Definitely not. The Chinese government killed off enough citizens during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward that it really wouldn't have to worry about the population boom if it were not for limited resources. So it's a good micro study of what could happen to the world as a whole due to over-population. However, restrictions on reaching that number is practically illegal in a free society.

I mention famine because nothing is a greater test to a free society than a prolonged famine. I have serious doubts the identity built up over the last 225 years will outlive a prolonged decline. This to me is the ugly side of environmenal economics in that basic goods are no longer shared equally. In fact such thinking is on borrowed time if there is a clear indication that the stress in question will not be mitigated. Corruption will only facilitate the process.

I don't disagree with your framing of the problem we face as we draw down fossil energy reserves. I'm more optimistic that we'll find something new to replace it, just as petroleum replaced whale oil, which replaced wood. Nuclear fusion seems forever 30 years away, but fission could scale up a lot from where it is now. And there's no technical for reason for biofuels to be as inefficient as corn-derived ethanol.

The real problem I have with your argument is that egalitarian redistribution systems are themselves unsustainable without population growth. Social Security and Medicare were premised on the arithmetic of a larger, younger workforce providing for the needs of the old and infirm. If you turn that upside down, tax rates have to rise to the level where the Laffer curve actually becomes relevant. When half the GDP is going out in entitlements, and a minority of the population is actually producing something of value... that seems unsustainable.

China is going to hit this wall before we do, thanks to its long-standing one-child policy. I wonder what lessons we'll be taught by that crisis.

Trouble said:

I think what I find most fascinating by your original post is not your own opinion, but that your opinion would be a forced burden on everyone who doesn't think like you.

With me as a religious Conservative and you coming from the liberal side, I find it wildly ironic that it would be you, in 2008, that would tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body - based on YOUR convictions. For years, I've had it thrown in my face (without anyone actually bothering to see what I personally thought, but based on the mere stereotype of a "religious" self description) that "government should stay out of the womb". And I actually agree with that. Now, as the Church of Ecological Thought comes into power, we want to return to telling women what they can and can't do with their own reproductive systems?

I remember when abortion was "a fundamental right of a woman to CHOOSE".

Yet, if a woman CHOOSES to have a few babies, NOW we can step in and heavily tax them? Burden women with a one-child policy? Oppress them with a premeditated campaign?

This is RICH.

Your logic is astounding.

I think it's important to remember that the government of France has been paying and providing massive incentives to couples having multiple children due to the declining birth rate in that country. As stated, the population is only steadily on the rise in Africa and Southeast Asia. So I think the world population won't spike to nine or ten billion as we sometimes hear about on the news or in science fiction. The possibility is certainly there, but people are dying also.

Also keep in mind one of the largest population groups in America is going to be dying off over the next 20 or so years. Not that this is a good thing morally, but statistically speaking, our population isn't going to be growing faster than our seniors are going to be dying. Unless there is a second baby boom, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, I don't see how we will see a spike in our population.

I was referring to basic services like running water and electricity, sanitation, and roads, not social security and medicare. But yes I do agree the systems were built on the idea of growth to sustain the preceding generation. What you've done is defined a corrupted democracy Jobius. One spends more than it takes in. I wouldn't call these programs "entitlements" because the money was planned on a single payer system. Had the revenue been distributed in a manner more honestly than social security we may have had a few more decades of use out of it. Well - had they not been gutted for secondary uses. The challenge is finding additional revenue as there is no longer an opportunity to pull money out as the population ages and becomes dependent on such programs. This isn't misplaced socialism Jobius, this is good old money shuffling which is sometimes known as corruption.

Your premise of entitlements and limited productive capacities does not hold ground if we looked at the rate of manufacturing start-ups across America circa 1945 on. The graph does a nose dive. For China from 1998 on, the graph sky rockets up as the asian countries become the "tigers' as the manufacturing base grows. There is a plethora of material chonicalling American job loses and we can trace this through senatorial speeches or economic bulletins. This is not new material and can be researched from multiple angles.



