Another Inconvenient Truth: Why aren't we working to reduce U.S. birthrates?

[jgraz]

Seriously, how bad is an SUV compared to the lifetime carbon production of one extra American? It seems that it's almost taboo to advocate that people forego having children for the good of the planet, yet ultimately this is one of the best ways to limit long-term CO2 production.

Is anyone advocating for this? Does anybody know why this isn't part of Al Gore's famous slide show? Are any of the current Presidential candidates talking about this? It seems to me that deciding not to have children is one of the best legacies you can leave to the planet.

[jus_the_facts]

1. It's too inconvenient to discuss apparently....

....I made the choice not to breed in my early 20's after reading Our Angry Earth by Isaac Asimov in 1991.

[Ayesha]

2. It smacks of fascism

The last thing most people want is the government telling them how many kids they can or can't have. Just look to China to see what happens when the government regulates procreation. Forced abortions, infanticide, abandoning female babies...scary and sick. I would, however, like to see incentives to adopt, including tax credits, free health care, etc. for adopted children. That would encourage those of us who do want children to care for those who are already here.

We also know that a more highly educated populace has fewer children, so funding education helps. Oh, and of course, birth control should be free to anyone who wants it.

[jgraz]

10. No one is talking about government intervention here

I'd just like to see some advocacy in favor of the choice. Most people still feel compelled to have children so that they "get the most out of life." People need to see that passing on breeding is a perfectly acceptable, even laudable way to spend your life.

I've been called self-centered or unloving on more than one occasion, just because I made a conscious decision to remain child-free. And back when I was unattached, you should have seen the looks on my dates' faces when I told them quite clearly that I was never going to have kids. How fast can you say "check, please"?

[cali]

54. I hate to break this to you but

the drive to reproduce is as basic a human drive as any. It's not that most people feel compelled to have children to comport with societal norms, it's that most people have an innate biological drive to reproduce.

[jgraz]

90. We sublimate all sorts of natural drives for the sake of society

This is just one more...and it's not even clear that the drive is to reproduce as much as it is to fuck. Many people can be perfectly happy without kids as long as they're getting laid on a regular basis.

[rinsd]

116. Yes but the sublimation of procreation is associated with fascism

And even then it depends on degrees.

Saying you want to remove tax breaks for children is one thing. I think you can make a reasonable case for that.

Saying you want there to be a limit on how many children one is allowed to have is quite another.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

121. This is as stupid as calling a railway company fascist because its trains are on time. -nt

[rinsd]

125. BS. The control of procreation is a fascist one.

If you prefer I use authoritarain or totalitarian, that's fine with me.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Ditto for eating

And, for some reason, not everybody weighs 300 lbs.

[Crandor]

93. Government action is the only sane way to reduce population

Any voluntary initiative would serve only to destroy the environmentally informed segment of the population, and wouldn't change the fact that fundies would still breed like rabbits. With nobody around to oppose them the problem could even be worse.

[Larry_the_hiker]

96. Agreed! Two children maximum

Mandatory abortion of all fetuses after a woman has had two. Mandatory vasectomy for all men who conceive a third child.

I know it sounds harsh, but what's really harsh is destroying the planet. I don't see any inhabitable ones nearby.

I suppose I'm just spitting in the wind, since the American people would never support such a radical idea. But in a hundred years, future generations will wish we had implemented this policy.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. I agree that that is the way - it's all about education

We need leadership. We need a President and an entire administration that talks as much about world overpopulation as the present one who talks about "terra" all the time. People should not be forced to have or not to have children. But they should be made very aware of the dangers into which we are heading if India, China, Indonesia, the U.S. and the rest of the world continue consuming natural resources at their present rate as their economies grow and having babies who grow up to be mega consumers. This problem and the need to make the people aware of it should constitute one of the major dialogues between the U.S. President and the people and should play a role in every campaign speech given by any national candidate.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

3. It seems the more difficult choices were overlooked.

Going veggie (or even just cutting back on the meat) was ignored as well.

[AndyTiedye]

27. Making Birth Control and Abortion Available to Women Who Want Them SHOULD be an Easy Choice

but the Repiglicans are doing everything in their power to take this choice away.

[jilln]

113. That's because people have a RIGHT

to eat meat. Or that's what meat-eaters say, at least. I'm rolling my eyes now.

[Mythsaje]

4. With the RWers going into reproductive overdrive?

I seriously doubt ANYONE is going to bring it up right now.

