NationStates Jolt Archive

Proof of how pro-natal policies make a difference, debunking some people's claims, especially on the left, that immigration is necessarry.
It should be noted that despite its success, France isnt ideal. High unemployment such as in France cause uncertainity in future which lowers birthrate. And their childcare policies are far from perfect despite being light years ahead of countries such as Germany.


As Europe Grows Grayer, France Devises a Baby Boom

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A01

JUMEAUVILLE, France -- When the municipal day-care center ran out of space because of a local baby boom, the town government gave Maylis Staub and her husband $200 a month to defray the cost of a "maternal assistant" to care for their two children.

When Staub delivered twins last December -- her third and fourth children -- the nation not only increased their tax deductions and child allowances, the government-owned French train system offered 40 percent discounts off tickets for the parents and the children until they reach their 18th birthdays.

"The government favors families a lot," said Staub, 35, a project manager for a French cellphone company. "They understand that families are the future. It's great for us."

While falling birthrates threaten to undermine economies and social stability across much of an aging Europe, French fertility rates are increasing. France now has the second-highest fertility rate in Europe -- 1.94 children born per woman, exceeded slightly by Ireland's rate of 1.99. The U.S. fertility rate is 2.01 children.

In many European countries, park benches are filled with elderly residents. In France, parks overflow with boisterous children, making it an international model for countries struggling with the threat of zero population growth. In recent months, officials from Japan, Thailand and neighboring Germany have traveled to France to study its reproductive secrets.

But the propensity of women here to have more babies has little to do with notions of French romance or the population's formerly strong religious ties to the Roman Catholic Church.

France heavily subsidizes children and families from pregnancy to young adulthood with liberal maternity leaves and part-time work laws for women. The government also covers some child-care costs of toddlers up to 3 years old and offers free child-care centers from age 3 to kindergarten, in addition to tax breaks and discounts on transportation, cultural events and shopping.

This summer, the government -- concerned that French women still were not producing enough children to guarantee a full replacement generation -- very publicly urged French women to have even more babies. A new law provides greater maternity leave benefits, tax credits and other incentives for families who have a third child. During a year-long leave after the birth of the third child, mothers will receive $960 a month from the government, twice the allowance for the second child.

A century ago, France was one of the first European countries to face a declining population. Since then, almost every elected French government -- regardless of party -- has instituted laws that encourage bigger families and make it easier for women to keep their jobs while raising children.

"Politicians realized they had to encourage people to have more babies if they didn't want to live in a country of old people," said France Prioux, director of research for France's National Institute of Demographic Studies.

Most of the subsidies and allowances are income-based, giving low-income families the most help. But higher-income families also receive substantial benefits so that only a fraction of a working mother's salary goes to child-care costs.

In Jumeauville, a rural hamlet of picturesque stone houses and about 500 inhabitants a 45-minute drive west of Paris, the Staubs are part of a trend most European countries crave to emulate: expanding families fleeing the cities and suburbs in search of larger houses and gardens, helping to replenish the village's declining and aging population of farmers.

When Staub became pregnant with twins last year, the family moved out of their cramped apartment in suburban Paris and into a renovated stone farmhouse with massive plate-glass windows and exposed wood beam ceilings in Jumeauville, which translates in English as Twin City.

Staub, a slender woman with an animated face framed by honey-colored hair that brushes her shoulders, took a year off from her job at SFR, a major cellphone company, collecting monthly maternity leave benefits and a guarantee that her job would be waiting for her when she returned.

Under French law, a woman can opt not to work or to work part time until her child is 3 years old -- and her full-time job will be guaranteed when she returns. "In other countries, maternity leaves are seen as a handicap for mothers who want to have a career," Staub said. "It's different in France."

A colleague at Staub's company, Axelle de Barbeyrac, 35, also has four children, including twins. She works four days a week, a part-time schedule that she can continue, with government subsidies, until the twins are 3 next year.

She lives in the Paris suburb of Ville d'Avray, a 10-minute train ride west of the La Defense high-technology, high-rise corridor on the edge of the capital where both women work. Barbeyrac catches the 5:09 p.m. train home, walks to the government-subsidized day-care center where her 2 1/2 -year-old twins have spent the day ($670 a month for both), then picks up Ines, 8, and Feh, 6, at the after-school program that ends at 6 p.m. ($75 a month for the two).

As she arrives home to begin the four-child assembly line in the bathtub, the sidewalks around her cream-colored stucco house are crowded with schoolchildren on scooters and mothers pushing a stroller with one hand and gripping a toddler with the other.

"I don't know if the French system encourages women to have more children," said Barbeyrac, whose husband is a documentary filmmaker. "But people don't stop having children because of money concerns."

Maylis Staub agrees. Staub, who is married to a lawyer, returned to work in August. Instead of using the government-supported day-care centers, she hired a nanny -- subsidized by tax breaks on part of the nanny's salary -- to care for her 10-month-old twins, Quitterie and Hermine.

When both women's twins reach 3 years of age, they will qualify for the free government preschool programs that most French children attend until kindergarten.

"The child-care system in France is very well thought out," said Staub, sitting on a sofa on a recent Saturday afternoon with feverish 8-year-old Margaux on one side, fidgety 6-year-old Jules on the other, and one of the twins on her lap. "Everything is organized to make mothers' lives easier."

The French system also fosters different attitudes about working mothers. French working moms say they feel far less guilt than friends in the United States or Europe because French society recognizes children are well cared-for while mothers are at work.

As a result, French women are not only having more children than their European counterparts, but far more of them work outside the home than in most European countries. Three-fourths of all French mothers with at least two children are employed.

"In Mediterranean countries and Germany, it's work or children," said Marie-Therese Letablier, research director of the Center for Employment Studies. "In France, it's work and children."

"French society encourages mothers to work," Staub said. "The way work hours and vacation time are organized also helps families a lot. I have 36 days of paid holidays per year -- it's great to spend time with your children."

In the summer, French families can send their children to generous summer camp programs. Government recreation centers in virtually every French village and urban neighborhood offer a full day of activities, including trips to museums, farms and swimming pools -- along with snacks and three-course lunch -- for fees ranging from about 65 cents to $12 a day, based on family income.

At the same time, private French firms and services also cater to big families with working parents.

Staub's pediatrician makes house calls when her children are sick or need checkups, a practice common in rural and urban areas.

"Society evolves quickly and also makes life easier for working mothers," Staub said.

"I refuse to go shopping on weekends, and waste our family time on that. I order everything on the Internet and have it delivered at home."

Researcher Corinne Gavard contributed to this report.


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701652_3.html)

Hurrah... now there can be more good, Christian, white, ethnic French people :rolleyes:

Wait, explain to me why a population that's not expanding is a bad thing? I mean, last I checked there are far too many people on this planet for it to sustain us. How is breeding like rabbits helpful?

Hurrah... now there can be more good, Christian, white, ethnic French people :rolleyes:

And that, my friends, shows the ignorance of many people in the world. Evidence of how schools should talk more about the world today instead of the world (Rome, Byzantium) of the past.

And that, my friends, shows the ignorance of many people in the world. Evidence of how schools should talk more about the world today instead of the world (Rome, Byzantium) of the past.
*sighs* I hope you know how much I hate Nordland...

Because I was being very, very sarcastic.

Wait, explain to me why a population that's not expanding is a bad thing? I mean, last I checked there are far too many people on this planet for it to sustain us. How is breeding like rabbits helpful?
The country's birth rate is too low.

Hurrah... now there can be more good, Christian, white, ethnic French people :rolleyes:
Oui, c'est bon.

I dont know if they have heard in France, but there's his slight overpopulation problem on Earth.

:p

That's some extremely progressive thinking towards encouraging population growth without resorting to immigration. It sounds like it will pay off when this generation grows up.

I dont know if they have heard in France, but there's his slight overpopulation problem on Earth.

:p

The annoucements were made in English... and the translation isn't yet available.

The country's birth rate is too low.

Too low for what exactly?

I dont know if they have heard in France, but there's his slight overpopulation problem on Earth.

:p

Tell it to the africans who are having 6,7 children per women.

I dont know if they have heard in France, but there's his slight overpopulation problem on Earth.

:p
Overpopulated countries can (and should) reduce population to replacement rate. The opposite goes for countries suffering low birthrates.

That's some extremely progressive thinking towards encouraging population growth without resorting to immigration. It sounds like it will pay off when this generation grows up.
It is.

Oui, c'est bon.
Ehh... non... c'est un peu triste à mon avis.

The annoucements were made in English... and the translation isn't yet available.

Ah. Too busy translating Jerry Lewis comedies. Understandable. :)

Too low for what exactly?
To surpass the death rate. It must be 2.1. That is the optimal replacement rate. Unless a country is welfare-lite, the costs of immigration and integrating immigrants can be immense (for instance, estimated at at least 50 billion kroner in Sweden, on top of all the country's other costs). This may be less of a drain on the nation's finances.

