Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

[geni]

That unless you're prepared to use weapons of mass destruction, it's the numbers that matter. I didn't think I was being entirely silly by asserting that of two countries, the one with the larger population and greater birth rate stands a better chance of being around in a hundred years and getting its way. France and China have equal technological means. Which would win, in a war?

Draw both would reduce each other to radioactive wastelands. Are you really suggesting that france would not use the nuclear option if it's existace was threatened?

 

[TragicMonkey]

unless you think there is not going to be an uperbound on human life expectancy then this is at most a short term problem.

Sorry, wasn't being clear.

If the death rate is smaller than the birth rate, you will have a perpetual increase.

Increased life expectancy just means each individual will get to experience the increasingly crowded earth for longer.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Draw both would reduce each other to radioactive wastelands. Are you really suggesting that france would not use the nuclear option if it's existace was threatened?

And do you really think "the nuclear weapon" is that powerful? It's not magical, you know. China is pretty freaking big. Even if France had as many nukes as the US, China would still be left with a population of millions and millions.

Anyway, if France was experiencing a bigger death rate than birth rate, all China would have to do is wait. Eventually the French would become extinct on their own.

 

[AtheistArchon]

Perhaps but many parts of the world are heading in the same direction.

- It's my understanding that since humans have existed, we've ever always grown in global population.

What makes you think that the rest of the world will not follow europe?

- Because the rest of the world isn't as "enlightened" as Europe, if that makes any sense. Why haven't they followed it thus far? The differences are cultural and educational, and unless the cultural paradigm changes in places like China and India and certain parts of Africa, there will continue to be starvation and death and population problems.

There is no population problem. As people get richer, the population increase slow and the population will start dropping in much of Europe. The world population will top out at 10 billion give or take. No peaceful country in the world has starvation. Few even have malnutrition and this ends once a not too horrible government is in place for a few years. There are no global shortages of natural resources. The trend is for all natural resources to get cheaper.

- What a mess this paragraph is. Firstly, of course there's a population problem, just maybe not in your neighborhood. Secondly, what does wealth have to do with overpopulation, and at what rate are starving African kids becoming millionaires? Thirdly, did it cross your mind that perhaps nations with millions of hungry people aren't peaceful because of the lack of resources? Fourthly, what the heck does this mean: "Few even have malnutrition and this ends once a not too horrible government is in place for a few years." Fifthly, all resources are finite; if they weren't, they'd be free.

Is there such a problem with individuals having way more children than they can afford...

- Yes.

... that we need to restrict fundamental liberties? You certainly haven't provided even a hint of evidence that there is.

- That's what this thread is for. Get it?

You aren't going to get to pick the standards for a baby-licensing system, nor are you going to get to decide who does pick the standards, nor how they go about doing it. A plan like that proposed in this country is going to have standards that appeal to the most people, and to the most vocal.

- Nobody is saying we have to vote on it. This is a thought experiment, Red. I fully realize that the fundies would scream bloody murder.

I take it it's your position that women who don't have access to birth control and don't want more kids should not have sex. Ever. Even if their husbands insist.

- Where the hell did you get this idea??

Married adults are going to have sex. Helping them with family planning is smart. Expecting them to practice abstinence is foolish.

- Couldn't have said it better myself. Did someone here suggest that married adults be abstinent? Or even unmarried teens?

The problems of overpopulation in the third world are not the same as the problems associated with parenting (assuming there are any) in this and other developed countries. Restricting reproductive freedom here will not address the issue of third world overpopulation. These are two separate issues.

- But taking reproductive control now would mean we would never develop problems with overpopulation. No?

 

[geni]

And do you really think "the nuclear weapon" is that powerful? It's not magical, you know. China is pretty freaking big. Even if France had as many nukes as the US, China would still be left with a population of millions and millions.

Which is why china is a really bad example. It's big has and has a reasonble high tech militry. Even so I doubt it would be worth thier while lossing most of thier major cities. Yeah in thoery china could beat france but so what the losses they would take would mean it wasn't worth it.

Anyway, if France was experiencing a bigger death rate than birth rate, all China would have to do is wait. Eventually the French would become extinct on their own.