[rebel with a cause]

18. Got to get more of those white babies out there.

There has been a rise in calls for white people to have more children to lower the chance of a minority becoming a majority in the future. I heard about this in the early part of this decade. Then it went a step further, the religious right took it up. It is no longer enough for the children to be white, they have to be Christian. And not any ole regular Christian, they have to be fundamentalist. These broods of children must be brought in to this world, home schooled, and kept isolated in the religious world of the mega church. In ten to twenty years we will be living with the "children of the corn."

[ScreamingWhisper]

55. wow.

This smacks of the same mindset of my grandfather who firmly believed that all minorities were truly focused on "pumping out babies" for better welfare income and to overthrow the white man in the next century.
He was nuts too.:crazy:

[kestrel91316]

79. Well, I see the fundies bragging about it. They are into

"full quivers". It's an organized plan on their part.

[rebel with a cause]

84. thank you.

I see you may have seen the same program I saw.

[rebel with a cause]

83. So I am nuts? double wow.

I was being a bit sarcastic, but okay. :rofl:

I am not worried about anybody having babies. I was just reacting to what was being said, and thinking that I was being a bit funny when evidently I was not. Not the first time.

I knew a lady five years ago that answered a advertisement to live on a commune. When she was contacted by the people running the place, they were looking for young white women to have babies because they wanted to counteract all the minority babies being born. I just thought it was a cult. Then I watched a news program on television the other night and this is what the people were talking about as being their plan. Paraphrasing but: We're having lots of babies, at least 12-13 to a family. We are going to be a traditional family, the children will be home schooled and their world will evolve around the church. In twenty years we will run this country because we will have the votes.

I didn't even think about this stuff until I heard them talking the other night, and I am not obsessing on it now. I just thought it was something that said a lot of how intent they are to have things their way. Oh, by the way I am considered white and come from a family with seven children. I have two children and they are latino.

[pnwmom]

5. Our birthrate is already below replacement rate. What good will

it do to lower it as long as we have the current levels of immigration? That's why our numbers are growing so quickly.

[silverojo]

6. Now if only someone would suggest this to the illegals coming here

Anchor babies are being born in record numbers, which is going to hurt our society in many ways.

I also think this whole nonsense about fertility treatment is insane. If you're having trouble having kids, ADOPT them. So many children are longing for homes...why add more children to this earth, until the ones who are already here have good homes? :(

[splat]

7. Because we're making more RW Republicans w/o birth control

[Canuckistanian]

17. I don't buy that argument

Sorry, but since when do all children in a family all follow the same ideological/political path?

Look around, here at DU, there are a thousand stories around here that start "My fundie brother/father/co-worker...."

Genetics isn't partisan. Never has been.

It's individual morality that makes us what we are.

And it's clear to me that the Carville/Matalin household is one of the most amoral places on earth.

[rebel with a cause]

23. Well, there is a big difference about what they are planning.

this will be more like an Amish family, except without as much freedom. The plan is to have large families, and I do mean large families. These children are to be home schooled and their only connection with other children, and people for that matter, will be through their church. I saw a show the other night where these people, the fundies, were talking about it. Their plan is to be in complete power by having enough votes to decide any election.

Do I think they are crazy? yes
Do I think they will be successful? I hope not
Am I afraid they might be? yes
Do I think that some of these children will go against their teachings? Only a small portion, because with complete control it is
easy to program people to follow the leader.

Only time will tell. :shrug:

[Higans]

8. We need more troops to send to Iraq to die for Saudi intrests. N/T

[Evoman]

9. We are animals...the only real purpose we have is to fuck and breed.

And then, when there are too many of us, we will die off. Its happens in almost every case where a species experiences exponential growth.

Basically, we're fucked. Too bad we have to take the world with us.

Evoman

[LynzM]

12. This pretty much matches my mood, tonight.

We watched An Inconvenient Truth tonight. Damn. Fucked doesn't begin to cover it. More aptly, we're baked and fried. :scared:

[judaspriestess]

67. you said it !!!

does anyone really wonder why the travesties keep going on in Africa for example? Its population control. Its sad but true.

If people were simply educated about choice no matter where they are, we would cut down on the birthrate. We are destroying the earth and the purge of humans will begin, sooner rather than later.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

11. Suggesting social conscientiousness is necessary nt kr

[babylonsister]

13. Because no real issue other than war and getting screwn has been

discussed since the blivet took office. No real issue like social security, immigration, healthcare, choice, jobs and lack thereof, food and the lack thereof, etc. ad nauseum, has been attempted. It's all war or 'what's in it for us' Congress vs. how anyone might be working for the American people and the living, cultural problems that exist.

