NationStates Jolt Archive

No, this is not going to be a Swift-ish satire proposing we solve world hunger by eating the hungry. Instead, this regards a paradigm shift that took me completely by surprise last night with its simplicity.

I had been reading an article about a lady who was working in Eritrea, doing community development and organising charity funds in small communities particularly ravaged by hunger. She had been struck by the great number of children each family had, and had been complaining to a local that she couldn't understand why these people would continue to bring children into the world when it would only mean more privation and hunger for the rest. If only they were more educated! If only they knew more about contraception and planned their pregnancies better. The local had stared at her like she was nuts, and said, "These children are our pensions. They are our security. They are our savings. You think we should stop preparing for the future because we go hungry?"

The paradigm shift for me was this. We in the West have ignored our own example when dealing with the developing world. I have always been taught, and have always believed that education was the reason for the declining birth rate in developed nations. It seemed obvious...the more people know, the less children they have. This of course assumes that conception is an act of ignorance; ignorance of the consequences of a large family in times of scarcity, ignorance of contraception, ignorance of abstinence. Once you learn about these things, down goes the birthrate. But that isn't what happened in the West.

Large families were common in the West up until my own generation. My grandmother had 17 siblings. My mother has fourteen. I have four. Most people my age have one, or two. Were my great-grandma and my grandmother ignorant women? Did education stop my mother from having so many children? Am I even more educated than my mother, with only two children? Will I be considered ignorant when I adopt two more, and perhaps give birth to another two? Do I not have ready access to contraception and information about planning pregnancies?

What I have that my great-grandmother and grandmother did not, is security. I have a job that will provide me with a pension. I live in a country with social programs that can catch me if I fall into unemployment, become disabled or otherwise unable to provide for myself and my family. I live in a country where my children's education is free, and where a trip to the doctor doesn't mean economic hardship. I live in a country with unions (weaker now than before, but still existant) and labour laws which guarantee me a living wage and benefits. I know that even if I am maimed, or killed, my children will be taken care of. If I live to a ripe, old age, I will not be destitute. The social policies of my country provide me with this security.

Much like my great-grandmother, who used to tell me stories of putting her children to bed during the day so they would sleep and not feel hunger, or of adding water to a single egg to make enough food for everyone, families in the developing world do not have this security. Their children are their security. They are the ones who will help with work in the fields or around the home, in India, the male children bring the promise of a bride's dowry, in the Philipines, female children bring the possibility of work as nannies overseas and money sent home; children are the ones who will provide for their parents in old age, care for them, nurse them, house and feed them, just as they were cared for, nursed, housed and fed. Many children, even in poverty, bring security that is simply not there otherwise. The governments, the social systems in these countries are lacking; they have not developed an alternative to the age-old dependance on flesh and blood. We in the West have conquered this dependence, but now we want people in the 'Third World' to stop having so many children. We want to bring them education, contraception, and 'self-control'. We want this to happen, without the necessary security in place to compensate for a low birthrate.

Is a woman in Eritrea ignorant for having twelve children? In her community she is considered rich. Even if many of her children die, she still has security. Is her community ignorant? No, only realistic. A childless woman has no future; who will take care of here when she can no longer work?

I think we are approaching the issue of 'overpopulation' wrongly. Education, contraception, abstinence....none of these programs are ever going to successfully address the underlying lack of security which drives the poor of the world to procreate. If we really believe that the global birthrate is a serious issue, we need to deal with the root causes that prevent it from being reduced. Sterilization projects, as were carried out in India during the 1970s did nothing but rob families of their potential savings.

What do you think?

We should have more wars in third world countries and outlaw the use of precision guided munitions so we have to carpet bomb entire cities to hit a target. That should make a nice dent in the population.

Well, thats not exactly earth shacking news. That woman working in Eritrea IMO is the ignorant one if she didn't know that children in those countries are also their retirement fund. Thats something I believed was widely known. What most westerners however always seem to overlook is, that even in countries who have social systems, like you mentioned, children were and still are our retirement fund as well. Cause who will keep those systems well funded and running if not the next generations?

Well, thats not exactly earth shacking news. That woman working in Eritrea IMO is the ignorant one if she didn't know that children in those countries are also their retirement fund. Thats something I believed was widely known. What most westerners however always seem to overlook is, that even in countries who have social systems, like you mentioned, children were and still are our retirement fund as well. Cause who will keep those systems well funded and running if not the next generations?

I don't think this is widely known. Even I had taken into account that with high infant mortality rates, women in the South have many kids because only some may survive, or they need help around home, or the are counting on their children to support them in their old age. However, I still believed that education was the answer. I had to think about my own circumstance to see it differently....I want a lot of kids. I have a University degree, and have access to plenty of contraceptive education. I'm not having children out of ignorance, I'm having them out of want. Go and give every woman in Eritrea a University education, but change nothing else...you'll have a bunch of really smart mothers of 9 or 12.

But in most aid agencies, education is the main focus. We look at our own countries and say, "Education accounts for the low, or negative birthrates". But it doesn't. We know it, but we haven't really thought about it. Education is seen as the panacea.

I don't think this is widely known.
Apparently not.
Even I had taken into account that with high infant mortality rates, women in the South have many kids because only some may survive, or they need help around home, or the are counting on their children to support them in their old age. However, I still believed that education was the answer. I had to think about my own circumstance to see it differently....I want a lot of kids. I have a University degree, and have access to plenty of contraceptive education. I'm not having children out of ignorance, I'm having them out of want.
Good for you. Seriously. At least your doing something for your retirement. :p


But in most aid agencies, education is the main focus. We look at our own countries and say, "Education accounts for the low, or negative birthrates". But it doesn't. We know it, but we haven't really thought about it. Education is seen as the panacea.
Ah no. I don't think education is the reason. It's often the inability for women to combine careers with families. Not enough child day care centers. Employers who pften don't exactly help in those situation either. The media who glorifies the single child families or the childless career oriented person. I think they have a bigger influence then most people would give them credit for. All in all people are often discouraged by society as a whole to have more then 1 or 2 kids. Maybe not intentionally but thats what it boils down to IMO.

If we really believe that the global birthrate is a serious issue,

... I don't.

But you can't deny that there are many people out there who honestly don't want to have kids. They have that option, because they don't need to prepare for 'retirement' in that way (tonnes of children). Or families who choose to have only one child.

I'm going to put a poll up to see what people here think will help the global birthrate decline, and we can see what the majority believe is the 'answer'.

But you can't deny that there are many people out there who honestly don't want to have kids. They have that option, because they don't need to prepare for 'retirement' in that way (tonnes of children). Or families who choose to have only one child.
Like I already said. Thats a misconcenption. Who funds these state retirement systems? The working population does. So they don't need to have several children for their retirement and such is simply not true.

*clipped for length*
when people refer to education reducing family size, they aren't just talking about educating women about contraception and family planning. one of the primary reasons (if not THE primary reason) why educated women tend to have smaller families is that they have the security you speak of. they have far greater ability to provide for themselves and to accomodate changes in their lifestyle, and they have options in their life beyond being dependent on their children to support them. by educating women we are giving them a chance at greater security, and we are allowing them options that go beyond breeding for self-support.

personally, i have no need for either children OR the government for my retirement support; i'm not even out of school and i have already begun saving for my retirement. in my opinion, it is totally disgusting to expect any other person, related or not, to support you in your old age...sure, i think it is wonderful when children CHOOSE to support their aging parents, but any parent who has children with the notion of "they will support me when i get old" is beneith contempt to me. each individual is responsible for their own self-support, and each individual should make provisions for their future that do not include depending on the good will or generosity of others.

... I don't.
I'm glad:).

I believe overpopulation is caused by poverty, but in another sense. Poor people end up having many children in poor countries. The problem isn't that the mother and father are poor, but that the entire country is poor. So I think you are right in saying that the level of education is more or less unimportant in explaining large families. The essential problem is that the society can't take care of its members, so people have to turn to the safety of the family or the clan. We can then see a whole list of problems unfolding, many of them connected to ideology, politics, socio-economics and so on. A society must be developed to a certain degree to be able to maintain the basic securities needed to fight overpopulation. This, in turn, requires industrialization and exploiting of natural resources, which brings economic growth.

Today most poor countries spend their money abroad. It doesn't matter really if they spend it on loans or guns or subsidized agricultural products from the EU. They have to spend them in their own sphere. Today it can actually be cheaper for an African country to import european sugar and american corn, than to make it themselves. That's not natural, because the subsidies in the EU and the US destroy competition. Without these subsidies, many evolving countries could (they'd have to) build an own agricultural industry, which would be the base of heavier industry and most important of all, a good base for income which could build a new society to take care of the poorer. What we see today is wealthy countries controlling poorer, through what could only be called neo-colonialism. As the power of the Nation State has diminished, that of the corporations have increased. We see society evolve all over again. Hunters, turning farmers, turning wealthy land-owners, turning princes, turning kings and emperors, turning elected presidents, turning appointed puppets. And it all starts over: worker, turning business owner, turning wealthy international investor, turning... what? Will we see people revolt against corporations and bring an end to private ownership or will people remain captured by powerful conglomerates, or will companies return some power freely to the people? Will we discover that there is only this much wealth, and we all have to share it? Overpopulation is not the worst problem facing us in the future. It's merely an indicator that things are going wrong. Fast.

But you can't deny that there are many people out there who honestly don't want to have kids. They have that option, because they don't need to prepare for 'retirement' in that way (tonnes of children). Or families who choose to have only one child.
Like I already said. Thats a misconcenption. Who funds these state retirement systems? The working population does. So they don't need to have several children for their retirement and such is simply not true.
I'm not sure what you are saying is untrue...I think we both agree that we don't need to have children to 'retire' on....

Of course, there is no state-run retirement system in the vast majority of the world.

I'm unclear as to what you are trying to say.

