NationStates Jolt Archive

Please vote now if you are truely one who feels that the environment needs fixing. My proposal requires much reflection before one can fully grasp the big picture.

No.

And if so, how do you plan to do this? Genocide? Sterilze 50% of your population?

Description: As humanity continues it's slow progress toward a higher standard of living for all humans the environment will suffer. In an effort to raise the standard of living throughout the world while simultaneously reducing environmental degradation Epidemia proposes this resolution.

All countries will by humane incentive, or financial penalty begin efforts to limit population to a 1% annual decline.

A suggested method for achieving this goal would include Tax credits will be given to family units including 0 to 1 child. After the first child, penalties of increased taxes should be levied due to the increased environmental and social burdens. If the family cannot provide the increased tax burden, the child shall be put up for adoption for a family with means to support the child. Subsequent children in the offending family will be prevented by mandatory birth control or sterilization.

The subsequent population decrease should be targeted at approximately 1950's populations or less. When a population is reduced to approximately 3 billion relaxations of reproductive restrictions may be instituted to a growth rate of -0.001%.

This reduction of population is the only way to effectively reduce pollution and resource questions as third world countries are brought up to first world standards of living.

Along with reproductive rights Emissions and fossil fuel, use should be reduced at twice the rate of population reduction. Through the implementation of more mass transit, economical cars, green computers, and improved insulation in homes. All businesses where employees spend more than 70% of their day using computers or on the phone, should be working on modifying their business plan to achieve 90% telecommuting employee base.

We in Epidemia hope the UN will adopt this platform as their standard as it will achieve much higher environmental improvements than any efficiency improvements. The population is growing worldwide and will double in the next 20 to 50 years. As the third world becomes first world, their resource use will quadruple or worse. Coupled with doubling in population this means our environment will see an 8 fold increase in pollutants and resource use. All efficiency improvements in hybrid cars and lower power computers will be swallowed up by the standard of living and population increases.


I invite all UN members to work on the wording of this proposal. However, the goal of population reduction is a necessity. The means chosen to achieve the goal of universal population reduction should be evenly born by each country.

Some Initially voluntary compliance would be nice. But If that does not turn out to be effective an incentive based system including tax breaks up to 1 child with penalty of greater taxes for more than 1 child on a progressive scale based upon income level.

This is way too facist for me...Anyone ever see that movie (cant remember the name) with Christopher Lambert, it takes place in a prision primarily?

Facist perhaps!

But can you argue with the facts.

If we bring the third world up to half of that of the developed world energy use will skyrocket. Demand for resources will skyrocket.
All in all I can not see an upside to increases in population.

I am not talking about jailing or killing people like in the movie fortress. Merely giving incentives not to having too many children. Incentive being that you have more spending money if you do not violate the 1 child suggestion.

Implementation of the rules could escallate at most to mandetory birth control.

The alternative may well be a rise in global temperatures which raises sea levels and kills off billions by starvation and growing desert lands.

Please use your higher reason to look past the minor infractions of reproductive rights toward the larger picture. We do not want to outbreed our resources or environment.

Population is slated to double in a minimum of 50 years. Peoples use of resources are increasing globally. Efficiency will not fix the problems of an 8+ fold increase in the use of resources such as fresh water, sewerage, land fill, fossil fuel use, and land clearing.

the movie fortress.

Yeah, that was the name! :idea:

Well go to the un proposal thingy and vote if you would be so kind

Your vote either way would be appreciated.

China tried this, now they have a *female* shortage. This is still way too far fetched. OOC-Besides, you can't slow down NS pop growth anyway.

be that as it may please vote on the proposal over in the UN.

This proposal might help the environment in the short term (remember that more people = more creativity = cleaner technologies), but the cost in human rights far outweighs any benefits derived.

Hmm. Perhaps introducing Child Licences would be a goos idea, with unlicenced children not being recognised members of the nation (ie not eligable for public schooling/public health services).

Hmm. Perhaps introducing Child Licences would be a good idea, with unlicenced children not being recognised members of the nation (ie not eligable for public schooling/public health services).

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=35

Suppose one man goes around making illegal babies. What will you do to him? Usually this kind of legislation only penalizes the mother, which is unfair.

OOC: I don't even see this as being an NS proposal: it's a global idea, and it smacks of Ender's Game (Great book if you've never heard of it by Orson Scott Card), in which every family is limited to two children each and a "Third" child has a ton of stigma: at least the one billion Catholics in the world, probably most of the Muslims (who make up a very large portion of the developing world), and many others, are going to object to this. And what do you do if a poor mother has twins? How can she support herself, two children and pay more taxes because her body decided to create two children instead. Do you make her (legally or economically) give up a child to survive? Her freedom to choose, and her second child's quality of life, will be greatly reduced. You are forcing your agenda on the world when the world is likely to naturally flatten out its population growth. China's population is likely to begin falling soon, without immigration, America's is stable, Europe as a whole is falling, and the developing world is slowing down. The world can create smart enough technology to deal with a stable and eventually decreasing population flattening at around 8-9 billion. This is not going to be a Malthusian die-off, either, assuming no nuclear wars, but that could happen anyway.

this is a link to what I think is my proposal

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=35

Hmmm, twins is a good one.

That is simple you may only have one completed pregnancy.

I believe that the 1 in 1000 twin birth rate would not statistically change the idea. I do not see punishing anyone for luck of the draw.

