Question:
>The person with the original post just put it out here for kicks to see how >many of us idiots (me too) would argue with him/her. She/he just loves getting >parents who are agreeing on most everything to start quibbling over little >things…
Wrong, the original poster brought up the perfectly valid concern of overpopulation. And nowhere in that post did I see advocacy of FORCED not-having-childrenness. More an idea that it is a good choice (not having children), and that it is hir opinion that it is not a good idea for anyone to have children (which may hence result in a lower opinion of those who do, just like I have a lower opinion of those who commit murder – Im not comparing the two, though). BTW, this message is not JUST appearing on parenting groups. Im reading it off alt.save.the.earth, where such topics have been debated before and many people have AGREED with the sentiments of the original poster – that overpopulation can only be controlled by voluntary abstinence from childbearing, which can be accomplished by education and societial pressure rather than physical force. The idea that one must have children to be happy is a sad idea – I hope not too many people feel like this, for it denies all the other pleasures in life. IE, life is full of a variety of pleasures. No one pleasure is more important than all others. And abstinence from children, or having at most 1 child, will improve the quality of life FOR CHILDREN, so it is NOT an anti-child policy that seeks to reduce the birth rate. >Melanie Abbas
– "An ye harm none, do as ye will." Technopagan * Goth * Hippie * Vegan * Liberal * Pacifist
Response:
writes: >ie you have yours at 22 and 24, (2) then they have theirs at 22 and 24 >each (4) and they have theirs at 22 and 24 each (8) and they have theirs >at 22 and 24 each (16) and they have theirs at 22 and 24 each (64). >You have created 94 descendants in 96 years. >On the other hand the older parent has theirs at 32 and 34 (2) 32 and >34 years later (4) 32 and 4 years later (8) 32 and 34 years later (16) >We are at 92 years here…four years less than above. That makes for >only 30 descendants! >5) And so what about having a teenager when you are 60?
You are assuming an awful lot here, Deantha. My family has a very bad track record with pregnancies at or after the age of 30. I would rather have my children at 26 and 28 than risk not having any at all. It is a job I have looked forward to for as long as I could remember. Also, you assume that parents and grandparents will all live for more than 90 years. What about my grandfather who died at 52, or my mother who died at 55, or my other grandfather who died when my father (who was 36 when I was born) was 12, or my grandmothers’ subsequent 3 husbands who have all passed away? That’s a quick six off the equation. I think you’ve oversimplified here. And for your information, I finished my engineering degree, and have been working steady since. I am fully versed in birth control, and my children were both planned. I am certainly NOT a detrement to our economy. On the contrary, my husband and I (happily married, thank you!) pull in enough money to own a home, pay daycare (significant boost to at least one woman’s economic standing), and pay enough in taxes to pay at least 2 welfare recipients to stay home. So there. Laura PHD/NSWC, Port Hueneme, CA USA Roby’s wife. Mom to Maryrose Nadine (5 Aug 92) and Matthew Allen (4 Oct 94).
Response:
says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I hate to join these sorts of discussions, but I’ll point out: >To some extent, it’s not how many kids you have, but when you choose to >reproduce. If each generation has their kids at age 20, you get 5 >generations in 100 years. If each generation has their kids at age 33, >you get 3 generations in 100 years. If you only have 2 kids, but have >them every 20 years, you end up with 32 people; if you have 3 kids, but >have them every 33 years, you end up with 27 people. >It’s important then, to make sure that women have another role in society >beyond that of mother. If they are only mothers, they tend to have >children earlier, and more often. Education and employment opportunities >for women are a good way to keep the birth rate down. (Educated women are >more likely to understand and therefore use birth control, too.) >PS. What’s misc.kids.parenting? > — >Mother to Rose (9/92) and Emma (11/94)
so you’re saying that by my having kids at 22 and 24, I’m being irresponsible? I’m sorry but I think the advantages of being a young mom FAR outweigh those of waiting till I’m older. I finished high school and 3 1/2 years of college and know very well how to use birth control. The HIGH odds of Downs with old moms and having a teenager when I’m 60 are ridiculous things I’d never consider. Sheila
Response:
>I totally agree. We should be looking at the problems is 3rd world >countries first. I don’t feel crowded where I am living.
What do you suggest we start to reduce their populations for them? Most children born in the Third World are wanted children. Providing more contraception is not going to change much. Nor should it. I like the idea of a world with 2 billion Chinese and about that many Indians. The only people with a population problem are the Northern nations because theirs are aging. The Third World does not have a problem. Smug attitudes like this end up in forced abortions and genocide. Joseph
Response:
(Claire Petersky) writes: >It’s important then, to make sure that women have another role in society >beyond that of mother. If they are only mothers, they tend to have >children earlier, and more often. Education and employment opportunities >for women are a good way to keep the birth rate down. (Educated women are >more likely to understand and therefore use birth control, too.)
