financial incentives to address human overpopulation

alexlyne

I don't think China have it that wrong. Sure they're facing a crisis now, but wasn't that always to be expected (and maybe even planned for? they do have trillions of reserves after all) when you're trying to reduce the population. In 20 years time, all the oldies will be dead, and the population spread will be much more even. Maybe they'll have a lottery for who can have a second child by then, as they won't be able to sustain the current 1CpC policy.

Fortunately (and yes I think I'm sane), having a ruler over the country for a long time means that plans can be enacted over the long term, and not have this half-arsed 'live for today and worry about tomorrow another time' policy (see: New Labour 1997-2010). This policy is generally often called 'do what the selfish and greedy voting public would want as otherwise we won't get another term' policy.
I'm not pro-China in any other way, just to be clear.

And now, in this country, the population are crying Foul at what the government are now having to do to sort out the finances because we've had it so 'good' for so long that there must be a turning point. We can't sustain something for ever, and that goes for population too.

And the problem is us and our brains. We have gone way beyond our descendants and other species' mantra of Survival of the Fittest and instead try our utmost to prop everyone up as we have evolved feelings, emotions, and a moral responsibility towards our own (and our pets, but not to cows and sheep and pigs cos they taste nice).

You've got to be cruel to be kind. As soon as we relax our short-sighted selfish attitudes we can then live knowing that we are doing the best for our children. This means if you don't have children you can be slightly more selfish, but if you do reproduce, you have to make a sacrifice to the planet in order that they may fulfil themselves, and not leave them in the !!!!!!-hole that you made for them.

ninky_2

alexlyne wrote: »

I don't think China have it that wrong. Sure they're facing a crisis now, but wasn't that always to be expected (and maybe even planned for? they do have trillions of reserves after all) when you're trying to reduce the population. In 20 years time, all the oldies will be dead, and the population spread will be much more even. Maybe they'll have a lottery for who can have a second child by then, as they won't be able to sustain the current 1CpC policy.

.

quite a few countries have even lower fertility rates than china. japan has 1.2 whilst china's is 1.54 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

the economic positions of elderly headed households to non elderly headed households in japan seems to indicate there is no real difference in relative income / wealth. so the idea that higher ratios of elderly are automatically problematic for an economy / individuals in that economy doesn't seem to hold water.

ultrawomble

ultrawomble wrote: »

Elephant in the room - increasing antibiotic resistance.

I must be psychic

Europe 'losing' superbugs battle

ninky_2

ultrawomble wrote: »

I must be psychic

Europe 'losing' superbugs battle

i wouldn't worry too much unless you've got a boob job planned in india....