So?

 

[geni]

- It's my understanding that since humans have existed, we've ever always grown in global population.

Too many social differences for any useful extropolation there

 

[toddjh]

As an example, my wife and I are childless, and we will never have any kids. I've had surgery to make certain (or at least more certain) that this will be the case, and we both felt this way before we got married. We both work, we both contribute to society, we both have tons of free time. We sleep through the night without fail, barring the occasional barking dog. We have enough money to eat out four and five times a week if we like. We never need babysitters. We live comfortably and we survive successfully, and neither of us have even a college degree. But this lifestyle is almost never touted in our society. The ideal is always portrayed as husband, wife, and 2.5 kids.

Hear, hear. I've known all my life that I didn't want kids (and, even if I changed my mind someday, I wouldn't give a damn whether they were my biological offspring), so I got snipped at 25 (actually, I had to do it twice, so you know I'm serious about it ).

On the other hand, the childfree lifestyle is getting more exposure in American society -- there was even a Simpsons episode about it. And the number of women having children before 30 is dropping significantly.

What I'd like to see is a rollback of child tax credits and related rebates. We have quite enough people in this country already, and if we need more, there are millions south of the border or on other continents who are dying for a better life. There is no reason for our government to subsidize reproduction anymore.

Something else to think about is, of course, personal freedom. Why should the government step in to tell a single woman she can't have a child if she wants one? How much money should you have to make before you're "allowed" to get pregnant? Where is the cut-off point for the number of kids you're allowed to have vs. your ability to support them?

I wish there were some form of cheap, permanent, yet easily reversible birth control -- sort of like a vasectomy or tubal ligation that could be turned on and off.

Then, everybody could have the procedure performed at birth (or whenever practical), and, upon reaching majority, could get it reversed at any time they wish. There's no violation of personal freedom, since no one could stop you from getting it reversed if you want, but unwanted pregnancies would decrease dramatically. And I seriously doubt that most people with too many kids actually made a conscious choice to have them (although some do, of course).

- Finally, does even a polished and successful plan to forcefully control childbirth compare to a society where freedom allows both capable and disastrous parental experiments? Or does the long-term survivability of the species trump the personal desire to reproduce

It will have to -- or else nature will trump it for us. Right now, some overpopulated areas can still sustain themselves because they provide cheap labor for the rest of the world (India, China, etc.). But that won't always be the case. Population control will happen at some point in the next 100 years, unless people take care of it on their own (as appears to be happening in Europe and, to a lesser extent, North America).

Jeremy

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

What I'd like to see is a rollback of child tax credits and related rebates. We have quite enough people in this country already, and if we need more, there are millions south of the border or on other continents who are dying for a better life. There is no reason for our government to subsidize reproduction anymore.

I posted this in the "deadbeats" thread:

Well, I don't have children, but I don't mind the tax break for those who do so much. Because those people are creating future taxpayers who are going to (I hope) be paying taxes to pay for my own Social Security benefits (yeah, I'm holding my breath for those). I'm paying my own share of taxes, true, but I'm not doing a thing to secure the future tax revenues of the nation.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

Well, I don't have children, but I don't mind the tax break for those who do so much. Because those people are creating future taxpayers who are going to (I hope) be paying taxes to pay for my own Social Security benefits (yeah, I'm holding my breath for those). I'm paying my own share of taxes, true, but I'm not doing a thing to secure the future tax revenues of the nation.

I see two problems with this argument.

First, it assumes that the country would not be able to maintain a healthy population size without these tax credits. Nothing I've seen has convinced me that that's the case. Nearly everyone seems to regard the credits as a "bonus" or reward for having kids -- not that they wouldn't have kids, or be able to have kids, without them.

Edited to add: Also, at some point the Social Security game we're playing will have to stop depending on an ever-increasing population, and settle for sustainability. That's just a simple logistical fact. Better now than later, in my opinion -- and, in that case, the only reason tax credits should be given for children is if our population is actually declining.

Second, like I said earlier, there are literally millions and millions of people in other countries who would jump at the chance to fill in a U.S. population gap. On what grounds should we encourage the creation of new humans when there are plenty already out there who could really use those benefits?

