to do whatever you want with your genitals.
But when our constant baby making has gotten us to the point where we're rapidly depleting our natural resources and overcrowding our globe, we as a species need to curb that habit, or perish. Just because it's been done brutally and immorally by dictatorships (see China), doesn't mean birth control can't be done humanely and wisely.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: By improving health care and education across the world, the birthrate will naturally drop to what it is in Western Countries. No need for population caps, vasectomies, or anything like that. People who want larger families can still have them, because enough adults choose to be childless or have one child.
Except the intermediate stages between abject poverty and Western living tend to produce huge amounts of children. To say nothing that the globe can't support the rest of the world living by Western standards of living -- there literally just isn't enough. The Chinese will never have the same quality of life we do. If they try for it, god help us all.
By the way, as horrifying as forced abortion (which nobody's advocating for) and "cultural genocide" is, the alternative is real genocide. At some very near point, there won't be enough resources to support the existing population, much less one 150% of today's size. There will be many terrible wars, probably fought with nuclear weapons. How is mandatory birth control a worse alternative?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I also think that the rest of the world will never reach Western European/N. American living standards exactly because of the population crisis making commodities rarer and rarer. A bit of a catch 22.
I didn't say N. American living standard, merely that parents should expect their children to live to adulthood, and that birth control should be available. You don't need to equate that with three cars in every driveway and an HD TV in every living room.
quote:We regulate urination and defecation
There was a time I remember when certain public bathrooms had a lock that worked like a vending machine. You had to put in a dime to use the stall. It was ridiculous, and it failed. Now, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with regard to regulating these functions, but regulating "where and how" is not the same as regulating "whether."
Marriage and sexual taboos have an effect in that societal pressure is brought to bear, yet even in the harshest social climate, children are still born out of wedlock. Explain how such reproductive rights could be bought and sold without setting up totalitarian measures, and also how we would prevent "Black Market" sexual practices. What would the penalty be? Just how do you propose to do this "humanely and wisely?"
As far as population goes, you and I are pretty much on the same page. It's only the means to get there that we disagree on.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Marriage and sexual taboos have an effect in that societal pressure is brought to bear, yet even in the harshest social climate, children are still born out of wedlock. Explain how such reproductive rights could be bought and sold without setting up totalitarian measures, and also how we would prevent "Black Market" sexual practices. What would the penalty be? Just how do you propose to do this "humanely and wisely?"
As far as population goes, you and I are pretty much on the same page. It's only the means to get there that we disagree on.
There's no need to even bring marriage into the discussion. After a woman has one child, she's sterilized. The same goes for a man, if he can be found. That way, even if a single man impregnates multiple women, they can't have more children with different fathers. It is totalitarian, but it's an absolutely necessary evil. The median age in Iraq right now is 17 -- Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are in terrible population straits. You can't really understand the horrors of overpopulation until you go to India or Indonesia.
As far as humane and wise birth control, that in and of itself seems relatively simple. Make food expensive, and make birth control cheap. The first is going to happen whether we like it or not -- the reason for our surplus of food today is in large part thanks to petroleum-based fertilizers, which are a vanishing good -- and if we do it now as a willing choice rather than later as a disastrous consequence, we can even control how it turns out.
There's no peace prize big enough to give to the man who develops safe, effective, easily distributable birth control that can be put in third world water supplies. He'll save the world.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Wow. Seriously? Forced sterilization?
I'm all for increasing education rates and helping third world populations fight disease etc but I absolutely oppose any efforts to control reproductive rights. And yes that comes from my religious beliefs. I also believe we should be better stewards of the Earth and in so doing we could support the population without resorting to population control.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: Wow. Seriously? Forced sterilization?
I'm all for increasing education rates and helping third world populations fight disease etc but I absolutely oppose any efforts to control reproductive rights. And yes that comes from my religious beliefs. I also believe we should be better stewards of the Earth and in so doing we could support the population without resorting to population control.
Cool. How?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: After a woman has one child, she's sterilized. The same goes for a man, if he can be found.
HELL, no!
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: Wow. Seriously? Forced sterilization?
I'm all for increasing education rates and helping third world populations fight disease etc but I absolutely oppose any efforts to control reproductive rights. And yes that comes from my religious beliefs. I also believe we should be better stewards of the Earth and in so doing we could support the population without resorting to population control.
Cool. How?
Let's start with people who advocate population control giving up all disposable anything first. Pet Peeve of mine. Don't tell me how many kids to have if you still use paper plates and kleenex.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: ... After a woman has one child, she's sterilized. The same goes for a man, if he can be found ...
This should go well.
quote: There's no peace prize big enough to give to the man who develops safe, effective, easily distributable birth control that can be put in third world water supplies.
This too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Projecting demographic trends is a mug's game. I suggest that no draconian measures be applied based on such projections.
Posted by ken_in_sc (Member # 12072) on :
Every mouth is born with two hands and a brain. Some of the most prosperous parts of the world are the most populous. Think of Singapore and Tokyo. The poverty of the third world is not caused by overpopulation. Bad government and corruption cause it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I didn't say N. American living standard, merely that parents should expect their children to live to adulthood, and that birth control should be available. You don't need to equate that with three cars in every driveway and an HD TV in every living room.
I don't know where you're getting "3 cars and an HD TV", but I have neither, and don't think many Europeans and Americans do.
The problem is that, even in the worst situations, most of these children ARE living to adulthood - that's what's causing the overpopulation in the first place!
quote: Marriage and sexual taboos have an effect in that societal pressure is brought to bear, yet even in the harshest social climate, children are still born out of wedlock. Explain how such reproductive rights could be bought and sold without setting up totalitarian measures, and also how we would prevent "Black Market" sexual practices. What would the penalty be? Just how do you propose to do this "humanely and wisely?"
Well, in my post above I outlined tax penalties for lawbreakers - money being a big incentive. That, along with widespread education, childcare institutions, and entirely free + reliable contraception should naturally bring the baby-per-couple ratio down to under 1.9. (In the US right now, it's about 2.3) I know a lot of couples whose first or second child was a "goof up", I really think with the measures I have proposed, it won't be hard to do this.
quote:As far as population goes, you and I are pretty much on the same page. It's only the means to get there that we disagree on.
Okay, what are your means? Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There *are* a lot of Americans with three cars and an HDTV... my parents for instance. But I agree it's not the standard.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Three cars may be an exaggeration. But I would suggest that neither two cars per family - and maybe an old clunker for the teenager - nor HDTVs are very unusual in the middle class.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Except the intermediate stages between abject poverty and Western living
I specifically said health care and education. I do believe that we can educate people, give them alternative opportunities (especially women, who are the key demographic here) and provide them with pretty decent healthcare without following the exact path of western civilization.
I think the key feature is giving women the option of a) intercourse without pregnancy and b) alternative lifestyles, such as having a career, or half a career (since I think that what children we have turn out better when somebody is at home looking after the young kids, where possible). Education has a second benefit as if the family is small, and both children are at school, mother might have a little extra time for, say, community improvement work.
quote:Three cars may be an exaggeration. But I would suggest that neither two cars per family - and maybe an old clunker for the teenager - nor HDTVs are very unusual in the middle class.
My family has three cars (two and an old clunker for the not-a-teenager-anymore-- me) and an HDTV. It's not uncommon where I live, in the middle class.
If North America was designed to be more pedestrian-friendly, I think it would be easier. My city has been fighting which stupid locations to put the new light rail line for five or six years. They're so afraid of making a bold move, every suggestion goes to absolutely nowhere. For god's sake, rip out the city and put in a subway-- you'll thank me in fifty years.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think the key feature is giving women the option of a) intercourse without pregnancy
Without objecting to your broader point, there are large tracts of the world where the challenge is to give women intercourse without rape, with (in some cases) a side order of stoning.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yes.
However, if female contraceptives are available* (along with abortion as a real reasonably non-illegal option), births from rape would decrease, which is the point of this thread.
*The only complicated (ha) bit is overcoming fear or stigma.
But yes, women's rights and the implementation of them will likely be a huge part of decreasing the birthrate 'naturally'.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? [Confused]
False dichotomy. It's not either or. And you have yet to even attempt to discredit the idea that people will choose smaller families if given access to birth control, enough food, and good health care.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Problems with the idea of Sterilization of all women after 1 child.
1) In the parts of the world where birth rates are the highest, hospital visits for such births are the lowest. If Jane has the kid out in the rice field, their won't be any fancy doctor their to perform the sterilization.
2) Cultural bias is so powerful their are wide areas of the world where male doctors still don't see their female patients, but the husband acts as a verbal go-between. Do you think these areas are going to OK sterilization?
3) With Viagra and Cialis amongst the biggest selling drugs in the world, do you think there is anything that will convince men to do their part and have a "sterilization" that will detract from their potency?
4) In places where two tribes/races/political parties fight for control of the country, what are the odds that one group will be more sterilized than another?
5) My culture says have kids. Your culture says its best not to. You can use all the logic you want, but it still seems that I have to suffer for your culture pushing its ideals on me. You say your saving the planet. I say your destroying my culture.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: After a woman has one child, she's sterilized. The same goes for a man, if he can be found.
And if that child dies? Tough luck, you can't fulfill your biological imperative?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Marriage and sexual taboos have an effect in that societal pressure is brought to bear, yet even in the harshest social climate, children are still born out of wedlock. Explain how such reproductive rights could be bought and sold without setting up totalitarian measures, and also how we would prevent "Black Market" sexual practices. What would the penalty be? Just how do you propose to do this "humanely and wisely?"
As far as population goes, you and I are pretty much on the same page. It's only the means to get there that we disagree on.
There's no need to even bring marriage into the discussion. After a woman has one child, she's sterilized. The same goes for a man, if he can be found. That way, even if a single man impregnates multiple women, they can't have more children with different fathers. It is totalitarian, but it's an absolutely necessary evil. The median age in Iraq right now is 17 -- Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are in terrible population straits. You can't really understand the horrors of overpopulation until you go to India or Indonesia.
As far as humane and wise birth control, that in and of itself seems relatively simple. Make food expensive, and make birth control cheap. The first is going to happen whether we like it or not -- the reason for our surplus of food today is in large part thanks to petroleum-based fertilizers, which are a vanishing good -- and if we do it now as a willing choice rather than later as a disastrous consequence, we can even control how it turns out.
There's no peace prize big enough to give to the man who develops safe, effective, easily distributable birth control that can be put in third world water supplies. He'll save the world.
The grandest plans turn hollow when held in the hands of men.
