| . 1 . 2 . >> |
| Author |
Message |
mrcvs
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 03:34pm
Reply
Okay, I am truly inspired from another post...
And, I am prepared to be TARRED & FEATHERED after this most controversial post.
Nonetheless, the world's population is 7 BILLION!!! Many of you are obviously landowners and care deeply about the environment. You see all the propaganda about going green, recycling, etc.
Having not procreated, and, therefore, causing the population of this world to increase even more, and, therefore, create an even bigger environmental impact, why do individuals feal a need to reproduce, etc.? I noted that most of my high school colleagues (I have been out 25 yrs now) seem to have had anywhere from 2 to 7 kids, each, and 3+ seems to be the norm.
So, why is it that we are well aware of this ticking time bomb but yet no one does anything about it? We should be encouraged to attempt to create a negative population growth.
My guess--capitalism. How does a corporation show increased profits year after year unless there is an increase in the size of the base of potential consumers--e.g., more consumers via population growth through reproduction and/or immigration from another country into ours.
Okay, I've just strapped on my bulletproof vest. 
I look forward to the comments...and I've got a thick skin.
|
|
Martian
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 03:49pm - Edited by: Martian
Reply
mrcvs, I'm not going to shoot at you. In fact, I'll double down. Kids cost society a lot of money, but they entitle parents to a tax deduction while I, who also have no kids, have to pay to educate them, incarcerate them, and take care of their medical needs. What's up with that?
We had a candidate for congressman here that had 11 kids. He was Republican and was constantly ranting about "all those people who don't pay any taxes". Meanwhile, he's getting a $30,000 subsidy for his kids.
Tom
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 05:32pm
Reply
Responsible people who have kids don't have kids because they get a tax deduction or even money paid to them by the government. At least not the people I associate with.
That is not to say that there are not people who take advantage of the government systems of handouts. Most of the people you see down at the S/S office are not of retirement age; they are there with kids and getting SSI. But that's another rant.
We have one child, now grown. Why? If I have to explain that, you'll never get the point. We would have liked another but it wasn't in the cards; not for a lack of trying. Adoption did not work out as the government agencies did not think that we, as self employed entrepreneurs had a steady enough income. And NGO adoption agencies keep too much money for themselves. Another rant.
Having a child, or wanting more was never driven by any sort of capitalistic plot. Again, if I have to try and explain, well it's not worth the effort.
There are some people who have kids who should not, IMO. At times I think there should be some sort of psychological test beforehand... but that smacks too much of a heavy handed Chinese approach to planned parenthood.
|
|
spicyacres
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 05:43pm
Reply
Developed countries around the world have their economies held hostage to perpetual growth. It's primarily a result of our debt-based monetary system - without "growth" everything crashes; we're on the verge of that right now. Look at any commentary re. finances or investments and it's always about growth. Digging deeper, what we really have is a society run as a ponzi scheme. Everyone wants to have their houses, 401k's, businesses, etc. to go up in price so they can cash out and profit. Trouble is, you need an ever growing pool of "new buyers" to bid up prices so the earlier generations can cash out. This is why we need more kids, or more immigrants.
Complicating the situation is the fact that governments run perpetual deficits, and fund those by printing paper money out of thin air, and individuals think debt is some sort of birthright, so you get the whole society dependant on growth to get them out the hole they've dug themselves into. Did you ever hear a politician or banker advocate zero growth? Or god forbid downsizing?
If it was 1500 A.D. and the earth wasn't as overpopulated or poluted or resources were plentiful, then yes, perpetual growth is possible. But here we are in 2012 and the world is starting to hit the wall. Instead of "growth" the keyword should be "sustainable".
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 07:01pm
Reply
Quoting: MtnDon Responsible people who have kids don't have kids because they get a tax deduction or even money paid to them by the government.
Quoting: MtnDon Having a child, or wanting more was never driven by any sort of capitalistic plot. Again, if I have to try and explain, well it's not worth the effort.
I couldn't agree with you more MtnDon........and you are very right about this.....it is not worth the effort.
|
|
Martian
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 07:24pm
Reply
Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to imply that people have kids to get the deduction; but they get a deduction because they have kids, If anything, there should be tax deduction for not having kids.
