Excess population?

Did anyone else catch that Pelosi attempted to slide money for birt control programs into this economic stimulus farce? The justification being that too many babies is a drain on the economy? I'm a little concerned when officials with power start thinking in terms of government limitation of excess reproduction. It seems like a heinous path to start down. Thoughts?

Post 1

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 6:48am

Well, I'd rather pay for abortions for the poor, rather than pay for raising all their unwanted children, and jailing them when they grow up. This is one case where, strangely enough, I'm siding with Pelosi. (ewww it was weird typing that....) Birth control is cost-effective.

I wouldn't worry about anything like forced sterilizations. The liberals have always seen reproduction as being a right, even when the parents cannot take care of their own children!

Post 2

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:18am

I do occasionally hear disturbing rumblings about "license to parent," however.

But to address Post 0 of this thread, while the federal government has no business doing this, I can think of worse ways to spend money than teaching people how not to make more babies!

I think the problem is not so much ignorance of contraception as evasion about contraception, e.g. people who think that nature's laws somehow do not apply to them.

This thread is timely as I was just thinking this morning of writing an article called "Wealth Creation through Effective Contraception."

Post 3

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:56am

Overpopulation was the global warming of its day (i.e. of the 50s - early 70s). When you consider how much of the Democrats' program dates back to the Roosevelt or even the Wilson era, this is real cutting-edge stuff for them.

Post 4

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 9:45am

We need more people, not less. The societies with low birth rates like Europe and Japan are dying. This is another symptom of the death cult of liberalism.

Post 5

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:17am

Overpopulation is not the problem. Underproduction is. As Bjorn Lomborg points out in The Skeptical Environmentalist, "The Netherlands, Belgium and Japan are far more densely populated than India, and Ohio and Denmark are more densely populated than Indonesia."

He also notes that world population is leveling off, and that, by the UN's forecast, population growth will peak in 2200 at around 11 billion, which the earth could easily accommodate under sound economic systems with sufficient productivity. Current population is a little over 6 billion.

Again, it is underproduction and poverty that are the problem, not too many people. Without enough wealth, even a much smaller number of people would be unsustainable.

- Bill

Post 6

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:22am

A current estimate is 6.88 billion reaching 7 Billion in 2010.

The US Census Bureau figs are smaller but not by much.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/29, 11:24am)

Post 7

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:41am

It is neither underpopulation or overpopulation that is the problem - it is a population that is uneducated (You'll understand what I mean, when I say that includes Harvard grads). If I weren't a strong advocate of individual rights, I'd be advocating the licensing of parenthood (too much experience with child abusers when I worked at children's protective agency).

Post 8

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 2:59pm

As an aside, why do people think the population will level out? What will change?

Jordan

Post 9

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 4:06pm

Birth rates are plummeting worldwide. Read America Alone, one of the best books of the last decade.

Post 10

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 4:17pm

The story I've heard is that people have fewer children as living standards rise. They no longer need able bodies to put to work, and they have to support their children for longer. As Paul Samuelson (I think) put it, as a society advances children change from being an asset to being a liability.

Just the same I think projecting nearly two centuries in advance is a foolhardy exercise. You won't be around to see yourself refuted, but you'll go through life worrying that you might show up in one of those weren't-they-dumb quotes.

Post 11

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 4:38pm

Laure, thats kind of an interesting package deal. Pay now or pay later. I'd rather choose the third option. The "kiss my ass, Pelosi" option.
Jordan, I would think populations would level off either through people just having less kids or when the civil unrest starts because people had to many kids.
Steve, I'm almost with you on the parental licensing thing. When I get sickened by my fellow man I tend to try to remember that nature has its own "licensing" for procreation, if we'd only stop short circuiting the process.

Post 12

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 4:53pm

That is correct. There is a correlation between population growth and industrialization. Poorer countries produce more offspring so their kids can work on their farms or they could sell them off off/send to the cities to work and send back money. Japan is known for its single population since family lifestyles are no longer as important. More women are involved in the workforce, and I'm pretty sure they work longer hours too. Japans population is aging as its death rate closes in on the birth rate. The elder Japanese lived in a society where the younger family members were supposed to take in and care for the elderly and that is no longer being practiced(most of them didn't prepare for retirement. Our social security problem is nothing compared to their problems.

(at least that is what I was taught in my environmental economics class)

Post 13

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 6:55pm

Well, there will be one more baby born in Japan in August. My son and daughter in law live there, and are expecting.

:D

Post 14

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:11pm

Congrats, Grandma Teresa! :-)

Jordan

Post 15

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:23pm

I've put my request in, "preese for you to have a girl."

Post 16

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:48pm

lol!

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:59pm

Congratulations!! Are they permanently so far away?? You must promise to post a picture!

Post 18

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 3:25am

As far as I know, they'll be there for a very long time. Nick works for his father in law (real estate) and teaches "Engrish" to preschoolers and adults.

I've begged him to send an overload of pictures, but can only cross my fingers at this point that he'll comply. He bought a new Chrysler Nitro (??) truck monstrosity, which I have many many many photos of...

Priorities (rolling my eyes).

The cost of traveling to and from Japan has more than tripled in less than 5 years. A co-worker of mine, who is the devil, has suggested I take out a credit card to pay for a trip after the baby comes. She is a very wicked girl.

Post 19

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:19am