Too low for what exactly?

By "too low" it means to have the adequate replacement levels to fulfill the jobs that will be vacated by the aging generations, so the economy and society doesn't implode on itself.

Ehh... non... c'est un peu triste à mon avis.
Tant pis pour toi.

Tell it to the africans who are having 6,7 children per women.

I did. They said that with an average life expectancy of only 25, they need to punch out kids at factory assembly line rates.

What's France's excuse? :p

By "too low" it means to have the adequate replacement levels to fulfill the jobs that will be vacated by the aging generations, so the economy and society doesn't implode on itself.

And considering that France is one of the most important tech developing countries in the world, such an implosion might be worse for environment than the reduction in emmissions due to population decline.

By "too low" it means to have the adequate replacement levels to fulfill the jobs that will be vacated by the aging generations, so the economy and society doesn't implode on itself.

Given France's dismal unemployment numbers I find that argument suspect.

Tant pis pour toi.
Pas vraiment...

And considering that France is one of the most important tech developing countries in the world, such an implosion might be worse for environment than the reduction in emmissions due to population decline.
Ehmm... but they'll be less people actually polluting the world...

And children born now are probably going to live until 2080... so that's a really shitty argument...

Given France's dismal unemployment numbers I find that argument suspect.
France is below replacement rate. As for its unemployment rate, blame its economy. It is not flexible.

I did. They said that with an average life expectancy of only 25, they need to punch out kids at factory assembly line rates.

What's France's excuse? :p

More Frenchmen annoys the living daylights out of conservative Americans.

Overpopulated countries can (and should) reduce population to replacement rate. The opposite goes for countries suffering low birthrates.

Why should countries on the right track by reducing population and slowing the booming global population try to reverse that trend?

France is below replacement rate. As for its unemployment rate, blame its economy. It is not flexible.

Maybe you missed it, there are too many people on this planet. Blathering on about the replacement rate is meaningless.

I did. They said that with an average life expectancy of only 25, they need to punch out kids at factory assembly line rates.

What's France's excuse? :p

Get back to them and tell them despite "25 yo life expectancy", which it isnt that low, their population is still increasing EXPONENTIALLY.

Why should countries on the right track by reducing population and slowing the booming global population try to reverse that trend?
To sustain their economies, of course. France wants a "social economy" - it must then choose the cheapest and most optimal solution to sustain this form of economy.

More Frenchmen annoys the living daylights out of conservative Americans.

They deserve eachother. :p

Maybe you missed it, there are too many people on this planet. Blathering on about the replacement rate is meaningless.
Maybe you missed it, but this only applies to certain regions of the world. Improving the birthrate to 2.1 will not contribute to overpopulating the world - reducing it in countries where it is much higher will though. Compare a change of 0.4, say, in France, to one of 6.0 elsewhere.

Ehmm... but they'll be less people actually polluting the world...

And children born now are probably going to live until 2080... so that's a really shitty argument...

Dont be silly. They might be polluting it worse since they might not develop greener technologies due to economic problems.

Tell it to the africans who are having 6,7 children per women.And how many of those children are surviving to adulthood to have children of their own?

Overpopulated countries can (and should) reduce population to replacement rate. The opposite goes for countries suffering low birthrates.
Western Europe is some of the most densely populated land in the world.

Western Europe is some of the most densely populated land in the world.
Densely populated =/= overpopulated.

Get back to them and tell them despite "25 yo life expectancy", which it isnt that low, their population is still increasing EXPONENTIALLY.
Ehmm... where, exactly?

To sustain their economies, of course. France wants a "social economy" - it must then choose the cheapest and most optimal solution to sustain this form of economy.

Okay, you lost me. :confused:

Okay, you lost me. :confused:
How is an economy supposed to operate without labour? Welfare states require a constant flow of new blood into the market to keep them running. If France falls to below-optimal population numbers, how will it sustain its economy?

I can provide a source with the cost of the alternative, immigration. It has another alternative, of course. Becoming welfare-lite.

And how many of those children are surviving to adulthood to have children of their own?


Western Europe is some of the most densely populated land in the world.

Ehmm... where, exactly?



Despite a projected increase in mortality due to AIDS, we cannot expect a significant slowing down of population growth in Africa. This continent will contribute 1.3 billion people to the world population between 1995 and the middle of the next century - almost twice as much as its current total population. Fertility is still so high in Sub-Saharan Africa that it can offset the effect of rising mortality. With an increase of 734 million over the next 30 years Africa's population will more than double.

..........

By far the highest rates of population growth can be found in Western Asia and Africa South of the Sahara.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

Maybe you missed it, but this only applies to certain regions of the world. Improving the birthrate to 2.1 will not contribute to overpopulating the world - reducing it in countries where it is much higher will though. Compare a change of 0.4, say, in France, to one of 6.0 elsewhere.

Holy crap look!

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/maps/globaldens.pdf

Europe is overpopulated. Sustaining that overpopulation does not help anything. Not to mention that first world countries use more resources per person than other nations.

How is an economy supposed to operate without labour? Welfare states require a constant flow of new blood into the market to keep them running. If France falls to below-optimal population numbers, how will it sustain its economy?

I can provide a source with the cost of the alternative, immigration. It has another alternative, of course. Becoming welfare-lite.

Immigration is an excellent source of labor. Look at the US, we use immigrants to keep our economy afloat.

Holy crap look!

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/maps/globaldens.pdf

Europe is overpopulated. Sustaining that overpopulation does not help anything. Not to mention that first world countries use more resources per person than other nations.
Being realistic, how is the French economy meant to sustain itself with a falling birthrate?

Again, Europe is densely populated, not overpopulated - although I agree, it could do with a halving of its population over time.

France is below replacement rate. As for its unemployment rate, blame its economy. It is not flexible.

But they're producing more future welfare leeches at a higher rate than before... go France!

How is an economy supposed to operate without labour? Welfare states require a constant flow of new blood into the market to keep them running. If France falls to below-optimal population numbers, how will it sustain its economy?

I can provide a source with the cost of the alternative, immigration. It has another alternative, of course. Becoming welfare-lite.

So let me get this straight: France needs to ensure a constant flow of young people to make certain that there are enough productive people being introduced into the system to maintain the quality of life of all the unproductive people being introduced into the system?

My head hurts. :(

Immigration is an excellent source of labor. Look at the US, we use immigrants to keep our economy afloat.
Apples and oranges. The US economy is much more welfare-lite. And you are hardly what I'd cite as the perfect (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069) example...

For France, it would be more akin to Sweden - where the cost of immigrants per year is 50 billion Kroner and rising - that is to say, in addition to any other costs the nation incurs.

Holy crap look!

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/maps/globaldens.pdf

Europe is overpopulated. Sustaining that overpopulation does not help anything. Not to mention that first world countries use more resources per person than other nations.

This is really silly. Debating so passionately against efforts to stabilize european population while africa will grow about 1.3 billion people in less than 50 years.

So let me get this straight: France needs to ensure a constant flow of young people to make certain that there are enough productive people being introduced into the system to maintain the quality of life of all the unproductive people being introduced into the system?

My head hurts. :(
The unproductive are the elderly, and all other dependents of the system. They are there whether France changes its birth system or not. Using immigrants to sustain them is no better alternative. It will in the end result in the same problem.

The option that France could pursue is to end this cycle of dependence.

Apples and oranges. The US economy is much more welfare-lite. And you are hardly what I'd cite as the perfect example...

For France, it would be more akin to Sweden - where the cost of immigrants per year is 50 billion Kroner and rising - that is to say, in addition to any other costs the nation incurs.

See? There's the problem right there. You treat your immigrants like people.

You actually ship them in. Try making them sneak across the border. They'll be nice and desperate and will work quietly and cheaply. :)

The unproductive are the elderly, and all other dependents of the system. They are there whether France changes its system or not. Using immigrants to sustain them is no better alternative. It will in the end result in the same problem.

The option that France could pursue is to end this cycle of dependence.

Isn't have more babies simply delaying the cycle? These ones will get old too, unless you plan on euthanizing them at 65.

This is really silly. Debating so passionately against efforts to stabilize european population while africa will grow about 1.3 billion people in less than 50 years.

If it'll make you feel better, I'd be perfectly happy if Africa's birth rate were just as low as Europe's. :D

This is really silly. Debating so passionately against efforts to stabilize european population while africa will grow about 1.3 billion people in less than 50 years.

Given the rate AIDS is chewing through them? Also you may note Europe is far more densely populated than Africa.

Here's another map:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/map-192.html

Isn't have more babies simply delaying the cycle? These ones will get old too, unless you plan on euthanizing them at 65.
Of course, but France as it is has no option. It must choose between two evils. That is to say, for it to currently sustain itself, more babies may be cheaper than immigration and subsequent integration.