As for the woman who has multiple pregnancies mandetory birth controll and as for the man who is running around planting his seed. There are several methods for controlling his ability to have children. first tool would be financial responsibility in the form of increased taxes and support. Second would be the new birth control pills and implants for men and finally there is the old vasectomy.

The one percent population decrease per year is also the goal. these types of problems are built in. For the most part it would be the honor system.

also the UN resolution does not force countries to obey the resolution they just will limit your un participation. Plenty of countries do not follow every resolution now do they. This is an effort to begin to control the uncontrolled.

Finally the idea that more minds make more creativity is not correct per say. 6 billion minds is no more powerful than 3 billion. Education is where you mold the minds. Reduced population would allow for more focused education including higher education, smaller classrooms would be instrumental in this.

Indeed, as the standard of living increases on a global scale, so will the population and thus the strain on the natural resources of the area. Population Control must be implemented in one form or another, and a lower population can be acheived in one of two ways. A ton of deaths, like releasing a revamped Black death to the world, or Population Control, and I think the latter will make for a more stable future as well as being less tragic.

If you claim to honestly be interested in making this world a better and easier place to live for you and your children, then this law is a must, in some form or another.

As for twins, a woman is exempt from a penalty for the second child, and, as always, has the option of putting up a child for adoption. A very practical solution to a pressing and ever-growing problem.

If you want to see the full effects of uncontrolled population explosion and some of the best sci-fi ever written, read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars)

dag nab it. Now I cant even find my proposal...


Where the heck did it go. Is my flawless logic being censored or what?

This is a valid resolution and anyone who truely thinks about the effect of uncontrolled population growth and increases in standard of living will have to concede that pollution will rise exponentially, resources will strain, wars will break out, and possibly we will see some of the doom and gloom stuff like global warming and the likes.

Please vote . "Population Reduction Initiativ"

I cant find It. I submitted it yesterday but it is no longer in the
UN proposal section.

How do you think I can locate this proposal.

I am concerned that such a proposal will lead to an abridgement of the rights of those children born (and they will inevitably be born despite attempts to prevent such) who are considered "excess" under such a strategy. For example, a child forcibly taken from his/her parents because they have "too many" children, or one who is denied basic health and education services or employment opportunities because his/her parents have exceeded their permitted number of children. Certainly the threat of such poor treatment is an incentive to prevent the birth of such children, but does this justify giving them an artificially lowered standard of living after the fact?

Rather than enforcing penalties that will weigh directly upon the "excess" children, I would support mass voluntary sterilization. Offer a comparatively large payment (say, $10,000 for example) to any individual who consents to permanant sterilization. This will lead to smaller family sizes for those who can least afford large families--the impoverished--while the wealthiest families, who would have more children, would dilute their own wealth among more heirs.

For example, a child forcibly taken from his/her parents because they have "too many" children, or one who is denied basic health and education services or employment opportunities because his/her parents have exceeded their permitted number of children. Certainly the threat of such poor treatment is an incentive to prevent the birth of such children, but does this justify giving them an artificially lowered standard of living after the fact?

Rather than enforcing penalties that will weigh directly upon the "excess" children, I would support mass voluntary sterilization. Offer a comparatively large payment (say, $10,000 for example) to any individual who consents to permanant sterilization. This will lead to smaller family sizes for those who can least afford large families--the impoverished--while the wealthiest families, who would have more children, would dilute their own wealth among more heirs.

The beginning of your post are valid concerns but likewise are not approved methods of enforcing the statute. There are not stipulations for taking children by force. Fact is that the tax burden will cause the child to have to enter the addoption program for safety.

I like the incentive check of 10,000 dollars for those who choose steriliztion. Perhaps instead of the 1 child rule and penalties we could adopt such a rule. It also has the side benefit of giving greater incentive to the poor and uneducated to not have children. This would artificially generate an increase the education standings and a reduction in poverty.

Within 50 years it could very well eliminate 90% of poverty.

I think my population should continue to grow. If anything, I don't have enough people.

In countries with ultra low population densities I do not see any problem with allowing for exemptions.

Canada is the only country to ever have a negative population growth. No other nation or region in the world has a such a growth. I think that humans would do a significant amount of damage to the environment and the sustainability of our species as a whole by not limiting population growth. Whoever suggested the child license, that is a horrible idea. (sorry for the bluntness) Education is the device through which we could teach people to be more responsible about having children. The people who have these "illegal" children are most likely to raise their children to do the same. Either that or you would have some serious human rights issues from lots of children dieing. Speaking of which, did you guys know that 60,000 children die a day! It brings up an interesting issue, because if you saved these children in that would be 21,900,000 children saved a year. Where would we put these children.

Is the negative population growth because of people relocating faster than your birth rate. Or is your birth rate just low.

If it is the relocation thing then I probably would say that does not count as world population still is climbing and as such the resource uses are still increasing.

I think Italy, Germany, and many, many others have low birth rates.

Yeah, Canada's birth rate is really low, and they have higher emmigration than immigration. Granted a good number of people use the country as an entrance into the states.

Eli rejects this ill fated resolution and suggests that the proper method for population reduction is for people that think like you to cease breeding! :twisted:

I think that the worlds population is getting out of hand and could use some cutting down, one reason is that a large population has a bad effect on the enviroment with all the cars and power used, as well as water and air pollution.

We could just force increased birthrates and offer incentives and then we can export people...