I'm not sure what you are saying is untrue...I think we both agree that we don't need to have children to 'retire' on....

Of course, there is no state-run retirement system in the vast majority of the world.

I'm unclear as to what you are trying to say.
I meant that people in western countries think they don't need kids to "retire" on cause there is a state run program for that. But they forget that it's the working population who's funding this. The government just distributes the money. So what I am saying is that eventhough it seems we don't need children as an insurance for the old age anymore we actualy do. Without them the systems would collapse. So we aren't that much different from 3rd world countries in our need for kids. Except most people don't realise it. We just have a different approach to it.

I meant that people in western countries think they don't need kids to "retire" on cause there is a state run program for that. But they forget that it's the working population who's funding this. The government just distributes the money. So what I am saying is that eventhough it seems we don't need children as an insurance for the old age anymore we actualy do. Without them the systems would collapse. So we aren't that much different from 3rd world countries in our need for kids. Except most people don't realise it. We just have a different approach to it.
we're starting to realize that in America, though, what with the Baby Boomers hitting retirement age; too many old people for the system to support, basically.

when people refer to education reducing family size, they aren't just talking about educating women about contraception and family planning. one of the primary reasons (if not THE primary reason) why educated women tend to have smaller families is that they have the security you speak of. they have far greater ability to provide for themselves and to accomodate changes in their lifestyle, and they have options in their life beyond being dependent on their children to support them. by educating women we are giving them a chance at greater security, and we are allowing them options that go beyond breeding for self-support.
Of course, a higher education means more job opportunities and more economic security, IF the opportunities exist. Like I said...give every woman in Eritrea a University education, but do not make any of the necessary infrastructure or social changes needed... and you may have no jobs for these highly educated women to take...nor the money to move to a country that does.

As for the focus NOT being on family planning and contraceptive education...which is cheaper? Condoms and a talk about family planning, or building a school and hiring a teacher? Most of the aid money goes to the 'quick' fix, not the long term investment in infrastructure that is needed.


personally, i have no need for either children OR the government for my retirement support; i'm not even out of school and i have already begun saving for my retirement. in my opinion, it is totally disgusting to expect any other person, related or not, to support you in your old age...sure, i think it is wonderful when children CHOOSE to support their aging parents, but any parent who has children with the notion of "they will support me when i get old" is beneith contempt to me. each individual is responsible for their own self-support, and each individual should make provisions for their future that do not include depending on the good will or generosity of others.

Good for you...I'm glad you have the extra money to put away. The majority of the world doesn't have the money to feed themselves, much less 'save' for retirement, and THAT is what we are talking about here.

As for you being disgusted that people would rely on their children to take care of them...that is your own cultural bias. In my culture, it is an obligation and an HONOUR to live with your aged parents once they can no longer live alone. I look forward to having my parents (and perhaps my husband's parents) around; it makes for a stronger bond between generations, (mine and my children's), and to me, is the essence of family; caring for one another. Are my parent's weak and lazy because they expect me to love and care for them? No more than my children are. The West has broken traditional family bonds, not out of necessity, but out of desire. No, no one should be FORCED to do it...but let's look at the developing world again. If your parents had been unable to save for retirement (because, let's be honest, not many poor people can), would you turn them out, knowing they would die on their own? Would you hold them in contempt? Probably not, since you would not be in the position to save for retirement either, and would likely be relying on your children for the same. Is it the fault of the people, or simply a lack of economic security?

I believe overpopulation is caused by poverty, but in another sense. Poor people end up having many children in poor countries. The problem isn't that the mother and father are poor, but that the entire country is poor. So I think you are right in saying that the level of education is more or less unimportant in explaining large families. The essential problem is that the society can't take care of its members, so people have to turn to the safety of the family or the clan. We can then see a whole list of problems unfolding, many of them connected to ideology, politics, socio-economics and so on. A society must be developed to a certain degree to be able to maintain the basic securities needed to fight overpopulation. This, in turn, requires industrialization and exploiting of natural resources, which brings economic growth.

Today most poor countries spend their money abroad. It doesn't matter really if they spend it on loans or guns or subsidized agricultural products from the EU. They have to spend them in their own sphere. Today it can actually be cheaper for an African country to import european sugar and american corn, than to make it themselves. That's not natural, because the subsidies in the EU and the US destroy competition. Without these subsidies, many evolving countries could (they'd have to) build an own agricultural industry, which would be the base of heavier industry and most important of all, a good base for income which could build a new society to take care of the poorer. What we see today is wealthy countries controlling poorer, through what could only be called neo-colonialism. As the power of the Nation State has diminished, that of the corporations have increased. We see society evolve all over again. Hunters, turning farmers, turning wealthy land-owners, turning princes, turning kings and emperors, turning elected presidents, turning appointed puppets. And it all starts over: worker, turning business owner, turning wealthy international investor, turning... what? Will we see people revolt against corporations and bring an end to private ownership or will people remain captured by powerful conglomerates, or will companies return some power freely to the people? Will we discover that there is only this much wealth, and we all have to share it? Overpopulation is not the worst problem facing us in the future. It's merely an indicator that things are going wrong. Fast.
I agree. I don't see overpopulation as a problem in and of itself. There is more than enough food produced globally to allow everyone the minimum 3500 calories needed daily. The problem is much wider, as you have mentioned...and involves inequity in distribution and buying power. It is a cruel irony that the poorest of the poor live in rural areas that produce food....people growing food can often not afford to eat it. Our resources are instead focused on the urban areas...and rural farmhands moving to the city are often shocked to find they can now afford to eat what they once produced.

Education, contraception, laws.

Anyone who has more than 2 children will not recieve innoculations or benefits from the government.

2.3 net increase in population is too much. Die now. Ask questions later.

I meant that people in western countries think they don't need kids to "retire" on cause there is a state run program for that. But they forget that it's the working population who's funding this. The government just distributes the money. So what I am saying is that eventhough it seems we don't need children as an insurance for the old age anymore we actualy do. Without them the systems would collapse. So we aren't that much different from 3rd world countries in our need for kids. Except most people don't realise it. We just have a different approach to it.

Absolutely. Our approach so far has been to up immigration quotas...which angers people because of all the misunderstandings surrounding immigration. However, what people fail to understand is that without immigration, negative birth rates would mean a collapse in our social systems. You're right...we are still dependent on children being born, and becoming workers...just in a slightly more removed sense. Kind of scary, really....

we're starting to realize that in America, though, what with the Baby Boomers hitting retirement age; too many old people for the system to support, basically.
Yup...damn baby boomers!

Up with immigration! Yay!

(Send some of your latinos to Canada if you want:))

in my opinion, it is totally disgusting to expect any other person, related or not, to support you in your old age...sure, i think it is wonderful when children CHOOSE to support their aging parents, but any parent who has children with the notion of "they will support me when i get old" is beneith contempt to me. each individual is responsible for their own self-support, and each individual should make provisions for their future that do not include depending on the good will or generosity of others.

You are being ethnocentric.

ALL things mentioned in this article are important. Children do take care of the parents and provide money for the family.

Indeed our 'advanced' societies were like this not too long ago and there were plenty of hardships to go around. Disease, drought, famine...all were present. But technology improved over time and were were able to prepare for these things, creating the SECURITY that the author pointed out. The security from technology created better crops, cures for diseases and easier interaction between communities. All of which reduced financial burdens on families and in the end more rural families were able to send their kids off to college. Thus, families got smaller and better educated (more or less).

Eventually, the transition will take place and these people will send their children to college and their need for large families will decrease. Good thing is that today we have aid agencies, charities and technology has never been easier to obtain.

The article does miss one detail though. AIDS, civil war and corrupt governments are the majority of causes of today's aid crises. We must solve them if we are to create a true solution.

If we can find a way to do that then nature can take its course.

To bad there wasn't an 'all of the above' section since they are all important.

Education, contraception, laws.

Anyone who has more than 2 children will not recieve innoculations or benefits from the government.

2.3 net increase in population is too much. Die now. Ask questions later.
Address the issue of negative birthrate in the West. Two children per couple is only enough to 'replace' the parents in the economy. Less, is a negative birthrate. Who is going to support your social programs (education, social security and so on) if your population begins to decline?

By the way...forced sterilization has not helped or dealt with the underlying cause of high birth rates. It has only damned people into eternal poverty and insecurity.

China is a different kettle of fish. The one child rule has recently be reinforced, because many families were facing fines for having large families (especially in the rural areas). After 50 years of this policy, China has managed to maintain a stable population, but with some side effects. In some regions, the female to male ratio is greatly skewed...males being preferred for their earning power, and female feotuses being aborted. In other regions, it is the opposite...females can be sent to work in the brothels and earn more than males can. HOWEVER...this policy has not increased the living standard of the majority of Chinese. Overpopulation doesn't cause poverty. Stopping overpopulation doesn't ensure wealth.

ALL things mentioned in this article are important. Children do take care of the parents and provide money for the family.

Indeed our 'advanced' societies were like this not too long ago and there were plenty of hardships to go around. Disease, drought, famine...all were present. But technology improved over time and were were able to prepare for these things, creating the SECURITY that the author pointed out. The security from technology created better crops, cures for diseases and easier interaction between communities. All of which reduced financial burdens on families and in the end more rural families were able to send their kids off to college. Thus, families got smaller and better educated (more or less).

Eventually, the transition will take place and these people will send their children to college and their need for large families will decrease. Good thing is that today we have aid agencies, charities and technology has never been easier to obtain.

The article does miss one detail though. AIDS, civil war and corrupt governments are the majority of causes of today's aid crises. We must solve them if we are to create a true solution.

If we can find a way to do that then nature can take its course.