The unproductive are the elderly, and all other dependents of the system. They are there whether France changes its birth system or not. Using immigrants to sustain them is no better alternative. It will in the end result in the same problem.

The option that France could pursue is to end this cycle of dependence.

Kill the old people. It works in 'Logan's Run'. :)

Kill the old people. It works in 'Logan's Run'. :)
How about throwing them in gulags? :) The Chinese are doing something akin to this right now. It'll give the miserable wretches real market value.

Given the rate AIDS is chewing through them? Also you may note Europe is far more densely populated than Africa.

Here's another map:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/map-192.html

Did you not read the excerpt from that article? So many sub-Saharan African women are having so many children, that the AIDS rate doesn't even make a damn bit of difference.

How about throwing them in goulash? :)

Fixed. :D

Soylent Goulash. Yum. :)

Of course, but France as it is has no option. It must choose between two evils. That is to say, for it to currently sustain itself, more babies may be cheaper than immigration and subsequent integration.

Wouldn't it be easier to deal with the dependants now than later? Or at least to just get it over with.

Would all the gay people in this thread please quit lecturing everyone on the value of having lots of kids? :)

Wouldn't it be easier to deal with the dependants now than later? Or at least to just get it over with.
How exactly? Unless you mean introducing a welfare-lite state and a sustainable rate of immigration, I can think of little else (humane) to solve its cyclical problem.

Given the rate AIDS is chewing through them? Also you may note Europe is far more densely populated than Africa.

Here's another map:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/map-192.html

Yes, read the previous quote. And:


Figure C1_3: Total Population by Region, 1950, 1995, 2025, and
2050 (in million) UN Medium Variant.
http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/2245/reg1aqp9.gif


http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/figc1_3.htm

Wait, explain to me why a population that's not expanding is a bad thing? I mean, last I checked there are far too many people on this planet for it to sustain us. How is breeding like rabbits helpful?

Ideally, the world population would be around 1 billion. However, if Western societies don't reproduce enough, there will be too few workers to pay their welfare programs, to the point that they would have to abandon them or face the complete implosion of their economies, something that has already begun to happen in nations like France.

And then of course, there's the risk of extinction. After all, if a society halves its population every 30 years, it won't be long before there are 0 people left.

Ideally, the world population would be around 1 billion. However, if Western societies don't reproduce enough, there will be too few workers to pay their welfare programs, to the point that they would have to abandon them or face the complete implosion of their economies, something that has already begun to happen in nations like France.

And then of course, there's the risk of extinction. After all, if a society halves its population every 30 years, it won't be long before there are 0 people left.
Thank you. This is what I've been arguing all along.

For those who haven't watched this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069), do so.

A rather controversial solution would be to restrict breeding rights to one child for all but 5% of national populations globally for one generation... The consequence would be a hugely reduced population. Perhaps 600 million globally. The bad part is that it infringes on human rights.

*sighs* I hope you know how much I hate Nordland...

Because I was being very, very sarcastic.

Mmmkay, sarcasm is good.

I've learned to take everything seriously, first hand experience.

Ideally, the world population would be around 1 billion. However, if Western societies don't reproduce enough, there will be too few workers to pay their welfare programs, to the point that they would have to abandon them or face the complete implosion of their economies, something that has already begun to happen in nations like France.

And then of course, there's the risk of extinction. After all, if a society halves its population every 30 years, it won't be long before there are 0 people left.

What exactly do you mean by "ideally"?

Do you mean that it would be better if we all lived in small towns? I shudder at that thought, because small towns are boring. Massive cities, like New York, are fun, since there's so much to see and do.

What's "ideal" for you isn't exactly ideal for everyone else... And don't go throwing starvation and mortality rates at me, because I honestly don't give a shit, and I don't fucking have to.

Would all the gay people in this thread please quit lecturing everyone on the value of having lots of kids? :)
So weighing up the costs of such programmes vs immigration for welfare-heavy states is now the privilege of heterosexuals, is it?

What exactly do you mean by "ideally"?
Ideal in terms of environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. Living in a city of 500 000 is no worse than one of 5 000 000. Read Wilhelm Roepke's "A Humane Economy" or Huxley's "Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited". Educate yourself on overpopulation.

I'd recommend you visited Stockholm and Gothenburg in Sweden, and compare an overgrown menace to a city.

Ideal in terms of sustainable. Living in a city of 500 000 is no worse than one of 5 000 000. Read Wilhelm Roepke's "A Humane Economy" or Huxley's "Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited". Educate yourself on overpopulation.

How about a big fat no?

You're suggesting that it's reasonable to control what people decide to do with their own lives, just so we can have a "sustainable" economy? Fuck that.

Progress is progress, no matter how many people this planet may contain in a hundred years. And if Earth ends up as one gigantic city in about a thousand years, then so be it. Change is what makes things interesting. Trying to keep things "stable" is both idiotic and sadly hilarious.

How about a big fat no?

You're suggesting that it's reasonable to control what people decide to do with their own lives, just so we can have a "sustainable" economy? Fuck that.

Progress is progress, no matter how many people this planet may contain in a hundred years. And if Earth ends up as one gigantic city in about a thousand years, then so be it. Change is what makes things interesting. Trying to keep things "stable" is both idiotic and sadly hilarious.
If you're a so-called environmentalist, I recommend you reconsider your political affiliations.

This is a matter of sustainability and viability. If the world were to become one overgrown city it is most likely it'd be impossible to live in it. Most developed countries already show a downward tendency in birthrates - developing countries are now trying to emulate this to curb excessive growth.

Don't read the books. Remain a fool. Visit China, by the way.

What exactly do you mean by "ideally"?

Do you mean that it would be better if we all lived in small towns? I shudder at that thought, because small towns are boring. Massive cities, like New York, are fun, since there's so much to see and do.

What's "ideal" for you isn't exactly ideal for everyone else... And don't go throwing starvation and mortality rates at me, because I honestly don't give a shit, and I don't fucking have to.

Where did that come from?:confused:

"Ideally" meaning that if you want to live in New York with lots of other people, you can do so, but if you want to live in a quiet town, then there is a quiet town you can live in.

Also, when resources such as water are easily reprenishable.

How about a big fat no?

You're suggesting that it's reasonable to control what people decide to do with their own lives, just so we can have a "sustainable" economy? Fuck that.

Progress is progress, no matter how many people this planet may contain in a hundred years. And if Earth ends up as one gigantic city in about a thousand years, then so be it. Change is what makes things interesting. Trying to keep things "stable" is both idiotic and sadly hilarious.

I agree, change can sometimes be good, but it can also sometimes be bad.

BUT, the economy is VERY important. In a world where people want money for food (because they need it to get their food, a sad thought), no economy would kill off an entire population.

I say if we had to lose one rainforest in the preservation of the human race, then so be it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a debate, just donating my two cents.

Where did that come from?:confused:

"Ideally" meaning that if you want to live in New York with lots of other people, you can do so, but if you want to live in a quiet town, then there is a quiet town you can live in.

Also, when resources such as water are easily reprenishable.
What he doesn't realize is that our current trends in growth are not sustainable. The population is exploding globally, in certain regions. Our economies are not expanding accordingly. Therefore, something must be done before we pay dearly for it. I'd rather live in a world where water doesn't end up becoming scarce due to overpopulation. It's not a countryside vs urban centres argument, it is one of economic logic.

Where did that come from?:confused:

"Ideally" meaning that if you want to live in New York with lots of other people, you can do so, but if you want to live in a quiet town, then there is a quiet town you can live in.

Also, when resources such as water are easily reprenishable.

So true. If you don't like the big city with a lot of pollution (but with a great economy), then move to a quite place (like Plain People recidences) OR start a quite residence of your own.

Nobody is forcing you to live in the city...

Also, when resources such as water are easily reprenishable.

Reprehensible?

Reprehensible?
Replenishable.

What he doesn't realize is that our current trends in growth are not sustainable. The population is exploding globally, in certain regions. Our economies are not expanding accordingly. Therefore, something must be done before we pay dearly for it. I'd rather live in a world where water doesn't end up becoming scarce due to overpopulation.

Well, our economy (United States) is doing very well, and we've still got plenty of open space out here. Just go down to North Carolina or even densely populated states like New Jersey (especially in the north) and you'll find that we have enough room for everyone. If countries like Yemen don't have a decrease in population, it will probably result in a massive catastrophe such as famine, or disease due to lack of clean water, and they will have to deal with it, but it's not anywhere close to being a problem in the U.S.

In any case, regulating how many babies a couple can have goes against the very fundamentals of individual liberty we Westerners hold, so I certainly hope that's not what you're suggesting.