Teen births are way up here in the U.S. White teenagers having babies have increased by 100% in the last 10 years, lower (but still up) for minorities. "The greatest form of birth control is a future" Ruth Mom to Jamie (8/11/93) and Clare (5/17/95)
Response:
>`Besides, it’s an easily-demonstrable fact that high >`standards of living = lower >`birthrates. Once the entire planet achieves a standard of >`living equal to, say, 1955 U.S., >Now just how do you envision that turn of events coming about?
Through free trade. How else? >If you want to get a clear idea of the future we’re hell bent on >making for ourselves, look at the outskirts of Mexico City, >or the streets of Calcutta.
I see millions of people who are significantly richer than their ancestors, parents and those not fortunate enough to live in Mexico City or Calcutta. This is why they continue to draw people into them. >As trade globalizes, and shipping costs >(including risks) decline, capital will follow labour to the >cheapest markets to establish high profit manufacturing, and >industrialized country wages will consequently decline.
Wages have not been declining here and even if they do it means that wages will rise in the Third World. A Good Thing. So long as economic growth outstrips population, world wide average wages will continue to rise. >Meanwhile, increased automation and machine intelligence will >further erode jobs, and thus average income, the final result >being that the poverty typical of the third world will globalize.
Crap. There is no way that average wages can drop if the economy is growing. It is true that poor Americans might just conceivably begin to fall towards Mexico but that means Mexicans will begin to paid closer to First World wages. A wonderful thing. Nor does automation and AI mean a loss of jobs. No amount of mechanisation has ever meant fewer jobs. They might be in services or in the higher tech end of production but they will be there. Steam did not put people out of work for long. Nor has silicon yet. >`we’ll see the birthrates drop. Instead of trying to return >`to the Stone Age, let’s move >`forward to a time when higher living standards exist for all. >Not in a world that follows our current economic rules.
Too true. As soon as crippling tarrif barriers are dropped the sooner this ownderful situation will arise. Starting with the US and Europe both of who have the stupidest Agri- cultural policies the world has ever known. >Our political, social, and economic institutions continue >to act on the outdated model that implicitly assumes >an infinite resource base, and an unbounded frontier.
Nothing outdated about that at all. >If we’re going to leave anything to our descendants beyond >a life of scrounging on landfills and living in cardboard >shacks, we’re going to have to finally face it that the >model we must use for our world, to govern our social, >political and economic thinking, is of a severely >circumscribed living space, with limited resources >which much be rationed, and where everyone’s actions >must be constrained, as they affect everyone else. >Rather like a ship at sea.
Ho hum. More of the same Sixties Greenie Bullshit. A load of toss not worth replying to. Resources are in no danger of running out, we have more than enough room, and most of what we do does not affect others. The future will be a wonderful place if the current economic system is left to itself. Full of rich Black people which is what I suspect you are really upset about. >If you don’t like this model, I can only suggest that >the alternative is to plan a way to anihilate 90+% >of the current human population, so you will be back >to a situation where our current society could >function with impunity. Of course you’d then have to >expect to repeat the exercise every 60 years or so…
ie kill all the niggers and our problems will be solved. What have Third Worlders ever done to you that you hate them so much? Joseph
Response:
|>: Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people |>: than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All |>: of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes |>: down to one cause, overcrowding. |> |>This assumption is false. Farmers nowadays produce more than they ever |>did in the past. Technology is making this all possible. Overcrowding is |>obvious when you look at crowded cities. Try looking at the million acres |>of farmland then where is the overcrowding? |> An example of this is South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, etc…. Look at South Dakota, the population of the entire state is about half a million people and the land area is larger than the state of New York. |> |>: This planet has no more room. We don’t have enough room for the |>: people here now to live comfortably, and we certainly won’t have enough room |>: for people in 100 years to live at all at current rates of population |>: growth. |> |>’Comfortably’ is such a relative word. What does it exactly mean in the |>context of your argument? |> If I remember right, from one of my college courses, the earth hasn’t hit the optimal population yet. In fact we are still in one of the early stages of the six or seven stages of population growth. |>: To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are |>: going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. There’s |>: no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the number of |>: people adds to the problem. |> |>Man does not have the right to dictate to others that they cannot |>reproduce. Man is the only being in this earth who is so concerned about |>its population. Instead of thinking of limiting the population, one has |>to think of ways and means to improve the life of other people especially |>those less fortunate. Scandinavian countries will soon have problems |>since their work force is getting old and there is not enough to replace |>them. What will happen then? Good question. No answer from me. bill William Groskreutz III III ztuerksorG mailliW SCSU Math Department Faculty ytlucaF tnemtrapeD htaM USCS The opinions expressed here are era ereh desserpxe snoinipo ehT completely my own not that of my ym fo taht ton nwo ym yletelpmoc employer’s or my parent’s cat. .tac s’tnerap ym ro s’reyolpme
