What we need is some bigdisease to wipe out about 1/4 of the world's population all at once. Think about it: There wouldn't be as many people driving, so gasoline prices would go down almost instantly. Pollution wouldn't be as bad, because there would be less people to pollute. All the food being produced would have to go to less people, so hunger would be alleviated. There would be a LOT of job openings, so unemployment would be alleviated, plus the funeral services industry would skyrocket, creating a lot of new openings. The price of EVERYTHING would go down, because there wouldn't be as big a demand for anything. With any luck, one of the people that die would be Rafer Alston! OK, OK, I'll stop...seriously, the problem isn't necessarily population growth, it's that the wrong people are having kids. How many times have you mumbled a four letter word under your breath when you see some skank with five kids whip out her Lonestar card at the grocery store?
Do you get a kick out of using stereotypes? In this case, offensive ones? What you just said was so much BS. Have you any idea how much "assistance" the poor get in Texas who happen to have kids? It's pathetic, and ranks near, or at the bottom of the United States. The Welfare Cadillac is a myth. That women are having kids to collect welfare checks is a myth. That a woman would even consider doing that in Texas would be an act of insanity. Poor women having multiple children in this state is due more to a lack of education, especially education about birth control, than anything else. And who do we get to "thank" for not educating young women about birth control? You got it... the GOP. Get a grip and blow off the stereotypes. I think you're smarter than that. Google public assistance provided by the State of Texas and educate yourself. D&D. Replicant Homework.
What if that skank's six kid is the one that overcomes poverty goes to college, cures cancer or figures out a cheap way for humans to settle other planets removing the over population problem? I have a hard time believing that poor people shouldn't have kids because they are leaching off the system while at the same time believing that people in this country can overcome their limitations. Certainly there are people who abuse their children and maybe they shouldn't have kids but just because someone is poor I don't believe that makes them an unfit parent. As for the one child policy I think globally we have a problem with overpopulation but this is a very uneven problem with vast regional differences. I heard on NPR today that Russia's population is declining so fast that they might not be able to support their economy in 50 years. I think education and economic development are the ways to reduce population growth rather than legislating how many kids people should have. As for America we're no were near a crisis and immigration is making up for declining childbirth of segments of our population.
Couldn't you say that modernization shifts prevailing cultural norms and encourages women's liberation? Catholicism promotes having children, but the European varieties haven't picked up the slack. Plus there wouldn't as strong a dependence on manual labor once poorer countries can afford machines to grow their crops. I think better education and infrastructure follows with improved living conditions. Farmers in S. America would be less likely to slash and burn rainforests, and villages in Africa would be able to recognize the behaviors that lead to soil destruction. While China's emerging middle class in the hundreds of millions is an environmentalist's nightmare, there's an ecological movement emerging in China because of its poor urban conditions, just like a similar wave that hit in the US during the 60's and 70's. So I think this is a typical growth pattern that arises when the effects of pollution and waste are visible for the middle class to see and for them to recognize that they're responsible for it. Furthermore, emerging nations do have the benefit from learning from our mistakes and could leapfrog with cleaner technologies if their leadership is willing and have the foresight to take urban living conditions into account. I admit that the US is a poor example for my argument when we consume 25% of the world's resources, but several other industrialized nations consume much less while living comfortably. And just because I prefer modernization over environment doesn't mean I'm for total industrialization. The world recently hit a landmark where more people now dwell in urban environments than rural. Cities can be the biggest producers of waste and they need the surrounding land to support its people. I think there should be a higher priority towards improving the entire country rather than the economic bases localized in the country's major cities. This and other broad efforts would stem the creation of megacities where the infrastructure is overburdened and its outer city limits are littered with slums and the unemployed.
It would be kind of funny if we were part of that 1/4 wiped out due to having our brains fried by cell phones; kind of like the lead used as a sweetener in the Roman Empire.
I couldn't agree more. This idea that economic development and environmentalism are in conflict is only due to being locked into the industrialization model that the West took to develop. If we change our infrastructure countries need not develop dependent on heavy industry and fossil fuels. Urban patterns need not become big sprawling metropoli dependend on automobiles but could be much more energy and resource efficient.
Yes, we agree that allowing millions upon millions of people to die for our perception of the greater good is a very very good idea. Let us enact this policy immediately. Signed with regards, Hitler Stalin Chairman Mao Pol Pot
that's a pretty tenuous argument and that same logic stretched a little further would apply to abortions or further, our happy time juices. 'what ifs' live on a slippery slope. but i agree that limiting children by legislation isn't the way to go. we need better education, which is easier said than done. however, i dont think the biggest problem is education about birth control. its hard for me to believe that, in this day and age, even the most impoverished and illiterate American does not know about birth control. maybe really young kids who shouldnt really be having sex anyway havent had the opportunity to learn or hear about birth control, but i think its reasonable to assume for the most part, people who are sexually active (and especially those that have already had accidental pregnancies) are aware of the risk of pregnancy and the need for protection. the education should be focused on the economic impact of having children and the huge responsibility that comes with it. i think this would deter multiple pregnancies or at least make families aware of the significance of having a child so they can be better prepared. beyond this point, i think it is just gross recklessness to keep having children when you are unable to provide for the ones you already have. that isnt me saying the families are having kids intentionally to get welfare checks, because like someone pointed out earlier, that doesnt make any sense. but it does mean these people lack self-control and are basically consciously disregarding the risks in order to get laid. and if they're intentionally getting pregnant, then that's reckless too because the responsible thing would be to get your affairs in order before bringing more children into the world without having the means to provide a good life for them.
I'm won't deny this isn't a "what if" argument but I raised it to point out that people aren't necessarily trapped by poverty in this country and there are many examples of people overcoming poverty. The argument that the wrong people, ie poor people, shouldn't be having so much children since they will be a leach on society smacks of social Darwinism and eugenics to me and also ignores the possibilty that those children could overcome poverty and succeed. I don't believe people should be having huge families but why should class be the determining factor about who can and cannot have more kids.