Well, our economy (United States) is doing very well, and we've still got plenty of open space out here. Just go down to North Carolina or even densely populated states like New Jersey (especially in the north) and you'll find that we have enough room for everyone. If countries like Yemen don't have a decrease in population, it will probably result in a massive catastrophe such as famine, or disease due to lack of clean water, and they will have to deal with it, but it's not anywhere close to being a problem in the U.S.
Watch the video I posted up.

In any case, regulating how many babies a couple can have goes against the very fundamentals of individual liberty we Westerners hold, so I certainly hope that's not what you're suggesting.
Giving incentives to have them isn't though, is it? Good for us, the countries with the largest populations out there aren't liberal - and there is reasonable doubt as to whether countries their size could be, until they reduce in size.

Watch the video I posted up.


Giving incentives to have them isn't though, is it? Good for us, the countries with the largest populations out there aren't liberal - and there is reasonable doubt as to whether countries their size could be, until they reduce in size.

1. Will do

2. You're still given a choice. No one is implanting a sperme into a woman's uterus. If you're going to have forced abortion, that takes away choice.

If you're a so-called environmentalist, I recommend you reconsider your political affiliations.

This is a matter of sustainability and viability. If the world were to become one overgrown city it is most likely it'd be impossible to live in it. Most developed countries already show a downward tendency in birthrates - developing countries are now trying to emulate this to curb excessive growth.

Don't read the books. Remain a fool. Visit China, by the way.

1: I'm an environmentalist, but I'm also pro-growth. Environmentalism should be attained with growth in mind, not with it in check.

2: True that it's a matter of sustainability and viability, and the fact is, we as a race can sustain ourselves at the moment, because we still have plenty of room to expand. And it's also true that the birth rates in Western European countries are going down, which is actually good at the moment.

I'm just saying that it's pretty difficult to avoid the inevitable. This planet's population will continue to grow, regardless of what any government does (unless world governments become police states) to try to curb it. Birth rates will go down in some areas, but it's highly unlikely that the global population will actually fall.

And to try to make it fall is a terrible thought, because controlling people in that way would require horrific actions on behalf of world governments. Incentives are one thing, but they don't always work for everyone. If one country's birthrate gets out of control, what do you suppose should be done? Execution of children in the name of population control? Mandatory vasectomies? Social "police" who tell parents when they can and cannot have children?

You can tell me to read these books to gain perception of the world, but I already perceive it quite well enough. I don't need someone else to tell me how things are. Looking at the world through your own eyes is better than seeing it through the (sometimes blurred) eyes of others.

Well, our economy (United States) is doing very well, and we've still got plenty of open space out here. Just go down to North Carolina or even densely populated states like New Jersey (especially in the north) and you'll find that we have enough room for everyone. If countries like Yemen don't have a decrease in population, it will probably result in a massive catastrophe such as famine, or disease due to lack of clean water, and they will have to deal with it, but it's not anywhere close to being a problem in the U.S.

It doesn't really matter how much space there is. We could fit all 6 billion people in Rhode Island. It's the other resources we all need.

1: I'm an environmentalist, but I'm also pro-growth. Environmentalism should be attained with growth in mind, not with it in check.

2: True that it's a matter of sustainability and viability, and the fact is, we as a race can sustain ourselves at the moment, because we still have plenty of room to expand. And it's also true that the birth rates in Western European countries are going down, which is actually good at the moment.

I'm just saying that it's pretty difficult to avoid the inevitable. This planet's population will continue to grow, regardless of what any government does (unless world governments become police states) to try to curb it. Birth rates will go down in some areas, but it's highly unlikely that the global population will actually fall.

And to try to make it fall is a terrible thought, because controlling people in that way would require horrific actions on behalf of world governments. Incentives are one thing, but they don't always work for everyone. If one country's birthrate gets out of control, what do you suppose should be done? Execution of children in the name of population control? Mandatory vasectomies? Social "police" who tell parents when they can and cannot have children?
Actually we (I) were thinking maybe we could try education? Horrific, no?

It doesn't really matter how much space there is. We could fit all 6 billion people in Rhode Island. It's the other resources we all need.

Wow. That'd make Hong Kong look like a sandbox by comparison. :p

Wow. That'd make Hong Kong look like a sandbox by comparison. :p

Heh, no kidding. Another way, we could give everybody a chunk of land from Texas large enough for a house.

What he doesn't realize is that our current trends in growth are not sustainable. The population is exploding globally, in certain regions. Our economies are not expanding accordingly. Therefore, something must be done before we pay dearly for it. I'd rather live in a world where water doesn't end up becoming scarce due to overpopulation.

The problem really is worldwide, but rather in some places.

The birth rate/death rate of the U.S is about 1 birth per 11 seconds, and 1 death per 20 (not sure about the death rate).

BUT, you have places like India with a birth rate of 1 birth per second, but a death rate of 1 death per 10 seconds (again, not sure on the death rate).

The solution isn't killing or anything, it's just to stop having people reproduce so often.

Actually we (I) were thinking maybe we could try education? Horrific, no?

Education would be excellent, but would that really stop enough people from having children?

1. Will do
Excellent.

2. You're still given a choice. No one is implanting a sperme into a woman's uterus. If you're going to have forced abortion, that takes away choice.
These states should focus on birth prevention, and limiting birth rates until they reduce to reasonable levels.

1: I'm an environmentalist, but I'm also pro-growth. Environmentalism should be attained with growth in mind, not with it in check.
The two positions are irreconcilable.

2: True that it's a matter of sustainability and viability, and the fact is, we as a race can sustain ourselves at the moment, because we still have plenty of room to expand. And it's also true that the birth rates in Western European countries are going down, which is actually good at the moment.
We, as a species. Lebensraum isn't what I speak of - it is resources, and especially natural resources. They are depleting alarmingly fast - this in the future will practically mandate totalitarianism in order to ration them. Unless nature takes its course... no Western state would allow this though.



And to try to make it fall is a terrible thought, because controlling people in that way would require horrific actions on behalf of world governments. Incentives are one thing, but they don't always work for everyone.
China already does so many other hideous things, do you honestly think it cares about something this trivial?

You can tell me to read these books to gain perception of the world, but I already perceive it quite well enough. I don't need someone else to tell me how things are. Looking at the world through your own eyes is better than seeing it through the (sometimes blurred) eyes of others.
They are written by people who have done immense research on the matter. You'd learn quite a bit from them.

Heh, no kidding. Another way, we could give everybody a chunk of land from Texas large enough for a house.

20x20 standard upper-middle class lot, or 10x10 sub-working class lot? :p

The solution isn't killing or anything, it's just to stop having people reproduce so often.
Which again may mandate the curbing of certain rights (namely, that to breed) - the biggest nations currently are also the most illiberal. In some ways, it's a fortunate coincidence.

Education would be excellent, but would that really stop enough people from having children?

Possibly. But hell, apparently every other option is horrific, might as well do this, can't hurt...

Education would be excellent, but would that really stop enough people from having children?

Nope.

Someone needs to find a way o do the following:

Stop people from raping (lots of children born that way)
Have everyone use condoms (lots of children born from people not having protection, accidents).

I guess if things get REALLY bad, we'd have to resort to the way the Chinese are handeling it. I shudder to think if that were to happen.

1: I'm an environmentalist, but I'm also pro-growth. Environmentalism should be attained with growth in mind, not with it in check.

2: True that it's a matter of sustainability and viability, and the fact is, we as a race can sustain ourselves at the moment, because we still have plenty of room to expand. And it's also true that the birth rates in Western European countries are going down, which is actually good at the moment.

I'm just saying that it's pretty difficult to avoid the inevitable. This planet's population will continue to grow, regardless of what any government does (unless world governments become police states) to try to curb it. Birth rates will go down in some areas, but it's highly unlikely that the global population will actually fall.

And to try to make it fall is a terrible thought, because controlling people in that way would require horrific actions on behalf of world governments. Incentives are one thing, but they don't always work for everyone. If one country's birthrate gets out of control, what do you suppose should be done? Execution of children in the name of population control? Mandatory vasectomies? Social "police" who tell parents when they can and cannot have children?

You can tell me to read these books to gain perception of the world, but I already perceive it quite well enough. I don't need someone else to tell me how things are. Looking at the world through your own eyes is better than seeing it through the (sometimes blurred) eyes of others.

Care to eloborate?

20x20 standard upper-middle class lot, or 10x10 sub-working class lot? :p

Hmm, lemme check.

...What can you fit on 1,247 sq ft?

Which again may mandate the curbing of certain rights - the biggest nations currently are also the most illiberal. In some ways, it's a fortunate coincidence.

Is that a word?

Is that a word?

Indeed.

