posted on December 8, 2000 10:57:41 PM
China does this, and they have a one-child-per-family limit. I'm not sure how stringently it's enforced or by what methods, but I believe there are penalties (socially and financially) if a family has more than one child. Consequently, many babies, usually girls, are abandoned on buses or on the street. It's illegal to do that but there are few good alternatives, especially for poor families.
Perhaps natural disaster or disease will wipe out large portions of the world's population before legistlated population controls become necessary in more countries.
posted on December 10, 2000 08:34:33 AM"At the planetary level, we have long reached the stage and time, when we have have to control our demographic explosion... This leaves only one option open, which is for Governments to pass legislation which limits reproduction."
I believe Communist China already tried this approach and failed miserably. This is strictly at the governmental level. This does not even start to address the issues of procreation which are core beliefs in many religions worldwide. I'm sorry, but I don't see the Catholic church supporting your governmental mandates. Nor the Hindus, Latter-Day Saints, etc, etc.
"At the individual level, we are not able to exercise the required restraint."
For once we agree, Marwin.
"While Americans accept highway speed limits, having to request a permit to add a room to their house, or to all sorts of limitations regarding whether they can or cannot park a Bass Boat or an RV in their driveways, seemingly, the idea they could be limited in how many children they have, comes as a surprise."
We accept certain laws regarding things that don't affect the majority. Take it to something more personal, i.e., gun control and you will find the populace deeply divided and not nearly so cooperative. Trying to put controls on something as "natural" as procreation certainly wouldn't be accepted by the populace, not here or anywhere else.
Marwin, I understand your global concerns, but since when does really big government (which is exactly what you're espousing) ever have an effective answer? Frankly, any suggestion that government regulation should be increased on any front bothers me and most Americans a great deal. "That government is best which governs least".
Furthermore, under what banner do you propose that the governments of the world unite? More food? More land? And which nations would be the leaders in this? Frankly, I agree with you that we make pitiful use of our resources, but there is more than enough land and more than enough food, if the governments that are now in place would simply distribute it to the people. This has been the case for a couple of decades now.
Sorry, I don't like the concept of One World Government.
posted on December 10, 2000 09:06:28 AM
Enough food, maybe. Enough land, questionable, if you factor in all the other living creatures in the world.
However, there is one resource that is rapidly being depleted that is NOT renewable and is directly related to the level of population...
...WATER.
Without water, there is no manufacturing, no food production, no life.
The water we have, like fossil fuel, is finite. What we have is all there is. We can't make more, even if one factors in the desalinization of ocean water(and thereby causing a whole slew of new problems).
There is concern that humanity will reach critical levels of water needs long before reaching critical population density.
