thedailygreen.com — Instead of offering tax incentives to help families, as Australia, the U.S. and many other nations do, an Aussie professor suggests taxing couples that have more children than a set amount, probably two since that represents a one-to-one replacement.
Dec 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
pinkocomradeDec 11, 2007
Hey it worked for "terrorism"!
klowd9xDec 11, 2007
Maybe there should be some kind of programs to prevent people from having kids in these societies. If they can't understand that 100 babies + 0 food = 100 hungry babies that will get very sick and possibly die from malnutrition, then someone needs to step in and take care of this problem.
confusednazgulDec 12, 2007
I wish such a thing could happen, but obviously it never will. I doubt it would stop people from breeding irresponsibly anyway. People feel that they are entitled to spawn as much as they want - they don't care about the effects on the environment, not to mention how other taxpayers have to cough up more money to support their dumbass kids.
confusednazgulDec 12, 2007
Shouldn't you be at church or something?
Closed AccountDec 13, 2007
completely asinine... you mean like using non sequitur comparisons?
dherringtonDec 16, 2007
False. The math you use is a yearly reproduction rate, when I used the accepted view by births/ female. You also fail to note that there is overlap, this why 0 population change happens around 1.3 children per woman, as generations aren't every (life expectancy) years apart, they are the number of years the average woman has her chlidren apart. If you have a replacement rate of one to one, you will never reach equilibrium
jakadacJun 25, 2008
An excerpt from my wife's blog on this topic www.adalaise.blogspot.com:Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun in Too Many People states, “If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas…”In Ralph Epperson's book, The Unseen Hand, he states that if you took the population of the world and split it up into families of four and gave them each a piece of land 50' x 53', the entire population of the planet would fit neatly into the state of Oregon.Worried about feeding everyone?Brian Carnell in How Much Food is Available Now? Says, “The world currently produces more than enough food to provide every single man, woman and child alive today with an adequate diet…”What About China?“China, everyone’s favorite supposed example, has fewer than 60 percent as many people per square mile as the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Obviously, then, China’s problem is not overpopulation, but underdevelopment. Many people think that population growth prevents the economic growth of poor nations, but a number of economists now suggest the opposite: every new person brings not only another mouth to feed, but two hands with which to work. Misguided efforts to help poor countries by suppressing their natural population growth may actually hurt them.”So, what if everyone DID have more children?Professor Budziszewski writes, “Fertility is already declining in every region of the world, and population growth has been slowing down since the late 1970s. In the developed countries, the net reproduction rate is 0.7 and dropping, which means that the next generation will be only 70 percent as large as this one. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute suggests that we may one day face not an explosion but an “implosion” of population.”
mairu88Mar 14, 2009
roflmao. Thats pretty funny, but right on.