[Recursion]

14. Because people want to retire

And that requires having more workers than retirees.

[wuushew]

71. you could always make SS an entitlement

funded through general taxation of the wealthy. Since growth cannot continue indefinitely I fail to see the point of prolonging the ponzi scheme.

[raccoon]

122. More workers at McJobs? How is that going to help?

THere are fewer and fewer well-paid jobs out there.

[earthside]

15. The Root Cause ...

... of almost all of our problems today is overpopulation.

Especially troubling is the United States with a highly consumptive 300 million people and due to expand by another 100 million by 2040.

The planet simply cannot sustain that many people living the American lifestyle ... which is why I am very much against more legal and illegal immigration.

And ... there is your problem ... almost every answer to overpopulation mightily offends an important political or economic constituency.

So, no one wants to discuss overpopulation -- it is the closest thing we have to a taboo topic in the world today. Bring up overpopulation and you become the skunk at the party.

[babylonsister]

22. You're against immigration because of overpopulation? Wouldn't

people be populating regardless? You think lack of immigrants will solve overpopulation?
Hell, I didn't know what a problem overpopulation was.

[index555]

30. Generally new immigrants have a very high birth rate

which generally decreases when they become integrated into our society.
mostly when (usually their kids) realize they don't really need 8 more kids to support them in their old age.
for the existing population the birth rate IS BELOW replacement rates in both the U.S. and Europe.

[justice1]

37. Haven't seen any studies, but that's what I figured happens.

[suziedemocrat]

51. That's true, if the US had no immigrants for the last 30 years, our birth rate

would be below replacement. I wonder if the OPer knows this. This post is likely to start a flame war because the OPer doesn't know why the US has the birth rate it does.

[PaulaFarrell]

58. Mexico now has a birth rate of 2.1 children per family

a national birth rate around 21 per thousand compared to around 14 per thousand in the US. That is not hugely higher. Mexican families used to be huge but so did American ones.

[Bridget Burke]

62. Yeah, some want the US to become a Gated Community.

Overpopulation is a worldwide problem.

Education & improving living standards tend to lower birth rates--worldwide. As well as supporting healthcare that includes contraception information.

[Patchuli]

29. You are of course, correct

and I don't think there is anything wrong with limiting our population by closing the immigration doors for a while. We must also protect our country within by hopefully educating those who would breed in volume. I don't care how cool people think their genes are, it's about not being selfish.

[REP]

16. None Is Best - but One or Two is Better than Three or Four

I'm ChildFree, so I'm with you on the "let's have none," though I came to that not out of concern for the environment; motherhood just isn't for me (and I have the tubal ligation scars to prove it). It may be hard to convince people who have been programmed all their lives to want to have babies babies babies to not have any, but maybe convincing them of the wisdom of just having one or two kids instead of a six-pack would be a good step. On the micro-level, it's good for the budget; on the macro level, it's good for the planet.

[Stargazer99]

19. RW Fundies should be told to shut up and mind their own

business. Contraception should be low cost, free and COVERED BY INSURANCE. This administration freezes or denies monetary aid to any program in third-world countries BECAUSE REPUBLICAN/RW idiots control this administration. Nothing like watching a child starve to death because they have a "right to life". How stupid can a societal element get? We have many more Mexican-Americans in our end of Washington State (I know because I've lived here over 60 years) and they have 3,4 or more kids. The poligamy practiced by some LDS sections ought to be stamped out, the fathers can't even support so many children, maybe they should be fixed to put a limit to bring children into the world knowing full well you can't support that many.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. We are working on it. It's the irresponsible overbreeding shitbags who aren't.

[babylonsister]

24. What qualifies as an irresponsible, overbreeding shitbag, Rabrrrrr?

I'm one of 5; is that too many? I do have a rethug brother that I don't care for...but he's 54.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. have you ever read any writings about "conviviality"?