I'll pretend forced sterilization isn't horrible for the sake of my argument. Who or what organization or government will be managing this? How can we know such programs won't be turned around to persecute and favor certain people? When will we know that enough people have been sterilized that we can allow human population to increase again? There are rogue countries now that ignore all manner of international agreements and ravage their own people. This is another program that would have the same problem. The biggest problem with this is that it plants the seeds of war, wth the oppression and all, though I suppose a world war would achieve some of the same objectives. Population would certainly be reduced.
I'm done pretending. What you are suggesting is the unilateral destruction of one the very basic things that makes us unique among animals: that is the ability to avoid reproduction when we choose to do so. You're suggesting control of the body be handed over to bureaucrats.
The world has enough trouble trying to convince the third world to practic safe sex, use modern medicine, and plant modern crops that produce better yields, fend off insects better, etc. What the reaction be if a form of birth control were to be introduced, with or without the consent of people and the governments, the way flouride is distributed? Not good I'd say.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I'm done pretending. What you are suggesting is the unilateral destruction of one the very basic things that makes us unique among animals: that is the ability to avoid reproduction when we choose to do so.
Let's not forget that this choice is one of the absolute most basic of human rights. But hey, if you want to see the history's fastest start of a civil war, go ahead and let the government *try* to mandate who, when, and why human reproduction is allowed.
As for the formation of this billionaire's club, I haven't really read through this thread for fear of the loss of IQ points from reading the drivel supporting the idea of forced population control so I can't tell if someone has brought up the fact that the people starting this club are far more responsible for the levels of poverty and economic struggle in the world than any other individuals anywhere in the world yet. Any amount of money they've spent on charities of any kind is a pittance compared to the amount they directly control (According to what I've heard of Mr. Gates' donations in particular, he has donated roughly 2-3% of his net worth to charities. In comparison, I donate 10% of my money to my church, which has done a *much* better job of assisting third world countries and providing humanitarian aid than Gates' foundation could hope to). If these guys really want me to get all happy feely about their philanthropy, they're going to have to try a heck of a lot harder and dig a heck of a lot deeper.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I've actually heard that Gates donates more like 50% of his wealth. Considering that retaining a lot of money allows him to generate more money through interest and what-not, I'd have to say that's pretty fair. Granted, he could be living without private helicopters and super mansions or whatever else he he has, so I'm not precisely "impressed" with Gates' and Co.
But given that it's almost inevitable that the most money and power is going to accumulate within people who care more about their own well-being than others'... the fact that a collection of the super-rich are finally getting together to do something really important does get me a little "happy feely."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: (According to what I've heard of Mr. Gates' donations in particular, he has donated roughly 2-3% of his net worth to charities. In comparison, I donate 10% of my money to my church ...
For the record, 48% of net wealth and ranked second on the list of largest estimated lifetime giving measured in millions (American).
quote:Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? [Confused]
False dichotomy. It's not either or. And you have yet to even attempt to discredit the idea that people will choose smaller families if given access to birth control, enough food, and good health care.
Why would I discredit it? That's what I've been arguing, pretty much! Widely available contraceptives tied with social incentives not to reproduce as much.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Marriage and sexual taboos have an effect in that societal pressure is brought to bear, yet even in the harshest social climate, children are still born out of wedlock. Explain how such reproductive rights could be bought and sold without setting up totalitarian measures, and also how we would prevent "Black Market" sexual practices. What would the penalty be? Just how do you propose to do this "humanely and wisely?"
As far as population goes, you and I are pretty much on the same page. It's only the means to get there that we disagree on.
There's no need to even bring marriage into the discussion. After a woman has one child, she's sterilized. The same goes for a man, if he can be found. That way, even if a single man impregnates multiple women, they can't have more children with different fathers. It is totalitarian, but it's an absolutely necessary evil. The median age in Iraq right now is 17 -- Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are in terrible population straits. You can't really understand the horrors of overpopulation until you go to India or Indonesia.
As far as humane and wise birth control, that in and of itself seems relatively simple. Make food expensive, and make birth control cheap. The first is going to happen whether we like it or not -- the reason for our surplus of food today is in large part thanks to petroleum-based fertilizers, which are a vanishing good -- and if we do it now as a willing choice rather than later as a disastrous consequence, we can even control how it turns out.
There's no peace prize big enough to give to the man who develops safe, effective, easily distributable birth control that can be put in third world water supplies. He'll save the world.
This is the beginnings of a well-meant tyranny. Even you admit as much. You can't do something like this without giving ultimate power to some person or a group of people. As has been said already, this would be the fastest way to government being overthrown--or a widespread revolution being brutally quashed.
I agree that education and empowerment is the best way to solve problems. The problem isn't too many people being born, but too many being born with no opportunities to improve the world around them. Treating everyone like cattle--putting a contraceptive in the water supply, for heaven's sake--wouldn't result in a better educated, more self-sufficient population. Once begun, it would have to be continued and most likely defended with an iron fist. Because if it ever failed we would be no better off than before, and probably much worse off, way too dependent on government to make our decisions for us and not prepared in the slightest to behave more responsibly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's no peace prize big enough to give to the man who develops safe, effective, easily distributable birth control that can be put in third world water supplies. He'll save the world.
This probably wins the prize for biggest well-meaning racist statement I've heard in recent memory.
Edit: And, of course, it's also strangely productive towards Lalo's (Western) view of the horrors of overpopulation. I can't think of a faster way to trigger an immediate and worldwide war against the so-called 'First World' than for such a plan to be enacted. Which would lead to population control in a much more old-fashioned, metallic manner than involuntary birth control.
Further Edit: Lemme give you an example of why I think this, Eddie. Even I, concerned about overpopulation, already agreeing something must be done about it, and supporting the spread of cheap, easily used, and reliable birth control...well, if you* tried to sterilize my sister for example after she had her first child, assuming she decides to at some point, I would stop you. As violently as necessary. Maybe even more violently than necessary, depending on how hard you tried. If you succeeded, I think there would be at least a 50/50 chance that I'd try and kill you to take vengeance.
And you and me, we come from the same nation. We already have a lot in common-language, culture, legal system, government, etc. Certainly vastly more in common than some dude growing up in Calcutta, for example, with either of us. So if I would violently resist your effort, what do you think he'll do?
*When I say you I mean whoever, assuming such a policy could ever be enacted, you got to do it for you.
[ May 26, 2009, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Rakeesh speaks the truth. Saying we should enforce some kind of worldwide population restriction is practically like saying "everyone should just stop having kids." Neither one is going to happen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Forced sterilization on third world countries is quite possibly the stupidest and evilest idea in the long history of stupid and evil ideas.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, how many people are going to die from this? Tubal ligations and vascectomies are still surgeries and still contain risks. According to wiki, 4 in 100,000 people die from tubal ligation, and 1 in a 1,000,000 of vascectomies- and that is assuming first world with proper sterile techniques. While the risk is small, you are still forcing people to undergo a surgery that could kill them. "What is one life compared to billions?" "But it was MY life." (Futurama quote)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
We have already had at least 50 years of population control experiments. From all indications, it isn't working out so well - or at least as planned. All this talk of population control really comes down to Western cultural imperialism of the world and jousting at windmills.
The nation of China has been trying for population control for a few generations. Although I don't have any specific information, what I seem to recall is that it has only slightly been decreasing. In some ways that is good because short of "that evil capitalism" it needs a robust work force to maintain its communist ideals. That hasn't worked out very well either because it has introduced some slight capitalist practices.
Europe has also been a population control experiment for the last couple generations. They have been using low tech methods of cultural peer pressure. Families for them are considered a last resort after doing all you can for yourself. The result has been economic shortfalls of labor filled up by those who, interesting enough, are culturally larger family friendly. This is slowly happening to the United States as Latinos who are less insistent on small family size migrate.
Human history, by the way, continually proves that trying to control human growth is impossible. For every controlled population there is another one that will gladly take its place. Even war has never been a good means of population control. Either another group comes in to take the dead's place or there is an inexplicable baby boom to make up for the devastation.
The only known actual population control has been a disease epidemic. The black plague killed one fourth the European population and flue of 1918 killed far more than WWI that raged during that time. Even then, of course, the population bounced back.
You want to spend vast amounts of wealth trying to control population? Go ahead, but I think there are far better ways to spend that money to improve conditions for others. A focus on real economic and educational problems would be a start. I must say that it is interesting that these billionares have an idea and some vague notions of how to implement the ideas, but no actual plans. Give me a call in 50 years and I will not be surprised if human population has not changed from this, just demographics as it already has.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: I'll pretend forced sterilization isn't horrible for the sake of my argument. Who or what organization or government will be managing this? How can we know such programs won't be turned around to persecute and favor certain people?
The thing is, as horrible as forced birth control is, it's orders of magnitude kinder and gentler than a war fought by ten billion people over the last resources of a ravaged planet.
Forcible sterilization is the wrong term to use, I don't want anyone seizing women and attacking them with metal tools. But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only? If people could choose when and how to have their child, everyone would be better off -- the community, the parents, and especially the child.
We need fewer people on the planet, and we will have fewer people on the planet. I'd just rather see it done willingly than via war, starvation, and poverty -- all of which lead to far worse abuses of women's rights than contraception.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. Same objections. Stupid, stupid idea.
And it would likely spark off a viscious war, and completely rightly. What a monstrous thing to do to other people. Especially other people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
With every medication there are people who have horrible side effects, or for whom it is contraindicated because of other drug reactions or medical condidtions or allergies. So for those people you would have poisoned the water supply.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
A good example is iodized salt or adding flouride to the water supply. Sure, lots of people object to both -- especially in the third world, where some suspect Jewish plots to poison or sterilize them. But they demonstrably improve everyone's quality of life, and we do it as a necessary evil to protect those who'd otherwise go on leading lives that are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lalo: it would never happen willingly with anything like what you have proposed.
Besides the obvious war it would lead to, it would also lead to starvation and poverty, btw. Can you imagine trying to support that many elderly people on so few young people? Even comparably slight declines in birth rates in places like Japan are causing major problems (and just wait until twenty years from now); major declines in birth rates around the world would trigger mass deaths and probably result in a major geopolitical reorganization.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, rich people would buy black market bottled water and procreate anyway. Poor people who wanted to have more children would collect rain water, or drink from rivers and streams, some of which would be contaminated and give them diseases.
For that matter, most people in third world countries don't have running water. They draw water from wells, or from rivers and lakes. So your plan wouldn't work regardless, unless you're going to send people trapsing over the countryside dumping the contraceptive in all the wells they find every week or so.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes. Same objections. Stupid, stupid idea.
