From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:40:26 GMT

[You say that we don't have overpopulation yet.
We will one day, but we don't yet.
People are crowded together because they choose to (or have to out
of financial necessity)...
and so on...]

Why do we have to wait until it get unbearable to limit population growth?!
There's a saying in german (there probably is one in english,too, but I can't
think of it now): That you usually don't cover the old well, until the child
has fallen into it and died.
You seem to be looking primarily at the United States. Although you do
mention third world countries, you only do so briefly. Fact is (like you
say), the main problem is not in this country. It IS however in other 
countries. Maybe for lack of education. Who knows. But how are you going
to convince those countries to limit population growth, if you do
nothing about it HERE?! Very narrow-minded (like the rest of this discussion
I should add).

>control population growth, but I will fiercely oppose population control by
>force, until it becomes absolutely, absolutely necessary.  There is a

Like I said.. Why wait until it's too late? Because it's comfortable? Because
if we do it now it might actually affect YOU? It's ok if we do it later,
but not now, since I will be affected. Is that it? Moron.

You also mention that we can do a whole big deal of good through education.
Look around you. What does your education system look like? Does it look
like it's teaching anyone anything? It is not. So how do you expect to teach
people not to have kids and why, if you can't even teach them to add 1+1?

>I don't know what the
>number should be; I have a feeling it's somewhere between two and three.
>Some couples will one child, or no children - that means that others can have
>more than two, if they want.  We don't have this situation now, but I think
>it's premature to say that we can't have it without the use of force. 
Well, but that wouldn't work. If you said that everyone could have two to three
children, assuming that some people don't have children, then you are basing 
your math on faith. And we all know how well that mixes. What is to prevent 
everybody from having two or three children? Nothing. So we're back to 
square one.


>What a loss of freedom that would be!
Life's a pain and then you die. Life's not fair. Loss of freedom. So what.
Really. So you give up a little bit of freedom, so your children (the one's
that you should be allowed to have) have it easier in the future.
Or would you rather have your children look back on you and blame you for the
mess that you left them to deal with. 

It would be a whole lot simpler to deal with the problem now than later.
Now you can prevent growth. What are you going to do when the people
are in existance? 'Terminate' them to solve overpopulation? Tell people
to have NO kids, since we have to get a population DECREASE because
we now have too many?! Good idea..

>In communist China, there are forced abortions, and
>they're not uncommon.  There are forced sterilizations, and they're even more
>common.  Is that what you would want to see in this country?  I don't think
>you do, but the approach you're suggesting leads in that direction.
>
No. My suggestion would actually prevent that. Look at their situation.
They HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE. So they have to implement drastic measures.
We don't yet, so we can come up with less drastic measures to prevent from
going in that direction.

Get it? Or do I have to spell it letter by letter?
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17274 alt.politics.democrats.d:581 alt.politics.elections:23945 talk.politics.misc:60432