I understand the demographic wall China may hit as the mean age rises and the disproportionate number of men come into the society and cannot breed. This will cause problems. This is might take a full generation to play out. I am not disagreeing with you.

Looking at entitlements, the Chinese are lagging. Rising, but definitely no where near that of western society. However, as I've stated above the ability to produce for oneself can be traced through observing the manufacturing sector. China's economy is based on over production and export. The only thing America exports right now are wedding planners, Tiger Woods memorabilia, and b-52s. In the event of resource crunch I'd place my money on the country that has the factories and is looking for raw materials and most importantly - has SAVINGS at their disposal. Ergo; the elephant in the room motivating us to go childless is known as the debt, not moral conscience.

The ability to create wealth and the wherewithal to maintain it depends on access to work(factories) and the capital at hand either invest or consume. The Chinese were saving at a rate of 1/3 of every dollar in the 90s. What is the American savings rate now? You want to take on another mouth to feed when you are in hock up to your eyeballs and already pulling equity out of your mortgage just to pay for gas? This is how I define sustainability or lack thereof.



The idea of providing essential services seems almost humourous until there is a crisis event like Katrina which forces itself upon us. Then the idea of limits comes into the picture. Had you read more closely I stated I would compensate people for not having kids. I suggested we move in the direction of penalization based on taxation for families having more than one child. Even then I am not prohibing anyone from having multiple babies. All I am doing is removing the support systems that propagate large families/divorcees/common-law multiple partners. This is the real burden. You can do what you want, but don't look for society to provide support in a depression for your prolificacy.

I ask again:
Who do you expect to support this level of governmental control over individual freedoms?
What campaign are you predicting, and who is going to lead that campaign?
By what constitutionaly granted powers does the government think it will be able to set up such a plan?
What on earth makes you think having fewer children is a reasonable, efficient and managable solution?
How do you propose this plan is monitored, policed and enforced?
What other civil liberties are going to be eliminated in order to implement this plan?
Who determines appropriate preplanned birth rates/mortality rates and by what standard would be used?

I think the only reason America is currently in the black is because of immigration. But that isn't necessairly a bad thing. Some social scientists say that the population needs to go back to 3 billion in order to survive on the planet another 250 years. I'm in favor of this. Limited poverty, surplus of food, etc.

I don't think Americans have it in them to punch out babies at previous rates due to careers, movements like this, and countless other reasons.

I don't know if the environmental movement is a reason the general public do not have large families. Cost of living, personal priorities and careers would be more believable. My wife and I would like to have a whole baseball team, but only if we can afford to support them. Here, cost of living is a driving factor, which is only fair to the children.

As we see in this case, it's a mindset. What's considered abormal today could be a cultural norm in ten to fifteen years. Not having kids seems to be more popular than having kids, so I see no reason to not devise a plethora of reasons not to.

The US Census shows that fertility has been on the decline for decades now in all ethnic groups in the US except for recent Hispanic immigrants. If I were to guess, the first post had it right: the rising cost of living, most particularly housing, has probably pushed many people to trade-off greater fertility for greater home prices. Combine higher prices with an individualistic cultural distaste for extended families within a household, and people end up making the only "logical" choice: fewer kids to afford more other things.

Since the extended family is more common south of the border, immigrants from that direction probably can bring more earners per household in, have built-in day care (live-in mom and dads), and generally save much more money than their more westernized counterparts who would never dream of packing more than one family in per home.

It is no secret home affordability has been declining for decades. According to the National Association of Home Builders: "Affordability has worsened over the past 20 years for families trying to purchase a home because incomes have not kept up with rising housing prices. In 1976, almost half of all families could afford to buy a median-priced new home; in 1996, just more than one-third of families have enough income to make a purchase." Therefore it is unsurprising that last year the average owners' equity as a percent of household real estate values fell to a postwar low, despite rising prices. To some extent, that is not just because home prices are over-inflated, but also because long-time owners have borrowed against their home equity to fund consumer spending. Home prices may be high, but the owners are not really benefiting from it since many traded off appreciating equity for rapidly depreciating consumer goods.