And it would likely spark off a viscious war, and completely rightly. What a monstrous thing to do to other people. Especially other people.
And yet, there are going to be wars anyway. Worse ones, where even the victor inherits only a severely depleted planet probably ravaged by nuclear winters and almost entirely devoid of natural resources, fossil fuels, and drinkable water.
The question is, which is worse?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Europe has also been a population control experiment for the last couple generations. They have been using low tech methods of cultural peer pressure. Families for them are considered a last resort after doing all you can for yourself.
Um, no. Not in any part of Europe I'm familiar with.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Also, rich people would buy black market bottled water and procreate anyway. Poor people who wanted to have more children would collect rain water, or drink from rivers and streams, some of which would be contaminated and give them diseases.
And anti-murder laws aren't 100% effective either. But we still have them, because they're effective enough in combating an evil that harms all of society.
Ignoring the difficulty of implementing this, what's the objection to its principle? The world must and will have a smaller population. Would you rather see it done with poverty and war, or with contraception?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Europe has also been a population control experiment for the last couple generations. They have been using low tech methods of cultural peer pressure. Families for them are considered a last resort after doing all you can for yourself.
Um, no. Not in any part of Europe I'm familiar with.
Not in any part of Europe I'm familiar with either. There must be another, hidden Europe. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Lalo: it would never happen willingly with anything like what you have proposed.
Besides the obvious war it would lead to, it would also lead to starvation and poverty, btw. Can you imagine trying to support that many elderly people on so few young people? Even comparably slight declines in birth rates in places like Japan are causing major problems (and just wait until twenty years from now); major declines in birth rates around the world would trigger mass deaths and probably result in a major geopolitical reorganization.
And the alternative is to have increasingly larger young populations?
I've heard these Ponzi arguments before, and they don't make sense. Yes, you and I will suffer slightly as we get older -- but it's well worth the sacrifice of one generation to improve the lives of the rest.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have outlined how I would like it done. With voluntary contraception, implemented along with education and healthcare. A natural slow decrease in population, no caps required, and certainly no sterilization. Yikes!
The only reason the population of Canada is increasing is immigration, and yet families are still valued, people still like children, and there are still larger non-immigrant families around.
Reaching a certain point of education and opportunity, people stop having six or seven (or fifteen or sixteen...) children by mistake, and start having roughly the size of family they set out to have. Mistakes do happen, but the population can absorb that 'extra' child. And it feels perfectly natural.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The question is, which is worse?
This. This evil, imperialistic, genocidal, poorly-thought-out idea.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you and me, we come from the same nation. We already have a lot in common-language, culture, legal system, government, etc. Certainly vastly more in common than some dude growing up in Calcutta, for example, with either of us. So if I would violently resist your effort, what do you think he'll do?
Dude, I lived in Calcutta. You won't find anyone more horrified by overpopulation than them. Part of the hatred against Muslims by Hindus and Christians is that they're still permitted to have up to four wives, and each wife is expected to be extremely productive. (Hindus and Christians are also mad productive, but whatever.) They're starving the city, and everyone knows it.
People live in huts papered with newspaper, and children are everywhere. Cows and old women pick through the piles of garbage left everywhere because what few social services exist have to devote their funds to feeding Calcutta's enormous population rather than establishing any form of waste disposal. The city is covered in layer after layer of thick soot, because too many people need to travel for the government to enforce its anti-lead gasoline regulations.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ALL of those problems can be solved without forced, involuntary sterlizations.
I am stunned that you even consider it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: We have already had at least 50 years of population control experiments.
Experiment, singular by my count (if even that, not much of an experiment).
quote: Although I don't have any specific information, what I seem to recall is that it has only slightly been decreasing.
Technically, the fertility rate has dropped dramatically to 1.75 (below replacement rate) which is technically between the Canada and the US at 1.53 and 2.04 respectively. This is from around 6, 3.65, and 3.45 respectively in 1950.
Now, the question as to whether that is more due to economic progress, education, or explicit population control is an interesting question.
What is not in question is that whatever is that something happened and to illustrate this turnaround IIRC, by UN estimates China will have less children per year than the US by 2050.
In fact, has been suggested that this rate of decrease has been so drastic that it may cause any number of demographic problems and that the Chinese government should increase the fertility rate.
quote: In some ways that is good because short of "that evil capitalism" it needs a robust work force to maintain its communist ideals. That hasn't worked out very well either because it has introduced some slight capitalist practises
Huh? Maintain what Communist ideals exactly? By most objective measures* such as access to universal health-care, redistribution of income, and so forth, Canada, Europe, and yes, even the US are more Communist than China these days.
* some non-objective measures too like most amusing financial and automobile nationalizations Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ALL of those problems can be solved without forced, involuntary sterlizations.
I am stunned that you even consider it.
Ha. Kat, get off your butt and offer a better alternative than sterilization or war.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That you can't imagine any solution to trash in the streets other than mass slaughter is your own problem.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Lalo: it would never happen willingly with anything like what you have proposed.
Besides the obvious war it would lead to, it would also lead to starvation and poverty, btw. Can you imagine trying to support that many elderly people on so few young people? Even comparably slight declines in birth rates in places like Japan are causing major problems (and just wait until twenty years from now); major declines in birth rates around the world would trigger mass deaths and probably result in a major geopolitical reorganization.
And the alternative is to have increasingly larger young populations?
I've heard these Ponzi arguments before, and they don't make sense. Yes, you and I will suffer slightly as we get older -- but it's well worth the sacrifice of one generation to improve the lives of the rest.
You won't be suffering slightly. You'll likely lead a life of abject poverty and disease because the collective young population that would take care of the collective elderly population would be very small compared to the older population, with a corresponding smaller base of funding and other resourses. What is not to understand?
This is why I believe that thinking about people as a collective and not also as individuals is immoral. When viewed as a collective, the individual is lost, therefore the life of one person is meaningless among billions. Who has the right to determine which life is worth keeping? In reference to your proposal, who has the right to decide which people do and don't get to remain fertile?
You certainly seem willing to accept the grim fact that war over this is inevitable. You seem to see the option of war as a necessary evil to achieve your ends. I think war is possible, not guaranteed, without some kind of population "control." It is unavoidable if a form of involuntary contraception and/or sterilization is introduced, and would fight that war. Access to contraception and providing a better quality of life will probably provide a greater chance for future generations to reduce population voluntarily.
The terrible sacrifice of a single generation isn't required. A slight improvement of living standards passed through several generations will work far better. I think that several statistics have been provided already that prove this, such as what Mucus and fugu13 have linked to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You have no idea what you're talking about.
*sigh* What, when I said people seperated by language, culture, and religion from you would be even angrier at you than I would be were such a monstrous program ever enacted?
Yeah, I'm crazier than a sh@#house rat for thinking something like that, no doubt *rolleyes*.
Here's a better idea than yours: let's get the hell off this planet.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I like P.J. O'Rourke's thoughts on the population issue in All the Trouble in the World. His chapter on overpopulation is called "Just Enough of Me, Way Too Much of You."
quote:The idea that too many people exist leads to unfortunate and even lethal plans for those people. One of Thomas Malthus's motives for writing An Essay on the Principle of Population was to argue against the Poor Law of his time, which gave aid to pauper families in accordance with the number of their children. This, thought Malthus, bred more paupers. Malthus was also writing in support of Britain's Corn Laws, which imposed large tariffs on imported grain. During the potato famine of the 1840s, these laws would contribute to the deaths of more than a million Irish. Malthus didn't mean any harm, of course. He was a clergyman. "I would never wish to push general principles too far," he said, "though I think they always ought to be kept in view." So we shouldn't actually shove paupers and Irishmen into the grave, but we shouldn't lose sight of the option either.
What ken-in-sc wrote earlier is right on:
quote:Some of the most prosperous parts of the world are the most populous. Think of Singapore and Tokyo. The poverty of the third world is not caused by overpopulation. Bad government and corruption cause it.
[ May 26, 2009, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you and me, we come from the same nation. We already have a lot in common-language, culture, legal system, government, etc. Certainly vastly more in common than some dude growing up in Calcutta, for example, with either of us. So if I would violently resist your effort, what do you think he'll do?
Dude, I lived in Calcutta. You won't find anyone more horrified by overpopulation than them. Part of the hatred against Muslims by Hindus and Christians is that they're still permitted to have up to four wives, and each wife is expected to be extremely productive. (Hindus and Christians are also mad productive, but whatever.) They're starving the city, and everyone knows it.
People live in huts papered with newspaper, and children are everywhere. Cows and old women pick through the piles of garbage left everywhere because what few social services exist have to devote their funds to feeding Calcutta's enormous population rather than establishing any form of waste disposal. The city is covered in layer after layer of thick soot, because too many people need to travel for the government to enforce its anti-lead gasoline regulations.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
My husband is Bengali, and grew up all around India, including in Calcutta, where his family's ancestral home is. So, first off, Rakeesh, I gotta say that you're greatly exaggerating the differences between Bengalis and Americans. People really aren't that different from place to place.
And, second, Lalo, I have never heard an Indian imply in any way, shape, or form, that tensions between the two religious communities is partially because Muslims may have four wives. At best, you can get some disgruntlement from those who think that there should be no distinction in Indian law between different religious groups - & the legal distinctions are quite a bit more than just the number of wives a man is permitted.
Also, Calcutta is the crappiest of India's many cities not because of overpopulation - there's plenty of that in any Indian city - but because they have had one of the crappiest regional governments I have ever heard of holding sway since India's independence. We're talking about a government that took 20 years to install less than 18 km of metro line - and the sections don't even match up so, get this - they have a crane pick up a rail car to transfer it from one section to another to finish its run.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:they have a crane pick up a rail car to transfer it from one section to another to finish its run.
This is what you call a bad government? Dude, that is awesomely cool!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Do the passengers get to stay in the car for the crane ride?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: And, second, Lalo, I have never heard an Indian imply in any way, shape, or form, that tensions between the two religious communities is partially because Muslims may have four wives. At best, you can get some disgruntlement from those who think that there should be no distinction in Indian law between different religious groups - & the legal distinctions are quite a bit more than just the number of wives a man is permitted.
Also, Calcutta is the crappiest of India's many cities not because of overpopulation - there's plenty of that in any Indian city - but because they have had one of the crappiest regional governments I have ever heard of holding sway since India's independence. We're talking about a government that took 20 years to install less than 18 km of metro line - and the sections don't even match up so, get this - they have a crane pick up a rail car to transfer it from one section to another to finish its run.