Main Entry: that
Pronunciation: '[th]at, [th]&t
Function: pronoun
Inflected Form(s): plural those /'[th]Oz/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thæt, neuter demonstrative pronoun & definite article; akin to Old High German daz, neuter demonstrative pronoun & definite article, Greek to, Latin istud, neuter demonstrative pronoun
1 a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation <that is my father> b : the time, action, or event specified <after that I went to bed> c : the kind or thing specified as follows <the purest water is that produced by distillation> d : one or a group of the indicated kind <that's a cat -- quick and agile>
2 a : the one farther away or less immediately under observation or discussion <those are maples and these are elms> b : the former one
3 a -- used as a function word after and to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous word or phrase <he was helpful, and that to an unusual degree> b -- used as a function word immediately before or after a word group consisting of a verbal auxiliary or a form of the verb be preceded by there or a personal pronoun subject to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous verb or predicate noun or predicate adjective <is she capable? She is that>
4 a : the one : the thing : the kind : SOMETHING, ANYTHING <the truth of that which is true> <the senses are that whereby we experience the world> <what's that you say> b plural : some persons <those who think the time has come>
- all that : everything of the kind indicated <tact, discretion, and all that>
- at that
1 : in spite of what has been said or implied
2 : in addition : BESIDES

Is that a word?
It is, albeit a slightly misused one.

1. narrowminded; bigoted.
2. Archaic.
a. not generous in giving; miserly; niggardly; stingy.
b. Chiefly Literary. without culture or refinement; unscholarly; vulgar.

Is that a word?

lol, if he meant "il-liberal", then I think he meant conservative.

If not, then I'm not sure.

EDIT: Dang, posted it late. He explained.

lol, if he meant "il-liberal", then I think he meant conservative.

If not, then I'm not sure.
Totalitarian, not conservative.

So weighing up the costs of such programmes vs immigration for welfare-heavy states is now the privilege of heterosexuals, is it?
No. But fact of the matter is that raising a child is a horrible thing. Not only do you go through all the emotional anguish, but you lose many, many years of your life irretrievably as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In fact, the only people who should be having this discussion are people who are either seriously considering having children or already have them. It's ridiculous that we who have never even considered destroying our livestyles like that should act like we have anything to add to the discussion.

The two positions are irreconcilable.


We, as a species. Lebensraum isn't what I speak of - it is resources, and especially natural resources. They are depleting alarmingly fast - this in the future will practically mandate totalitarianism in order to ration them. Unless nature takes its course... no Western state would allow this though.




China already does so many other hideous things, do you honestly think it cares about something this trivial?


They are written by people who have done immense research on the matter. You'd learn quite a bit from them.


1: How's that? If we, as a people, develop our technology to the point where air pollution is negligible, how can this position be "irreconcilable"? It's not like the planet is going to explode with twelve billion more people within the next two centuries.

2: I hope you're not giving the Totalitarianism option a free pass, here.

3: Who said I was talking about China? Though no, I doubt they wouldn't give much thought to doing such things.

4: Maybe so. But, I doubt it. I already hear enough idiots claiming that my country is "severely over-crowded", when it's just 300,000,000 people in over 3,000,000 square miles of space. Seems hardly over-populated to me, especially since whenever I go out of cities, there's literally endless countryside to be seen.

Care to eloborate?

Sorry, I meant species on that one.

Hmm, lemme check.

...What can you fit on 1,247 sq ft?

My house is just over 1,300 square feet, and it's a bit too large for the way I live. 900 square feet would fit my lifestyle perfectly, so plop me on a 10x10, my good man! :p

1: How's that? If we, as a people, develop our technology to the point where air pollution is negligible, how can this position be "irreconcilable"? It's not like the planet is going to explode with twelve billion more people within the next two centuries.
We've jumped to six billion from less than a billion within a century. You underestimate population growth. And our technology is nowhere near that level.


2: I hope you're not giving the Totalitarianism option a free pass, here.
I am saying it is perhaps no coincidence that these oversized nations are totalitarian - and if it is, it is one which is fortunate. China is still developing, and it is already becoming a huge drain on the environment and energy. Give it another century, and things will be worse.

3: Who said I was talking about China? Though no, I doubt they wouldn't give much thought to doing such things.
They are the largest nation out there. I suppose India should be considered too though.

4: Maybe so. But, I doubt it. I already hear enough idiots claiming that my country is "severely over-crowded", when it's just 300,000,000 people in over 3,000,000 square miles of space. Seems hardly over-populated to me, especially since whenever I go out of cities, there's literally endless countryside to be seen.
Resource depletion is a much greater concern. Space will be compromized, but later.

Indeed.

Main Entry: that
Pronunciation: '[th]at, [th]&t
Function: pronoun
Inflected Form(s): plural those /'[th]Oz/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thæt, neuter demonstrative pronoun & definite article; akin to Old High German daz, neuter demonstrative pronoun & definite article, Greek to, Latin istud, neuter demonstrative pronoun
1 a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation <that is my father> b : the time, action, or event specified <after that I went to bed> c : the kind or thing specified as follows <the purest water is that produced by distillation> d : one or a group of the indicated kind <that's a cat -- quick and agile>
2 a : the one farther away or less immediately under observation or discussion <those are maples and these are elms> b : the former one
3 a -- used as a function word after and to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous word or phrase <he was helpful, and that to an unusual degree> b -- used as a function word immediately before or after a word group consisting of a verbal auxiliary or a form of the verb be preceded by there or a personal pronoun subject to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous verb or predicate noun or predicate adjective <is she capable? She is that>
4 a : the one : the thing : the kind : SOMETHING, ANYTHING <the truth of that which is true> <the senses are that whereby we experience the world> <what's that you say> b plural : some persons <those who think the time has come>
- all that : everything of the kind indicated <tact, discretion, and all that>
- at that
1 : in spite of what has been said or implied
2 : in addition : BESIDES

Feh. :P

No. But fact of the matter is that raising a child is a horrible thing. Not only do you go through all the emotional anguish, but you lose many, many years of your life irretrievably as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In fact, the only people who should be having this discussion are people who are either seriously considering having children or already have them. It's ridiculous that we who have never even considered destroying our livestyles like that should act like we have anything to add to the discussion.

I want to have kids... When I reach 30. I want to have done many things before I really "settle down".

And I certainly don't want some big brother government telling me how many kids I can have, and when I can have them. Or if I can have any at all, for that matter.

Alright, now I watched that video, E. Maximus, and as far as making a case for immigration control, it was a compelling and excellent piece. However, that's not what we're arguing about. You're suggesting that it's necessary to force people to have abortions, and I'm saying no. That's the argument-no one is saying we should let anyone who wants to come in to our countries.

No. But fact of the matter is that raising a child is a horrible thing. Not only do you go through all the emotional anguish, but you lose many, many years of your life irretrievably as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You paint such a terrible image of it one would wonder what is the point of even having children.

In fact, the only people who should be having this discussion are people who are either seriously considering having children or already have them. It's ridiculous that we who have never even considered destroying our livestyles like that should act like we have anything to add to the discussion.
Given a choice between paying for "alien" dependents, or dependents who are their children (who can later in turn support them financially), I think it is fine to assume that most will prefer the latter. Both are burdens on them either way - initially. I have spoken to parents - in general they consider childrearing to be a joy, even if it is a painstaking one.

Alright, now I watched that video, E. Maximus, and as far as making a case for immigration control, it was a compelling and excellent piece. However, that's not what we're arguing about. You're suggesting that it's necessary to force people to have abortions, and I'm saying no. That's the argument-no one is saying we should let anyone who wants to come in to our countries.
Erm, I'm not arguing that. I am simply arguing that certain countries must reduce their birthrates, for their own sake and ours. That they have no scruples in how to achieve this leads to things such as mandatory abortions. That this will lead to better "breeding grounds" in the future for liberalism is what I mean by the "fortunate coincidence".

We've jumped to six billion from less than a billion within a century. You underestimate population growth. And our technology is nowhere near that level.


I am saying it is perhaps no coincidence that these oversized nations are totalitarian - and if it is, it is one which is fortunate. China is still developing, and it is already becoming a huge drain on the environment and energy. Give it another century, and things will be worse.


They are the largest nation out there. I suppose India should be considered too though.


Resource depletion is a much greater concern. Space will be compromized, but later.


1: Actually, take a look at this. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html It shows that the estimated global population in 1900 was about 1.5 billion, reaching just over 6 billion in the year 2,000, with an estimated population of around 9 billion in 2050. And look here http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html for additional information. Hardly twelve billion more in a hundred or two hundred years, unless polygamy becomes all the rage in the 2100's.

2: Give it another century and see if things really are worse or not. Making sweeping generalisations and estimations is always easier, though.

3: China has more land and more people than India, but India has some extremely densely-populated cities, such as Mumbai... Though India's overcrowding has more to do with the way their cities were built rather than land and resource shortages.

