Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Here is a problem

Expand Messages
  • loulou73
    OK, here is a problem for you anti-breeders. In Australia, you might say that we are voluntary members. Our population is actually going down if you look at
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      OK, here is a problem for you anti-breeders. In Australia, you might
      say that we are voluntary members. Our population is actually going
      down if you look at our birth and death rates. I don't know if this
      is similar in the US. BUT - our population is ever increasing
      because of migration. I'm not being racist here, in fact most of the
      immigrants come from the UK. But it does seem to be defeating the
      purpose - when citizens elect voluntarily to keep beeding numbers
      down, but the government decides that we need more (to keep fueling
      capitalism I guess). What does everyone else think on this subject?
      Am I being greedy wanting to keep Australia spacious or should I be
      thinking more along the lines of distributing the global burden more
      equally? Problem with the last being, I'm not sure the migration out
      of overpopulated countries is actually decreasing their
      populations...only increasing ours!
    • Les U. Knight
      Yes, this is a problem, Loulou. The solution is more complex than simply building a fence as the US is doing between it and Mexico. We are told that it s none
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, this is a problem, Loulou. The solution is more complex than
        simply building a fence as the US is doing between it and Mexico.

        We are told that it's none of our business how many offspring another
        country produces. Perhaps so, in which case they need to deal with
        their reproductive choices and not export them.

        It does no good to improve birth rates to the point that population
        density is improving, if the improvement is eliminated by
        in-migration.

        However, there's another major component in this problem:
        exploitation of lesser-industrialized regions by over-industrialized
        regions. Both natural and human resources are exploited to feed the
        greed of rich regions. Naturally, people will follow the money if
        they're able.

        Owners want more higher population density because it serves their
        economic interests. Landlords do better if demand is high. Employers
        want hungry workers who may be replaced easily. Economic interests of
        renters and workers is best served by an improving population
        density: lower rents and better bargaining for wages.

        Newspapers are owned by those whose interests are served by
        increasing our density. So they feed us a steady supply of articles
        with the same basic message: fewer workers + aging population =
        economic disaster. Their solution: higher retirement age, less
        pension, and more breeding.

        I don't have an easy answer to this dilemma. On the one hand,
        creating zones of martial law along geopolitical boundaries to keep
        others out violates human rights. On the other hand, allowing
        population density to increase from births or in-migration decreases
        quality of life, and could be considered a violation of human rights
        as well.

        The driver of these problems is human breeding, and I do have some
        suggestions for amelioration: universal reproductive freedom, end
        economic incentives for breeding, and encourage responsible
        reproductive choices -- perhaps with rewards. Individually, we can
        help by not adding another of us, particularly in regions with high
        consumption.

        Les
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.