Jeremy

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

I see two problems with this argument.

First, it assumes that the country would not be able to maintain a healthy population size without these tax credits. Nothing I've seen has convinced me that that's the case. Nearly everyone seems to regard the credits as a "bonus" or reward for having kids -- not that they wouldn't have kids, or be able to have kids, without them.

Second, like I said earlier, there are literally millions and millions of people in other countries who would jump at the chance to fill in a U.S. population gap. On what grounds should we encourage the creation of new humans when there are plenty already out there who could really use those benefits?

I can answer both problems by stating the reason behind all political decisions in an elected democracy:

They have to do what's popular. Giving bonuses to people is good! Babies, fine fat American babies, are good! Immigrants? At the very best, they're neither bad nor good. More often bad. Tolerate them in extremely limited numbers (and do what you can to make sure they're from the right places, speak the right languages, and worship the right gods) but certainly don't encourage them to come over.

The only way anyone will ever live in a nation run in an enlightened, rational manner is to have an enlightened, rational dictator. And dictators seldom turn out to be enlightened and rational (indeed, dictatorship is frequently seen as contrary to being enlightened to start with!).

But you're right. Until the benevolent Emperor Palpatine takes charge, I'm going to start demanding tax breaks of my own.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

Edited to add: Also, at some point the Social Security game we're playing will have to stop depending on an ever-increasing population, and settle for sustainability. That's just a simple logistical fact. Better now than later, in my opinion -- and, in that case, the only reason tax credits should be given for children is if our population is actually declining.

Oh, Social Security is doomed, doomed, doomed. Some people think it will last out the lifetimes of the baby boomers. I think it won't last out the decade. The decade ending in 2010, not ten years from now. We simply can't afford all these old people.

 

[CBL4]

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/wpp2002annextables.PDF
According to the UN, the fertility rate for the world will drop from 2.69 now to 2.02 by 2050 (Page 14). Since the replacement rate is 2.1, this means the worlds population will start decreasing from a peak of around 8.9 billion. (Page 8) This is their "medium variant" prediction and clearly it could be wrong.

For the first time, the UNPD projects that future fertility levels in the majority of developing countries will likely fall below 2.1 children per women, the level needed to ensure the long term-replacement of the population... By 2050 ... 3 out 4 countries in the less developed regions will be experiencing below-replacement fertility.

[My emphasis and I had to type it myself. I apologize if I have not quoted it correctly.]
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF

There is no population issue.

CBL

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

I can answer both problems by stating the reason behind all political decisions in an elected democracy:

They have to do what's popular.

Sure they do. And I completely understand why these tax breaks do exist. But my question was about whether they should exist, and you said you didn't have a problem with them. Did I misunderstand?

Oh, Social Security is doomed, doomed, doomed. Some people think it will last out the lifetimes of the baby boomers. I think it won't last out the decade. The decade ending in 2010, not ten years from now. We simply can't afford all these old people.

I don't know how long it will last, but I agree its days are very numbered. Makes me glad that, as a state employee, I have a private retirement account in lieu of SS.

Jeremy

 

[CBL4]

As an example, my wife and I are childless, and we will never have any kids. I've had surgery to make certain (or at least more certain) that this will be the case, and we both felt this way before we got married. We both work, we both contribute to society, we both have tons of free time. We sleep through the night without fail, barring the occasional barking dog. We have enough money to eat out four and five times a week if we like. We never need babysitters. We live comfortably and we survive successfully, and neither of us have even a college degree. But this lifestyle is almost never touted in our society. The ideal is always portrayed as husband, wife, and 2.5 kids.

I agree. For 10 years, my wife and planned to be childless. We were rich, happy DINKs (Double Income No Kids). It's a great lifestyle.

For arguments sake, I wish I could end it there but it would not be accurate. Due to a family emergency, we made an totally illogical, emotion-laded decision to have kids. We are now a happy, poor family with one income and two kids.

Being a DINK is great. Being a father is great. To each his own.

CBL

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

Sure they do. And I completely understand why these tax breaks do exist. But my question was about whether they should exist, and you said you didn't have a problem with them. Did I misunderstand?

