financial incentives to address human overpopulation

angrypirate

Child benefits only given for first 2 children.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

at last someone is willing to talk about the elephant in the room.

And the other elephant in the room about population control is that it matters who has or doesn't have children....

ILW

Kohoutek wrote: »

And the other elephant in the room is that it matters who has or doesn't have children....

Something that many are afraid to mention.

Sure there must be stats of which social levels tend to have the highest amont of children.

Mr_Mumble

Malthusian lunacy yet again. 200 years of being wrong never gets in the way of his supporters!

ninky_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it's obvious that the world's population is far too big, but to me trying to limit the growth of the UK population is a bit like spending millions cutting UK carbon emissions when china is burning an extra gazillion tons of coal every second (a situation which may only be compounded by their apparent sudden fear of nuclear). what impact would slightly reducing the birth rate in the UK have on the world's population? notalot. what can we do to reduce birth rate in other countries? nothing.

.

well actually something in some cases by helping charities which provide free contraception / family planning advice / abortion. and secondarily education (especially women). as female education levels increase birthrates tend to fall.

ninky_2

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Malthusian lunacy yet again. 200 years of being wrong never gets in the way of his supporters!

well it's being proved right in china where the single child policy is seeing increased prosperity and a stronger economic base.

Kohoutek

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Malthusian lunacy yet again. 200 years of being wrong never gets in the way of his supporters!

That article boils down to "human ingenity>natural resource limits". It's really not as simple as that.

I wouldn't trust the Economist's view on subjects like natural resource limitations, they are frequently wildly optimistic.

ninky_2

ess0two wrote: »

Someones gotta pay the future pensions.:rotfl:

well i'm paying for mine. given the saving that is made by not having children you can easily invest that in retirement provision.

blueboy43

Conrad wrote: »

Yes, I often find myself conflicted. Gving to a cancer, malaria or water well charity leads to increasing population, but deep down most of all I want far fewer people as I value the Earth as a shining jewel in the vastness of space, but I feel she can only take so much.

More people means for example masses more plastic floating around the Oceans choking wildlife.

Also can anyone help me on this point; I was struck by Ray Mears experience living with indigenous tribes living in harmony with nature and providing for themselves quite happily over millenea. WHY DID WE IN THE WEST SEE FIT TO 'RESCUE' SUCH PEOPLE AND BURDEN THEM WITH THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING A WESTERN CONSUMER / MODERN LIFESTYLE? I'd say those tribal cultures seemed a lot happier than my direct debit invested complex striving stressful lifestyle.

I doubt very few people in human history have set out to "rescue" indigenous people.

In almost all cases they have been "in the way" as settlers decided to appropriate their land or resources.

In addition, the wealthier a country gets, the slower its population growth.

Japans population is falling.

CloudCuckooLand

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Malthusian lunacy yet again. 200 years of being wrong never gets in the way of his supporters!

I don't know enough about Malthusian theory to be a supporter, or not.

And the thread article is not solely about food.

But, do you seriously believe the population of this planet can, and will be, limitless..?

And do you think you will enjoy eating soylent green or whatever else they are producing in 2050, if no attention is paid to the problems involved in unfettered population growth ?