Response:
I hate to join these sorts of discussions, but I’ll point out: To some extent, it’s not how many kids you have, but when you choose to reproduce. If each generation has their kids at age 20, you get 5 generations in 100 years. If each generation has their kids at age 33, you get 3 generations in 100 years. If you only have 2 kids, but have them every 20 years, you end up with 32 people; if you have 3 kids, but have them every 33 years, you end up with 27 people. It’s important then, to make sure that women have another role in society beyond that of mother. If they are only mothers, they tend to have children earlier, and more often. Education and employment opportunities for women are a good way to keep the birth rate down. (Educated women are more likely to understand and therefore use birth control, too.) PS. What’s misc.kids.parenting? – Mother to Rose (9/92) and Emma (11/94)
Response:
> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people >than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All >of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes >down to one cause, overcrowding. > This planet has no more room. We don’t have enough room for the >people here now to live comfortably, and we certainly won’t have enough room >for people in 100 years to live at all at current rates of population >growth. > To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are >going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. There’s >no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the number of >people adds to the problem.
Here’s an idea…. GO KILL YOURSELF! =:-)
Response:
>> To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are >going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. >There’s no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the >number of people adds to the problem. >..Actually, there -is- an answer to the problem. It’s called >Retroactive Abortion. If you really want to set an example for >everyone, feel free to demonstrate this upon yourself at any time. > OM
Unfortunately you have to become a politician/bureaucrat to perform one legally which means the ones who need it most are the ones who perform the operation. A real catch22. Dick Holl .
Response:
> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem.
Well, Mark, you’re certainly welcome to your opinion. I don’t happen to share it. In my opinion, if you think my kids have caused overcrowding on our planet, there *is* something you can do. You can sacrifice yourself for the good of the planet. Have a nice day. Laura PHD/NSWC, Port Hueneme, CA USA Roby’s wife. Mom to Maryrose Nadine (5 Aug 92) and Matthew Allen (4 Oct 94).
Response:
>Obvious troll but …. >So, if we ALL stop having children, then in 90 years or so the earth >will be almost totally depopulated. (And the few people left will all be >90 years old or older … far too old to begin to repopulate it.) >You make valid points about the rate of population growth. However, the >entire western world has population growth rates well below 2.0 (that >is, we aren’t even replacing ourselves.). The skyrocketing populations >are in the third world. >Naomi
I totally agree. We should be looking at the problems is 3rd world countries first. I don’t feel crowded where I am living. I especially like your first paragraph, soo correct. People really should think before making such outlandish remakes, or is logical thinking a thing of the past. Leanne
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people >than we have resources….<rest of well meaning stuff snipped> >Mark, it’s a little late. We’re all parents already. We’ve decided to >speed the planet’s demise. Sorry. However, if you figure out any >other big problems while you’re in college, by all means…don’t >hesitate to preach. None of us has ever been to college, we don’t >read, we don’t know anything about the problems of the world. >Perhaps we could buy you a flute and you could lead us. >I know you’re probably busy, but it’s just an idea. >Excuse me, but I hear my kids crying.
Come on Rob, don’t be too hard on the kid. I remember when I was in college (ten – OUCH – years ago) and figured out that there were racial problems in the Bronx and on my campus. I was a zealot. If I had known about the internet I’d have probably been all over it. Meaning well has to count for something. Those were the days… not going to class, not doing any work, just sitting around all day with my friends solving the world’s problems. I had one friend who had a nuclear disarmament plan for the whole world worked out, but nobody in Washington would listen to him. Mark, I have a stepchild, does that count? — Anne Robotti, "Only Anne" to Shannon since 12/17/94 Who’ll probably be pregnant later this year, but don’t tell Mark!