Tom
|
|
mrcvs
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 07:49pm
Reply
Tom,
I think you hit the nail on the head there! There absolutely should be a tax deduction NOT to have kids. By having less kids, school taxes or otherwise shall decrease, there will be less of a burden on the earth, less carbon emissions & global warming, etc., etc. It ammazes me that politicians and others don't encourage this. I think ultimate environmentalism starts with this, not with driving hybrid vehicles, etc. The world is too crowded already!
Or conversely, how about a tax for every child you bring into this world???
|
|
Martian
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 08:08pm
Reply
I believe it is always better to reward good behavior than to punish bad. Taxing kids would be percieved as punishment which goes against rule one. But there's nothing to say the government couldn't motivate people to really think about it before they had kids by having a large tax incentive to not do so. We all appreciate something we pay for more than something free. Maybe fewer kids would be mistreated if the parents made a financial decision as well as an emotional decision.
Tom
|
|
|
johng
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 08:44pm
Reply
I have three grown children and each of them has a child.
...holding your grandchildren makes all lifes toils worthwhile.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:03pm - Edited by: MtnDon
Reply
The key statistic when talking about population growth is the fertility rate. Figures that show increases in population are meaningless without that key data. Replacement level fertility is calculated to be 2.1 children per woman because of infant mortality.
The US fertility rate dropped to less than replacement in 1972 and has remained at below replacement levels. During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than 2 children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population. That does not necessarily translate into an immediate reduced population. There is a factor known as Population Momentum. Population momentum is the tendency for population growth to continue even after replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) has been achieved. It is caused by a relatively high concentration of people in their childbearing years - by a population that is age-biased toward youth.
It takes a period of time equal to the average life expectancy (approximately three generations or 73 years in the U.S.) for a reduction in fertility to be manifested as a change in actual population numbers.
European countries have a fertility rate of 1.3 to 1.5 depending on country; Japan has a fertility rate of 1.3. The countries with rates above the 2.1 replacement rate include the less developed countries; Mexico at 2.8, Bangladesh at 3.6, India at 3.1, Pakistan at 4.8, and Zambia at 5.9. Those are the countries where efforts to limit growth of population should be addressed.
The US population is growing because of immigration, not because we are procreating more. If, we as a nation, want to see a cessation in the growth of our population we must change our immigration policy. Rather than clamoring for the government to charge a baby tax, efforts should be made to encourage our government to reduce immigration.
Oh, to give a deduction for not having a baby is as sensible, to me, as paying a farmer to not grow things or paying the farmer a subsidy to grow other things.
At least that is how I see it.
BTW, and for what it is worth, I am an immigrant and I still think it was worth jumping through all the hoops they placed in front of me.
|
|
johng
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:08pm
Reply
Here's my oldest granddaughter standing at the helm of the pirate ship/wreck I made for them. The bow and stern are separated with a suspension bridge between. The swings are to her right with slide off of the bow to her left. the 8'x8' cabin behind her has a captains bunk / built in bookcase with a hidden compartment to hide treasures.
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:12pm
Reply
She looks sweet as can be and I bet gives Grandpa the best hugs ever!!!!
|
|
Martian
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:26pm
Reply
Quoting: MtnDon Oh, to give a deduction for not having a baby is as sensible, to me, as paying a farmer to not grow things or paying the farmer a subsidy to grow other things.
Except that those don't add to society's cost; kids do. That's all I'm saying. Kids cost everybody; not just the parents. I don't begrudge anybody having kids. I like kids. Especially if they are raised well, appreciated, and are taught to be responsible citizens.
Tom
|
|
johng
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:36pm
Reply
It's a good thing Adam and Eve didn't share those sentiments.
|
|
johng
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:39pm
Reply
...just saying it would have been a really short ride.
|
|
johng
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 09:44pm
Reply
Adam- " You know, I have an idea about the placement of our anatomical differences.."
Eve- " I don't think so!"
Adam "...yeah, me either"
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 10:22pm
Reply
I'll grant that kids cost money in many different ways. But to me at least, births are not the problem they are being made out to be. The statistics indicate our USA population is growing because of immigration. The same can be said of the European countries.