Physical security is essential too. Yes, in a civil war, no amount of education is going to help you. AIDs is cutting down generations in great, ignored swaths. Aid deals with the most immediate and tragic issues, but is rarely expanded to include the long-term. We are in the middle of a huge, untried experiment in the South (developing nations). We are liberalising their economies through trade agreements, and preventing the kind of social and infrastructure development that brought the West out of the Industrial Revolution intact. These nations are not being given the chance to develop their own industry or social systems...the poorest countries in the world are still scarred by a colonial past that sees an incredible dependency on primary resource exports, which have fallen in value year after year. These same nations are also net importers of commodity goods, (since they don't produce them themselves) AND of food (because the majority of their agriculture is in 'cash' crops, not edibles). This trend needs to be reversed, and self-sufficiency encouraged.

This transition will not happen 'eventually' unless we in the West allow it to. Arrogant sounding? It is. It is the drive by Western nation that fuels the trade liberalisation that makes social spending an anathema, and a 'barrier' to investment. We had the advantage of protectionism and industrialisation, but we would deny it to everyone else in favour of a THEORY that the unregulated market will somehow accomplish the same thing in developing nations.

To bad there wasn't an 'all of the above' section since they are all important.
That could just be other...and then explain it as you have.

I wish we could edit our polls once we get user feedback...but I realise that would be problematic.

Still, point taken.

well yeah the "problem" isnt ignorance its lack of development. many charity workers are amazed to find that when they go to 3rd world countries they arent asked for abortion/contraception services, they are asked for help in conceiveing. the women NEED sons to be considered "successful" in their communities.

its always a mistake to think that less educated people are stupid. they understand their situation all too well

grass roots development can help change things. if a woman is assured that she can bear 2-4 children and have them live to adulthood then she will choose to have fewer children. the ones she does have will be healthier and better employed than they are now.

she and her family need opportunites to better their lives. grass roots development reaches families instead of the rich. women can start small businesses that can replace her children as her safety net

well yeah the "problem" isnt ignorance its lack of development. many charity workers are amazed to find that when they go to 3rd world countries they arent asked for abortion/contraception services, they are asked for help in conceiveing. the women NEED sons to be considered "successful" in their communities.

its always a mistake to think that less educated people are stupid. they understand their situation all too well

grass roots development can help change things. if a woman is assured that she can bear 2-4 children and have them live to adulthood then she will choose to have fewer children. the ones she does have will be healthier and better employed than they are now.

she and her family need opportunites to better their lives. grass roots development reaches families instead of the rich. women can start small businesses that can replace her children as her safety net

There have been some very successful microfinancing systems going on in poor areas of the world, where women get together, with a little of their scrounged savings, and do a round robin type of lending to one another in order to finance business ventures. One month (or year, or whatever) one woman in the group gets the combined money, and starts a vegetable stand, and so on. When she can, she pays back the loan. Aid agencies have been catching onto this slowly, but hopefully it will become more common (and avoid being corrupted by multinational financial institutions!).

So far, this is what has been done to deal with overpopulation.

1) Sterilization: forced or coerced, and never really widespread. Examples can be found in India during the 70s.

2) Quotas: limit on children you are able to have. China.

3) Education programs centered around abstinence, family planning and contraception. This can be found in areas all around the world.

So far, none of these programs has had a significant impact. So why is money still being poured into number 3?

How many of you know how your donation money is spent in practice?

Education and contraception still seem to be in the lead....

We had the advantage of protectionism and industrialisation, but we would deny it to everyone else in favour of a THEORY that the unregulated market will somehow accomplish the same thing in developing nations.

It will, given time, which is the very sort of long-term solution to which you refer.

It will, given time, which is the very sort of long-term solution to which you refer.
You mean an unregulated market will provide the long term solutions I am referring to? Did I misunderstand that?

I don't think an unregulated market is capable of producing the kind of growth we have had in the West. Our economies and social systems did not blossom through unregulated market influence; rather the opposite, really. Why would we do it one way (successfully), then say, "Oh, but for the rest of you, let's try something new, which we THINK works, but have no proof will actually benefit you"?

someone on here mentioned daycare centers, and there not being enough. hahaha. if people have kids, one parent should be taking care of them. kids are only home exclusively until age 5 or 6. those years at home with a parent are extremely beneficial. i am not saying No preschool, a coupleof hours a few days a week issufficient. look at the world 50 years ago, most moms satyed home. (dads are a welcome stay at home figure,i think it just depends on who makes more money) there were less problems. now that the working force is made up of far more persons that havefamilies, the gap between the haves and have nots is getting larger. more emphasis is being placed on wealth, possessions and "things " in general. the results under that magnifying glass are felt the world over. the problem of conceived riches being the highest priority is leading to more selfish people, government, social policy, less food subsidies etc. and third worlders, whose "riches" lie within their families, are continuing to increase that wealth by bearing more children. some countries (i wont mention the particular one i have in mind, i dont want to start an endless battle) are having more kids in order to have more members go out into the world, work ,and better the families life.

i hate long posts. sorry

someone on here mentioned daycare centers, and there not being enough. hahaha. if people have kids, one parent should be taking care of them. kids are only home exclusively until age 5 or 6. those years at home with a parent are extremely beneficial. i am not saying No preschool, a coupleof hours a few days a week issufficient. look at the world 50 years ago, most moms satyed home. (dads are a welcome stay at home figure,i think it just depends on who makes more money) there were less problems. now that the working force is made up of far more persons that havefamilies, the gap between the haves and have nots is getting larger. more emphasis is being placed on wealth, possessions and "things " in general. the results under that magnifying glass are felt the world over. the problem of conceived riches being the highest priority is leading to more selfish people, government, social policy, less food subsidies etc. and third worlders, whose "riches" lie within their families, are continuing to increase that wealth by bearing more children. some countries (i wont mention the particular one i have in mind, i dont want to start an endless battle) are having more kids in order to have more members go out into the world, work ,and better the families life.

i hate long posts. sorry

The problem with saying that a parent should stay home for five or six years with their children is that we don't all have that choice. If I, for example, stopped teaching for a couple of years, it would be highly unlikely that I would ever teach again. Why? With all the new teacher graduates (300 a year average from my University alone) seeking jobs, that much time out of the profession, coupled with the fact that with my years of teaching experience would make me more expensive that first year teachers to hire, means I would either have to go back to school, or take a minimum wage job. Also, working half time is not an option either. Most half time teaching positions (I'm speaking for my area) are scheduled so that despite the fact you are working half the hours, those hours are stretched over a full day. (ie, two hours in the morning, and two hours in the afternoon). Fair? Hardly...but it works for the schools. Should women wait to go to University until their children are school-age, so that their education doesn't become irrelevant with the passage of time? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that I am doing my children harm by having them in a dayhome. I don't just go home, flip on the tv and start making supper...I spend every moment I have with them well. It means a long, tiring day, but that's life.

Also, there are still few men who WANT to stay home with their kids. My husband, for example, despite being pretty modern compared to many of his fellow Latin Americans, has this underlying belief that his work is more valuable than caring for children would be. He doesn't earn that much more than I do, but he doesn't feel capable of staying home, 'babysitting' kids. Sad. The woman will still end up being the one who usually stays home (if the option is open), perhaps because she makes less in her career, but more likely because women are still seen as the 'caregivers' and the men as 'breadwinners'. PLUS, that much time out of a career for a man or woman means they have lost those years of earning power (one reason women still don't earn as much as men do).

If I could stay home, and know I could return to my job once my children were school-age, I would. Instead, I am faced with the probability that if I do stay home, my degree will be useless (and as yet, still not completely paid for...ah, student loans) and I will have to go back to school (expensive) or take a lower-paying job.

Not a great choice.

Address the issue of negative birthrate in the West. Two children per couple is only enough to 'replace' the parents in the economy. Less, is a negative birthrate. Who is going to support your social programs (education, social security and so on) if your population begins to decline?

Two children does is not quite sufficient, due to traffic accidents and such like affecting a far higher proportion of adolescents than middle aged. Nevertheless negative population growth in the west is not necessarily a problem for social programs. You have to remember that social programs include education, and chiold care as well as health and pension schemes. If you have a negative growth rate, then as the proportional demand for geriatric support goes up, the proportional demand for pre-adult support goes down, and by a higher rate. The total income decreases slowly, but so does the total expenditure. The real demographic time bomb is not due to decreased birth rates, but due to much increased lifetimes. This is a major factor in population growth in the west, indeed it is the only reason why the population of most Northern European countries is still growing. Solutions to this are more difficult. (You could always go back to the innuit tradition :eek: )

By the way...forced sterilization has not helped or dealt with the underlying cause of high birth rates. It has only damned people into eternal poverty and insecurity.

A strong and unfounded assertion my friend. Where ther has been forced sterilization, then the birth rate has dropped. It has not, as you say, dealt with any of the underlying causes, but of the desire for having many children as opposed to the actual bearing of children. I know that there is a mindset in poorer countries (I live in one after all) that you have to have many children to support you in your old age. But this mind set does not reflect the reality of the situation. When life expectancy here was around 40 years, then this mind set applied. Now that life expectancy is about 70, the reality no longer reflects the cultural attitude. No damning of people to poverty or misery by limiting them to one or two children.

China is a different kettle of fish. The one child rule has recently be reinforced, because many families were facing fines for having large families (especially in the rural areas). After 50 years of this policy, China has managed to maintain a stable population, but with some side effects. In some regions, the female to male ratio is greatly skewed...males being preferred for their earning power, and female feotuses being aborted. In other regions, it is the opposite...females can be sent to work in the brothels and earn more than males can. HOWEVER...this policy has not increased the living standard of the majority of Chinese. Overpopulation doesn't cause poverty. Stopping overpopulation doesn't ensure wealth.

Overpopulation is one of the fundamental causes of misery. Once you have an overpopulated country, stopping growth will not reduce the misery, it just stops it getting worse. The case of China is one where a combination of factors caused the creation and retention of a large proportion of poor. If you can stop population growth and maintain economic growth, then someone, somewhere is getting better off. If this is the unwashed masses, or the ruling elite, is another question. (One that Brazil is trying to deal with right now)

No, this is not going to be a Swift-ish satire proposing we solve world hunger by eating the hungry. Instead, this regards a paradigm shift that took me completely by surprise last night with its simplicity.