Then maybe I was just living in a neighborhood of disgruntled Hindus -- but they really don't like Muslims. It has more to do with the history of Pakistan/Bangladesh and old customary hatreds, but that's carried over into a demographics war.
As my host put it, Muslims just reproduce until they have a majority. And though Hindu and Christian Indians have a ton of kids as well, I have to say there were a lot more street urchins in local Muslim neighborhoods than others. Maybe your husband didn't get involved in the Hindu vs. Muslim feuds, but population explosion is definitely one of their several simmering angers.
That said, public transportation in India is a blast.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The fact that Muslims are disliked in some parts - or by some people - in India doesn't automatically imply that they're disliked because they're allowed four wives. And while a majority of India's Muslims live in eastern Indian states (West Bengal, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, they're far from the majority in any of those states, nor is there any chance that they'll gain majority there any time soon. Frankly, your host sounds like an ill-informed guy.
Living in Calcutta will not give you an even picture of India, anymore than living in, say, San Francisco will give you an even picture of the US. Probably worse, actually, since India is composed of numerous different ethnicity types, and Bengalis are one of the more "separate" ones. Bengal also has a particularly odd relationship with religion given that the region was split in half during Partition along religious lines into West Bengal & East Pakistan (aka Bangladesh). The fact that Calcutta and West Bengal in general are seeing high levels of (mostly illegal) immigration by Muslim Bangladeshis & poor Muslims from surrounding states to West Bengal compounds the issue further - it's not a matter of breeding but of immigration, in that region, really. That, and Muslims traditionally vote as a bloc in India. (I don't know how it looked in this last election, although I've read that the Communists took a beating in West Bengal, at last.)
More to the point of the thread, I'd expect a university graduate like yourself to know better than to generalize from an experience of poverty in one city - and also to know better than to blame poverty simply on overpopulation. Delhi - arguably the largest metropolitan area in the world - is a much cleaner, and generally has much better social services than Calcutta. Poor government is the main cause of poverty in Calcutta, plain and simple. It's a complete shame, too, since when the British left Calcutta was a jewel of a capital city.
ElJay, the crane is no longer a part of the metro system in Calcutta (tho it was around for at least ten years), so I'm not sure what happened to passengers. Whether they had to disembark or not, it was incredibly inefficient.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was working on this post right after Lalo's "Ponzi arguments" post, but work called.
First, it would be several generations of older people. Not to mention the incredible political upheaval of worldwide starvation, poverty, and war, all triggered at about the same time. And "suffer slightly" is laughably ludicrous. At least try to pretend you're acknowledging the likely outcomes of such policies.
Second, straw man much? I said a dramatic drop in population would be really, really bad. A leveling off, likely followed by a gradual decline, would virtually certainly be preferable, and is something we're well on the way to in the next hundred years due to increased development and education.
I would also like to note that the idea the earth is currently overpopulated is subject to considerable debate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My husband is Bengali, and grew up all around India, including in Calcutta, where his family's ancestral home is. So, first off, Rakeesh, I gotta say that you're greatly exaggerating the differences between Bengalis and Americans. People really aren't that different from place to place.
What? Sorry-I didn't mean to suggest Bengalis are so very different from Americans, all I meant was that cultural and religious differences would increase, not decrease, the anger felt. i.e. if an American would be mad, how would someone from another country feel if a foreigner came along and did this to him? Adds an additional layer of violation.
quote:I would also like to note that the idea the earth is currently overpopulated is subject to considerable debate.
No kidding. Haven't there been several 'we're doomed!' predictions based on overpopulation in the last century?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Ah, okay. Misread what you'd written, Rakeesh.
I think doomsday predictions due to overpopulation have been going on since, at least, Malthus in 1798.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? [Confused]
False dichotomy. It's not either or. And you have yet to even attempt to discredit the idea that people will choose smaller families if given access to birth control, enough food, and good health care.
Why would I discredit it? That's what I've been arguing, pretty much! Widely available contraceptives tied with social incentives not to reproduce as much.
The social incentives you described as "buying childbearing rights." That's not a social incentive, it's government regulation of reproductive rights. Aesop's fable of the sun and the wind comes to mind: Persuasion is better than force.
quote:Experiment, singular by my count (if even that, not much of an experiment).
To be fair, China has made a realistic effort to control population, and India made some efforts, I think between the '50s and the '70s.
You may not want to call it an experiment, but scientific study of existing conditions can be framed as an experiment, as long as the hypothesis was properly formed and there is appropriate control data to compare with the test group. So yes, Europe and N. America have conducted an "experiment" in population control.
We have drawn conclusions from this study, and I haven't heard anyone claim it isn't scientifically valid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
I can't say I would have the same objections because I don't know if anyone would be objecting as mockingly as me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ah, okay. Misread what you'd written, Rakeesh.
Not at all, I was unclear.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? [Confused]
False dichotomy. It's not either or. And you have yet to even attempt to discredit the idea that people will choose smaller families if given access to birth control, enough food, and good health care.
Why would I discredit it? That's what I've been arguing, pretty much! Widely available contraceptives tied with social incentives not to reproduce as much.
The social incentives you described as "buying childbearing rights." That's not a social incentive, it's government regulation of reproductive rights. Aesop's fable of the sun and the wind comes to mind: Persuasion is better than force.
Not buying from the government, buying from those who don't wish to use their own. This works as an incentive to work hard and make more money if you want to have more kids, instead of having a lot of kids, but being in a low-income job where you really can't afford to take care of them, so the government picks up most of the slack.
If you want to talk about government regulation, what about government taking money from taxes I pay, and giving it to parents in the form of reduced taxes per child (it's a fairly significant amount you don't have to pay), free education, government day care, food stamps, TANF, etc. etc. etc. This is all government incentive to have kids, even if you can't afford to.
What I'm suggesting merely reverses this. If you want to have a dozen kids, great! Get to work, and buy the right to from those who don't. At present, there's government regulation going on by forcing people like me with no kids to financially support other people's kids. The amount you pay me for the right to have my share of childbearing will simply equal the amount I'm paying.
I think that governments *should* continue to pay for education, medicaid, etc, simply because once that child's born, s/he has the right to succeed as much as possible. This system would merely force the parents to be a bit more wise/hard working before they have that kid.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
What would you put in the water? Female hormones? Wouldn't that be like steroids for all the guys drinking it? What would it do to small children exposed to all those hormones pre-puberty? What about cancer patients?
What if I stop drinking water and switch to soda or wine? Would it be there, too? What about people who drink tons of the stuff?
What about women who know hormonal birth control doesn't work for them?
Basically, you'd have to come up with better birth control than we have now, and you'd need a better way to distribute it. Then we can get around to the moral arguments.
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
You must be assuming a drug that won't cause permanent damage to people's reproductive systems. Even today, while some have oops babies while taking birth control pills, some have their fertility damaged for months after ceasing the drug. I would hope the antidote would be free for those trying for their government sanctioned only baby. What happens when the stuff in the water actually makes a person more fertile then they would be without the drug? I only ask this because I have a friend who only gets pregnant while on the pill because the hormones balance her out. Obviously, this situation would be very rare, but does this person then always get the antidote?
What happens when your one child dies before ever having a child? What if that child was a teenager or an adult? Maybe you can get permission to get the antidote, but will you be able to get pregnant again?
What about children with birth defects? I think a lot of people would have the baby tested prior to birth so that they will know whether they need an abortion in an effort to have that "perfect" baby.
I assume you would allow people to have their naturally conceived twins, triplets, and so forth.
What about infertile couples. I am assuming you would allow them infertility treatments, but some couples can never have a child due to their problems. Do you condemn them to barrenness? You say people could buy the rights to have someone else's child rights, but how many people would REALLY be willing to give up those rights? How much would those rights cost? Since you would have to buy rights off of one person of each gender for each child, how would this be accomplished? Is it fair that infertile couples with less money would probably never be able to afford those rights and would have to compete with rich couples who want 2 or more children? You say it would only be fair to pay for your rights because you would be paying into the system for the education and health care of the child you chose not to bear, but is it really fair for infertile couples to have to pay so much extra just for the right to one child. Would women be able to give birth knowing it is the only child they will ever have and they are giving it away. I am only going to mention sperm donation and egg donation, there would obviously be problems with those. (OK, so I am infertile and have to adopt to have children, so I care about this issue.)
How would you make sure that you could have "clean" water. There are medicines now that people have flushed that we are drinking everyday. Once this medicine is in the water cycle, can we get it out?
Would homosexual couples have to find a couple of the opposite gender so that they share child rights between the four of them?
My last question is why would you limit couples to one child, this is well below replacement rate especially considering death prior to having a child, infertility, and people who are simply not ready to have a child until they are to old to conceive the child themselves. Even China, while only allowing one child per family in the city, allows two children in the country.
Odd Thoughts:
On the positive side, maybe families would get stronger as people search for the person they think would truly be a good partner in raising a child.
I think this would create two dating scenes, one for people who had not had their child, and one for those who had had their child and divorced, or those who did not want a child.
Would people have children at younger ages (I am thinking early 20s) because they know they could die at any time and not have a chance to reproduce, or because they know that fertility drops with age?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Would people have children at younger ages (I am thinking early 20s) because they know they could die at any time and not have a chance to reproduce, or because they know that fertility drops with age?
Do they now? Which part of "could die at any time" does not apply now? If you die at 25 and childless, you are currently missing out on an average of 2.3, ish, children. Why would losing only 2 children (counting your partner's birth-right) be a stronger incentive?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Has anyone mentioned that China's One Child policy has been a demographic disaster as couples rushed to abort their girls in favor of having boys? Their gender ratio is way out of whack now.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was wondering if we instituted a one-child policy in America if we would see similar actions. I hate to admit it, but I think most people do want at least one boy. would they abort a female fetus if they could only have one? I don't know. I would hate to have to find out.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Belle: I don't think it would be as bad as what happened in China, but it would. A one child policy would doom many female babies to abortion and screw up our gender balance as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although having more men than women is clearly bad for the men, I don't see why it is a 'demographic disaster'. If anything it amplifies the intended effect of the one-child policy, by ensuring that many of the superfluous men will not become fathers. One might oppose the policy on grounds of liberty, but to oppose it on the grounds that it works better than expected seems a bit silly.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KoM: Heterosexual men with little/no chance of finding a woman will turn feral.
Read Total Fark Discussion if you don't believe me.
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
I don't know, there are a lot of people in this country who prefer girls. There are also a lot who don't care what the gender of their baby is.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't know where I saw it (perhaps something to do with adoption rates of each gender?), but I believe a majority of Americans when asked what gender child they'd prefer to have & what they think Americans as a whole prefer, will answer, "Personally, I'd prefer a girl, but I think most Americans prefer a boy."