Moreover, according to statistics from the Federal Reserve, the percent of income saved per person has been in freefall for the last 30 years. And if you add in typical debt, you see that a few decades ago people saved 20% of their income, but today spend 120% of that income. Having that kind of sword of Damocles poised over one's financial future would sour any couple's fertility.

Trouble said:

I'm missing something here. So help me out.

1. I found the irony humorous - very sardonically, if that wasn't obvious. Why should ANYONE have to pay the government for what natural relations gives for free? Isn't the pain of child-birth enough of a tax? As a righty-part-centrist Republican, I demand that the government stay out of my bedroom (like for the gays) and out of my wife's womb (like the Pro-Choicers). Droop224, are you getting this?

2. I'm not sure I understood the Katrina bit. Are you suggesting that if we had less population, we'd have had to ship in less supplies? Less people would die? What?

Trouble said:

I read you very clearly. If I misrepresented your statement, then correct me by quoting my offending comment with a response. But the sum of it from as far as *I* can tell is: That you'd tax families (who likely need money more with obvious additional expenses), and redistribute those tax monies accrued as incentives to barren couples who continue to remain barren.

Ah, right - you're not "prohibiting" anybody, except that if someone has a kid, YOUR answer is that the parents should have to get second jobs. No sense in letting those nice people actually spend time with their kids.... They need to get off their butts to pay for the offset to the environment. Because we all know planting trees is the answer to global warming. To hell with taking that money and putting the kids in college. Eco, Eco, ECO!!

Let's take that woman from the stirrups to a full-time job within a week. Time's a-wastin'.

Essentially, the end result is that kids are only for the rich now. And if they struggle, they deserve it!!

Trouble said:

In a depression, I'd rather give my last plate of food to my kid so I can at least see him smile and watch him drift to sleep with a full stomach. You'll be alone thinking of yourself. I can't explain why that answer satisfies me, but the sad part is that even if I could, I don't think you'd understand.

You can do what you want, too, Trouble, but if what you want actually comes to pass, don't look for society to provide a Social Security Check to your mailbox every month. People, not the environment, supply that money for the next generation.

Then it's your turn. Sorry, 90 year old man, no gub'ment check this month. Get back to work, and you WILL stay extra if it's not done. You have to earn enough money to pay in advance for the plastic plasma bags you'll have to use when you finally have a heart attack. "Because we care about the environment and need to offset non-biodegradables".

Boy, won't THAT suck when the shoe is on the other foot. You'll eventually be a victim of your own policy, and you don't even see it.

As stated, immigration is keeping the country's birth rate in the black. The census figures also include the offspring of illegal immigrants born as American citizens. Also the number of legal Hispanics doesn't hurt their rise of population either, so it's logical to assume that those numbers wouldn't be in decline. However, fact of the matter remains that they're a minority situation and the birth rate across the board except for two of the world's regions is in a decline. So some people would argue, have a baseball team. Also as stated, the factors you cite do weigh heavily on that decision.

If you do not understand the Katrina analogy azwhitewolf than the rest of my response is moot.

The purpose of my example was to illustrate that not all crisis can be alleviated with the application of the national guard. In and many cases, deploying the military in tense situations merely adds to the problem - especially if there is no miltary solution to begin with.

When the levies broke it became abundantly clear that any arguements pursuing prevention (ie buffering the levies) no longer applied. When prevention is out of the picture we must rely on what resources are at hand and managing them in a manner that does not result in rioting.

Like food, the the city of New Orleans needs a hard to produce commodity. Infrastructure, like food cannot be magically willed into existence. This is important in managing rations until the next harvest, spring rains, or until an appropriate plan of action can be taken. My approach is based on an observation of what worked and what didn't when the Russian rubble collapsed. If resources cannot be distributed to the needy the last thing we need is to expand the number of needy hands. What is needed are localized land plots and accessibility to them. This is what helped Russia survive when no on could afford the simplest of things.