I think we are approaching the issue of 'overpopulation' wrongly. Education, contraception, abstinence....none of these programs are ever going to successfully address the underlying lack of security which drives the poor of the world to procreate. If we really believe that the global birthrate is a serious issue, we need to deal with the root causes that prevent it from being reduced. Sterilization projects, as were carried out in India during the 1970s did nothing but rob families of their potential savings.

What do you think?

While I agree that more can be done with this issue, IMO, the primary reason birth rates drop in affluent nations where factors of religion etc are non-issues, is that affluence breeds greed.

Say for instance in the U.S., average 1.5 children, if you double that, what would happen to the quality of life for both parents and children. I know it is kind of a glass half empty attitude, but I think the primary reason for declining birth rates is mostly greed, people wanting a higher amount of cash, things, affluence for selfish purposes.

This might well work in other countries as well if we can turn them into greedy consumerist states as well, I suspect the birht rates will go down.

While I agree that more can be done with this issue, IMO, the primary reason birth rates drop in affluent nations where factors of religion etc are non-issues, is that affluence breeds greed.

Say for instance in the U.S., average 1.5 children, if you double that, what would happen to the quality of life for both parents and children. I know it is kind of a glass half empty attitude, but I think the primary reason for declining birth rates is mostly greed, people wanting a higher amount of cash, things, affluence for selfish purposes.

This might well work in other countries as well if we can turn them into greedy consumerist states as well, I suspect the birht rates will go down.
While we're making unfounded assertations:)...

Like I said, the unregulated market as a means of growth is an untried experiment...why do it a way we don't know works, rather than allowing it to be done in a way that DID work (for us, albeit I am not suggesting all aspects of Western development are good or desireable)?

Access to Education and Contraception are important -- but so is Economic Security. They have to go hand in hand. Improving one's economic security is not going to effect birth rates without Education and Contraception being available.

Look, I live in Canada. I'm 34 years old. You probably would expect me to have 2, maybe 3 siblings. Well, you're wrong. I'm the oldest of 12, and my parents aren't even Catholic.

I'm going to draw an analogy for you with that family from Eritrea.

By Canadian standards, my family was poor. We lived on a farm, my dad is a farmer. My mom works outside the home as a nurse. Some winters we had very little to eat, though we never starved. Mind you, some years if we hadn't lived on a farm with our own livestock and a garden, we wouldn't have made it without help, such as welfare. We didn't just have handmedowns inside our own family - other families dropped old clothes off at our house, 'so we could deliver them to the thrift store'. Of course, what that meant was for us to pick out the clothes that fit, before taking the remainder to the thrift store.

Did my parents want a large family? Well, yes and no. They practiced birth control, but it was the rhythm method. If someone tries to tell you that the rhythm method is a successful birth control method, allow me to assure you that it is not. Frankly, although both my parents had a high school education, and mom had nursing training, they did not have a lot of education, and certainly no more information on birth control than was available in any other Health class in the 50's. IE: Not a lot.

But like that family in Eritrea, the kids were my parent's economic security. But not just for their old age -- for the farm. My family, and other families in poverty, relied on the work of the children. We did chores, cared for livestock, drove tractors, picked rocks and roots, built fences and buildings, tended gardens, mucked barns, did haying, and a thousand other jobs that would have required my parents hiring one or two men to do if it weren't for the kids. That family in Eritrea would have had their kids doing the same thing - or if they weren't on a farm, had them knotting carpets, digging through garbage for scrap to sell, or anything else they could to earn a penny or two.

But it's a catch 22. The more kids you have, the more work they can do - but the more you need to support them all. Here in Canada, my family never really caught up until us older ones left home, got decent paying jobs, and started sending money home (or in case of the ones living near by, coming out on weekends and holidays to continue helping with the farming for free, without being a drag on my parent's resources). In Eritrea, because the kids don't have the education opportunities we had that helped us to go out and get good jobs as adults, they're never able to catch up. They're stuck in the same cycle of poverty.

Pretty much the only way out for the Eritreans in your story is to make the parents self-sufficient without relying on the contributions of their children, and making it possible for their children to get an education and jobs. You have to break the cycle. Without Economic Security, people can't afford the time required to get an Education. Without Education, it's difficult to become Economically Secure. Meanwhile, if you don't have Birth Control, you just keep popping out kids, making things even more precarious. We Canadian kids were lucky - we had access to Education to break us out of the cycle.

One way of breaking other people out of this cycle is to change the way we give Aid to poor countries. Instead of throwing money at governments to encourage economic development (and watching it get wasted or spent unwisely or on big projects that don't change the lives of the average person), we need to set up Development Banks that offer micro-loans to the individual so they can set up businesses or get access to the livestock or tools they need to make their businesses successful. If the parents can provide for their families instead of relying on the labour contributions of their children just to eke by, the kids will have a chance to go to school, which improves their job opportunities and their future economic security. If children aren't starving to death, parents won't need to have so many just to ensure that one or two of them reach adulthood. This is not the Trickle Down Theory. It's the Trickle Up Theory.

Another way is for the 'first world nations' is to open the door to more immigration, since immigrants to wealthier nations typically send money home to their families to help improve their lives. But this is another nasty Catch-22 -- we prefer to take immigrants with valuable skills, that the poorer nations spent a lot of money investing in. They train doctors and nurses, and we hire them away. They train some more doctors and nurses, and you guessed it, we hire them away too.

Anyway, it's been proven time and time again that once women have education, ecomonic opportunities, and access to birth control, the majority of them do limit the number of children they have. And even if the mothers don't, their daughters usually do, having been exposed to other options for longer. Just look at the birth rates in Europe, Japan, and North America. Most of them are negative, and the ones that aren't are just barely above the replacement rate. Speaking for my family, 8/12 of us kids are over the age of 20. Most of us have chosen not to have children of our own. In fact, it's sibling number 7 who has decided to have kids - a brother young enough not to know how poor the family was before the older sibs started sending money home [and how much work it is to raise children :P].

A strong and unfounded assertion my friend. Where ther has been forced sterilization, then the birth rate has dropped. It has not, as you say, dealt with any of the underlying causes, but of the desire for having many children as opposed to the actual bearing of children. I know that there is a mindset in poorer countries (I live in one after all) that you have to have many children to support you in your old age. But this mind set does not reflect the reality of the situation. When life expectancy here was around 40 years, then this mind set applied. Now that life expectancy is about 70, the reality no longer reflects the cultural attitude. No damning of people to poverty or misery by limiting them to one or two children.
I'm sorry...was there forced sterilisation in Brazil? In India, which is the only example that I know of that was widespread, the sterilisation was a corrupt way of sterilising the Dalit and other untouchable castes. Money was paid to people who got the most people to undergo the operation, and often, entire (low caste) neighbourhoods were rounded up and forced to be sterilised...in some cases, men were operated on more than once, despite having already undergone sterilisation...more money for the 'headhunters'. The fact that this program did not persist suggests that
1) people didn't support it
2) it didn't do a great job of controlling the population
3) people were unwilling to stop having children because the economic security was not in place to replace flesh and blood security with monetary.

Perhaps my statement was strong, but I don't think sterilization is the answer.

someone on here mentioned daycare centers, and there not being enough. hahaha. if people have kids, one parent should be taking care of them. kids are only home exclusively until age 5 or 6.
Ahahaha.... :rolleyes:
So single/widowed parents should stay at home for 5 or 6 years?

2) it didn't do a great job of controlling the population

It didn't help much cause only some 600,000 people were sterilized in that 2 children are enough campaign. In a country that back then already had some 350 million people sterilizing some 600,000 is but a drop in the ocean.

someone on here mentioned daycare centers, and there not being enough. hahaha. if people have kids, one parent should be taking care of them. kids are only home exclusively until age 5 or 6.

Oh yeah. If mom stayed home to look after the kids instead of bringing money in as a nurse, we would have starved. We were just lucky that neighbours were willing to look after the littlest kids until us older ones got home from school. (and occasionally, I stayed home from school to look after them, or took them to school with me, if I felt that I had classes/teachers that would let me get away with that).

Here where I work, there are some parents that have to bring their kids in to play at their feet when relatives are unable to do their regular babysitting stint.

The problem with saying that a parent should stay home for five or six years with their children is that we don't all have that choice. If I, for example, stopped teaching for a couple of years, it would be highly unlikely that I would ever teach again. Why? With all the new teacher graduates (300 a year average from my University alone) seeking jobs, that much time out of the profession, coupled with the fact that with my years of teaching experience would make me more expensive that first year teachers to hire, means I would either have to go back to school, or take a minimum wage job. Also, working half time is not an option either. Most half time teaching positions (I'm speaking for my area) are scheduled so that despite the fact you are working half the hours, those hours are stretched over a full day. (ie, two hours in the morning, and two hours in the afternoon). Fair? Hardly...but it works for the schools. Should women wait to go to University until their children are school-age, so that their education doesn't become irrelevant with the passage of time? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that I am doing my children harm by having them in a dayhome. I don't just go home, flip on the tv and start making supper...I spend every moment I have with them well. It means a long, tiring day, but that's life.

Also, there are still few men who WANT to stay home with their kids. My husband, for example, despite being pretty modern compared to many of his fellow Latin Americans, has this underlying belief that his work is more valuable than caring for children would be. He doesn't earn that much more than I do, but he doesn't feel capable of staying home, 'babysitting' kids. Sad. The woman will still end up being the one who usually stays home (if the option is open), perhaps because she makes less in her career, but more likely because women are still seen as the 'caregivers' and the men as 'breadwinners'. PLUS, that much time out of a career for a man or woman means they have lost those years of earning power (one reason women still don't earn as much as men do).

