4 ms·

World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to provide an

by netsp 17y ago

World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to provide an alternative. Have you thought about the method which this ceiling will impose itself?

mcantelon 17y ago
Disease, famine, and war seem to be the methods nature favors. The end result of working to support an excessively large population of humans is an increase in the severity of these methods when they take effect. The logical way to avoid nature's culling methods would be to decrease population by providing cheap/free birth control and encouraging a two-child limit.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  "encouraging a two-child limit" I intend a self-imposed 2 child limit, we have 2 boys now. However, for those families or groups who appear to espouse drowning out other genetic variations by prolific reproduction how do you suppose we "encourage". That's kinda the hard part isn't it. For me, in the UK, I'd stop any improved child allowances beyond the 2nd child. Give council tenants triple-bunkbeds (2 to a room if necessary) rather than a bedroom for each child (! which means having lots of kids can get you a huge house payed for by the taxpayer) - that may suck but reproducing beyond your means to support is socially irresponsible. One might consider limiting to 2 maternity leave periods, child taxation (!? eg to account for education costs), ceasing all state sponsored IVF, ... what else?
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    These are good ideas. Child taxation could be combined with an allowance given to those who, when below a certain age, don't reproduce.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      I'm not sure they're all good ideas(!); if you give a "non-reproduction" bonus you'd need to have a system to retrieve it. Perhaps an additional element could be given in old-age pension to those without offspring? I'm not sure we (as a society) want to reward not having offspring in the long term, just not having too many.

by netsp 17y ago

mcantelon 17y ago

Disease, famine, and war seem to be the methods nature favors. The end result of working to support an excessively large population of humans is an increase in the severity of these methods when they take effect. The logical way to avoid nature's culling methods would be to decrease population by providing cheap/free birth control and encouraging a two-child limit.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
"encouraging a two-child limit" I intend a self-imposed 2 child limit, we have 2 boys now. However, for those families or groups who appear to espouse drowning out other genetic variations by prolific reproduction how do you suppose we "encourage". That's kinda the hard part isn't it. For me, in the UK, I'd stop any improved child allowances beyond the 2nd child. Give council tenants triple-bunkbeds (2 to a room if necessary) rather than a bedroom for each child (! which means having lots of kids can get you a huge house payed for by the taxpayer) - that may suck but reproducing beyond your means to support is socially irresponsible. One might consider limiting to 2 maternity leave periods, child taxation (!? eg to account for education costs), ceasing all state sponsored IVF, ... what else?
- mcantelon 17y ago
  These are good ideas. Child taxation could be combined with an allowance given to those who, when below a certain age, don't reproduce.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    I'm not sure they're all good ideas(!); if you give a "non-reproduction" bonus you'd need to have a system to retrieve it. Perhaps an additional element could be given in old-age pension to those without offspring? I'm not sure we (as a society) want to reward not having offspring in the long term, just not having too many.