Access to land is important because the problem of the depression represented a time when one problem compounded another. Drought coincided with a financial breakdown and produced a crises that could not be solved with swift response. When the calls of "do something" do not alleviate the problem, the likelyhood of extending the problem and losing control increase and martial law is a heartbeat away. Think about it, had the dirty thirties been just a drought, in three to four years the farmers could have been back to running their farms. Problem was the drought ran parrallel with an economic disaster and forced men off their land with debt. With a drop in available farmers we now have men congregating in soup kitchens and the potential for unrest. With reduced grain output we had a run on prices in the midst of a depression. IE we have a negative feedback loop.

My argument is if you have to maintain a one meal a day sacrifice into the foreseeable future do you really want to push your seven kids into the church, all fathered after things got bad, as more deserving than the next guy's kids?



The plan serves a very distinct and targetted purpose. Small families should not be forced out of pocket if there is universal consensus we have famine. There will be regions where the entire middle class will be so bankrupt that you will literally have to take food out of one person's mouth to feed another. Good luck being a government lacky charged with negotiating that one!

I firmly believe human activity acts as a multiplier, the good times become more prosperous as we can implement systems based on growth, but in rough times the desperation is exasperated. Climate change combined with declines in petro-chemical fertilizers will result in a permanent decrease in food production. This is the straw which will break a nation's back.



I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. My answer is parents should construct their families in a way that is independent of government assistence because it won't be there for you if things get bad.



I think you misunderstand. My prognosis is much worse than yours. The scale will not be limited to just one state. The ability to collect capital has gone down the tubes because everyone is in debt. I have not/will not rely on any program funded by the younger generation to support me. In a depression such programs are the first to be looted by government desperate to get their hands on capital to do something. There are already capital controls excluding individuals over X net worth from drawing s.s. More extensive limitations are already in the pipeline - and that excludes exogeneous events.

My entire arguement was premised on traditional support programs being eroded away under various financial and climatic events. All support programs will be gutted to some extent as federal revenue dries up. Personal savings and family will be the only way relief.

Okay, so yeah, I think I'm still missing your point. However, your lenghty information is something I want to look more into, and thanks for the time (and passion) you put in your post. I'm going to delve into it when I have more time this week. Please don't think I ignored you.

Basically you're saying that a depression is probably inevitable - we can agree there. So the burden on families with large numbers of children during those conditions will have a tougher time than a couple who remains barren. We agree. More mouths to feed costs more.

So why tax those families even harder for having the kids when times are prosperous and - on the polar opposite side - rewarding people who (for whatever reason) have chosen to pass the "burden" of having children?

The only conclusion that I can come up with is "... be... be... because of the environment".

Someone once told me that the nuclear family would eventually be a target of political dissent. I just never thought I'd live to see it.

First, I apologize if I cover ground that other's have already covered, but I've only done a cursory review of the last few weeks. Nonetheless, there are two things that have jumped out at me.

The "Truth" that More People Consume More Resources. That is, as a practical matter, a very truthy proposition, or more accurately, it is a fundmentally incomplete "truth" upon which to base one's ethics.

Malthus is the first, and likely most famous, to become concerned about this matter, and more recently, the thoroughly discredited Paul Erhlichman (sp?) is the latest to go down in flames. Why?

Becuase they both fail to account for one absolutely critical element.

As a practical matter, Humans create resources. And the more inquisitive, clever minds we have at the task, the more successful we've become.

The "fixed quantity of resources" argument falls flat in the face of history. If God (or Gaia, given the context) were to change the basic laws of reality so that no technology beyond the Bronze Age would work, our population would crash. We would still have the same resources available to us, we just couldn't use them... Conversely, if Captain Picard and the U.S.S. Enterprise came busting through a wormhole (that also erased that pesky Prime Directive), the increases in resource utilization afforded by 24th century technology would allow us to support 5 times our current population.

The second thing that's jumped out at me is simply this:

Trouble's approach is that of an eco-fascist. Totalitarian and completely at odds with liberty.