Not really. I guess I didn't really state my position. I agree intellectually that the credits are unfair. But I'm quite fatalistic about taxes--I'm going to be robbed blind regardless. I mind less the thought that some middle class family will pay a couple hundred bucks less than I would the thought that the same amount of money would go to pad Boeing's coffers on some cushy new airplane deal, or to pay for another Secret Service man to check for dangerous pretzels in the presidential snacks.

(I'm also the sort of person who doesn't mind leaving huge tips for waiters, on the completely irrational idea that I should be karmically grateful for not being a waiter myself.)

 

[toddjh]

There is no population issue.

That depends on what you consider the optimal population for the earth. Stabilizing at nine billion seems somewhat problematic to me -- not in terms of sustaining that many people, but in terms of how rapidly limited resources such as oil will be used. It's too late now, of course, but I would've preferred a peak at maybe three or four billion.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

Not really. I guess I didn't really state my position. I agree intellectually that the credits are unfair. But I'm quite fatalistic about taxes--I'm going to be robbed blind regardless. I mind less the thought that some middle class family will pay a couple hundred bucks less than I would the thought that the same amount of money would go to pad Boeing's coffers on some cushy new airplane deal, or to pay for another Secret Service man to check for dangerous pretzels in the presidential snacks.

I suppose. I just don't like all the freebies that people get on the assumption that managing to get knocked up is worthy of reward. Where I work, new parents get two months -- two months -- of maternity/paternity leave. Where's the free time off for those of us who've decided not to have children and who consequently won't be away from work every other week due to chicken pox/daycare problems/ear infections? Those of us who have to put in extra hours picking up the slack when our coworkers leave early to pick up their kids from school, and who get "volunteered" to work overtime on the assumption that it's less of a burden? I know I'm pretty biased, but that seems like the kind of thing an employer should reward.

Sorry, just venting. Believe it or not, I don't have anything against people who choose to have children (as long as it's a responsible decision); I just dislike the attitude that it should be expected or rewarded, and I think that parents should accept the consequences of their decision. It's a personal choice that should be treated completely neutrally, in my book.

(I'm also the sort of person who doesn't mind leaving huge tips for waiters, on the completely irrational idea that I should be karmically grateful for not being a waiter myself.)

Me too. I'll one-up you and admit that I then feel guilty because I'm afraid the waiter/delivery person will think I'm being condescending. Talk about insecure!

Jeremy

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

I suppose. I just don't like all the freebies that people get on the assumption that managing to get knocked up is worthy of reward.

Ah, just remember Lindsey Nagle from the Simpsons:

Bart: "Mom, Maggie just threw up in your purse."

Lindsey: "Gee, Marge, the only thing in my purse is disposable income." opens purse to reveal wads of cash

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

Ah, just remember Lindsey Nagle from the Simpsons:

Heh. And yes, it does sometimes help to remember things like that. But in another way, that kinda makes my point for me. People without kids have more money (by and large) because of their choice. Parents had the option of that kind of lifestyle, and voluntarily gave it up. I don't think they should be cut any particular slack because of that decision; they obviously thought the benefits of parenthood were worth it (and good for them if they embrace the responsibility conscientiously -- that's got to be a difficult job), and so it shouldn't be up to anyone else to make it easier for them.

Jeremy

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

Heh. And yes, it does sometimes help to remember things like that. But in another way, that kinda makes my point for me. People without kids have more money (by and large) because of their choice. Parents had the option of that kind of lifestyle, and voluntarily gave it up. I don't think they should be cut any particular slack because of that decision; they obviously thought the benefits of parenthood were worth it (and good for them if they embrace the responsibility conscientiously -- that's got to be a difficult job), and so it shouldn't be up to anyone else to make it easier for them.

Lol. I don't know what to tell you, except that you can exact revenge by dating their children in a December/May romance when you reach old age. That will appall the parents, and serve them right for their years of unfair tax advantage, when their lovely 25 year old wheels your walking frame up to them and says "Here's my date. We're going to the cafeteria for the Early Bird Special. We have to hurry, it's almost four p.m.!"