The 6 Craziest People Who Are Overpopulating the World
By: E. Reid Ross, Meg Anastasia May 11, 2012
Millions of us are so terrified of or disinterested in having kids that we'll literally never do it. But the world's population keeps inflating like a balloon because there are plenty of people at the opposite end of that spectrum. Way, way at the opposite end.
Read more: The 6 Craziest People Who Are Overpopulating the World | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_19791_the-6-craziest-people-who-are-...
I thought this was an interesting article.
Oh I so agree with you Jonathan .. the issues of overpopulation, climate change, hunger, water supply and pollution .. just to name a few issues I'm very interested in.
Ok I hope to see you later then!
Jonathan. My wife was a delivery room nurse. She came home very upset one night after her shift. A 20 yo woman was in that day delivering her 6th child. Some with different dads, she told me. Anyway, when one of Robbie's co-workers, another nurse was questioning this young woman about so many kids, the reply she got was "The more babies I have, the more money I get". Talk about replacement theory! Not! I know this is controversial, but maybe if the government only paid for two children, any others, you're on your own. I can think of problems with this, as in if each child is from another father, and he has the right for his replacement, the woman of this kind of mindset could still have multiple births. And what of the child, an innocent in all this. Should they be denied basic human rights? After all, they are already here, didn't ask to be, but here anyway. I don't know. Let me know what you think.
Oh Tony .. I think that is the attitude that most of them have toward children and why they decide to have so many. They actually get "paid" to have more.
According to what Robbie told me, this was not typical at all, but it did, and I quess still does, happen. Most people want their children. It is a very deeply ingrained biological imperative. But like anything else, people can reason, and take appropriate measures. We just need to educate, educate, educate. Less population will relieve some, if not most of the other stressors we are placing on the planet. But not eliminate them altogether, maybe just make them more manageable.
The government needs to completely get out of paying for babies entirely! In fact, the government should subsidise non-breeding single people if anything, those paying for all of life's costs without the assistance of a spouse (religious or common law or de facto).
We also need to change our government policies. As it stands, our governments tend to favour third world breeding, as it provides cheap slave labour for our mega-corporations. Our governments tend to penalise countries by giving less aid when these countries are committed to family planning. (http://populationaction.org/topics/global-gag-rule/)
I see the resemblance ... yeah
Actually, the first thing I thought of when I saw a photo of Rove was Tubby, complete with "No Girls Allowed" painted on his clubhouse.:
Those are wonderful questions Jonathan. I'll start looking into researching those questions and post here ...yeah with no images, I get you!
The big trend in birthrate is a marked decline correlated with the Industrial Revolution essentially everywhere in the "industrialized" world. The trend began in the 19th century and continued into the 20th. It continued unabated in most Western societies throughout the late 20th century, with the notable exception of the US. Here in the US, our birthrate is somewhat above 2.0 children per "couple" (say, around 2.3), whereas in Western Europe and Japan it's fallen to around 1.5, and in some cases far lower. With few exceptions, these are the "socialist" countries with extensive economic safety nets and assistance programs for mothers and children. So I am not persuaded that pro-natalist financial incentives are directly responsible for high birth rates.
What is a more likely culprit is culture. Throughout the Western World, some large measure of gender-equality has been achieved more or less everywhere. But there is an important difference in the US. Here, we have a culture of "family values", and extol reproduction really like no other advanced country does. I think that American religiosity plays a huge role in this. In America, there is a deep stigma - for both men and women - in not having children. Being childless is somehow "irresponsible", regardless of how successful one might be in one's career. In Europe, Australia and the like, there is greater societal acceptance of childless couples and of women who reject motherhood. So even though American government probably does not provide any greater financial benefits for family-formation, than do other Western governments, our society and its culture are rampantly more pro-natalist.
Unfortunately, modernity and its cult of "progress" depends on an ever increasing population base. We desire "more" - more benefits, more technology, more transportation, more investment. To a large extent, the only way to motivate the production of "more" is to have an n+1 generation larger than the n-generation, n+2 generation larger than n+1, and so forth. The most obvious example is old-age pensions, which depend on a much larger population of workers than retirees. A static total population would strain pension systems, while a declining population would outright break them. So governments are stuck with pro-natalist policies, even if the long-term cost of overpopulation outweighs the benefits.