4 ms·

I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. What's real

I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. What's really depressing is that not a single comment here or on the article even mentions this. Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids?

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't think the number of kids goes up with prosperity. Developed countries and upper classes typically have much lower birth rates than their counterparts, and some countries are even experiencing negative population growth.
- penguindev 13y ago
  I agree, but in depressions/recessions it goes down quite reliably. It's a strong signal
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Hmm, true. Probably something to keep an eye on, then.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. Strong social safety nets seem to be pretty strong contributors to reduced family size (which is why the developed world has low natural population growth and many of the places with the strongest safety nets have negative natural population growth) because people don't need children as a form of old-age insurance. > Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids? A fixed basic income per adult is self-evidently not a subsidy for having more kids. In fact, compared to existing welfare policy (where the principal basis for cash benefits is number of dependent children), its a disincentive for that.
wavefunction 13y ago
You shouldn't, of course we could limit couples to replacement rate of birth, if that's 2.1 for couples or 1.05 for individuals, they could sell a fraction or all of their "right to reproduce" to people who want to have 3 or more kids.
- greedo 13y ago
  Sure. China loves the One Child policy. No horrible side effects at all. Social engineering like this is fraught with huge risks.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    It makes perfect sense that 2 people should be able to replace themselves with 2 people. Nobody said 1 child policy, plus I mentioned a market for people who don't want to have kids selling off their "rights to reproduce." Your response is simplistic and doesn't even outline any of your concerns about what I've posted.
    - greedo 13y ago
      Trying to control people's reproductive rights goes against eons of human nature and evolution. And creating a "market" where you can sell these rights sounds like a horrible mash of Ayn Rand and Huxley.
  - penguindev 13y ago
    And the real problem was they didn't adopt a two child policy a few doubles ago. (Basically the US is in the same position - we have the same landmass as china, but 1/4 of the population)
  - ihateloggingin 13y ago
    Right. Let's starve them out. That's not social engineering!
antitrust 13y ago
> I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. Hello there, person I'm very glad entered this conversation as you did. You're talking about a great taboo. No one wants to admit that not every precious snowflake can do exactly what they want to be a shining star. Saying that we have too many precious snowflakes, or that we shortly will, is akin to saying that and it makes people nervous. But there are a lot of us, aren't there? And our population plan seems to be "Reproduce however you want until nature starts killing us off." It could be that our coming jobs shortage is the result of too many people. Our geographic area is big enough that there will always be a certain number of jobs because of the different specialized tasks necessary in each locality. But everyone wants a kid, and it seems the people who don't plan for those kids, whether rich or poor, have the most. This worries me more than global warming, nuclear proliferation and synthetic marijuana (mostly jk) combined.

dllthomas 13y ago

I don't think the number of kids goes up with prosperity. Developed countries and upper classes typically have much lower birth rates than their counterparts, and some countries are even experiencing negative population growth.

penguindev 13y ago
I agree, but in depressions/recessions it goes down quite reliably. It's a strong signal
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Hmm, true. Probably something to keep an eye on, then.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. Strong social safety nets seem to be pretty strong contributors to reduced family size (which is why the developed world has low natural population growth and many of the places with the strongest safety nets have negative natural population growth) because people don't need children as a form of old-age insurance. > Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids? A fixed basic income per adult is self-evidently not a subsidy for having more kids. In fact, compared to existing welfare policy (where the principal basis for cash benefits is number of dependent children), its a disincentive for that.

wavefunction 13y ago

You shouldn't, of course we could limit couples to replacement rate of birth, if that's 2.1 for couples or 1.05 for individuals, they could sell a fraction or all of their "right to reproduce" to people who want to have 3 or more kids.

greedo 13y ago
Sure. China loves the One Child policy. No horrible side effects at all. Social engineering like this is fraught with huge risks.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  It makes perfect sense that 2 people should be able to replace themselves with 2 people. Nobody said 1 child policy, plus I mentioned a market for people who don't want to have kids selling off their "rights to reproduce." Your response is simplistic and doesn't even outline any of your concerns about what I've posted.
  - greedo 13y ago
    Trying to control people's reproductive rights goes against eons of human nature and evolution. And creating a "market" where you can sell these rights sounds like a horrible mash of Ayn Rand and Huxley.
- penguindev 13y ago
  And the real problem was they didn't adopt a two child policy a few doubles ago. (Basically the US is in the same position - we have the same landmass as china, but 1/4 of the population)
- ihateloggingin 13y ago
  Right. Let's starve them out. That's not social engineering!

antitrust 13y ago

> I'd be far more worried about this sending a false prosperity signal that could exacerbate our already insane and unsustainable population levels. Hello there, person I'm very glad entered this conversation as you did. You're talking about a great taboo. No one wants to admit that not every precious snowflake can do exactly what they want to be a shining star. Saying that we have too many precious snowflakes, or that we shortly will, is akin to saying that and it makes people nervous. But there are a lot of us, aren't there? And our population plan seems to be "Reproduce however you want until nature starts killing us off." It could be that our coming jobs shortage is the result of too many people. Our geographic area is big enough that there will always be a certain number of jobs because of the different specialized tasks necessary in each locality. But everyone wants a kid, and it seems the people who don't plan for those kids, whether rich or poor, have the most. This worries me more than global warming, nuclear proliferation and synthetic marijuana (mostly jk) combined.