I have- and controling the population is cited as a key component to the ecological breakdown-

The precarious balance between man and the biosphere has been recognized and has suddenly begun to worry many people. The degradation of the environment is dramatic and highly visible. For years car traffic in Mexico City increased steadily under a sparkling sky. Then, within a couple of years, smog descended and soon became worse than in Los Angeles. This phenomenon can be easily discussed and appreciated by people who have never studied science. Poisons of unknown potency are discharged into the biotic system of the earth. There is no way to retrieve some of them, nor any means to predict how some of them may suddenly combine their action so that the whole earth, like Lake Erie or Baikal, will die. Man has evolved to fit into one niche in the universe. The earth is his home. This home is now threatened by the impact of man. 6H1 (0171)

Overpopulation, excessive affluence, and faulty technology are usually identified as the three trends which combine and threaten to break the environmental balance. Paul Ehrlich points out that to face honestly the need for population control and stabilized consumption may "expose one to the painful criticism of being both anti-people and anti-poor," but he also emphasizes that "these unpopular measures offer mankind's only hope for averting unprecedented misery." Ehrlich wants to implement birth control with industrial efficiency. Barry Commoner insists that faulty technology, the third element in the equation, accounts for most of the recent deterioration in the quality of the environment. He exposes himself to the criticism of being an antitechnological demagogue. Commoner wants to retool industry rather than invert the basic structure of our tools. 6H2 (0172)

here's a link-

http://www.opencollector.org/history/homebrew/tools.html#nid077

[jgraz]

26. Cool -- I haven't seen this before. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[Erika]

28. Corporatism needs workers willing to work for food

All the higher earnings for the elite "investment class"

Keep on producing those welfare babies worldwide is the GOP cry.

[LiberalEsto]

69. Don't forget cannon fodder nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. the biological imperative IS to reproduce and

pass on your genes... that is biology

Now educated societies tend to have less children and US population growth is not that bad, in fact a good percentage is due to immigration

Now we don't have kids (do the parrots count? We treat them as if they were kids, and I swear they even talk back), but we are also looking forward to once we can, to adopt. I can't have kids, it would be too much of a risk... for both... and my biological clock is all but spent

But seriously, it is a biological imperative to reproduce in nature, and we are part of nature. So it is not that the subject is taboo, but you will not get too many to talk about it, becasue biology is speaking

[jgraz]

32. Parrots DEFINITELY count as children

Say hi to jgraz jr:

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Cute kid

we have a 19 year old cockatiel this month, a 15 year old Nanday conure and a five year old sun... and they do behave like kids. My tiel loves mac and cheese

[jgraz]

36. He's also an honor student

A 19-year-old tiel? You must be doing something right. We lost our white/white rescue tiel at around 7 years. The poor overbred things are just too fragile.

Now I have my guy (Gnocchi) and my girlfriend has a Maxi Pionus (Bialy). But really we share custody cuz the two birds are inseparable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I say it's love

and he tries to wait up for daddy to come home... so schedule, what is that, but he also sleeps in

For example tonight he went to bed at 11:30, well past his bedtime

[barb162]

33. Why aren't we working to reduce worldwide birthrates?

There isn't a particularly high birth rate in the US.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. We are

just that for the last six years our aide has gone down becuse of the Fundies in control of the Executive if you get my meaning

[jgraz]

38. What's the current stat? 1 American child == 5 third-world children...

In terms of resource usage? Even if our birthrate is already declining, we can still do a helluva lot of good right at home.

[stubtoe]

59. I heard 10

(per David Suzuki in the late '90's)

[justice1]

39. Warren Buffett has been for years.

His donation to the Gates foundation should make a significant impact on the problem, which is really the source of most of the worlds troubles.

[Clarkie1]

40. I've believed this for a long time. Is Clark having only one kid "advocacy?"

Seems like politicians today often brag about having large families, it's crazy!

[jgraz]

42. Agreed. I don't understand it, esp in progressives.

[LittleClarkie]

43. I ain't gettin' any

Does that help?

[jgraz]

44. BTW, if you really want to get sick, check out this thread

I already put in my $.02.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2938299&mesg_id=2938299

[aquart]

45. Sweetie, you might want to check the numbers first.

Really.

[progressoid]

47. Umm...which numbers sweetie?

[progressoid]

46. Nobody in politics wants to touch that one

Hell, when Al Gore talks about those four things that we all can do to help global warming, I just cringe. Granted it would slow CO2 emissions a bit but it just scratches the surface of the problem. It's going to take a lot of major changes in our social and economic structure to fix this. However, no one wants to talk about the elephant in the living room called overpopulation.

Back when I had money to donate to causes I always gave to these people: http://www.populationconnection.org/index.html

[OneBlueSky]

48. why aren't we funding a Manhattan Project for alternative energy? . . .

why do we allow GM crops, even though they pose health risks and pollute natural crops? . . .

why are we still in Iraq? . . .

why aren't we rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast? . . .

why do we permit giant corporations to pollute our land, air, and water -- and pass the costs on to us? . . .

why, in fact, do we confer "personhood" upon corporations, and allow them to do pretty much anything they damn well please, regardless of the social and environmental consequences? . . .

why is George Bush still in the White House? . . .

the list goes on . . . and on . . . and on . . .