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
So, you're out to save the planet, and you're going to do it by jacking up the water supply? That's just insane. Every living organism on the planet is dependent on that water. Leaving aside whether or not population even needs controlling, we need LESS weird stuff in the water, not more. It's like trying to control your weight by smoking cigarettes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In regards to the gender imbalance, on one hand, the consequences seem pretty destructive. Reports of women being abducted for marriage and being betrothed at earlier ages (in exchange for money) by their parents who are noticing their higher value are ever-increasing in the countryside (not sure why the reports are usually in the countryside as opposed to the city). Increasing amounts of money going into prostitution and the like.
On the other hand, the normal marriage market seems to be getting increasingly competitive as women realize their greater range of choices due to the demographic squeeze and are starting to demand men with (men who can provide them with?) greater wealth, apartments, cars, etc. (A natural corollary seems to be that the men *with* wealth and power, hence making the decisions won't be the ones that suffer from the shortage)
Anecdotally, I've also been hearing an increasing amount about China's gay and transsexual communities recently which makes me wonder about how elastic sexuality may actually be.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I want a job feeding the antidote to all the fish out there.
In the US we wouldn't kill off our baby girls. We'd just bring back Polygamy--or would that be reverse polygamy.
How many people know anyone who has adopted a child from China?
How many of those adopted children are girls?
It was a fact during the 90's--you go to China for a girl, since the one child only policy meant a lot of people gave up their girls secretly to get another shot at a boy. You went to Russia for boys, since the combination of equal rights in the job market, and mandatory male conscription, meant that girls were more likely to succeed than boys. Today, both trends have vanished as more conservative folks have taken over Russia, making it a boys game again, and dropping birth rates make China not so generous with the adoptees.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That is all true - adopting from China is much more difficult than it used to be.
I think lots of people would say they want to have a girl...but how many of those would answer the same if the question were "Which gender would you choose if you could only have one child?"
I think there is still a lot of play out there for the old ideal of having a son to carry on the "family name" and Dads wanting football games to attend and little league baseball coaching opportunities. That's not to suggest all men are like that - my hubby certainly is not - but I think there are enough that a boy would be a bit more popular choice than girls. Then again, how much of a difference is necessary before it causes significant changes in our society? A 3-2 ratio of boy births to girls? 3-1? 5-1? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Has anyone mentioned that China's One Child policy has been a demographic disaster as couples rushed to abort their girls in favor of having boys? Their gender ratio is way out of whack now.
The one child policy is actually very good at what it intends to do, which is help reduce population growth.
Not that I agree with it or like it at all, but I can't call it a disaster.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The one child policy has had some effect, but there's a good amount of evidence that most of the reduction in births in China has just been the usual outcome of the economic development they've been experiencing. They were already dropping dramatically in births prior to the one child policy, and there have been large drops in birth rates in neighboring countries and among populations in China where the policy does not apply.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: ... Then again, how much of a difference is necessary before it causes significant changes in our society? A 3-2 ratio of boy births to girls? 3-1? 5-1?
Defining China as "significant change" and Hong Kong and Taiwan as not, and using the population under 15 according to the CIA WorldFact book it seems that the point is somewhere between 1.13:1 (boys to girls) for China and 1.09:1 Hong Kong or 1.08:1 Taiwan. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
So roughly, you need a difference north of 1.1:1 to start seeing these sorts of changes. For comparison, Canada and the US are currently roughly 1.05:1
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suspect that statistic is misleading, Mucus, because the one-child thing was not evenly applied over China. You would have to look up the ratio in urban areas only, and it would likely be a lot higher.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
IIRC, that was the proposal but traditional attitudes toward women have persisted more successfully in the villages as has the ability to get around measures aimed at preventing sex-selective infanticide. So I dunno.
It would certainly be interesting to see such a breakdown.
As I guessed, this suggests that the ratio at birth is 1.14:1, 1.17:1, and 1.22:1 for cities, towns, and rural areas respectively.
(As I didn't guess, this seems to note that the overall birth ratio at birth is 1.19:1 compared to the CIA figure of 1.1:1 at birth. This data is from 2004-2005 while the CIA data is marked as a 2009 "estimate.")
[ May 27, 2009, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Not buying from the government, buying from those who don't wish to use their own.
This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me. Your hand is yours, you don't need to buy it from anyone, unless you're talking about some kind of protection racket, which means there has to be a threat hanging over everyone's head if they choose to utilize their own biology. The only way that's going to happen is if the government regulates reproduction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me.
Try it with kidneys, and then realise that there would be a lot more kidney transplants, and hence healthier rich people and richer poor people, if one could legally sell a kidney.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A couple more observations, if you compare figure 1 and 2, you'll see that the implementation of the strictest one-child policy and the highest sex ratios don't really overlap. The most strict implementation is towards the north east, in the areas that are both richer and closer to the bureaucracy in Beijing as you would expect.
The highest sex ratios are in central and southern China and conspicuously go around what looks like Hubei province which has a low sex ratio but strict one-child policies.
In fact, according to table 3, the highest sex ratios seem to be in areas where the one-child policy was relaxed to allow for a second child if the first is a female. Thus, while the first birth ratio is 1.08:1 overall and not significantly different between city, town, and rural, the highest ratios occur with the second child and third child.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Not buying from the government, buying from those who don't wish to use their own.
This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me. Your hand is yours, you don't need to buy it from anyone, unless you're talking about some kind of protection racket, which means there has to be a threat hanging over everyone's head if they choose to utilize their own biology. The only way that's going to happen is if the government regulates reproduction.
As I said, the regulation going on is government taking away tax reductions for children. Maybe tack on a large tax increase/fine for having a second child illegally, and make it significantly higher than the market average for buying childbearing rights.
I don't really think this is totalitarian, since the government has been using taxes to regulate a lot of human activity - look at cigarette taxes, gasoline subsidization (in the u.s.), crop subsidization, alcohol taxes, etc. It's all designed to discourage/encourage certain behavior.
Since at least one poster seems to have gotten us partially confused, I just want to reiterate that I'm not Lalo, and he's not me. We're two separate people, with two pretty much opposite arguments. (he's going for actual sterilization, I'm going to socially manipulating people into having less kids) I just say this because I saw someone using a part of my argument against Lalo as if it was his, and wouldn't want the same happening to me.
King of Men: excellent point! As a poor college student, I'd certainly be willing to sell a kidney for, say, $250,000. And I'm sure some upper-middle class old person would gladly pay $250,000 in exchange for their life.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And I'm sure some upper-middle class old person would gladly pay $250,000 in exchange for their life.
No. Going rate for a kidney on the black market is less than $5,000.
And it doesn't make the recipient rich. The money is a blip - it doesn't permanently change circumstances. What does change is the donor's health. Many donors end up worse off because their compromised health hinder their ability to work.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
If I could have chosen, I'd have chosen to have a boy. But I didn't get a choice, so I have a daughter... and I am soooooooooo happy about it! I'm glad it wasn't up to me.
As far as population control, what's wrong with paying people to undergo voluntary sterilization? A sliding scale depending on age or number of kids you already have.
The poorest and dumbest would probably be the ones to jump at the chance for a $850 Walmart gift card in exchange for a free vasectomy, and they're the ones we can most readily benefit from not reproducing.
No force, no making it illegal, just everyone's free choice. All sterilization is 100% free, all the time... reversals quadruple in price though.
No one has to do it. But if they want it, it's free. And they even get some nice prizes.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I've said for decades now that, instead of welfare, we should pay poor people not to have kids like we pay farmers not to grow crops.
However with the native birth rate below replacement and with white people looking at extinction in not-that-many generations I'm not so sure it's a good idea anymore.
Then again, we could set up White People reservations. It worked well for the Native Americans, right?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
If there's no more white people, so what? If no one is targeting them, but they just fade away, or have blended in with others to become Beige or something, what's the problem? Nothing lasts forever.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Seat: I'm already a part of a race that's pretty much faded away. It's sad.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me.
Try it with kidneys, and then realise that there would be a lot more kidney transplants, and hence healthier rich people and richer poor people, if one could legally sell a kidney.
The point of the analogy is that your hand already belongs to you. No hand would change hands. (sorry) Substituting kidney only means that you would buy your own kidney from someone else, without depriving them of theirs. It really makes no sense at all.
quote:As I said, the regulation going on is government taking away tax reductions for children.
If you look back to one of my early posts, this is exactly what I suggested as an alternative to "buying reproductive rights." The current deduction for children acts as an incentive to have children, when compared with not having a deduction. Paying additional taxes for each child is a disincentive, but it's nothing like buying someone else's reproductive rights. Sure people might complain, but they wouldn't feel that their rights were being taken away. Only their money.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: The poorest and dumbest would probably be the ones to jump at the chance for a $850 Walmart gift card in exchange for a free vasectomy, and they're the ones we can most readily benefit from not reproducing.
Uh, eugenics much?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The poorest and dumbest would probably be the ones to jump at the chance for a $850 Walmart gift card in exchange for a free vasectomy, and they're the ones we can most readily benefit from not reproducing.
And we should definitely be in the business of fleecing those guys, right?
(Also, of course, you forgot to include 'most desperate'-which is a very different thing from stupid.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As far as population control, what's wrong with paying people to undergo voluntary sterilization?
I .. well, oh god, there's a whole host of things wrong with it! The best way to start with the issue is to think about what reasons we have for actively disallowing someone to sell their own kidneys, for instance. There's a lot of crossover with the practical perils of such a program.
I mean, and the worst part is that while I'm clearly discomforted with these eugenic notions, I cannot envision a future where these are not eventually, inexorably come to be seen as necessary solutions, and instituted as such, but .. I can still nitpick them, right?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
How about paying them to undergo reversible sterilization? Or at least something that's reversible in 90+% of the cases?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How about paying them to undergo reversible sterilization? Or at least something that's reversible in 90+% of the cases?
I just don't want our government in the eugenics business. With your views on government, Pix, I'm stunned that you do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Pix also has strong views on the acceptability of any agreement voluntarily entered into.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But the government would have to get the money for such payments via taxes or similar.
However, it isn't clear to me that Pix is interested in the government doing the paying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: How about paying them to undergo reversible sterilization? Or at least something that's reversible in 90+% of the cases?
Let's do some of my favorite things to do with logic, and take the fundamentals of an argument and draw them out to ridiculous ends that still act as an analogue to the core proposition. Forgive me.