Response:
: Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people : than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All : of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes : down to one cause, overcrowding. This assumption is false. Farmers nowadays produce more than they ever did in the past. Technology is making this all possible. Overcrowding is obvious when you look at crowded cities. Try looking at the million acres of farmland then where is the overcrowding? : This planet has no more room. We don’t have enough room for the : people here now to live comfortably, and we certainly won’t have enough room : for people in 100 years to live at all at current rates of population : growth. ‘Comfortably’ is such a relative word. What does it exactly mean in the context of your argument? : To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are : going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. There’s : no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the number of : people adds to the problem. Man does not have the right to dictate to others that they cannot reproduce. Man is the only being in this earth who is so concerned about its population. Instead of thinking of limiting the population, one has to think of ways and means to improve the life of other people especially those less fortunate. Scandinavian countries will soon have problems since their work force is getting old and there is not enough to replace them. What will happen then?
Response:
(Reformatted to <70 columns so regular folk with normal terminals can read and respond) `Besides, it’s an easily-demonstrable fact that high `standards of living = lower `birthrates. Once the entire planet achieves a standard of `living equal to, say, 1955 U.S., Now just how do you envision that turn of events coming about? If you want to get a clear idea of the future we’re hell bent on making for ourselves, look at the outskirts of Mexico City, or the streets of Calcutta. As trade globalizes, and shipping costs (including risks) decline, capital will follow labour to the cheapest markets to establish high profit manufacturing, and industrialized country wages will consequently decline. Meanwhile, increased automation and machine intelligence will further erode jobs, and thus average income, the final result being that the poverty typical of the third world will globalize. `we’ll see the birthrates drop. Instead of trying to return `to the Stone Age, let’s move `forward to a time when higher living standards exist for all. Not in a world that follows our current economic rules. Our political, social, and economic institutions continue to act on the outdated model that implicitly assumes an infinite resource base, and an unbounded frontier. If we’re going to leave anything to our descendants beyond a life of scrounging on landfills and living in cardboard shacks, we’re going to have to finally face it that the model we must use for our world, to govern our social, political and economic thinking, is of a severely circumscribed living space, with limited resources which much be rationed, and where everyone’s actions must be constrained, as they affect everyone else. Rather like a ship at sea. If you don’t like this model, I can only suggest that the alternative is to plan a way to anihilate 90+% of the current human population, so you will be back to a situation where our current society could function with impunity. Of course you’d then have to expect to repeat the exercise every 60 years or so… — % learned from reading Usenet.
Response:
> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people >than we have resources….<rest of well meaning stuff snipped>
Mark, it’s a little late. We’re all parents already. We’ve decided to speed the planet’s demise. Sorry. However, if you figure out any other big problems while you’re in college, by all means…don’t hesitate to preach. None of us has ever been to college, we don’t read, we don’t know anything about the problems of the world. Perhaps we could buy you a flute and you could lead us. I know you’re probably busy, but it’s just an idea. Excuse me, but I hear my kids crying. Rob
Response:
> To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are >going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. >There’s no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the >number of people adds to the problem.
..Actually, there -is- an answer to the problem. It’s called Retroactive Abortion. If you really want to set an example for everyone, feel free to demonstrate this upon yourself at any time. Preferably before you post any more drivel like this… OM
Response:
> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people >than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All >of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes >down to one cause, overcrowding.
So leave. Ben Weber
Response:
i have to agree with the original poster rabid though he may have been. the more immediate problem is not catastrophic loss of life but a gradual decline in the *quality* of life. i was against having children because of this although now that i have and love them dearly, i worry for their future. i think what this country has experienced in the last 100 years is in effect a rise and fall of our standard of living, we "peaked" back in the early 60’s. income was up dramatically and we had very few if any competitors. hardships due to effort of labor and health threats had been reduced to "comfortable" levels possibly for the first time ever. and there was no payback; landfill problems were negligible, nuclear power was the reward of our efforts in ww2, the automobile mobilized the nation and gave new meaning to the concept of freedom, pollution was just barely becoming noticeable, and the governments were enjoying a postwar boom. and in our efforts to keep that standard of living with a growing population we’ve been embezzling the quality of life of our great-grand children. think of the level of pollution (water, air, land, ozone) we will hand to them, the financial disaster they will have to live with when the world recognizes the u.s. gov really will *never* payback the $20T debt it will have racked up in 40 years. think of the quality of human being we will have created though inescapable neglect due to furthering our careers working 60-80 hours a week for technical companies and startups. as much of a cliche as it is, i foresee the "bladerunner" syndrome (though i have never seen the movie), i.e., that of a decaying society getting on the information super highway to nowhere. nothing i have seen from our political leaders in 20 years has shown us otherwise. and its very sad, not for us, for we have our cars, our homes, and what we *think* are our retirement funds. stick around 30 years and see if *they* are solvent when it turns out the entire world economy including all stocks ands bonds depend on the solvency of the u.s. govt. i grieve for our children and their children as we hurl on a runaway train toward the abyss, unable to stop the wheels or change course. its easy not to think about it; after all, tomorrow brings another day and another deadline and humanity is not easily lead to consider 20 year ramifications. but we’ll have to live up to that eventually and of course, by then it will be far too late. live and learn is an oxymoron when applied to us… d — any similarity between science and reality is purely coincidental and subject to change…
Response:
> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people > than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All > of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes > down to one cause, overcrowding. > This planet has no more room. We don’t have enough room for the > people here now to live comfortably, and we certainly won’t have enough room > for people in 100 years to live at all at current rates of population > growth. > To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are > going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. There’s > no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the number of > people adds to the problem.