Kids born here in the USA are not the problem. With a declining fertility rate the population ages. An aging population results in a lowered ratio of workers to retired. if all else remains the same, output per capita and living standards will be lower than they otherwise would have been if the share of workers had remained stable. If older people do continue to work longer that can help compensate for the naturally lowered worker levels.
When the lowered worker levels and the consequences of that are taken into consideration, though, immigration becomes a method to obtain more workers. I'm not sure how we balance immigration to what we really need though. I tend to be conservative of the immigration question; preferring slower rates.
|
|
Viking
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Mar 2012 11:05pm - Edited by: Viking
Reply
I am going to go out on a limb on this one... While I don't really understand why the OP decided that this is a topic that should be discussed on SMALL CABIN forums... I will submit my response:
I believe that it's our God given right to procreate. We have been designed TO procreate. People should procreate if they can take care of their offspring. The problem in this world today is not the kids that are born to a situation where they are cared for, but the opposite. That is my opinion and I will stick by it.
|
|
TomChum
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 01:16am - Edited by: TomChum
Reply
Rule number 1: If you don't procreate, someone else will. My question is, _how_ would you like to overpopulate the world? With your family, or without your family?
Overpopulation is going to be a problem. If you think of a way to delay it, what good have you done, really? Your solution suits some people, and it doesn't suit others.
Becoming a parent lets you see the world again - this is something only a parent (or anyone who loves a child) can know. I love my girls more than anything in the world, they make me happy, and they make other people happy too. A world without children would be a lonely, dismal place.
I can't say I've ever heard someone say that taxes made childrearing profitable. But there are profits to be had, for example I enjoy my cabin a lot more when my children are enjoying it.
|
|
mrcvs
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 06:57am
Reply
It was with great delight that I read all of your comments, many since I went to bed last evening.
In any event, I learned a lot. It is obvious that poulation growth does need to be curtailed, but in countries with a high fertility rate.
If we decreased considerably immigration into this country, we could control our rate of growth without limiting reproductive capacity.
So, then, why is it that we allow for so many immigrants to enter this country and crowd an already crowded country? With such high unemployment rates, it is not like we need them to perform a job or service. We cannot even provide employment for our native born citizens.
What purpose, then, does it serve? Merely to gain a vote for a politician, usually a Democrat? More immigrants=more Democratic votes?
For the record, I am of neither political affiliation. The Democrats try to tell me I have freedom to do this and freedom to do that until I tell them I like to shoot, then they start telling me "You can't do that". They say they are proponents of the environment, but yet they encourage incredible population growth via immigration. The Rebublicans continue to stupidly lose votes because they abhor the right to get an abortion, claim they go to church all the time, and quickly forget what they learned in church. They are not all that environmentally friendly, even though one of the world's greatest environmentalists was from the GOP (Theodore Roosevelt).
My conclusion: The two party system, combined with capitalism, led to all the problems above, and many of the problems in this country. Capitalism requires continuous GROWTH; Immigrant population serves to gain more Democratic votes; Successful capitalistic practices increase Republican votes.
I don't vote anymore--seemed kind of pointless and I didn't agree with ANY of the candidates. Politically, I think I have libertarian and socialistic biases.
I look forward to more comments.
|
|
spicyacres
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 10:02am
Reply
Quoting: mrcvs Capitalism requires continuous GROWTH; Immigrant population serves to gain more Democratic votes; Successful capitalistic practices increase Republican votes.
Capitalism is not the problem, nor is it the domain of one political party. What we currently have (here in north america) isn't free capitalism, it's a bastard hybrid of socialism and fascism.
The danger to our society at this point is to point the blame in the wrong places, we'll make our problems worse. Capitalism doesn't require continuous growth, but a political and monetary system that prefers debt over savings, creates "money" out of thin air, where everyone's entitled yet few actually add value and like nothing better than to consume now and pay later, that kind of system needs perpetual expansion or it crashes.
|
|
Martian
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 10:16am
Reply
Which is exactly what happened in 2007/08. Perpetual expansion is not possible when working with finite resources.
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 11:17am - Edited by: trollbridge
Reply
Quoting: Viking While I don't really understand why the OP decided that this is a topic that should be discussed
The one thing threads like this do is allow a bit of insight into the beliefs,demeanor and character of those that post under them-particularly when the topic is aimed at doing nothing but creating controversy- or like this one, meant purposely to try to offend those who don't share the same views=========begin with the property tax thread and you will see the correlation.