4: Resource management is a concern, yes, but the only resource that we have to really worry about at the moment is oil. And space will eventually be compromised (see? I got you back!), but not anytime soon.

You make it paint such a terrible image of it one would wonder what is the point of even having children.
And so do many other people. How you dare criticise their choices, I don't know.

Both are burdens on them either way - initially.
But the latter much moreso than the former. Not to forget that people are myopic and won't weight the stress of having a child the same way as they weigh the stress of paying in small installments over the rest of their lives, little different from taxes.

I want to have kids... When I reach 30. I want to have done many things before I really "settle down".

And I certainly don't want some big brother government telling me how many kids I can have, and when I can have them. Or if I can have any at all, for that matter.

From what little I know of China's one child policy, it's a system of benefits and penalizations, you aren't literally being forced to have a specific number of children...Then again, I could do some studying...

Totalitarian, not conservative.

Ok, my bad. If there's anything (political-wise) that I need to do some research on, it's Totalitarianism (?).

1: Actually, take a look at this. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html It shows that the estimated global population in 1900 was about 1.5 billion, reaching just over 6 billion in the year 2,000, with an estimated population of around 9 billion in 2050. And look here http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html for additional information.

So we only jumped 4.5 billion, as opposed to over 5?

4: Resource management is a concern, yes, but the only resource that we have to really worry about at the moment is oil. And space will eventually be compromised (see? I got you back!), but not anytime soon.

Or yanno, water maybe?

From what little I know of China's one child policy, it's a system of benefits and penalizations, you aren't literally being forced to have a specific number of children...Then again, I could do some studying...

From what I've learned, the policy is that one family is allowed only 1 child (1 male child).

The Chinese do this to stop overpopulation and to also help the economy (since many Chinese businesses don't want to hire woman).

Pretty much a bad idea, because that was the first step in their exinction (you need woman to reproduce, you know).

From what I've learned, the policy is that one family is allowed only 1 child (1 male child).
They've been fighting that effect now though, since it's become apparent. Doctors no longer tell the parents the gender, and there are financial benefits offered to parents of girls.

1: Actually, take a look at this. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html It shows that the estimated global population in 1900 was about 1.5 billion, reaching just over 6 billion in the year 2,000, with an estimated population of around 9 billion in 2050. And look here http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html for additional information.
It'll be 1.5x its current amount in 50 years, and has 4x over the past 100. How is this not growth too fast? These are conservative estimates by the way. Our population is exploding - it has never been this high.

2: Give it another century and see if things really are worse or not. Making sweeping generalisations and estimations is always easier, though.
It's better to solve problems before they escalate out of control. We are already facing a problem as it is.

3: China has more land and more people than India, but India has some extremely densely-populated cities, such as Mumbai... Though India's overcrowding has more to do with the way their cities were built rather than land and resource shortages.
Both are overheating economies. Space is not the issue, although it may be in some cases.

4: Resource management is a concern, yes, but the only resource that we have to really worry about at the moment is oil. And space will eventually be compromised (see? I got you back!), but not anytime soon.
Water may suffer too as a consequence of excessive pollution due to overpopulation. Amongst other resources. Oil is simply the biggest concern, not the only one.

And so do many other people. How you dare criticise their choices, I don't know.
Comparing policies a welfare-heavy State may adopt to limit its demise =/= criticizing people's choices.

But the latter much moreso than the former. Not to forget that people are myopic and won't weight the stress of having a child the same way as they weigh the stress of paying in small installments over the rest of their lives, little different from taxes.
It would then be best to measure and compare the overal costs of child-rearing on the tax-payer versus those of immigration as it currently works, and also to find out if people would prefer paying for children over immigrants - we do live in so-called "democracies" after all.

Which again may mandate the curbing of certain rights (namely, that to breed) - the biggest nations currently are also the most illiberal. In some ways, it's a fortunate coincidence.

True, too.

This issue is tough. Honestly, I'm not going to pretend I know a way to solve it (I don't even think there's a way).

I mean, even if everyone were to adopt ultra Catholic (no offense) views on sex, and follow them 100%, then there would still be overpopulation (even if we were to start over).

Is there even a solution?

From what I've learned, the policy is that one family is allowed only 1 child (1 male child).

The Chinese do this to stop overpopulation and to also help the economy (since many Chinese businesses don't want to hire woman).

Pretty much a bad idea, because that was the first step in their exinction (you need woman to reproduce, you know).[/QUOTE]

They are allowed girls. The people themselves have a preference for male. Cultural sort of thing on one hand, on another, your future may depend on you child, and you lose a daughter, but a son brings one into the family.

So we only jumped 4.5 billion, as opposed to over 5?



Or yanno, water maybe?

Yes, but take a look at the Census Bureau's projections. Global population growth will begin to slow. If they're right, of course, but who's to say if they'll be right or wrong?

With sufficient desalination technology, water won't be a big problem. It could be a bit of a problem before the infrastructure is in place, though.

True, too.

This issue is tough. Honestly, I'm not going to pretend I know a way to solve it (I don't even think there's a way).

I mean, even if everyone were to adopt ultra Catholic (no offense) views on sex, and follow them 100%, then there would still be overpopulation (even if we were to start over).

Is there even a solution?

Don't "ultra-Catholic" views involve no contraception and "be fruitful"?

True, too.

This issue is tough. Honestly, I'm not going to pretend I know a way to solve it (I don't even think there's a way).

I mean, even if everyone were to adopt ultra Catholic (no offense) views on sex, and follow them 100%, then there would still be overpopulation (even if we were to start over).

Is there even a solution?

Actually, Catholic women are encouraged to have as many children as possible.

Yes, but take a look at the Census Bureau's projections. Global population growth will begin to slow. If they're right, of course, but who's to say if they'll be right or wrong?
This means nothing. Our population is already too high. If it climbs to 12 billion, things will be twice as bad (or far more, given that most of the growth will occur in poorer countries).

With sufficient desalination technology, water won't be a big problem. It could be a bit of a problem before the infrastructure is in place, though.
Desalination is costly, as is the water derived thereof.

Is there even a solution?
There are. Encouraging people in overpopulated countries to reduce birthrates significantly and offering them contraceptives (their State should do that, that is). Totalitarian states, like it or not, have more powerful measures. The ultimate solution (and I clarify that I am not condoning it) would be to only allow 5% of the planet to breed one child for a generation. That would drastically reduce population.

Natural catastrophes, pandemics etc. might also occur, as may wars. Again, I do not condone these measures, but their effect is nevertheless desirable.

This means nothing. Our population is already too high. If it climbs to 12 billion, things will be twice as bad.


Desalination is costly, as is the water derived thereof.

1: What should we do about that, then? Moon colony? Mars colony? Both could be possible, but would require massive leaps in technology. I still don't see state-sponsored birth control as an option. Ever.

2: True, but then again, freshwater filtration was an expensive process when it wasn't used by the masses (which was also when the technology for filtration was also quite crude).

Yes, but take a look at the Census Bureau's projections. Global population growth will begin to slow. If they're right, of course, but who's to say if they'll be right or wrong?

Of course, if we're already too high...

With sufficient desalination technology, water won't be a big problem. It could be a bit of a problem before the infrastructure is in place, though.

I hope you got some plans for, I dunno, nuclear power or something to power all those plants...And there's the matter of that very saline leftover...Flood the tablesalt market?

Hurrah... now there can be more good, Christian, white, ethnic French people :rolleyes:
Is it just me or do you actually have something against white people?

There are. Encouraging people in overpopulated countries to reduce birthrates significantly and offering them contraceptives (their State should do that, that is).

Now that's more like it. But, wouldn't government-supplied contraceptives run up the tax rate?

1: What should we do about that, then? Moon colony? Mars colony? Both could be possible, but would require massive leaps in technology. I still don't see state-sponsored birth control as an option. Ever.
Space colonization would costs millions, even billions, per capita. It is unrealistic. I've already outlined what these countries ought to do in my opinion - offer incentives to reduce population. They will do more than this though, given their totalitarian nature.

2: True, but then again, freshwater filtration was an expensive process when it wasn't used by the masses (which was also when the technology for filtration was also quite crude).
It occured in developed countries. The ones we speak of are either developing, or third world nations. This is not a matter of a luxury good becoming widely consumed - it is one of a basic good becoming even more scarce.

Now that's more like it. But, wouldn't government-supplied contraceptives run up the tax rate?
We're talking about totalitarian nations - I don't think this bothers them.

Now that's more like it. But, wouldn't government-supplied contraceptives run up the tax rate?

When they aren't supporting 4-10 kids, it may be easier to pay taxes.

We're talking about totalitarian nations - I don't think this bothers them.

Oh, I thought we were talking about both there. :p

Well yeah, that definitely wouldn't concern the likes of China. Ugh.

