Stop Having Babies to Save the Planet ?

[m7post]

entry expired

[Huguenot]

I don't think you've considered who is doing the 'work'. I don't mean jobs, I mean productivity.

China had to abandon the one child policy because they hadn't thought it through. They created a country of geriatrics and self-indulgent minors, none of whom were capable of sustaining the other.

That's assuming you were being sensible. Another reading of your post could be 'save the planet, exterminate people', an idea not really worthy of comment.

[m7post]

entry expired

[Huguenot]

Sure

I wasn't saying the China's one child policy didn't work because people didn't like it.

I'm saying that whatever method you use (carrot in your suggestion, stick in China) you end up with a population imbalance that threatens economic and social stability.

That aside, regarding your cash bonus policy, I think the average cost of having a child currently stands at 201,809 pounds.

So not having two kids gifts you almost half a million quid - better than you'd ever be able to shell out in tex cuts!

[m7post]

entry expired

[Marmora Man]

UK already has the imbalance between generations as the baby boomers move into their 60's and any further reduction of the younger, productive, tax generating generation would further exacerbate the problem.

On pure logic, Dr Spockian, M7post's idea has merit but loses out to the practicalities pointed out by Hugenot.

[m7post]

entry expired

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure about your immovable facts m7.

The birth rate to UK women is 1.84. This figure needs to be 2.1 for population growth - so 'procreation' is below that required for growth.

This means that whatever is driving population growth in the UK, it ain't babies - so a UK tax break isn't going to change anything here.

As it happens the more educated you become, the fewer babies you pop out. Hence if you want to control global population growth, then the best and most social, moral and ethical solution would be universal education, rather than telling people to stop having kids.

[Marmora Man]

M7post, you have a tendency to post a problem, let people comment and then critique the comment but put forward no practical solution or ideas of your own. A strange tactic.

I can see the logic of lower population growth, and thus lower population in total, reducing the demands on the planet. However, incentives and reduced taxes would only work in the more advanced societies - where the problem of excessive population growth doesn't, generally, exist.

I suggested that the first step might be to stabilize the world?s population ? but even this is a nigh on impossible task. Legislation won?t do it. Self interest, the natural desire to propagate and even, one could argue, human rights all mitigate against it.

In general terms it is the advanced, Western, societies that have fallen below the replacement level of births leading to the imbalance between generations. There is a correlation between low(er) birth rates and improved education and economic growth, particularly education of women and of women moving into the paid workplace.

Thus to move towards your desired outcome an option and action would be to promote higher levels of education and economic growth in countries where high birth rates prevail.

PS: Mute - to deaden or subdue sound. Moot - a case for discussion.

[SteveT]

I spoke to a professor of economics some years ago and he said that this country could sustain 4 million people, above that figure we need to buy massive imports of energy.

Doesn't much matter what we do we are only 60 million if we died out tomorrow the world would still be hugely over populated.

What India China America Africa and Europe decide is vital though.

[m7post]

entry expired

[HAL9000]

m7post Wrote

---------------------------------------

> Stop Having Babies to Save the Planet

As long as the western world pursues an economic system based on perpetual growth - don't hold your breath.

[????]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> m7post Wrote

> ---------------------------------------

> > Stop Having Babies to Save the Planet

>

> As long as the western world pursues an economic

> system based on perpetual growth - don't hold your

> breath.

As Huge pointed out, in reality Hal you need to replace the "Western World" with "The Developing World"...

[m7post]

entry expired

[HAL9000]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HAL9000 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > As long as the western world pursues an

> > economic system based on perpetual growth

> > - don't hold your breath.

>

> As Huge pointed out, in reality Hal you need to

> replace the "Western World" with "The Developing

> World"...

I'm not sure about that. Western economies are still driving growth in the developing world by exporting hi-tech products and services in exchange for raw commodity, food and fuel imports and the fruits of their cheap labour.

[SteveT]

m7post wrote:- " economic system based on perpetual growth " - in a limit space / environment it simply make no sense at all does it.

I think a certain Marxist fellow said it first and wrote a book about it too.

[SteveT]

It is the desire of women to get pregnant and breed is the greatest problem, if that was subdued we would not be over populated, because all a man wants to the most part is sex.

[silverfox]

M7post, you can't save the planet. It's doomed. Okay not for five billion years or so when the sun exhausts it's fission supply. But it's doomed nevertheless. So, logically, adopting a 'green' lifesyle, eating less meat, recycling, switching off lights in your household, wind farms etc etc are a useless waste of time if you're trying to save the planet - which you can't.

So, really, your question is:

Given the world's current politcal, economic, financial and trade structures would having less babies help the current structure?

Well, the answer is yes if you restrict yourself to such thinking and you consider the question to be there's too many mouths to feed under the prevailing status quo.

However it's not as easy as this. Eg, to take an example from Professor A J Ayer: What does it mean to be bald? If the definition is having no hair then if I have xx thousand hairs on my head and I lose one that does not make me bald. Lose two, still not bald, and so on until if I still have one hair on my head I'm not bald.

Your question: Stop Having Babies to Save the Planet ? suffers from the same flaw in logic. You can ultimately get to the stage where the human race will die and this raises the question if we're not here to perceive the existence of the planet does it exist? And if it exists independent of our existence why should we care? - which of course we won't be able to anyway.

Alernatively, what you're saying is too many mouths to feed is threatening my comfortable existence here in the pampered first world.

Edited to change million to billion

[LuLu Too]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is the desire of women to get pregnant and

> breed is the greatest problem, if that was subdued

> we would not be over populated, because all a man

> wants to the most part is sex.

Was this post an April Fool?

If not, then surely it deserves the "Neanderthal comment of the year award"...?

[SteveT]

I'm glad you liked it LuLu Too, but do you not think that there just might be a smidgin of truth..............

[m7post]

entry expired

[Cassius]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is the desire of women to get pregnant and

> breed is the greatest problem, if that was subdued

> we would not be over populated, because all a man

> wants to the most part is sex.

WRONG. It is the desire of the majority of women to get pregnant and breed. I know many who are very happy to leave that to others thank you very much!

[PeckhamRose]

Yep, I'm one. Never wanted kids. And four of my closest female friends never wanted kids either. Nor did we have them. Like attracts like, though.

So please don't tar us all with the same brush.

I know many men however who do want kids and not just the sex, and I ended relationships with past b/f because they wanted me to do the breeding thing.

As for the topic, if the humans that exist were doing good in the world and all taking responsibility for their actions then there may not be such a massive problem. Eugenics, an answer that dare not speak its name!? By mentioning that link I am not saying I agree with its contents.

[SteveT]

Cassius wrote:- I know many who are very happy to leave that to others thank you very much!

Yes there are many who choose to do as you say, you and PeckhamRose have made that point abundantly clear,

but there are many more who don't and cannot fight the powerful urges of pregnancy, hence the problem of overpopulation.

[Huguenot]

Was that Eugenics thing an April Fool?

I know that SteveT, bless him, can be thoroughly fourth month. ;-)