[piedmont]

49. Because it's not as significant a factor to our population growth as immigration.

Our birthrate is around 2.1 per woman-- which is the replacement level.

I hate to post and run, but I'm going to bed (after I don my flame-proof pajamas.)

[mike_c]

53. but that misses the essential point of the OP, which remains valid....

For WHATEVER reason, rising human population is the real problem behind global warming, spiraling energy consumption, environmental degradation, etc.

[piedmont]

103. I'm certainly all for reducing world birth rates...

but some countries are already at or below 2.1 births per woman. The OP is about U.S. population growth, which is driven by immigration.

[Bridget Burke]

63. And those immigrants just aren't the "right sort"....

Yes, I've heard that one before.

[piedmont]

68. I said no such thing.

It is absurd to expect Americans to cut reproductive rates to below replacement levels just to allow high levels of immigration to happen. The OP wants to reduce or stabilize the U.S. population. The only possible ways to do that are to reduce the reproductive rate which is ALREADY low, and reduce immigration, which is quite high. To read racism into that is to expose your own agenda.

[treestar]

72. But it's the planet's population that matters

Then migration is just a matter of where on the planet the people are; but some places will naturally have more people than other places.

The US could stay at replacement level and it will still be affected by what happens with the rest of the planet.

Migrants will go where there is economic activity, and that is a planet-wide phenomena, the US isn't the only place that gets immigrants.

[piedmont]

73. I agree that world birthrates should decrease. However, the OP was talking about the U.S.

Therefore my reply addressed the U.S., which has a replacement-level birthrate and an unsustainable immigration rate.

[treestar]

104. The migrants will fill in the void anywhere

The US could not live in isolation, so it wouldn't really matter if it or any country blocked off the immigrants; they'd still be somewhere else. The way things are now just shows how uncontrollable it really is - it's almost like phenomena of nature. Russia has a declining population and a low birthrate too, it will be interesting to see if people from India/China start moving in.

[piedmont]

105. There is no void.

The U.S. population already exceeds the carrying capacity of U.S. territory. That we still have immigration is an artificial phenomenon. Corporate interests have undermined enforcing immigration laws for the sake of depressing wages.

[rollin74]

50. U.S. birth rate is barely at replacement level

How exactly would a below replacement birth rate benefit a huge population of baby boomers who will increasingly rely on the younger population for support as they age?

[Bridget Burke]

65. We still have immigration.

Which I don't find as troubling as some do.

Worldwide, overpopulation is a problem. But raising expectations works better to limit birth rates than instructing people how to reproduce.

[mike_c]

52. some of us are-- vasectomy in 1980-- two adults, one child...

...equals 50 percent replacement.

[jgraz]

56. The point of my OP was to ask the question

Isn't it more productive to reduce birthrates in the industrialized countries, even accounting for the fact that many are close to replacement rate already? There's more infrastructure for education and advocacy, higher literacy rates and educated, professional women who are already more likely to postpone childbirth.

And each American child that's born will use upwards of 5 times the resources of a child in a third-world country. I'm not saying we stop working with the third-world, just that we start the same sort of programs here.

[rollin74]

61. to me...

it makes more sense to combat overpopulation by focusing efforts on countries with out of control birth rates (where birth control is often unavailable or frowned upon for religious reasons)

People living in dire poverty may not use as many resources but that doesn't make it logical to avoid using birth control and have children that they can hardly afford to take care of.

As has already been stated, birth rates in the United States and other industrialized nations are at or below minimum level to maintain current population. Immigration is the only factor causing population growth in the industrialized world. However, birth rates are soaring in many third world countries plagued by extreme poverty, hunger and war.

[jgraz]

64. I'm saying we should do both

Obviously the third-world needs to reduce overpopulation. I'm just saying that we in the industrialized world should not be exempt. Replacement rate is still too high given the kinds of resources we use. With the rise in productivity over the past 30 years, we can begin reducing our population without risking an economic crisis. It just takes decent management.


Oh, and Welcome to DU!!! :hi:

[piedmont]

75. Ah, then you're talking about ways to reduce population in industrialized countries...

A fine goal, but one that would require reducing immigration into those countries as well. Any talk of reducing immigration hits some people's "RACISM!!!!" button, as evidenced elsewhere in the thread.

[lies and propaganda]

57. because Jesus wants us to have babies.

Lots and lots of babies, I read it in my History book.

:sarcasm:

[liberal hypnotist]

126. At last common sense.

Jesus didn't even have kids that he admitted to.