Actually, Catholic women are encouraged to have as many children as possible.
They're also encouraged to avoid casual sex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Catholic_teachings_on_human_sexuality

Some criticize the Church's teaching on fidelity, sexual abstinence and its opposition to promoting the use of condoms as a strategy to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, and STDs as counterproductive. However, the Church maintains that the promotion of abstinence is the only effective way to deal with the AIDS crisis.

Perhaps it does.

Comparing policies a welfare-heavy State may adopt to limit its demise =/= criticizing people's choices.
Dude, this is not about "comparing policies". This is about people like NN complaining that their sexual bias makes them unhappy at the thought of there being less white people around.

If people want children, they will have children. I agree that this should be made as easy as possible. I do not agree that we add the "now we have enough children!" argument to the list of things people use to surpress the free movement of people across the planet.

It would then be best to measure and compare the overal costs of child-rearing on the tax-payer versus those of immigration as it currently works, and also to find out if people would prefer paying for children over immigrants - we do live in so-called "democracies" after all.
Hmm, apart from us being unable to accurately measure the costs of immigration because right-wing nutjobs will invariably factor in intangibles to their liking...people are making their choice right now, aren't they? Or are they only making that choice if you agree with their decision?

Oh, I thought we were talking about both there. :p

Well yeah, that definitely wouldn't concern the likes of China. Ugh.
Dinaverg also made a good point - that fewer kids = lower costs.

As for our own nations, no. Welfare-heavy states have to maintain a sustainable birthrate.

I can provide a source with the cost of the alternative, immigration. It has another alternative, of course. Becoming welfare-lite.
Giving tax breaks, welfare payments and transport discounts is also welfare lite.

Ideally, the world population would be around 1 billion.
Ever read Joe Haldeman's the forever war? By 2458 the population of Earth was a billion people. They achieved that by making everyone in the world homosexual. :eek:

Dude, this is not about "comparing policies". This is about people like NN complaining that their sexual bias makes them unhappy at the thought of there being less white people around.
I am arguing it from that point of view though. NN's personal predilections are irrelevant to me.

If people want children, they will have children. I agree that this should be made as easy as possible. I do not agree that we add the "now we have enough children!" argument to the list of things people use to surpress the free movement of people across the planet.
It should be made easy as possible in welfare-heavy states, I will add. It is in these that immigration's costs is distorted.

Hmm, apart from us being unable to accurately measure the costs of immigration because right-wing nutjobs will invariably factor in intangibles to their liking...people are making their choice right now, aren't they? Or are they only making that choice if you agree with their decision?
Then why are so many with a view to restrict immigration? I agree this is not realistic, but given how most states are not welfare-lite and give little power to communities to decide on the level of immigration (or to the people in general), I don't see how it is the preferable alternative. If the French prefer children over immigrants, or vice-versa, so be it. I am measuring this in terms of choice and economic impact - all other considerations are irrelevant, nor do I care which choice they do ultimately make.

They're also encouraged to avoid casual sex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Catholic_teachings_on_human_sexuality

You turn your back on any NS thread and within 20 minutes it will be about sex... :p

Giving tax breaks, welfare payments and transport discounts is also welfare lite.
Depends on who receives the tax breaks, depends on what you mean by welfare payments and transport discounts, and in what context they are welfare-lite.

NN's personal predilections are irrelevant to me.
As if you didn't share them...

It should be made easy as possible in welfare-heavy states, I will add. It is in these that immigration's costs is distorted.
All choices should always be made as easy as possible. Whether it is having children or moving to another country. The government should not be implicitly or explicitly making that choice for you.

I am measuring this in terms of choice and economic impact - all other considerations are irrelevant, nor do I care which choice they do ultimately make.
If you were, there would be numbers, econometric models and reports. There aren't, so there's no use faking neutrality for either of us.

As if you didn't share them...
I am not factoring this in though, am I?


All choices should always be made as easy as possible. Whether it is having children or moving to another country. The government should not be implicitly or explicitly making that choice for you.
Do you suggest that it gets out of the way then or that it funds couples that wish to have children in the former case? As for the latter, giving communities more power to decide on the matter would be one step in that direction.

If you were, there would be numbers, econometric models and reports. There aren't, so there's no use faking neutrality for either of us.
That is why I ask for some to actually compare costs. I've not made up my mind which is the preferrable cost - I have merely stated what I will be basing my verdict on. In the absence of these, I argue that the people, or more realistically their respective communities, be given the power to make their choice.

I am not factoring this in though, am I?
Of course you are. You are subconsciously against immigrants because they violate your sense of aesthetic beauty. You have in the past said that you're only attracted to white people - and then you're telling me that you don't have some subconscious issues to work out? And that your subconscious attitudes don't shape and influence your conscious opinions?

Meh.

Do you suggest that it gets out of the way then or that it funds couples that wish to have children in the former case? As for the latter, giving communities more power to decide on the matter would be one step in that direction.
"Communities" deciding anything is always a mistake.

I would say that the government should make use of the free market both to encourage immigration and encourage having children. Reduce the costs of both to a minimum for those concerned (completely ignoring the rest of the "community"), and then sit back and do nothing more.

That is why I ask for some to actually compare costs. I've not made up my mind which is the preferrable cost - I have merely stated what I will be basing my verdict on.
To the point where you would actively support individual rights being violated by the mob.

Of course you are. You are subconsciously against immigrants because they violate your sense of aesthetic beauty. You have in the past said that you're only attracted to white people - and then you're telling me that you don't have some subconscious issues to work out? And that your subconscious attitudes don't shape and influence your conscious opinions?

Meh.


"Communities" deciding anything is always a mistake.

I would say that the government should make use of the free market both to encourage immigration and encourage having children. Reduce the costs of both to a minimum for those concerned (completely ignoring the rest of the "community"), and then sit back and do nothing more.


To the point where you would actively support individual rights being violated by the mob.


I was going to bite on his pseudo-Fascist nature, but I decided not to. Thanks for doing the work for me, dude. I'll be sending you a TG soon. :D

Of course you are. You are subconsciously against immigrants because they violate your sense of aesthetic beauty. You have in the past said that you're only attracted to white people - and then you're telling me that you don't have some subconscious issues to work out? And that your subconscious attitudes don't shape and influence your conscious opinions?

Meh.
You can neither prove nor disprove that my "sensibilities" have anything to do with my overall argument. Neither can I in your case. Therefore I see this as irrelevant.


"Communities" deciding anything is always a mistake.

I would say that the government should make use of the free market both to encourage immigration and encourage having children. Reduce the costs of both to a minimum for those concerned (completely ignoring the rest of the "community"), and then sit back and do nothing more.
How does one reduce the costs for having children but via the use of welfare measures, ergo increased government intervention? I am assuming via tax rebates (for instance, if we switched to consumption tax over income tax)?

To the point where you would actively support individual rights being violated by the mob.
Then all the costs of immigration should fall on the invitor of immigration. They should be responsible for integrating the individual into the society so that this cost is not externalized.

I was going to bite on his pseudo-Fascist nature, but I decided not to. Thanks for doing the work for me, dude. I'll be sending you a TG soon. :D

Man, I'm confused. This is some kind of free-for-all debate.

I was going to bite on his pseudo-Fascist nature, but I decided not to. Thanks for doing the work for me, dude. I'll be sending you a TG soon. :D
Just wait till you see my alternative then.

Man, I'm confused. This is some kind of free-for-all debate.
It's directly relevant to the article.

It's directly relevant to the article.

Nah, I mean, who's debating whom?

Nah, I mean, who's debating whom?
I am debating Neu Leonstein right now.

Proof of how pro-natal policies make a difference, debunking some people's claims, especially on the left, that immigration is necessarry.


If people didn't immigrate into France, I wouldn't exist. My English mother moved to France to marry my father.

My closest friends wouldn't exist either. One of them is half-Italian, two others are of half Tunisian Jewish background. Others are of Moroccan, Polish, Vietnamese or Black French Guyanan background. I know very few people who can claim all four of their grandparents were French-born. Amongst my closest friends, only one... and he's been living with his Chinese girlfriend for a while now, so his kids will be half-Chinese.

When I was in secondary school, in a fairly well-off neighbourhood, one year I was in a class with very few boys, and all of us were of immigrant background - from England, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Benin, Armenia, all over...

In urban areas, especially Paris and its suburbs, almost everyone is an immigrant, the child of an immigrant or the grandchild of an immigrant. That isn't going to change. And I'm glad it isn't. I owe my existence, and the existence of my best friends, to immigration. Having such a diverse population makes life more interesting.

