From: rdp7784@yak.COM (Randy Payne)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: progeny limits (was "...toxicity of wood smoke")
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:14:38 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


Jeff writes:
>I'd much rather see some sort of morality develop among humans
>everywhere that makes it abhorrent for couples to have more than one child,
>than any of the multitude of fixes to the multitude of problems our species
>is causing.

Bob replies:
>Sorry, Jeff, but I couldn't disagree with you more.  And I sincerely
>hope that not many people share your view.  I will agree that there is 
>overcrowding in many places, but, in my mind, making more than one 
>child taboo or socially unacceptable is NOT a solution or desirable.
  
  As other posters have replied to your comments Bob, it appears there are 
  indeed others who do share Jeff's view.  The only problem there is NOT 
  ENOUGH people who feel that way.  Overpopulation is at the root of the 
  majority of the envirnomental problems facing us today.  Either, too many 
  people consuming too few resources (Mexico, Bangladesh, and India to name 
  a few) or more than enough people consuming far too many resources (the 
  good ol' US of A for one).
  
  I know of many women (and men) who have chosen not to have children who 
  are regularly 'harrassed' by parents and relatives (and some friends) saying, 
  "so when are you going to settle down and raise a family?"  As if they are 
  somehow incomplete as a human being or of less valuable to society for 
  choosing not to have a child.  This same type of morality that "something is 
  wrong with you by NOT deciding to have a child" needs to be changed to 
  "something is wrong with you by deciding TO have a child (or at the very 
  least MORE than one child)".  Our politicians need to stop saying, "let's 
  INCREASE tax credits for each child" (as proposed by both Bush and Clinton) 
  to "let's phase-out tax credits for each child over the next 20 years and
  then start PENALIZING for each child".
  
  The following was in sci.environment recently and I firmly agree with these 
  gentlemen's conclusions:
  
Alan McGowen writes:
<I've argued that the equilibrium human population should be under one
<billion, call it a nominal 0.5 billion. The precise value depends upon
<many tradoffs and could range as low as 100 million or as high as one
<billion. But one billion should not be the target.
<
<This is about a 90% reduction of the human population below current
<levels. It could be achieved by attrition alone (lowered birth rate)
<in less than two centuries without massive social upheaval.
<
<We need to transition to a society in which most couples have one child.
<That is about the best we can expect, but it would be a substantial
<improvement. Perhaps there would be special incentives for childless
<couples. The sale of the child bonds would provide some income, though
<I have no idea how much.
<
<There is little chance that human numbers can be brought down to levels
<compatible with the prospering of other species in less than 1-2 centuries.
<Many extinctions *will* occur during that interval. The most we can hope
<for is to try to keep them down to perhaps 
<30% of the diversity of the
<biosphere. Also, reduction of the extinction rate to zero implies
<significant amounts of habitat restoration within the next 1-2 centuries,
<not solely a reduction in human numbers.
  
Dan Taylor agrees:
<...The problem is that if we don't do something soon (the next 50 years) 
<there will not be a chance for a viable society that we would 
<recognize today.
<
<We must address the issue today, even if the inital steps are proven 
<wrong.  The status quo is not acceptable.
<
<My tagline emphasizes a harsh attitude, but as J.M. Keynes has stated, 
<"words ought to be wild for they are the assault of thoughts upon the 
<unthinking".
< ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #6002 ~ One child per couple is the solution to pollution!
----
    The views expressed above do not reflect the views of my company.