If I could stay home, and know I could return to my job once my children were school-age, I would. Instead, I am faced with the probability that if I do stay home, my degree will be useless (and as yet, still not completely paid for...ah, student loans) and I will have to go back to school (expensive) or take a lower-paying job.

Not a great choice.

i would take the lower paying job. kids should come first. here in southern cal, we have teachers with emergency credentials, because there is a huge shortage of educators. my friend is a new mom, and teaches kindergarten. she splits a contract, three days one week, two the next. the kids love the team teaching. as a teacher, you should know the difference between the kids who parent is involved, and the kid whose parents are not. i have no clue about your area, or the academic situation, but it is high here. and the kids with the at home parent succeed at a higher rate. maybe you should move. kids need nurturing and care. natures course is that your are the one that carries the child into existence. but now you say you shouldnt carry them in life?my sister and her husband have 6 kids, all with in 8 yrs. there is a set of twins. they moved to a cheaper area, and made sacrifices so she could stay at home. now that the youngest is in the first grade, she isa nurse,and goes to work at 7pm. she is off in the morning, takes the kids to scholl, sleeps all day, picks them up, and then goes to work. when she is needed in the class, sh takes a nap, then goes to school to help.she does this four days a week. originally, she was going to be a doctor, but she switched plans.you have a resentment toward being a caregiver. how selfish. you were given the right in this lefe to bear children, and now you hold it secondary to your own needs. sad, that is. 5 to 6 years may seem like a long time to you, but , trust me, its a very small sacrifice in the life of a child.

While we're making unfounded assertations:)...

Like I said, the unregulated market as a means of growth is an untried experiment...why do it a way we don't know works, rather than allowing it to be done in a way that DID work (for us, albeit I am not suggesting all aspects of Western development are good or desireable)?

Not completely unfounded. I know a lot of people, colleagues and such, that have stated outright to me that the reason they don't want to have kids or more kids is because they don't want it to mess up their lifestyle. I've heard this idea promoted in the media, Desperate House Wives for example.

Not saying that this is everyone's reason, but I bet it is a pretty major factor for a lot of people.

Ahahaha.... :rolleyes:
So single/widowed parents should stay at home for 5 or 6 years?

no, obviously. but there are many many situations that are 2 parents. dont try and be so hardline black and white . any person can see there is exceptions to the rule. you are being petty, and you know it.

you should give more details. was your dad around?when was this? where was this? and what is your point about bringing kids to work?

If you read my long post above, you would know that my dad worked as well, on the farm. But caring for infants and operating farm machinery or working with animals are jobs that should be mutually exclusive unless you're not concerned about the child's physical welfare.

My point about bringing children to work is that many families cannot get by economically without two incomes. If there is no day care or free babysitting from a relative, then the parents have to find some other way to care for their children, such as bringing them to work with them - a practice many employers will not support.

If you read my long post above, you would know that my dad worked as well, on the farm. But caring for infants and operating farm machinery or working with animals are jobs that should be mutually exclusive unless you're not concerned about the child's physical welfare.

My point about bringing children to work is that many families cannot get by economically without two incomes. If there is no day care or free babysitting from a relative, then the parents have to find some other way to care for their children, such as bringing them to work with them - a practice many employers will not support.
wait. your post wasnt there when i posted. i saw it now, and am reading. apologies

no, obviously. but there are many many situations that are 2 parents. dont try and be so hardline black and white . any person can see there is exceptions to the rule. you are being petty, and you know it.
One parent should stay at home for 5 or 6 years and I'm the one beeing petty and black and white?

wait. your post wasnt there when i posted. i saw it now, and am reading. apologies

No worries. It's just that it's hard to understand my comments without knowing where I'm coming from. :)

One parent should stay at home for 5 or 6 years and I'm the one beeing petty and black and white?
yes. how are you arguing the fact that people should raise their own children?? that is so ridiculous to think that people have a couple kids, and then charge off, living their lives in search of attaining their dreams. i am not going to attempt to debate this with you. if you are a person who would put your own kids ( idont know if you are, but it seems like it) in the hands of society to raise, thats your deal.

yes. how are you arguing the fact that people should raise their own children?? that is so ridiculous to think that people have a couple kids, and then charge off, living their lives in search of attaining their dreams. i am not going to attempt to debate this with you. if you are a person who would put your own kids ( idont know if you are, but it seems like it) in the hands of society to raise, thats your deal.

That may be the situation for middle class and higher parents, but I don't believe you can say that poorer families that require the incomes of both parents (for example, if both parents work minimum wage jobs or something like that) are 'charging off to live their lives in search of attaining their dreams' to the detriment of their children. To me, they sound like parents who are working hard to look after their kids and maybe give their kids more than they had. Unfortunately though, in their case that means that both parents have to work outside the home. They don't have the luxury of deciding to cut their income slightly to keep mom at home. If they did, they couldn't pay rent or buy food - which would be considerably worse for the kids than having them attend daycare.

Equus-
you know, that wasa nice story. however, you fail to see one major point. your mom and dad taught your family the lessons that are the HARDEST learned by kids who grow up in someone elses care.

hard work*pitching in* responsibilty *FAMILY FIRST* taking care of your parents* being a role model for younger siblings* making sure no one is left behind*respect* and many many more....

i think you had an amazing family, and a priveleged upbringing.
my post earlier was meant for the semi wealthy suburban family, who has far more than enough, and wants even more. that is creating a class struggle, andmaking the world a more selfish place to live

that is so ridiculous to think that people have a couple kids, and then charge off, living their lives in search of attaining their dreams.
If it's so ridiculouse then why are you assuming that thats what I meant? Cause I don't remember saying anything like that. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry...was there forced sterilisation in Brazil? In India, which is the only example that I know of that was widespread, the sterilisation was a corrupt way of sterilising the Dalit and other untouchable castes. Money was paid to people who got the most people to undergo the operation, and often, entire (low caste) neighbourhoods were rounded up and forced to be sterilised...in some cases, men were operated on more than once, despite having already undergone sterilisation...more money for the 'headhunters'. The fact that this program did not persist suggests that
1) people didn't support it
2) it didn't do a great job of controlling the population
3) people were unwilling to stop having children because the economic security was not in place to replace flesh and blood security with monetary.

Perhaps my statement was strong, but I don't think sterilization is the answer.

To my knowledge, there was no forced sterilization program here. My arguments were general, and against the apparently stated position that forced sterilization would necessarily result in poverty and uncertainty. The program in India was clearly an ethnic rather than populational program, and as such has completely different criteria from those that a genuine attempt to control population growth by forced sterilization would have.

The failure of the program in India simply shows that there was a lack of political will to continue the program. This may be for the reasons you give, but may also be for many other reasons, such as rediriecting funding to more popular schemes (vote buying in general. Look at what happens in Canada, USA and Europe when elections are approaching. Here there is a constitutional moritorium on budget changes in the year before an election), budget cuts, the program having had an undisclosed target number which was reached, etc.

Neither do I think that sterilization is a reasonable answer to population growth, except where undertaken voluntarily by a significant number of individuals. I seriously believe that the developed world, and large portions of Latin America do not have a long term population growth problem. Africa may not have, due to the AIDS tragedy, but this I do not advocate as a good solution. Oceania I know nothing about in terms of population growth, so I can not comment. This leaves the middle east, Asia, and a few parts of Latin America. The first thing to do, in my opinion, is to overthrow Catholic dogma concerning contraception. This would reduce the problem in Latin America at least to one that can be managed by economic reform.
China, being a totalitarian state has imposed its own rules, which despite all the problems of grnder skew, are actually having an effct. India is a huge problem. There needs to be some serious cultural change. Not just education, nor economic, nor legal, but a fundamental change in the values of the society, before any real reduction in the population growth rate can be made. The middle east is so different in culture to the west that | could not begin to suggest what to do there.

That may be the situation for middle class and higher parents, but I don't believe you can say that poorer families that require the incomes of both parents (for example, if both parents work minimum wage jobs or something like that) are 'charging off to live their lives in search of attaining their dreams' to the detriment of their children. To me, they sound like parents who are working hard to look after their kids and maybe give their kids more than they had. Unfortunately though, in their case that means that both parents have to work outside the home. They don't have the luxury of deciding to cut their income slightly to keep mom at home. If they did, they couldn't pay rent or buy food - which would be considerably worse for the kids than having them attend daycare.
most working class poor families have relatives watch the kids, they typically cant afford daycare. and thats a good thing. in societies around the world, children raised with in a family structure are better off. kids raised at kindercare are not.

Equus-
you know, that wasa nice story. however, you fail to see one major point. your mom and dad taught your family the lessons that are the HARDEST learned by kids who grow up in someone elses care.

hard work*pitching in* responsibilty *FAMILY FIRST* taking care of your parents* being a role model for younger siblings* making sure no one is left behind*respect* and many many more....

i think you had an amazing family, and a priveleged upbringing.
my post earlier was meant for the semi wealthy suburban family, who has far more than enough, and wants even more. that is creating a class struggle, andmaking the world a more selfish place to live

Oh sure, I'm not arguing that my parents raised us well. But you're missing the point that it wasn't just my parents who looked after us. We DID have the rural equivalent of daycare - the neighbours who looked after the little kids until mom or I got home.

If it's so ridiculouse then why are you assuming that thats what I meant? Cause I don't remember saying anything like that. :rolleyes:
you were very quick to argue a point that was very bottom line and OBVIOUS. anyone knows if you are the only caregiver of a child, you have to work.