And it means I can make fun of my Italian friend when France beats Italy at football, to make up for him making fun of me when France beats England. :D

If people didn't immigrate into France, I wouldn't exist. My English mother moved to France to marry my father.
Would you know any different if you didn't exist though? I certainly wouldn't - if certain Dutch people didn't emigrate to Africa I wouldn't exist either. Or if my parents used contraception potentially I wouldn't etc. What I mean is, any break in a chain of events could result to your non-existence - in the end, I still wouldn't know.

[/off topic]

Would you know any different if you didn't exist though? I certainly wouldn't - if certain Dutch people didn't emigrate to Africa I wouldn't exist either. Or if my parents used contraception potentially I wouldn't etc. What I mean is, any break in a chain of events could result to your non-existence - in the end, I still wouldn't know.

[/off topic]

Indeed. It's quite amazing when you think about it. Any one of your countless ancestors could very easily not have been born, for any number of reasons. If, say, around the year 450, or 115,590 BC, one of your ancestors had had an unfortunate accident before passing on his genes...

For instance, my mother's father only met his future wife after World War 2. Had the War not occured, he may very well have met and married someone else before that. And my mother would never have existed.

We are all statistically improbably. :D

Of course I wouldn't know it if I didn't exist. But since I do exist, I'm rather glad I do. ;)

We are all statistically improbably. :D
Yep, accidents of nature. :confused:

Yep, accidents of nature. :confused:

Doesn't that make us feel special. ;)

Actually, Catholic women are encouraged to have as many children as possible.
"'Plop 'till you drop'. No way am I having twelve kids, Homer!"

"No one's saying twelve, nine, ten tops."

~ from that Simpsons episode, where Homer & Bart go Catholic.

You can neither prove nor disprove that my "sensibilities" have anything to do with my overall argument. Neither can I in your case. Therefore I see this as irrelevant.
Perhaps not irrelevant, just not worthy of debate. Think about it though.

How does one reduce the costs for having children but via the use of welfare measures, ergo increased government intervention? I am assuming via tax rebates (for instance, if we switched to consumption tax over income tax)?
Well, apart from tax things (like the family splitting for example, where every member of the household is considered an individual receiving an equal share of the household's income, thus everyone paying in a lower tax bracket), cheap child care would be the most important thing.

People want income, they want money and they identify with their careers. Having a child is not only an emotional issue, but also a financial one. The only way to keep one's job is for the children to have a place to go.

That doesn't mean more government intervention though, it means better government intervention. Whether it be a voucher system or simply a more efficiently designed child care system. The article ultimately makes a good point in that the French seem to have been able to get a pretty decent system up and running, though I'm understandably sceptical about the link between that and birth rates.

Then all the costs of immigration should fall on the invitor of immigration. They should be responsible for integrating the individual into the society so that this cost is not externalized.
Integration is ultimately the responsibility and challenge of the immigrant, true. It requires an open mind and a bit of effort.
Government can certainly help as far as bureaucracy and language skills are concerned - but it can't do the trick on a personal level. But that's just part of the choice to immigrate into another country.

What can't be done is to be so "tolerant" that integration becomes no longer necessary. Because that's when immigration can become a serious issue politically and socially.

That doesn't mean more government intervention though, it means better government intervention. Whether it be a voucher system or simply a more efficiently designed child care system. The article ultimately makes a good point in that the French seem to have been able to get a pretty decent system up and running, though I'm understandably sceptical about the link between that and birth rates.
A voucher system (and said tax measures) would all make sense. As for the French system's success, obviously a dose of scepticism is healthy, because it ultimately perpetuates the cycle of dependence - it would perhaps be much better in a nation emphasizing workfare over welfare.

Integration is ultimately the responsibility and challenge of the immigrant, true. It requires an open mind and a bit of effort.
Government can certainly help as far as bureaucracy and language skills are concerned - but it can't do the trick on a personal level. But that's just part of the choice to immigrate into another country.
As well as the responsibility and challenge of the invitor, who most costs of immigration will ultimately fall upon. Assuming a minimal state, this should keep immigration at sustainable levels.

What can't be done is to be so "tolerant" that integration becomes no longer necessary. Because that's when immigration can become a serious issue politically and socially.
Agreed.

As well as the responsibility and challenge of the invitor, who most costs of immigration will ultimately fall upon.
What sort of challenges and responsibilities are you talking about?

What sort of challenges and responsibilities are you talking about?
Aiding the immigrant find accommodation, for instance. Almost no costs of immigration should be external, and most should be incurred by the individuals/corporations attracting them (including government taxes related to the matter) - just as the immigrant must find a job, and provide for themself as much as possible.

Almost no costs of immigration should be external, and most should be incurred by the individuals/corporations attracting them (including government taxes related to the matter)

Pardon me for coming into the middle like this, but how would this work? Let's say I own a business, and it "attracts" immigrants because immigrants can qualify to become employees. I should pay extra taxes now just because of this?

Aiding the immigrant find accommodation, for instance. Almost no costs of immigration should be external, and most should be incurred by the individuals/corporations attracting them (including government taxes related to the matter) - just as the immigrant must find a job, and provide for themself as much as possible.
Well, this is little different from people moving within the country, so yeah, the taxpayer shouldn't be asked to take care of that bill.

Pardon me for coming into the middle like this, but how would this work? Let's say I own a business, and it "attracts" immigrants because immigrants can qualify to become employees. I should pay extra taxes now just because of this?
You're the one benefitting from their labour, are you not? The idea is that immigration be invitation-conditional - ie that they must secure employment before entering the nation (your job offer is the invitation) - the slimmed down welfare/workfare system certainly won't be the attraction. I fail to see why other individuals who don't stand to gain directly from the exchange should pay for it. The employer is certainly more able to.

Aiding the immigrant find accommodation, for instance. Almost no costs of immigration should be external, and most should be incurred by the individuals/corporations attracting them (including government taxes related to the matter) - just as the immigrant must find a job, and provide for themself as much as possible.
I just had to pay $190 (USD) to ask my government politely if my wife can immigrate into the United States... this doesn't include the cost of a trip to Tokyo for herself and I, accomodations, the $340+ for the actual visa and related fees, and the time it took to fill in about 50 pages of documentation.

I also had to sign and prove the ability to support her for the rest of my natural life or until she works about 20 years, unless she becomes a US citizen.

Just noting that part.

The idea is that immigration be invitation-conditional - ie that they must secure employment before entering the nation (your job offer is the invitation) - the slimmed down welfare/workfare system certainly won't be the attraction.
Although other people should be allowed to come in as well. They just shouldn't be eligible for government money.

You're the one benefitting from their labour, are you not?

Not if I have to pay extra taxes. Besides, one can argue that any corporation or business "attracts" immigrants, the whole idea of immigration is because there are new employment opportunities.

What would happen with this is it becomes punitive - businesses would refuse to hire immigrants.

The idea is that immigration be invitation-conditional - ie that they must secure employment before entering the nation (your job offer is the invitation) - the slimmed down welfare/workfare system certainly won't be the attraction. I fail to see why other individuals who don't stand to gain directly from the exchange should pay for it. The employer is certainly more able to.

Everyone stands to gain from the benefit to the economy.

And since when is just being a good place for immigrants to work at, being an actual OFFER to people? Most businesses don't hire someone who's never even been to the country, until they actually come and immigrate. We're not talking a "We hire any and all immigrants, no questions asked!" kind of thing.

Not if I have to pay extra taxes. Besides, one can argue that any corporation or business "attracts" immigrants, the whole idea of immigration is because there are new employment opportunities.

What would happen with this is it becomes punitive - businesses would refuse to hire immigrants.

What I meant is levying a tax on employers as opposed to the general population to cover any government costs incurred from immigration. Not taxing employers specifically who hire immigrants.

What I meant is levying a tax on employers as opposed to the general population to cover any government costs incurred from immigration. Not taxing employers specifically who hire immigrants.

Oh.

Well that's almost as bad. :(

Look, my feeling is, if by income tax alone the government can afford to bomb Iraqis to death with billions of one-dollar bills, they can damn well afford a few health care costs. At least if they're gonna stick with public healthcare and whatnot. All it takes is a re-prioritization, from killing people to improving the economy.

Too much to ask from the US, probably.

Oh.

Well that's almost as bad. :(

Look, my feeling is, if by income tax alone the government can afford to bomb Iraqis to death with billions of one-dollar bills, they can damn well afford a few health care costs. At least if they're gonna stick with public healthcare and whatnot. All it takes is a re-prioritization, from killing people to improving the economy.

Too much to ask from the US, probably.
Oh, I'm not talking about those costs (or the US specifically). The assumptions are basically a minimal welfare/workfare state as Leonstein and I made brief mention of, which anyone who is a citizen can receive from - ideally working immigrants would be eligible too. The idea is to eliminate welfare parasitism. The costs I'm referring to are administrative costs and costs involved with integrating the immigrants really (e.g. language-learning).