Probably the best way to do that here is to insert race relations. Let's go back to early 19th century America, when the Eugenics movement was in full swing and race purity movements were strong and had the backing of Christianity.
I am Whitey A. N. McWhiterson, the head of a private racial purity organization that is spearheading the eugenics movement. Our organization is offering a very decent sum to any mixed race/minority woman who undergoes sterilization, reversable or no. Perhaps I extend the same offer to whites to give the project a defensive univerality, perhaps not.
What seems sinister about this?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You have ulterior motives. That is not of itself illegal, or even necessarily unethical.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:And we should definitely be in the business of fleecing those guys, right?
First, we're already in the business of fleecing them, what do you think the lottery is? Second, I'm against fleecing poor/dumb people, but I don't think this counts as that, or even comes anywhere close.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm opposed to the lottery for exactly that reason. It's amazingly unethical.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
fugu: I'm against the government doing it, but the government is already giving away tax money and requiring nothing in return.
Both ideas are awful and not the government's business, but at least paying poor people not to have kids is ultimately much cheaper.
If private bazillionairs build a foundation to do it, then it's none of my business.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think there is a huge difference between a private organization paying people and the government paying people. I don't really object to paying people to be sterilized provided informed consent. I am possibly opposed to paying for organ transplants, but I have not decided. I haven't researched it enough, but it seems like it might make organ transplants available only to the rich (why should I donate for free when I could get thousands of dollars?). Of course, it is also possible that by allowing payment, the number of people willing to donate may increase by enough that the poor people will get more then now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't believe eugenics is being spoken of as a good thing.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Don't be so afraid of a label. Are there people who really ought not to have kids? Is there a way to actually get them to not have kids, *without force*, which I would be totally against by the way? I prefer to persuade by words, myself, but if that fails, why not money?
How about the government offers free sterilization to all, with no other incentive to actually have it done? That, to me, seems like better than what we've got now.
The thing is, there are a lot of kids who have fairly crummy parents. I'd rather they didn't get created in the first place, than get made and then suffer. Environmental concerns are secondary to me.
If you reject any solution that has the word "eugenics" applied to it, then does that mean you're happy for everyone to just keep having kids they can't or *won't* properly take care of?
Do you have any alternate suggestions?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not afraid. I'm disgusted.
To comitting genocide and ensuring that only the wealthy have children, all the while polluting the water supply and committing horrendous civil rights violations?
Yes. Don't.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't see why Seatar's previous post suggested anything about polluting water supplies, ensuring only wealthy had children or committing horrendous violations. Free sterilization for anyone who wants it seems like a perfectly legitimate idea to me. (If it's hypothetical magic-reversible sterilization which I'm not sure whether or not exists, then I definitely see no problem).
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
kat, this is what the discussion has really come down to. 100 years ago, it was about removing undesirable people, and now it's the same thing again. There are just different definitions of undesirable.
I'm still trying to understand how reasonable people can believe exceptionally bad things.
One small thing about tax credits for having children: I don't think the credits are an incentive to have children. People have babies for several reasons, but I think tax credits are very far down on that list. If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's not eugenics if it's voluntary and reversible.
It's not about removing undesirables, it's about people waiting until they can afford kids to have them.
Would you object to a private foundation giving free birth control to those who can't afford it? Same thing, only going a step further by paying them to take it.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:To comitting genocide and ensuring that only the wealthy have children, all the while polluting the water supply and committing horrendous civil rights violations?
Oh, that. I'm disgusted by all that stuff too, which is why I've tried to come up with non-evil alternatives. I had thought you were responding to my posts, but clearly you are not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: One small thing about tax credits for having children: I don't think the credits are an incentive to have children. People have babies for several reasons, but I think tax credits are very far down on that list. If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
I don't think you understand margins. There's always going to be someone who has non-tax reasons to have children, but they aren't quite strong enough, and then the tax credits - perhaps unconsciously, but people do make a financial calculation on whether they can afford children - are just the final little thing to tip them over. Tax credits don't have to be a 'main reason', or even an important reason, for anyone at all; you will still get more children than without the credit.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
Paying people to either be sterilized or to accept birth control effects mostly people who need money. What wealthy people are going to accept what to them would be relatively little money, for a process they won't need? This ensures that only wealthy people can have children.
quote:If you reject any solution that has the word "eugenics" applied to it, then does that mean you're happy for everyone to just keep having kids they can't or *won't* properly take care of?
We would all be happy if all children could be raised in a proper home, but we don't have a set of standards to define "proper home." At the minimum, if a child is well adjusted, emotionally stable, and well nourished, the we usually assume that the child is being cared for properly.
Instead of using the institutions that are in place, such as foster care, adoption, guardianship by another family member, social services, etc., to serve the needs of these children, you want an answer that is deceptively easy. If this is voluntary, then what potential parents are going to decide that they are unfit to bear children? I have a feeling that such a program would be unsuccessful.
quote:Would you object to a private foundation giving free birth control to those who can't afford it? Same thing, only going a step further by paying them to take it.
No, not to a free clinic. I object to them being paid. This has been said before, it's like the lottery, except people pay with their ability to reproduce and a receive a small amount of money that can't possible go very far, unless you want to consider recurring payments. But then where would that money come from?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Paying people to either be sterilized or to accept birth control effects mostly people who need money. What wealthy people are going to accept what to them would be relatively little money, for a process they won't need? This ensures that only wealthy people can have children.
No, it doesn't. If it were the law that you had to sell if you were below a certain income level, then only wealthy people would have children. An opt-in program 'ensures' nothing; it can only encourage. Now, if you want to say that under such a program, wealthy people will have more children, then yes, that's likely true. What is the problem with this? Poor people will have an option they don't have now. What part of "more options" do you object to?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: One small thing about tax credits for having children: I don't think the credits are an incentive to have children. People have babies for several reasons, but I think tax credits are very far down on that list. If it is the main reason, then those people shouldn't be raising children because they have poor priorities, IMO.
I don't think you understand margins. There's always going to be someone who has non-tax reasons to have children, but they aren't quite strong enough, and then the tax credits - perhaps unconsciously, but people do make a financial calculation on whether they can afford children - are just the final little thing to tip them over. Tax credits don't have to be a 'main reason', or even an important reason, for anyone at all; you will still get more children than without the credit.
I do understand margins, but is the difference between having and not having a credit going to be large enough to make an impact on population, or will it just make a majority of people who have children angry because (as they see it) their burden has been somewhat increased? As for people who have not yet started a family, but have decided to do so, this can only push their decision further ahead a few years.
IMO, the removal of the tax credit can only be marginally effective because people who want children are probably going to have them, somehow. Those who don't most likely won't.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Paying people to either be sterilized or to accept birth control effects mostly people who need money. What wealthy people are going to accept what to them would be relatively little money, for a process they won't need? This ensures that only wealthy people can have children.
No, it doesn't. If it were the law that you had to sell if you were below a certain income level, then only wealthy people would have children. An opt-in program 'ensures' nothing; it can only encourage. Now, if you want to say that under such a program, wealthy people will have more children, then yes, that's likely true. What is the problem with this? Poor people will have an option they don't have now. What part of "more options" do you object to?
You're right, 'ensures' was the wrong word. I think 'encourages' better explains what I was trying to say.
The problem with only wealthy people having children is the assumption that can care for children better than poor people can. They can easily afford homes and food, but there are no guarantees for emotional and social care, which are as important.
How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If you reject any solution that has the word "eugenics" applied to it, then does that mean you're happy for everyone to just keep having kids they can't or *won't* properly take care of?
The definition of eugenics is not clear, in part because it is controversial, and therefore, people keep adding to the definition in order to give it the baggage that suits them best.
A couple who have both tested positive for Tay Sachs or Cystic Fibrosis may, on their own, choose not to have children. That fits most definitions of eugenics. Does anyone have a problem with this?
Next, the issue here is overpopulation. It's not a matter of what demographic is undesirable, it's a matter of how many children anyone has. So anyone (like myself) whose decision to limit the number of children is affected by their desire not to add to overpopulation is helping to solve the problem. Statistically, rich people are more likely to limit their family size by making use of birth control, including sterilization. Paying poor people so they can make the same choice is hardly comparable to genocide.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
In the U.S. and Europe, sure. And that's where population is actually shrinking. The trick is to make it available everywhere, and taking away the stigma of using it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I can't believe eugenics is being spoken of as a good thing.
It's got a long history in the USA, and has unfortunately been viewed quite favorably in the past.
-----
Even if we granted that these proposals weren't eugenics - for the sake of argument, at least - the effects would be almost indistinguishable from anyone's definition of eugenics.
Because who is most likely to be able to afford to have kids, and be in a position to refuse the temptations of the payment for sterilization?
Hint: not minorities.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure the issue of "minority" is, well, the issue here. The place these hypothetical programs would actually be necessary is primarily India and Africa. So are most of the people going to be... Indian and African. Any way you slice it, if this didn't end up reducing the percentage of Indians and Africans in the world it wouldn't be addressing the actual problem at all. It's would similarly fail if it wasn't disproportionately affecting the number of poor people.
That said, I don't think simply paying people for sterilization would solve the route problems. It might push it off for a generation but all the issues causing it would still be there and we can't afford to funnel money into it indefinitely. As mentioned earlier, population levels drop off as poverty levels decrease.
I think the best bet is simply making contraceptives and sterilization free and easy for everyone, That way if people choose not to have kids, we know it's because they're naturally reaching a place where that's the best choice for them, not a quick fix to feed themselves for the next month.
In vaguely related news, there's a Vasectomy clinic near where I live that I pass all the time. It has big, lovable yellow letters and a cute little "Male Circle with an Arrow" symbol with the arrow snipped off. Every time I see it I go "aww..... I should get a Vasectomy! Wait...."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because who is most likely to be able to afford to have kids, and be in a position to refuse the temptations of the payment for sterilization?
Hint: not minorities.
I dunno. Asian Americans actually as a group have a higher median income than whites. Plus, for minority groups which already have inherent trust issues with the government (Tuskegee?) such as blacks, the uptake of voluntary paid vasectomies might actually be kind of different than what you might expect.
I think that the highest uptake might actually be middle-class whites (or others) already with children who are interested in vasectomies anyways and would jump at the chance to be paid for it rather than having to pay for it.
The idea seems inherently unappealing for someone who hasn't already had children both from a potentially wanting to have children and the fact that it is only a one-time payment. After all, if you are actually poor and say on welfare, why get a one-time payment instead of having a kid and getting potentially ongoing increased payments?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The problem with only wealthy people having children is the assumption that can care for children better than poor people can. They can easily afford homes and food, but there are no guarantees for emotional and social care, which are as important.