Oh sure, I'm not arguing that my parents raised us well. But you're missing the point that it wasn't just my parents who looked after us. We DID have the rural equivalent of daycare - the neighbours who looked after the little kids until mom or I got home.
out of neccesity. in a community where everyone was in the same boat.

these middle clss people i am talking about, most work all day, pick up the kids after 5 30. the homework is done, and all interaction having to do with school is over. they make dinner, give em a shower, watch an hour of TV, maybe read them a book, and toss them in bed. thats 3 hours a day of childraising. insufficient, i say. weekends are crammed with sports. even worse. the world over needs to realize the generation being raised this moment, esp in the US, will be the most self centered, unwordly selfish leaders of tomorrow. they know where the problems lie, but they are unwilling to give up that shiny new SUV to fix them.

out of neccesity. in a community where everyone was in the same boat.

these middle clss people i am talking about, most work all day, pick up the kids after 5 30. the homework is done, and all interaction having to do with school is over. they make dinner, give em a shower, watch an hour of TV, maybe read them a book, and toss them in bed. thats 3 hours a day of childraising. insufficient, i say. weekends are crammed with sports. even worse. the world over needs to realize the generation being raised this moment, esp in the US, will be the most self centered, unwordly selfish leaders of tomorrow. they know where the problems lie, but they are unwilling to give up that shiny new SUV to fix them.

Okay, fair enough. But keep in mind, however well my parents raised us -- most of the kids in my family have decided not to have children for entirely practical reasons: less work, less expense, and the overpopulation of the planet. We are not a good example of how a loving family environment breeds good parents, who in turn raise good children. We've turned our backs on the way our parents live and chosen not to have children of our own. You could say that we're even more selfish than those middle class people you're talking about because we are not having children and will not be spending time with them and will not be passing on what we have learned. We consider ourselves responsible - but are we failing to fulfill our responsibilities to our parents and our society? I guarantee you that mom thinks so. :D

I said other because I agree with everything you have listed. On the other hand, no society in history has figured out how to maintain a healthy economy without steady population growth. Economic growth, education, and access to contraception will lower birth rates. History shows that in the first world where this has happened, the population in most of the rich countries is declining and will level off at some point (this is true even in America, but immigrants tend to have more children and so inflate the population numbers). In the past thirty years, the birth rate has halved. So really, things will level off on their own if current trends continue. The problem is the kind of economic calamity that will occur afterwards and the fundamental question becomes will we be able to create a new system that doesn't rely on constant population growth.

It didn't help much cause only some 600,000 people were sterilized in that 2 children are enough campaign. In a country that back then already had some 350 million people sterilizing some 600,000 is but a drop in the ocean.
Perhaps...but who decides WHO is sterilised? Forced sterilization is, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of human rights. Encouraging sterilization, not so much...but it should be the person's choice. Forced sterilization is too much like ethnic cleansing...just a 'kinder and gentler' form.

i would take the lower paying job. kids should come first. here in southern cal, we have teachers with emergency credentials, because there is a huge shortage of educators. my friend is a new mom, and teaches kindergarten. she splits a contract, three days one week, two the next. the kids love the team teaching. as a teacher, you should know the difference between the kids who parent is involved, and the kid whose parents are not. i have no clue about your area, or the academic situation, but it is high here. and the kids with the at home parent succeed at a higher rate. maybe you should move. kids need nurturing and care. natures course is that your are the one that carries the child into existence. but now you say you shouldnt carry them in life?my sister and her husband have 6 kids, all with in 8 yrs. there is a set of twins. they moved to a cheaper area, and made sacrifices so she could stay at home. now that the youngest is in the first grade, she isa nurse,and goes to work at 7pm. she is off in the morning, takes the kids to scholl, sleeps all day, picks them up, and then goes to work. when she is needed in the class, sh takes a nap, then goes to school to help.she does this four days a week. originally, she was going to be a doctor, but she switched plans.you have a resentment toward being a caregiver. how selfish. you were given the right in this lefe to bear children, and now you hold it secondary to your own needs. sad, that is. 5 to 6 years may seem like a long time to you, but , trust me, its a very small sacrifice in the life of a child.

Why on earth would I choose to move, uproot my family from their roots and relatives, simply so I could live in a country I detest (sorry, but it's true) so that I could work part time? Would that really be in the best interests of my children?

You are making the unfounded assumption that all parents who work and have children in daycare are neglecting their children, or that their children are somehow suffering for it. My grandmother raised my father, his half-brother and his sister on her own after my grandfather died. She was a fulltime teacher and she had a nanny watch the children during the day. Are they emotionally scarred? Academically deficient? Somehow tainted, or 'less' than kids with parents who stayed home? Absolutely not. It depends on the parent. I put my kids first. Because of my salary, we have a home in the country, and don't have to live in the city. That is a priority for me. Because of my work, and the work of my husband, we already have substantial savings for their post-secondary education. I went into this career one, because I love to teach, and two, because the hours are conducive to child-rearing...I can take sick leave when my kids are sick, I get home early and I have holidays to spend with them. I have good health benefits (which my husband does not). I see my kids every night, and I make the time to play with them, teach them, and care for them. Could we survive on one salary? Possibly...in some dirty, cramped little apartment in the city. No. I made a choice to have a career, because I need to know I can take care of myself and my family if I have to...I refuse to depend on my husband to support us. Does that mean my kids are neglected? Unloved? Ignored? Suffering? You need only meet them to see that is not the case.

There will always be parents with poor parenting skills...whether they stay home or not will not change that. Do not paint us all with the same brush. I have no resentment about being a caregiver. I am not being selfish, I am being practical. The fact that you are insinuating that somehow I love my career more than I love my children should make my blood boil...instead, I shrug it off as ignorance. Talk all you want about 'this person I know' and 'that person I know', but you will never know me, or my situation. YOU stay home if and when you have children. That will be your choice, and I certainly wouldn't take it on myself to denigrate you for it. You go ahead and think less of me, and my children because I work. Your opinion is meaningless. What matters to me is that I provide for my children, I love them, and I am doing a damn good job of raising them.

So while you're eating crow this time, remember how you said I shouldn't make assumptions. Advice I think, that perhaps you should take.

Not completely unfounded. I know a lot of people, colleagues and such, that have stated outright to me that the reason they don't want to have kids or more kids is because they don't want it to mess up their lifestyle. I've heard this idea promoted in the media, Desperate House Wives for example.

Not saying that this is everyone's reason, but I bet it is a pretty major factor for a lot of people.
No, sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to that as unfounded...just the theory that unregulated capitalism would create development. I'm just saying we don't really know...this is an experiment, really. I agree that many people choose not to have children for the reasons you've given.

yes. how are you arguing the fact that people should raise their own children?? that is so ridiculous to think that people have a couple kids, and then charge off, living their lives in search of attaining their dreams. i am not going to attempt to debate this with you. if you are a person who would put your own kids ( idont know if you are, but it seems like it) in the hands of society to raise, thats your deal.
Daycare !=abandonment

I think you are talking about something else...like giving up your kids for adoption while you pursue a career, then taking them back when you feel like it. You have a very limited understanding of child care.

most working class poor families have relatives watch the kids, they typically cant afford daycare. and thats a good thing. in societies around the world, children raised with in a family structure are better off. kids raised at kindercare are not.
Ok, now I'm going to demand some proof. Or is this just your humble opinion? You're welcome to it...but don't represent it as fact unless you can back it up.

So why are education and contraception still far in the lead? Those of you who chose it...how do you think these methods will curb population growth?

No, this is not going to be a Swift-ish satire proposing we solve world hunger by eating the hungry. Instead, this regards a paradigm shift that took me completely by surprise last night with its simplicity.

I had been reading an article about a lady who was working in Eritrea, doing community development and organising charity funds in small communities particularly ravaged by hunger. She had been struck by the great number of children each family had, and had been complaining to a local that she couldn't understand why these people would continue to bring children into the world when it would only mean more privation and hunger for the rest. If only they were more educated! If only they knew more about contraception and planned their pregnancies better. The local had stared at her like she was nuts, and said, "These children are our pensions. They are our security. They are our savings. You think we should stop preparing for the future because we go hungry?"

The paradigm shift for me was this. We in the West have ignored our own example when dealing with the developing world. I have always been taught, and have always believed that education was the reason for the declining birth rate in developed nations. It seemed obvious...the more people know, the less children they have. This of course assumes that conception is an act of ignorance; ignorance of the consequences of a large family in times of scarcity, ignorance of contraception, ignorance of abstinence. Once you learn about these things, down goes the birthrate. But that isn't what happened in the West.

Large families were common in the West up until my own generation. My grandmother had 17 siblings. My mother has fourteen. I have four. Most people my age have one, or two. Were my great-grandma and my grandmother ignorant women? Did education stop my mother from having so many children? Am I even more educated than my mother, with only two children? Will I be considered ignorant when I adopt two more, and perhaps give birth to another two? Do I not have ready access to contraception and information about planning pregnancies?

What I have that my great-grandmother and grandmother did not, is security. I have a job that will provide me with a pension. I live in a country with social programs that can catch me if I fall into unemployment, become disabled or otherwise unable to provide for myself and my family. I live in a country where my children's education is free, and where a trip to the doctor doesn't mean economic hardship. I live in a country with unions (weaker now than before, but still existant) and labour laws which guarantee me a living wage and benefits. I know that even if I am maimed, or killed, my children will be taken care of. If I live to a ripe, old age, I will not be destitute. The social policies of my country provide me with this security.

Much like my great-grandmother, who used to tell me stories of putting her children to bed during the day so they would sleep and not feel hunger, or of adding water to a single egg to make enough food for everyone, families in the developing world do not have this security. Their children are their security. They are the ones who will help with work in the fields or around the home, in India, the male children bring the promise of a bride's dowry, in the Philipines, female children bring the possibility of work as nannies overseas and money sent home; children are the ones who will provide for their parents in old age, care for them, nurse them, house and feed them, just as they were cared for, nursed, housed and fed. Many children, even in poverty, bring security that is simply not there otherwise. The governments, the social systems in these countries are lacking; they have not developed an alternative to the age-old dependance on flesh and blood. We in the West have conquered this dependence, but now we want people in the 'Third World' to stop having so many children. We want to bring them education, contraception, and 'self-control'. We want this to happen, without the necessary security in place to compensate for a low birthrate.