[itsmesgd]

60. Doing my part here.

My last name ends with me. I hate to see the end of my heritage, but I care enough about my unborn decendents to spare them this world as is stands now. Maybe they will come along after we have peaked, crashed, and rebuilt another society.

[JacksonWest]

66. Good luck.

One of the biggest problems we face in this country is, simply, stupid people having lots of stupid babies that they can't afford to take care of. This creates new generations of poverty, crime, and country music fans.

Good luck trying to change this, or reverse this. If you want to limit births in this country, your career as a politician would be over faster then a Paris Hilton appearance in a Super max prison. So, yes, while you're right, your position is currently championed by nut-job eugenics, the largest communist country, and the network executive that canceled Star Trek.

There was group, operating in the first part of the decade, that would set up shop in major cities and offer "money for birth control to Drug Addicts" on city buses. As a rider of said bus, and user of money, I often looked at those signs and wondered why a group would offer a drunk money and condoms. As it turned out, this group(a right wing religious and Eugenic Cabal) was paying poor, drug addicted people to permanently neuter themselves. This caused a little bit of controversy.

So, if you really want to limit population, good luck. There's nothing practical we can do.

[Lisa]

70. we do! Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and educational grants ...

... go a long way towards helping individual people decide to have children later, and have smaller families. If enough people do this, something called the "demographic transition" takes place, and birth rates drop. (Gore does talk about this in the DVD supplement.)

Democratic and other progressive policymakers have consistently been better at supporting and implementing these types of ideas.

[Nikia]

74. Population is good for the economy

If we weren't so concerned about making money, it would be much easier solving our environmental problems. As it is, we must convince business that dealing with environmental issues is in their best interests.

[taught_me_patience]

76. We need to encourage more population growth

in the United States, whether it is from immigration or natural birth. Our social security was founded on the principle that future generations will pay for the current obligations. Without population growth, this is not possible. Also, more people should be given the chance to live the american dream.


taught.

[piedmont]

77. You realize you've just described a pyramid scheme?

No population can grow indefinitly, especially one that uses resources at the rate ours does.

[The2ndWheel]

81. Now you might be onto something

That's the problem with the whole thing. If even one aspect of our way of life doesn't endlessly grow, nothing will work. This is why we(mass society) can't stop. Well, voluntarily anyway.

[piedmont]

85. Exactly. Look at the economic indicators...

the talking heads on t.v. go apeshit when growth slows down. New home construction, appliance sales, you-name-it. We have to have more, more, more of them every month or somehow something dire will happen. The problem is, that cannot happen indefinitely. If you base your economy on something that cannot happen forever, what happens when it eventually stops?

[taught_me_patience]

100. There seems to be no indication

that growth won't continue over the long term. Of course, there will be ups and downs in the economy, but long term growth will remain steady. The reason that the pundits are so concerned with growth slows is that deflationary sprials, in the past, have proven very costly to the american economy. Ben Bernanke considers deflation such a threat that he insinuated the fed would do everything in its power (including, jokingly, dropping money from helicopters to stave off deflation) to stop it (hence the nickname, "helicopter ben"). I'd say that most people, including me, belive that growth is good. It allows more and more people to have a better lifestyle. The two main sources of long term economic growth are productivity growth and population growth.


taught.

[Crandor]

101. Well, we better hope for more productivity then

GDP won't do much good if the biosphere is destroyed.

[piedmont]

102. Infinite growth of population is not possible with finite resources.

How many people do you think can fit on Earth? 8 billion? 12 billion? 50 billion? When we reach that number, what then?

Infinite growth of consumption (hand-in-hand with productivity) is not possible with finite resources. It's physics. You can't feed the multitude with a bottle of wine and a fish unless you're Jesus. Which brings up another point-- I think some people's definition of "long-term" isn't long enough. Waiting for the Rapture I suppose.

[Crandor]

88. How can you have a permanently expanding population without a permanently expanding resource base?

I've never seen the pro-population crowd address this. You can change economics, but you can't change physics.

[kestrel91316]

78. I've done my part. Can't answer for anybody else.

:shrug:

[IDemo]

80. here too

These folks appear to have as well..

http://www.vhemt.org/

[AZBlue]

82. here three

eom

[slackmaster]

115. Me four

:nuke:

[Crandor]

86. If human extinction is what you want, a better way would be to have MORE children. nt

[jgraz]

87. We don't want to take the rest of the planet down with us

[Crandor]

91. Well then your movement is completely ineffective

since it only takes two defectors to ruin your (stupid) plan.