Ridiculous. Wealthy parents are exactly as able to take care of their children as poor ones, except for having more options for those problems that money can be thrown at. You cannot assert that "X are not better parents than Y" is a problem with the scenario "X have more children than Y"!
quote:How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
The option isn't "Have no children", it is "get paid for not having children". The money, not the birth control, is what becomes available.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It seems like a lot of the contraversy is the motive and effect of such a program.
If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
If it just means there are fewer and fewer (poor, minority, whatever) people and they remain at the same levels of prosperity and achievement because the number of children they're having turns out to be a relatively minor part of a greater problem...?
Also, if the goal is to make it more likely that the poor will rise out of poverty, that's at least an honorable intention.
If the goal is, "more for us!"- more land, more resources, more access to public facilities- that becomes a bit more questionable.
And I resist and a very basic level any program that seems to have an underlying suggestion that the rich are intrinsically better people as evidenced by the fact that they have a lot of money.
I wonder what the demographics would look like if the offer was "If you undergo voluntary sterilization, you permanently move down one tax bracket with regard to what you have to pay"?...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I wonder what the demographics would look like if the offer was "If you undergo voluntary sterilization, you permanently move down one tax bracket with regard to what you have to pay"?...
I would be curious what the results are there, but rich people tend not to have as many children in the first place which makes it kinda a moot point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
I suspect the sense of your sentence is reversed.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
I could certainly argue that it would be a good thing. Less stress, more resources, better opportunities, less wear and tear on the globe. Actually, I could argue it's a good thing just using your argument against... why are you so opposed to this?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The problem with only wealthy people having children is the assumption that can care for children better than poor people can. They can easily afford homes and food, but there are no guarantees for emotional and social care, which are as important.
Ridiculous. Wealthy parents are exactly as able to take care of their children as poor ones, except for having more options for those problems that money can be thrown at. You cannot assert that "X are not better parents than Y" is a problem with the scenario "X have more children than Y"!
Of course that's ridiculous. That's the point I was trying to make. I'm not making that assertion. I am trying to disspell that assertion. Money makes many things better.
quote:
quote:How is this an option they don't have now? Free clinics are everywhere, and birth control is cheap (that I know of).
The option isn't "Have no children", it is "get paid for not having children". The money, not the birth control, is what becomes available.
This is a choice that can be avoided, but money is a great motivator when you're poor. Is it really an option when nothing better is offered?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Nothing better?" You've got a choice between money and no children, or children and no money. Are you seriously claiming that one of those is so obviously better that nobody will choose the other one?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm completely lost as to which side people actually are on the argument by this point.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, maybe it's time to re-divy the teams and start over.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''
``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Cheap shots are, of course, not expensive. Would you like to consider the difference between killing off existing humans, and refraining from creating new ones?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It stems from some of the same impulses, though.
ETA: And of course Scrooge doesn't talk about killing the surplus population, just that those who'd rather die do so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It stems from some of the same impulses, though.
What of it? The Inquisition and ordinary proselytising stem from the same impulse to save people from hellfire. That does not make them morally comparable. What is more, I don't think the assertion is true. Scrooge would rather have people die than have to give any of his hard-earned money. Population-limit proponents would rather give some of their hard-earned money toward other people's birth control, than have the human race descend into the cannibalistic frenzy of all versus all. You may argue that they are mistaken about the consequences of a laissez-faire population policy, but to say that they are as uncharitable as Scrooge is a BIG stretch.
quote:ETA: And of course Scrooge doesn't talk about killing the surplus population, just that those who'd rather die do so. [/QB]
This seems quite reasonable to me; if you say "I would rather die than X", and those two literally are your only options, then I see no merit in forcing you to do X, and not necessarily any obligation on my part to give you other options.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The answer, then, must be Soylent Green.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm completely lost as to which side people actually are on the argument by this point.
I am on the side of "I know that mandatory birth limits and population control through social experiments in sterilization will essentially become commonplace, even in the high-income nations, by the time earth hits its first phosphorous famine, but despite finding it really inevitable I don't like it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you cannot identify two sides, that might be a sign that constructive give-and-take dialogue is going on. (This is, admittedly, rare on Hatrack; don't feel bad if you didn't identify it at first glance.) If you feel this is a problem, it is probably most productive to debug something other than the discussion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
True enough, it's just that up to a page or so ago there was an actual argument about one particular point going on and I don't think anyone changed their mind about that particular point.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:If families have fewer children, and the children they have thus have more resources and time allocated to their care and the children's overall stress on both their families and societies is reduced while their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents, well, it would be hard to argue that would be a good thing.
I could certainly argue that it would be a good thing. Less stress, more resources, better opportunities, less wear and tear on the globe. Actually, I could argue it's a good thing just using your argument against... why are you so opposed to this?
Bleah, this is what happens when you try to compose over-long sentences on too little sleep.
"While their chances of growing into productive, well-educated adults with more prospects than their parents were increased... It would hard to argue that wouldn't be a good thing."
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Population-limit proponents would rather give some of their hard-earned money toward other people's birth control, than have the human race descend into the cannibalistic frenzy of all versus all.
Then let them do that on their own, not through government. To me, this is soft tyranny. You may not see it that way, but I do because government payments to prevent people from having children is a way for government to control an aspect of their lives. It is voluntary to enter into, but the people in the program can easily become dependant upon it, just like welfare and many other government programs we have now.
I realize that I am being highly speculative here and this has a good chance of not happening at all. I am very skeptical of government claiming to be caring and altruistic, especially in the work of a greater good, such as reducing population.
quote:I am on the side of "I know that mandatory birth limits and population control through social experiments in sterilization will essentially become commonplace, even in the high-income nations, by the time earth hits its first phosphorous famine, but despite finding it really inevitable I don't like it.
If you don't like it and think it's wrong, then don't accept it as inevitable. I don't believe it is. Greatly increased efforts to educate people, better enable third world citizens to gain wealth, and distributing birth control by (very) limited government action and private groups will do as well, IMO. This takes much more effort than what is being given now.
The future doesn't have to be a science fiction novel. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: The future doesn't have to be a science fiction novel.
HERETIC!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's not also forget, that while it's foolish to rely on unknown future technological advances...unexpected things can happen. (For better or worse.) So it's not inevitable at all.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: The future doesn't have to be a science fiction novel.
This is one thing I can really agree on - it seems the future always turns out much differently and infinitely weirder than science fiction predicts. For all we know, the solution to the overpopulation problem is something so strange and simple that nobody has thought of it yet.
For example, we could suddenly become a colony of space aliens that harvest human beings like cattle, and we'd actually have to take fertility drugs, to up the number of kids being born.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: If you don't like it and think it's wrong, then don't accept it as inevitable. I don't believe it is.
Whether or not I think it is ethically troubling has no bearing on my analysis of its probability, nor should it. It's extraordinarily illogical.
If there's technical dislike for my wording, i could replace inevitable with 'the extraordinarily, vastly likely outcome.'
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:phosphorous famine
I don't know what that is. I could google it, but it amuses me more to wonder what, exactly, you eat every day and think other people eat.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I imagine he thinks they eat vegetables, grains, and meat, the production of which is highly dependent on phosphorus.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Phosphorus is an important component of most modern fertilizers.
Some scientists predict we will use it up in a few decades. Others are more optimistic, saying there are ways we can develop to preserve, extend, and cease waste of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do not wish to converse with you, Squick. -------------- How sad, Puffy, that there is a prosaic explanation. There were visions of Dune in my head.
The phosphorous must roll!!
Anyway, I suspect it will be fine. Not that it is okay to ignore it, but there will not be a worldwide "phosphorous famine."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I do not wish to converse with you, Squick."
*chuckle* Obviously you wish to address him, and respond to his posts, though. The distinction you're making is quite fine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:there will not be a worldwide "phosphorous famine."
Actually, my wife works in ag, and this IS a major concern.
Population is increasing very, very rapidly, and food production has plateaued. Without the ability to cheaply and easily supplement crop production with standard fertilizers (which are phosphorus dependent), food production will further fall behind.
We have since the '40s, as a planet, enjoyed the ability to produce far, far more food than we're capable of eating. In the last couple of years, the population has caught up and passed production. Within another decade, unless technology somehow fills the void, people in developed countries are going to feel the pinch; the third world is already feeling it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Where does the phosphorus in fertiliser go after it's done its work?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The nitrate in it generally leeches into the water table, where ultimately it does more damage to the oceans. There's a massive hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico due mainly to nitrified fertilizer runoff.
We're dumping all our nitrate into the oceans, basically, to kill the fish.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
From the first google page I found on "phosphorus fertilizer":
"Organic P fertilizers have been used for centuries as the P source for crops. Even with the advent of P fertilizer technology processes, organic P sources from animal manures—including composts—and sewage sludge are still very important. From a fertilizer/nutrient management perspective, the major differentiating factor is the availability of P. As with any of the fertilizer products, especially those with varying analysis, chemical analysis should be done on these products. Then an availability coefficient should be used to determine the available P as a portion of the reported total P.
Phosphorus from manure or sludge should be comparable to P from inorganic fertilizer. Therefore, if a producer has a P recommendation for 30 lbs/A of P 2 O 5 , applying approximately 65 lbs of 18-46-0 (DAP) or 6 tons of 11-6-9 (manure, 80% available P coefficient) should provide equivalent results."
So phosphorus fertilizer can come from organic sources, such as people, animals, compost heaps, etc. If there are more people producing more waste, that seems to be an okay solution to the shortage of phosphorus from other sources. The important thing is that there is a decent level of resource management to get fertilizer A to farm B.
Not that I know much about it, but that's my theory from googling it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Where does the phosphorus in fertiliser go after it's done its work?
Based on my extensive ability to read Wikipedia, much of it runs off, seeps into the water table, or is otherwise introduced into the hydro-system, creating algal blooms.
Some of it goes into the food, is consumed, and ends up in sewage treatment plants. I'm not sure to what degree human waste is recycled as fertilizer. But the sewer system probably further contributes to the phosphorus leakage into the water supply.
Also, the damming of major rivers has further exacerbated the problem, as phosphorus that traditionally would have been reintroduced from silt during annual floods is now prevented from ever making it downstream.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So then, if we were able to reclaim it from the processes that currently dump it into the oceans, we'd have a major environmental benefit on top of more phosphorus. This seems to me like exactly the sort of thing that free markets are good at solving: As the stuff becomes more expensive, which will presumably be a gradual process, recycling operations become economically viable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that African farmers can't afford to pay more for their phosphorus. They can't pay what we're charging for it now.