Is a woman in Eritrea ignorant for having twelve children? In her community she is considered rich. Even if many of her children die, she still has security. Is her community ignorant? No, only realistic. A childless woman has no future; who will take care of here when she can no longer work?

I think we are approaching the issue of 'overpopulation' wrongly. Education, contraception, abstinence....none of these programs are ever going to successfully address the underlying lack of security which drives the poor of the world to procreate. If we really believe that the global birthrate is a serious issue, we need to deal with the root causes that prevent it from being reduced. Sterilization projects, as were carried out in India during the 1970s did nothing but rob families of their potential savings.

What do you think?

Well said. I'll have to think about this for a while, but I think you are on to something.

look at the world 50 years ago, most moms satyed home. (dads are a welcome stay at home figure,i think it just depends on who makes more money) there were less problems.

I also particularly like the rosy picture painted here...ah, the idyllic world of 50 years ago...1955...(the year my father was born, incidentally)....right smack dab in the middle of the Cold War...the Panamanian president is assasinated, West Germany becomes a sovereign nation, the Warsaw Pact comes into existence, Emmett Till is shot for whistling at a white woman, another military coup in Argentina, John Gilbert Graham puts a time bomb in a DC-6B, there are Soviet nuclear tests in Siberia, Rosa Parks gets arrested...quiet, quiet, tranquil times that. I guess it at went to pot when mothers started working instead of staying home with their kids (or when fathers didn't fill in for them and stay home themselves). Ah, to go back fifty years...

Ok, now I'm going to demand some proof. Or is this just your humble opinion? You're welcome to it...but don't represent it as fact unless you can back it up.

I was raised in Kindergarten, my son has been with childminders since he was 3 months old. My wife was sent to day care as a child. We have no criminal records, no deep inbuilt resentment of these actions. During the long summer holidays, my son pleads to go back to kindergarten (he's too old now), despite always having something to do if he wants to.
Our maid is a single mother, whose child is in day care while she works for us. During the school holidays her daughter has to stay with the maid's sister. Every time, so far, the child has become ill while staying with the family.

No evidence that I can see that child care children suffer. More the contrary from my personal experience (Relax Sinuhue, child care is good.)

You are being ethnocentric.
how so? i have a particular set of values, one which states that it is wrong for any individual to expect others to support them. i LIKE when children choose to support their parents, just as i like when friends reach out for each other or when extended family comes together to help each other, but i have zero sympathy for any person who makes poor choices because they expect a sibling, child, or government to save their butt.

yes. how are you arguing the fact that people should raise their own children?? that is so ridiculous to think that people have a couple kids, and then charge off, living their lives in search of attaining their dreams. i am not going to attempt to debate this with you. if you are a person who would put your own kids ( idont know if you are, but it seems like it) in the hands of society to raise, thats your deal.
i was in daycare, latchkey, and a variety of out-of-home care situations all through my young life, and my parents certainly were not abandoning me to seek their own pleasures. as a matter of fact, i believe it is much much BETTER for children to be in out-of-home care, and studies in child psychology support my position; children who have out-of-home care tend to be better able to interact with peers, they tend to score higher on emotional maturity tests, and they tend to be far more able to deal with changes in routine.

my parents were poor when they had me, and we would not have been able to eat if either of them had tried to stay home with me, but even after we became more affluent my parents continued to send my brother and i to daycare. this is because we LIKE it, we asked to stay in daycare, and because our parents believed that it was what was best for us. we spent plenty of time with our parents, and i have a very deep bond with both of my folks.

if you think that anybody who chooses daycare for their kids is "charging off" or leaving their kids to be raised by "society" then you clearly haven't the slightest idea what parenting is about, nor are you mature enough to be dictating child welfare. you also most certainly ARE trying to reduce things to simply black versus white, and doing a piss-poor job of providing any support for your views.

how so? i have a particular set of values, one which states that it is wrong for any individual to expect others to support them. i LIKE when children choose to support their parents, just as i like when friends reach out for each other or when extended family comes together to help each other, but i have zero sympathy for any person who makes poor choices because they expect a sibling, child, or government to save their butt.
because our culture has come to value independant existance. we pride ourselves on living our own lives on our own terms.

other cultures put family first. the thought that anyone would look down on their mother because she didnt provide for her future except through them would seem horrifying.

thats what ethnocentric means eh?

I've always suspected something like this. The more children one has that get jobs in the city, the more money that goes home to ma and pa. In fact, if you look, all of the rich nations have fertility rates at or below replacement level.
The biggest anomoly is the former Soviet republics. They have tremendously low birthrates, but they are quite poor.

I've always suspected something like this. The more children one has that get jobs in the city, the more money that goes home to ma and pa. In fact, if you look, all of the rich nations have fertility rates at or below replacement level.
The biggest anomoly is the former Soviet republics. They have tremendously low birthrates, but they are quite poor.
must be because they arent an agricultural society so the benfits of extra children are WAY down the road compared to a society where you can put the kids to work and an early age.

must be because they arent an agricultural society so the benfits of extra children are WAY down the road compared to a society where you can put the kids to work and an early age.

Brazil has a population growth rate of 1.11% (source (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html#People)) and is a basically agrarian, but relatively poor society. There is something more at work here. It would be interesting to see a plot of population growth rate against % of agriculture/fishing/primary raw material extraction in the economic activity of the country. Any ideas on where to find such data?

Perhaps...but who decides WHO is sterilised? Forced sterilization is, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of human rights. Encouraging sterilization, not so much...but it should be the person's choice. Forced sterilization is too much like ethnic cleansing...just a 'kinder and gentler' form.
It wasn't forced. As in soldiers drag you out of your house to the next clinic.
Thats why there were only so few who got sterilized. If it had been forced they would have reached their goal.

I was raised in Kindergarten, my son has been with childminders since he was 3 months old. My wife was sent to day care as a child. We have no criminal records, no deep inbuilt resentment of these actions. During the long summer holidays, my son pleads to go back to kindergarten (he's too old now), despite always having something to do if he wants to.
Our maid is a single mother, whose child is in day care while she works for us. During the school holidays her daughter has to stay with the maid's sister. Every time, so far, the child has become ill while staying with the family.

No evidence that I can see that child care children suffer. More the contrary from my personal experience (Relax Sinuhue, child care is good.)
Ah yeah. I loved kindergarten. I hated the weekends. Couldn't wait for it to be monday again. Of course that changed once I went to pre-school. The weekends suddenly didn't look so bad anymore. :D

Brazil has a population growth rate of 1.11% (source (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html#People)) and is a basically agrarian, but relatively poor society. There is something more at work here. It would be interesting to see a plot of population growth rate against % of agriculture/fishing/primary raw material extraction in the economic activity of the country. Any ideas on where to find such data?
i have no idea where to find such data but it sure would be interesting to look at.

how does brazil compare to other south american countries?

i have no idea where to find such data but it sure would be interesting to look at.

how does brazil compare to other south american countries?

Country Population Growth Rate %
Argentina 1.02
Bolivia 1.56
Brazil 1.11
Chile 1.01
Ecuador 1.03
Guyana 0.61
Paraguay 2.51
Peru 1.39
Suriname 0.31
Uruguay 0.51
Venezuela 1.44

No evidence that I can see that child care children suffer. More the contrary from my personal experience (Relax Sinuhue, child care is good.)
:D Yes, I did get a bit frothy around the mouth, didn't I?

I've always suspected something like this. The more children one has that get jobs in the city, the more money that goes home to ma and pa. In fact, if you look, all of the rich nations have fertility rates at or below replacement level.
The biggest anomoly is the former Soviet republics. They have tremendously low birthrates, but they are quite poor.
Funny you mention them...I was just looking at a Peters Atlas which tracks education levels, birthrates and so on and so forth. I'm not sure if it's a hold over from communism, but Russia especially still has an incredible literacy rate, low student to teacher ration, high levels of post secondary education, and yes, low birthrates. Nonetheless, inflation is staggering, external debt astounding, and prostitution rampant. It's kind of a weird place...in transition I guess.

It wasn't forced. As in soldiers drag you out of your house to the next clinic.
Thats why there were only so few who got sterilized. If it had been forced they would have reached their goal.
It wasn't SUPPOSED to be forced....nor was it supposed to be directed at specific ethnic groups. Read Rohinton Mistry's "A Fine Balance" for a really chilling description of forced sterilization. Yes, it's a work of fiction, but based on real events. It's a great read anyway (and he's Canadian, yay!).

I was raised in Kindergarten, my son has been with childminders since he was 3 months old. My wife was sent to day care as a child. We have no criminal records, no deep inbuilt resentment of these actions. During the long summer holidays, my son pleads to go back to kindergarten (he's too old now), despite always having something to do if he wants to.
Our maid is a single mother, whose child is in day care while she works for us. During the school holidays her daughter has to stay with the maid's sister. Every time, so far, the child has become ill while staying with the family.

No evidence that I can see that child care children suffer. More the contrary from my personal experience (Relax Sinuhue, child care is good.)
maid?? childminder?? works for you???? slavery, south american style.

i was in daycare, latchkey, and a variety of out-of-home care situations all through my young life, and my parents certainly were not abandoning me to seek their own pleasures. as a matter of fact, i believe it is much much BETTER for children to be in out-of-home care, and studies in child psychology support my position; children who have out-of-home care tend to be better able to interact with peers, they tend to score higher on emotional maturity tests, and they tend to be far more able to deal with changes in routine.

my parents were poor when they had me, and we would not have been able to eat if either of them had tried to stay home with me, but even after we became more affluent my parents continued to send my brother and i to daycare. this is because we LIKE it, we asked to stay in daycare, and because our parents believed that it was what was best for us. we spent plenty of time with our parents, and i have a very deep bond with both of my folks.

if you think that anybody who chooses daycare for their kids is "charging off" or leaving their kids to be raised by "society" then you clearly haven't the slightest idea what parenting is about, nor are you mature enough to be dictating child welfare. you also most certainly ARE trying to reduce things to simply black versus white, and doing a piss-poor job of providing any support for your views.
AHEM!!!! APPARENTLY YOU DOD NOT READ MY POST WHERE I EXCLUDED POOR AND LOWER WORKING CLASS FAMILIES. I WAS TALKING ABOUT MIDDLE TO UPPERCLASS CITIZENS!!!! helllo? did that get your atttention? read the damn thread.