[jgraz]

94. Yes, because reducing the human population to two would be a complete failure

:crazy:

[Crandor]

98. It is a failure if your goal is extinction.

And if it isn't, then why call it that? Do you just enjoy making the right-wing talking point, that environmentalists are all genocidal maniacs, sound more realistic?

[jgraz]

99. You're being silly and you're splitting hairs

You'll fit right in here at DU. :hi:

[IDemo]

92. Not the whole biosphere

Just the organisms soiling their own petri dish.

[jgraz]

89. My girlfriend's a member of VHE

Kind of short circuits the "how many kids do you want" conversations. ;)

[Heywood J]

95. Let's be honest.

You can tell someone all you like (to a point, within reason) not to breed or to have fewer children. But it comes down to this: you, as an individual or as the state, have no right to determine someone else's reproduction. Even just advocating it can get under people's skin if it's not done correctly, if you get pushy or preachy. If you get under their skin, you've pissed off the very people you're trying to persuade. That's not a good way to accomplish your strategy.

Any advocating has to be done delicately, sensibly, and with tact. These are not things that government has historically done well. If any change in birthrates happens, it will probably be a result of societal changes and pressure from one's finances, family, culture, and circumstances - the way it has historically happened.

All those things aside and in all honesty, I've found that most people on this continent won't do shit "for the good of the planet" that goes beyond perhaps not littering. Altruism just isn't held by the majority - especially in the most materialistic, acquiring society so far. Trying to get people to do something via an appeal to altruism will only work on certain people - those who are probably already trying to do their part.

That's why no one's "working to reduce U.S. birthrates". Throwing this into Al Gore's slideshow would make the rest of it needlessly controversial - thus less likely that anything will be done about it and making it/him far easier to demonize.



Is overpopulation an issue? Yes. Is it something that can be fixed by the government or without major changes? Probably not.

[jgraz]

97. Advocating racial integration used to get under people's skin

If you're not willing to piss a few people off, nothing will ever change. I don't expect politicians to lead this charge, just like politicians didn't lead the charge to make smokers the social pariahs they are today. This is an attitude change that needs to come from the grassroots, but it won't as long as we simply say it's too hard.

[Lipton64]

106. We should be working to increase birthrates.....

Otherwise our movement won't survive in its current form and this country will split. We need more Americans to join our ranks. The birthrate is already slowing at a disturbingly fast rate.

Our party is a coalition party. And I don't think Catholic hispanics and church-going black-Americans are going to take up the torch on such issues as abortion(which I oppose in most instances) and gay marriage are they? These are primarily white-driven issues - as in the white, wealthier wing our party are the ones driving that section of the agenda. If they die out, those policies cease to be important to the more socially-conservative elements of our party.

[Bridget Burke]

107. Wonder why that "racism" card keeps being played?

Because it keeps being dealt by people like you.

If you oppose abortion in most instances, why does your fantasy future upset you?

[Lipton64]

114. "My fantasy future" doesn't bother me......

I'm merely warning the rest of the people who don't understand the study of demographics. I even missed another very large Democratic voting block: low-income and blue-collar, primarily union whites. These people are huge fundraisers for democratic causes in the North especially.

Latinos by and large vote democratic because of their support of our economic and social welfare policies as do most black Americans and most poorer, non-fundamentalist white Americans. In their eyes we are the populist party. We aren't the Democratic party. We are the party of "the little man."

As for the "race card" issue, it's true sadly. Do a statistical poll of latino and black democratic voters and by-and-large I assure you regardless of their locale save a few urban areas around the country that they will be de facto Republicans when it comes to social issues.

I oppose abortion in cases excluding rape, incest, or health of the mother. I think you'll find many Catholics feel the same way regardless of race. I'm personally non-denominational in my Christian faith but you'll find many who are virulently democratic because of our party's support of housing, healthcare, welfare, and education benefits for the poor and the working class. That's the populist wing of our party. The people who control the party however are the ones primarily supporting gay issues and abortion issues.

With white fundamentalists and minorities making up the mass bulk of the American birth rate at the moment, our numbers over the next 25 years(of the more traditional white American progressive) will gradually decline in favor of a more "colored" party that will join us for a variety of reasons.

And I didn't attempt to bring the race "card" into the argument just to throw kerosine on the fire so to speak - I think if you ask other DUers who live in neighborhoods that are either half minority or majority minority like I do, and I'm not talking about upper-class minorities, then I think you'll see that I'm merely pointing out a fact that many democratic strategists and thinkers like to convienently ignore for their own personal fantasy beliefs.