Obvious troll but …. So, if we ALL stop having children, then in 90 years or so the earth will be almost totally depopulated. (And the few people left will all be 90 years old or older … far too old to begin to repopulate it.) You make valid points about the rate of population growth. However, the entire western world has population growth rates well below 2.0 (that is, we aren’t even replacing ourselves.). The skyrocketing populations are in the third world. Naomi
Response:
Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded! Might I point out, Mark, that you are a Son of a Birch, and therefore, part of the problem. :-) Wes
Response:
Besides, it’s an easily-demonstrable fact that high standards of living = lower birthrates. Once the entire planet achieves a standard of living equal to, say, 1955 U.S., we’ll see the birthrates drop. Instead of trying to return to the Stone Age, let’s move forward to a time when higher living standards exist for all. And those who object to human beings being alive at all should feel free to kill themselves at once. More oxygen for me and mine. Studio Go! Multimedia, Los Angeles Proud producers of the STAR BLAZERS "Gamera is a friend to all children." "My geode must be acknowledged!"
Response:
> Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people > than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All > of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes > down to one cause, overcrowding. > This planet has no more room. We don’t have enough room for the > people here now to live comfortably, and we certainly won’t have enough room > for people in 100 years to live at all at current rates of population > growth. > To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are > going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. There’s > no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the number of > people adds to the problem.
Gee, you are right! Why not go over to talk.abortion, and alt.religion.christian and discuss it with all those people against birth control, and preaching huge families in the name of Jesus. There’s one fundie there who says that 3 billion people could live in the USA alone! What do you expect parents to do, line the kids up and shoot them? Bye.. — bruce forest… PGP pubkey on your friendly neighborhood keyserver. Throw back the little ones, and pan fry the big ones.. Use tact, poise and reason, and gently squeeze them.. Becker/Fagen…
Response:
>So, if we ALL stop having children, then in 90 years or so the earth >will be almost totally depopulated. (And the few people left will all be >90 years old or older … far too old to begin to repopulate it.) >You make valid points about the rate of population growth. However, the >entire western world has population growth rates well below 2.0 (that >is, we aren’t even replacing ourselves.). The skyrocketing populations >are in the third world. >Naomi
This is correct in one sense but incorrect in another. The population growth rate (or more correctly, the rate of natural increase) for the entire world is about 1.6% per year, which translates into a doubling of world population in about 44 years. In more developed countries (US, Europe, etc.), the RNI is about 0.5, with a doubling time of about 150 years. Amongst less developed areas, Africa has an RNI of about 2.8% (DT = 25 years), Latin America is about 2.5 (DT=28 years). Asia is about 1.8%. Some individual countries are growing at astonishing rates, for example, Kenya (RNI=4.2%, DT=17 years). The "rate" you quote above is probably Total Fertility Rate, Which is essentially the average number of births per woman. A TFR of 2.1 is generally considered to be replacement level. The extra 0.1 accounts for greater mortality among males, mostly due to war and other violent deaths. The US is indeed below replacement level using this index, with a TFR of about 1.9. This does not mean that the US is experiencing population stability or decline. We are growing. All of the above figures are from the population reference bureau, although the doubling times are calculated using the very approximate "rule of 70." Incidently, there really is no such thing as sustainable growth, regardless of the rate. Do this sometime. Plug the exponential growth formula into your calculator, choose a rate of increase > 0. See how long it takes to max out your display. No matter where you start, the amount of interations (and thus time) is fairly constant to within an order of magnitude. Sobering.
Response:
Our planet has a serious overcrowding problem. We have more people than we have resources, and the problem is getting exponentially worse. All of our modern day problems are blamed on various things, but it only comes down to one cause, overcrowding. This planet has no more room. We don’t have enough room for the people here now to live comfortably, and we certainly won’t have enough room for people in 100 years to live at all at current rates of population growth. To continue to increase the size of the human population, we are going to have to start looking off of the Earth for places to live. There’s no more room here. And until we do that, simply adding to the number of people adds to the problem.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.