Overpopulation?

Solution: War, I'm serious.

Education? Well, children got to eat. If their stomach's hungry, they can't study. Hence their working 24/7 in the factories.

Contraception? Too late for that IMO. Plus the distribution of it, the cost, and also would people use it? To them, having more children can be a blessing.. more children to work the farms or the factories to support the family. Another mouth to feed, but another hand that can work. (If there is work in the country). They have sex because thats the only source of pleasure available to them outside the stresses of life.

Economic Security? What economic security? If your government can support you. Maybe.

Funny you mention them...I was just looking at a Peters Atlas which tracks education levels, birthrates and so on and so forth. I'm not sure if it's a hold over from communism, but Russia especially still has an incredible literacy rate, low student to teacher ration, high levels of post secondary education, and yes, low birthrates. Nonetheless, inflation is staggering, external debt astounding, and prostitution rampant. It's kind of a weird place...in transition I guess.
Well, the Soviet Union didn't go down cause of undereducation.

Well, thats not exactly earth shacking news. That woman working in Eritrea IMO is the ignorant one if she didn't know that children in those countries are also their retirement fund. Thats something I believed was widely known. What most westerners however always seem to overlook is, that even in countries who have social systems, like you mentioned, children were and still are our retirement fund as well. Cause who will keep those systems well funded and running if not the next generations?
You're a genius. I thought there was something missing and you found it for me. When the costs of caring for the elderly are socialized, it doesn't do you much good to have more children. This might solve the alleged problem of overpopulation, but... suddenly there aren't enough young people to pay for all the old people. This has gotten to be a pretty big deal in the US lately. I've heard it's also quite a problem in Japan. I get nervous when ever people talk about solving overpopulation.

maid?? childminder?? works for you???? slavery, south american style.
Ah...now you equate childcare with slavery...nice. *flushes toilet on that argument*

AHEM!!!! APPARENTLY YOU DOD NOT READ MY POST WHERE I EXCLUDED POOR AND LOWER WORKING CLASS FAMILIES. I WAS TALKING ABOUT MIDDLE TO UPPERCLASS CITIZENS!!!! helllo? did that get your atttention? read the damn thread.
I was so hoping you were going to say this….let’s examine some of your posts, shall we?

most working class poor families have relatives watch the kids, they typically cant afford daycare. and thats a good thing. in societies around the world, children raised with in a family structure are better off. kids raised at kindercare are not.

You didn’t stipulate that only middle class kids are not ‘better off at kindercare’. You said kids, period. You are making blanket assumptions, which you have provided no proof for, only anecdotes. You really have no idea whether kids are ‘better off’in one situation or the other.

you were very quick to argue a point that was very bottom line and OBVIOUS. anyone knows if you are the only caregiver of a child, you have to work.

Yes, and you are ignoring the fact that many families can no longer survive on one income…so it’s okay for the single parent family, but not for the two-parent family? Oh, wait, I forgot that you were targeting ONLY middle class ‘suburbanites’, so it’s okay for everyone but the suburban middle class.

these middle clss people i am talking about, most work all day, pick up the kids after 5 30. the homework is done, and all interaction having to do with school is over. they make dinner, give em a shower, watch an hour of TV, maybe read them a book, and toss them in bed. thats 3 hours a day of childraising. insufficient, i say. weekends are crammed with sports. even worse. the world over needs to realize the generation being raised this moment, esp in the US, will be the most self centered, unwordly selfish leaders of tomorrow. they know where the problems lie, but they are unwilling to give up that shiny new SUV to fix them.

Let me ask you this…do you support mandatory education for children? Because that means there are in a school for seven hours, maybe longer if they have to take a bus, under the care of their teacher. Most teachers see these kids more than their parents do. Does that invalidate parenting? Scratch it out? Do teachers have more influence on kids than their parents do? As a teacher, I can tell you unequivocally, NO. Do you complain that people are abandoning their kids in school? Or is that only okay because they have to? Is there some magic cut-off where kids separated from their parents is okay?

Ah...now you equate childcare with slavery...nice. *flushes toilet on that argument*
i am sorry. one kid and you cant clean your house or cook your own meals? give me a break. hiring someone to do that def. means you look down on them- hence the fact they are a menial servant.

keep flushing the toilet. flush your long posts down too. you are very argumenative, and most likely to be a nightmare shrew of a wife.

nice way to end the debate- but i am not up for your rants.

i am sorry. one kid and you cant clean your house or cook your own meals? give me a break. hiring someone to do that def. means you look down on them- hence the fact they are a menial servant.

keep flushing the toilet. flush your long posts down too. you are very argumenative, and most likely to be a nightmare shrew of a wife.

nice way to end the debate- but i am not up for your rants.
Beautiful example of ad hominem. Thank you for admitting your opinion is based on nothing more than prejudice. So sorry I called you on it.

The majority of votes is still for education and contraception, yet the majority of people who have posted on the topic seem to think it goes deeper than this...those of you who voted education and contraception, did you do so because there wasn't an "all of the above" option, or did you really not think economic security was an important factore?

AHEM!!!! APPARENTLY YOU DOD NOT READ MY POST WHERE I EXCLUDED POOR AND LOWER WORKING CLASS FAMILIES. I WAS TALKING ABOUT MIDDLE TO UPPERCLASS CITIZENS!!!! helllo? did that get your atttention? read the damn thread.
so youre saying that "poor" women who have limited choice MUST let their child rot in daycare, and thats FINE because well what else to do

but if a woman is "rich" so she has choices she MUST chain herself to the house and do nothing but childcare and thats BEST because ..... her children are more important??

it seems to me that if a mother taking care of her children 24/7 is that important then we should be making sure that "poor" women have that option. and not diss them for taking that option (lazy welfare queen staying home with her children)

in reality, taking care of children 24/7 sucks. all mothers should have the option to have their children watched by family or professionals for a reasonable amount of time each week just so she can keep her freaking sanity. it is not wrong of women who have the option to take the option.

The majority of votes is still for education and contraception, yet the majority of people who have posted on the topic seem to think it goes deeper than this...those of you who voted education and contraception, did you do so because there wasn't an "all of the above" option, or did you really not think economic security was an important factore?

To be honest, Your initial post was too long. So most people didn't even read it and voted.

And, It depends whether you believe economic security is possible in super poor countries like India, Indonesia and some parts of Africa, where the government itself is too poor to feed itself.

A good question is whether have we enough resources to feed the citizens of the world?

My opinion to that, Is I don't think so.

I voted for 'Other'. Only way to overcome overpopulation is war.

I don't think this is widely known. Even I had taken into account that with high infant mortality rates, women in the South have many kids because only some may survive, or they need help around home, or the are counting on their children to support them in their old age. However, I still believed that education was the answer. I had to think about my own circumstance to see it differently....I want a lot of kids. I have a University degree, and have access to plenty of contraceptive education. I'm not having children out of ignorance, I'm having them out of want. Go and give every woman in Eritrea a University education, but change nothing else...you'll have a bunch of really smart mothers of 9 or 12.

But in most aid agencies, education is the main focus. We look at our own countries and say, "Education accounts for the low, or negative birthrates". But it doesn't. We know it, but we haven't really thought about it. Education is seen as the panacea.

Well like the other fellow stated, WHat your talking about is a widely studied and widely understood fact among intellectuals in western socieites, even if common folk dont take the time to learn. Eduaction is the cure for over population... as is seen in western socities even asian ones.. As education becomes more wide spread number of children women have decreases dramatically and they start having children much later in life to take advantage of their educations. What your talking about is already widely known.. controception education really has little if not anything to do with it.. eduacation alone the answer to overpopulation.

If you look at things on a broad spectrum.. yes each of these factors come into play because each of them are nessesary to become a developed nation.. but if you simply look at the basic building blocks .. eduaction is the core which will essentially bring about each other aspect on the voting list.. as people within a soceity become more educated, they become more likely to use things like controception, they become exposed to new labor opprotunities giving them more economic stability, as well as the society benifiting from higher education levels, on a whole the soceity advances bringing more stability... Everthing is rooted in education which is why most action groups focus on eduation.

You know, resorting to ad hominem, personal attacks gets you nowhere. If you want a place where you can make baseless inflammatory statements, and NOT get called on it, you won't find it here. Suck it up, get some facts, and don't take it personally.

i would pay money for the emotion that allows one to take things personally. i just happen to know that your debates and getting all fired up gets you off.so , i figured i would frustrate you to no end. it is called mind warfare. welcome to the world.

now go play with your kids.

i would pay money for the emotion that allows one to take things personally. i just happen to know that your debates and getting all fired up gets you off.so , i figured i would frustrate you to no end. it is called mind warfare. welcome to the world.

now go play with your kids.
You know nothing! Your conclusion that debates get her off speaks volumes about you! Your need for mind warfare says you have no appreciation of the sorts of truths that everyone hold dear! Give me money for this!

So there.

Did I succeed in getting personal, and so overcoming your emotionlessness android state?

You know nothing! Your conclusion that debates get her off speaks volumes about you! Your need for mind warfare says you have no appreciation of the sorts of truths that everyone hold dear! Give me money for this!

So there.

Did I succeed in getting personal, and so overcoming your emotionlessness android state?
sorry. nope. nice try though. if you want to really succeed, you may need a nuclear weapon.