[Bridget Burke]

118. So--if you want stronger controls on abortion....

Why do you "warn" us about the non-whites who supposedly hate abortion & gay rights? (By the way--what's your stand on gay rights, adoption by gays, gay marriage and/or civil unions?)

You warn us because you're a scared white man & no friend to Democrats. You don't give squat about ANY Democratic ideas. We've had plenty of warnings about how social policies must be ignored to win votes. (Wait, welfare & education are partly social issues, aren't they? What about vouchers to send white kids to Lily-White Bible Academies?)

I live in a highly diverse city, with plenty of non-white neighbors. And I don't live in River Oaks. Sheila Jackson Lee is my representative. We have a Democratic mayor who was re-elected with a huge margin.

While you're here--what about taxing the rich & corporations? What about Federal Regulation--that might stop stuff like e. coli at every fast food dive?

What's your stance on Iraq, Afghanistan & whatever war your Boy Emperor decides to fight next? After all, lots of minorities & poor whites die over there. Sounds ideal for you.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

111. Overpopulation to me is a far greater issue than left vs. right

It is potentially a planet-altering extinction event as serious as the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, most of the life on the land and in the sea. As countries like India, China, and others emerge into fully-grown consumer societies, the pressure felt by all nations to control the dwindling resources could and probably will push us towards a world war to end all world wars. Personally, I think we not only need to stop population growth, but we need to cut it far back from what it is today.

[Lipton64]

117. Well America really isn't going to be much of a fart on the planet.....

Our disproportionate obscene use of resources will probably continue but in terms of future population growth over the next few centuries I doubt we'll be even a fraction of the superpower we are today. We will be like what Britain was in the 1800s. China and India are the future and India adds more people in a single year usually then we do in 5 to 10 years if not longer. I don't think we add that much of a dent. India surged by almost 200 million people from 1990 to 2004. And look how many immigrated here: not that many out of the overall number.

If population control, whatever your opinion regarding the issue notwithstanding, is ever to be implemented, the 3rd world is where to implement it first because that is where the fastest growing birthrates exist.

[JCMach1]

108. US birthrates are fine... we basically are only growing

due to immigration

[Zhade]

109. Man, did you just step in it!

Fwiw, I think it's a damn good question. USAmericans use 25% of the world's resources; I personally think it's incredibly selfish to add to that unbalanced consumption by having children these days - especially when so many kids in orphanages need homes.

That's not a popular view, but I don't really care.

[wuushew]

110. kick

:kick:

[Triana]

112. The A.I.T. new DVD that's out has an extra 30 minute update...

...and in that extra 30 minute update, Al Gore addresses the population issue.

It is THE ISSUE that lies at the base of the problem. At some point, no matter WHAT we all do to conserve and reduce pollution, as long as we are still dumping humans onto this planet at the rate we're going, it will be beyond the breaking point and nothing else we do (besides curbing population growth - if even that) will fix it.

THIS is the elephant in the room issue. Literally. Republicans and their right-wing extremeist religious zealouts will have NO PART of family planning, birth control (outside the very unrealistic mantra of "abstinence") - NONE of it. AND THEY ARE THE IMMORAL ONES for not supporting it at this point - because their breed-like-crazy philosophy is contributing to the total destruction of this planet and every species (that includes US) that lives on it.

THAT is the epitome of IMMORAL yet THAT is what they're doing. They can sqawk about "life" and "morality" all they want - but they're TOTALLY MISSING the fact that they - with their very extremeist philosophies are the ones most contributing to the DESTRUCTION of life on this planet and that can be nothing BUT IMMORAL.

They are the KINGS and QUEENS of immorality at this point - the harbingers, and the poster-children for abject immorality.

[LWolf]

119. I seem to remember overpopulation mentioned,

but not focused on. I think that's because it is even more inconvenient, to have to confront the reality: reproductive choice needs to be limited. Nobody, myself included, wants to have a hand in that. Conventional wisdom says that it's the "3rd world" and "poor" who over-produce, and that we ought to be bringing them along into "developed" status. I don't know. I know that in this developed nation we have way too many neglected and abused kids. We have way too many irresponsible parents. How do we address these things without becoming "big brother?"

[warrens]

123. Apart from hispanics and new immigrants

Our population is essentially stable.

[liberal hypnotist]

124. Good Point

But, any politician would commit career suicide right now. I've gotten in to trouble for advocating a birth license be required. But, the noe-cons want a cheap labor force and full prisons so anyone can have a human. It' up to us to change the tide.