And, of course, there's the other problem: that all the fish in the Gulf won't necessarily hang on until reclamation becomes affordable.
There's money to be made in the corners here, sure, but the rest of it's a big ol' chunk of externality.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Where does the phosphorus in fertiliser go after it's done its work?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The nitrate in it
>_<
I know what you meant, but as written that violates scientific laws. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:phosphorous famine
I don't know what that is. I could google it, but it amuses me more to wonder what, exactly, you eat every day and think other people eat.
We eat food. If you don't know how the production of that food for six billion people on the arable land available on earth is dependent on available phosphorus supplies, then you should educate yourself before making this sort of comment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh*
Take the stick out, Samp.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, I'm serious. Go read up on it!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So am I.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, pick a fight with me first. Then go read up on it. Deal?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:...or is otherwise introduced into the hydro-system, creating algal blooms.
*warning language, and it's a bit gory.*
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
The upcoming phosphorous famine will be a byproduct of the "green revolution". We created a system that produces more food at the expense of water tables and fertilizer supply allowing the Earth to sustain larger populations for a shorter timeframe by more rapidly exhausting natural resources in an even more unsustainable fashion.
We did it to try to solve hunger problems but without a population control aspect it just meant that we were not actually fixing anything so we ended up here today. Even if we stop total population growth and manage to keep the Earth's population at where it is at today, the end of readily available phosphorous will be what combines with our exceeded production limits and set off a massive world population reduction.
We could come up with a viable population reduction policy between now and then, but it is not very likely. We seem to act like any other organism that opens up a niche that allows population explosion. We boom, overconsume, and the next step is to bust. A bust in the animal world is a massive die-off.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The upcoming phosphorous famine will be a byproduct of the "green revolution".
I just want to clarify that the "Green Revolution" that Parkour's referring to here isn't an environmentalist thing, in that sense of "Green," but rather a reference to a number of agricultural technologies that sprang into being from 1950-1980 and revolutionized the way crops are grown in developed countries.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yes. The green revolution could have been the turning point in sustainability. It averted famine by increasing the efficiency of production. The response in developing countries was that of an unconstrained organism. More efficient production only led to us to more extreme depletion of natural resources as our population zoomed upwards to fill the presently available production. Now, we're capping out again at the new, more extreme, more unsustainable limits. It's depressing. We never accomplished anything that would have prevented us from assuredly ending up in the same situation again, overlooking an even taller and more insurmountable precipice. We just blobbed like a fungus.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB] Except that African farmers can't afford to pay more for their phosphorus. They can't pay what we're charging for it now.
If that's true, then presumably Africa is not currently an important source of the world's food supplies, no? So, in effect, Africa can continue to produce coffee or whatever at a much lower level, with our worth-their-weight-in-gold blessings. What's important for whether or not we have a world famine is whether the huge American farms that are the actual major supplier can afford such reclamation or not.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Africa can't feed itself on coffee and in the face of a growing food crisis, we would certainly start keeping more (and then all) of our produced food at home. We would be able to afford reclamation by necessity, but there is no way to be able to supply the same amount of phosphorous that we are reliant upon today if we are dependent on reclamation methods instead of just being able to mine massive quantities of phosphorous out of the earth. There will be less total phosphorous available. Significantly less.
At worst in countries like America where farmland was maintained through subsidy, all it entails is a significant reduction in quality of life as food costs begin to dominate domestic concerns.
But in Africa, India, even possibly China? They are left with heavily leeched land, they no longer have readily available fertilizer, and their water tables are massively exhausted. The still-productive nations are not sparing their food in trade. Billions of people will begin, very simply, to starve to death.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You assume that the equilibrium solution is a disaster. This is not obvious. Clearly, if phosphorus makes food cheaper, and phosphorus gets more expensive, then food gets more expensive and someone who now has access to it will become too poor to buy. This is basic economics. But it does not follow that the someones will number in the billions! You have argued convincingly that the eventual equilibrium will involved more expensive food and therefore more starvation; this is as much as you can do from qualitative arguments. To find how many people will starve, you must run the numbers; claims of billions are as unconvincing as claims of "not a problem".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Um, it's not about phosphorus making food cheaper. It's about making it so that the production of our current output of food is possible at all.
Our population is still going up, we already cannot produce enough food to feed the entire world's population currently with readily minable phosphorous, and that supply is going to end. It is an essentially unavoidable situation. One way or another the earth's population has to drop pretty significantly between now and then, or we will be 'adjusted' by the forces of nature.
We ain't gonna do it the easy way, most likely.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Ah, the joys of repurposing the World War II munitions business. NPK: making more, less nutritious food at high cost to humans, soil, and water alike.
Humanity has been coasting on an unsustainable system for some time. It's hard to see that system coming to a happy ending.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Um, it's not about phosphorus making food cheaper. It's about making it so that the production of our current output of food is possible at all.
The statements are not different. Larger production of food = cheaper food = food produced with less labour and machinery. Three ways to say the same thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not all avaialability is determined by price.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So... what's the closest source of extraplanetary phosphorous again?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Well, hell. It's been a while since I got through mass effect, but I think there was a planet just chock-full of it somewhere near the Perseus Veil.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Now if only we can get a shipping lane through the terminus systems, our approaching organic collapse can be yet again averted!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Not all avaialability is determined by price.
If there is less food available, then some people who formerly could get it will now go hungry. The way this will happen is that prices will go up. Do you disagree with this scenario? If not, how does it differ from what I originally said?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, yes, guys, that would be nice.
Any other planets, moons, etc, in the solar system with some nice phosphorus in noticeable amounts?
I don't recall much about that. Though a planet/moon in the solar system would certainly be faster than something in the Fortuna system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If there is less food available, then some people who formerly could get it will now go hungry. The way this will happen is that prices will go up. Do you disagree with this scenario?
One of the ways this can happen. Not all of the ways this can happen. Plenty of people in plenty of nations can be unable to eat just due to a lack of availability. There's no food coming in to your area, or currency has no bearing on the ability to procure food, etc.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And why is food not coming in? Because there is greater profit in delivering it elsewhere. Why does your currency buy no food? Because it can't buy anything else, either. These are all manifestations of the market. Short of a complete breakdown of order, scarce resources will be delivered to those able to pay the highest price. And if order does break down completely, that will still be true, but the price will be measured in bullets and loyal soldiers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, most of the reasons food doesn't arrive have little to do with "the market"; there are typically major externalities (wars, dictators intentionally starving sub-populations, all sorts of fun things).
The sense you are using "the market" in isn't consistent with the things you've tried to say about it. Efficiently allocating markets only exist under certain conditions, not any situation under the sun where people are contesting for resources.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And why is food not coming in? Because there is greater profit in delivering it elsewhere. Why does your currency buy no food? Because it can't buy anything else, either. These are all manifestations of the market. Short of a complete breakdown of order, scarce resources will be delivered to those able to pay the highest price. And if order does break down completely, that will still be true, but the price will be measured in bullets and loyal soldiers.
That's just not true, KoM. It's not all market forces. There's a great deal of politics involved, which involves economics but is not quite the same thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you want to call this something other than market forces, fine. The point remains: If less food is produced, then some people will go hungry who formerly had food. In the nature of things these people will almost certainly be poor, in money, in political influence, and in military power. It does not follow that they will number in the billions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Roughly one in seven people on earth go hungry right now. It approaches a billion people as-is. They live a life perpetually on the brink of starvation. They manage, but it is not easy. They are buoyed on the barest of margins given by the current food production system's output.
Even given a stable situation (i.e., no further depletion of water tables, an indefinite supply of today's minable phosphate rock, global warming end up not doing anything prickish to the world's productive land areas) we are already in a situation that sees this 900+ million people eventually starving to death. We already cannot produce enough food worldwide to feed the number of people we have.
And world population is still on the rise.
Soon, that food production output will not exist. It will have begun to contract rapidly, in a way which can no longer physically provide for six to seven billion people. A system that is fully forced to convert to phosphorus recovery rather than mass mining can support about four billion people.
That's a few billion shy of our current and our projected population over the timeframe of phosphorus depletion. Any major upheaval due to supply concerns can suddenly cut off supply from phosphorus producing nations. You will then have your billions hungry.
World population has to go down, one way or another. Whether we engineer it ourselves, or end up having it done for us by biological realities.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:A system that is fully forced to convert to phosphorus recovery rather than mass mining can support about four billion people.
Now we are getting somewhere; this appears to imply that you have some actual data. Where are you getting your numbers?
quote:we are already in a situation that sees this 900+ million people eventually starving to death.
Woah, now. There's a difference between going hungry and starving to death.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Now we are getting somewhere; this appears to imply that you have some actual data. Where are you getting your numbers?
I'm .. very glad you finally see some suggestion that we're not just making this all up. Very charitable. Most of the hard data is available in USGS factsheets as well as various scholarly articles on the subject.
quote:Woah, now. There's a difference between going hungry and starving to death.
And? Today, they are the world's hungry. In any situation where you see the hunger situation get so severe that populations begin starving to death in very very large numbers, hunger, too, has increased.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
How much additional human feeding capacity if we all stop eating meat? Do the scholarly articles explore the situation if we repurpose all rainforest land? (I know that would be potentially disastrous in its own right, but I'm curious whether the human food production models try to mesh in with deforestation and warming and ocean levels and everything else.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm .. very glad you finally see some suggestion that we're not just making this all up.
When you make assertions of the form "Unless we do X, billions will die", a request for sources is not unreasonable. You might have supplied those links to start with instead of quibbling on what is or is not a price mechanism.
Edit: Further, I don't see where your link supports your assertion. Perhaps you'd like to quote something and say where you found it? There are lots of PDFs in that link.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We could stop sending aid to any country with a reproduction rate above replacement. We wouldn't even have to do anything. In fact, it would be easier than what we're doing now. (and better in the long run.)
Until populations reach equilibrium, though, we'd have to guard our borders VERY carefully.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I'm .. very glad you finally see some suggestion that we're not just making this all up.
When you make assertions of the form "Unless we do X, billions will die", a request for sources is not unreasonable.
Nor do I suggest so. You just had a very weird way of transitioning into your request for data.
And there's always plenty of reason to quibble over an incorrect assertion; this is the internet, of course.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A Malthusian article on why the world will soon be vegetarian. The point: people love their meat, but its unsustainable, so governments will outlaw it in order to focus on less resource intensive food sources. The author's suggested date for the beginning of the meat famine: 2025.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)