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 11:30am
Reply
Quoting: TomChum Becoming a parent lets you see the world again - this is something only a parent can know. I love my girls more than anything in the world, they make me happy, and they make other people happy too. A world without children would be a lonely, dismal place.
Exactly.
|
|
Montanan
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 12:52pm
Reply
Ok- I'll bite...because I teach on this topic. MtnDon is correct that population growth is not a problem in the wealthy, industrialized world. The regions contributing to global population growth are the poor countries. The U.S. and Europe curbed their population growth by industrializing. In an industrialized, capitalist society, children are economic liabilities rather than economic benefits. Instead of being more labor power, they are simply little consumers- costing families money rather than earning it. The population explosion that occurred with industrialization was a result of cultural lag- it took people a while to reduce their fertility even after death rates dropped with the advent of modern medicine. But now, growth rates in the industrialized world are either even or actually in the negatives (France is trying to GET people to reproduce.) The theory that explains this is called Demographic Transition Theory and it predicts that global population growth will level off.
Critics aren't convinced that the poor nations will reduce their fertility and point out that it is not realistic to rely on industrialization to reduce fertility. If the whole world used the U.S. model to industrialize, the planet could not sustain it. Thus, their argument goes, we need to find other, more sustainable, avenues for development. As long as children are economic benefits, people will keep having them.
One method of population control that does seem to work is to empower women. When women have choices other than motherhood, they tend to reduce their fertility (as long as they have control over that, as well.)
P.S. I have a 3 children, so I guess I'm part of the problem. ;o)
|
|
Martian
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 12:55pm
Reply
Quoting: trollbridge purposely to try to offend those who don't share the same views
TB, we've always gotten along pretty well on here. Why would a difference of opinion be offensive? When I don't agree with someone, I examine my belief to see if it is founded on logic, reason, and experience, but I don't get offended. Now if someone were to say I was stupid for holding my opinion, then that may offend me. However, I haven't seen anyone name calling; just stating their opinion. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is entitled to their opinion...........regardless of how ridiculous it may be.
Tom
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 09:19pm
Reply
Martian, I agree with you-everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am not at all offended that I differ with mrcvs...he has his opinion and I have mine-no big deal.
What upsets me is him implying that people who have children are irresponsible and have no common sense AND AFTER KNOWING that he was rather insensitive in his wording he DELIGHTS in the fact that he has gotten under the skin of somebody. I don't have any respect for that.
You may think that I am being overly sensitive about this and maybe I am or maybe it is bad timing, but you have not walked in my shoes. Regardless of whether you think I am overreacting, if it were me I still would never get my jollies purposely upsetting someone for my own personal entertainment. Like I said before----I have absolutely no respect for people who do.
|
|
Bzzzzzt
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 09:50pm
Reply
I've just got one thing to add to all of this discussion. THERE IS NO OVER POPULATION PROBLEM!
Let me briefly explain.
If we took every single person on the planet and built each individual person a 1000 square foot single story house... that's a thousand square foot for every man, woman and child on the planet... pushed all the houses together tightly, ALL of the people in the world, all 7 billion people, could fit within the confines of the state of Texas. Texas, by contrast, is less than 1% of the worlds inhabitable land mass.
Yes, I know we'd have to have crops and businesses, etc, but I'm telling you that this world can stand 20 times the population we have now and still work just fine. Overpopulation is only a problem in large population centers.
And like Forrest Gump said: That's all I have to say about that.
|
|
Just
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 10:31pm
Reply
I think a little bit of me will be here on earth in the next century [ I HOPE NOT THE AXE MURDERER BIT ] BUT A BIT,, FOR ME THAT MEANS ALOT.THAT LITTLE BIT MAY, CHANGE THE WORLD ..
|
|
bobrok
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Mar 2012 11:19pm
Reply
I think a little bit of me will be here on earth in the next century [ I HOPE NOT THE AXE MURDERER BIT ] BUT A BIT,, FOR ME THAT MEANS ALOT.THAT LITTLE BIT MAY, CHANGE THE WORLD ..
 yup
|
|
| . 1 . 2 . >> |
