World population balance
I went to a meetup for the Independence Party of Minnesota tonight, speaker David Paxson talked about the issue of human population - focusing on convincing people there was a problem and that it is the issue the trumps all others.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ The organization he founded
I respect his position and devotion to the issue. When it came right down to it on "human solutions" his position was (1) Family planning (2) Education. Political solutions could also discuss ending public subsidies for large families - like no tax reduction after two children.
I've heard the issue before and my fundamental problem is that I don't believe you can talk about population in isolation without consumption. For instance for Minnesota specifically he proposed the state government pass a constitutional amendment stating population stabilization as a goal. Then set about making policies that support this goal. He also claimed even "sprawling landscape" of Minnesota was still overpopulated relative to our current population and consumption.
I believe Minnesota has the highest population increase in the mid-west, and of course largely focused on the Twin Cities metro area. It is difficult for me to imagine any policy that could do a "head count" for limiting population. I mean the only system I can imagine would be basically to make living here less desirable (winter!?!?). At least that discourages people moving here. But the other side we equally don't want to be an "exporter of people" - that's the traditional response to population, and what brought my ancestors to America.
I agree on the minimum - education and family planning, most especially in regards to poverty and immigrants. And most of all I believe in the "empowerment of women". More than a few women will boldy say that "having children is natural", and if they love their husband, (and devote their energy fully to "homemaking"), having 4 kids can seem quite reasonable and desirable.
On one side, good education and opportunity for women to particpate as equals in the community is a strong "tool" to encourage women to "want" fewer kids. It might be "enough", but ultimately many couples will want 3,4,5,6 kids, AND at least in our times of abundance, have the resources to raise them. WELL, to proper thinking, there IS real disadvantage to kids in larger families for opportunities and attention, but I'll certainly accept single-child families even as wealthier can lead to a diminished upbringing.
I can think of my own childhood - one sister, one brother (adopted), and so perhaps a "fair" size, and so far only 1 "grandchild" for the next generation, and good odds it'll end there. But really I meant to note that a 3 kid household was not too much by love and attention, even if my learning-disabled brother needed more attention than me.
It is sort of a crazy world to "blame" people for having kids. I mean at least if they really want them. It is easy to mentally think PEOPLE are the problem, while even if not at this moment, "underpopulation"can become exponentially a problem as easily, at least in terms of exponential declines can happen, and COULD happen - like my little "failed" family branch.
One way to think perhaps is not of people as a problem but as a miracle with a "cost". There's the cost to parents to devote their time and energy to raise the kids and give them the opportunity to thrive on their own.
There's a GOOD desire to define "human rights" - fundamentals to human dignity and all that. But such good thoughts need to have some extrapolations to costs.
If "religion x" says women should all have as many children as possible (to spread the word of god), and this belief causes poverty for many of the followers, I'm sure everyone will agree it may not be in the best interests of wider society to subsidize the costs of this belief, well at least for people who are concerned for "overpopulation".
In talking religion (or culture) there's as much a fear of this in other groups - that MY cultural values are going to get diluted and lose influence. Ultimately EVERYONE can consider themselves as a part of some minority group, and consider that more kids as a "duty" to keep my cultural influence. It may be in an "open" culture that GENES can be passed in this way, but not necesssarily culture. Probably the U.S. is one of the weaker world locales worried on losing our culture, even if it is increasing with serious "goals" of minority groups to "grow" themselves into power, most specifically thinking of the Mexican population in the Southwest.
My thoughts are generally for open borders, but not to encourage immigration, but to make it clear that we HAVE TO care about the well-being of our neighbors. If our neighbors are suffering, even if deserved via poor planning, their problems become ours whether we like it or not. What sort of "aid" to offer neighbors is a deep question. Aid ought to empower them to meet their own needs where they are.
Probably states like California will end up overpopulated no matter what, because of the great resources, but ultimately their success must have costs and will drive out people until an equilibrium is found.
It is horrible to imagine - how steep variations in wealth and power can exist. Minnesota deals with "affordable housing" but nothing like on the coasts. In high population centers, minimum infrastructure "cities" will form as people come to cities without the ability to shelter them.
I still try to imagine what Minnesota could seriously do. Overall I'm very tempted to follow the republican ideals of empowering government as close to the people as possible. The state government can't well defend in my mind subsidizing local government taxes, or offering subsidies for families with kids.
If I go that way I know the result. All school funding becomes localized. The wealthy choose to live together to get the best of the best, and the rest make do as they can. Economics works at the cost of equality. As soon as social classes form where children are treated differently for their parents, the game of democracy is over. I mean in degrees, but direction is undefendable.
The two contradictory goals are (1) Moving power close to results (2) Keeping equal opportunity. It is an illusion to pretend democracy really exists under unequal means, and the only defense is to believe that those with a dispoportionate share will see their means as stewardship to the needs of the whole.
Overall I'm pretty hopeless, no clear "incremental" policies that give me hope.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ The organization he founded
I respect his position and devotion to the issue. When it came right down to it on "human solutions" his position was (1) Family planning (2) Education. Political solutions could also discuss ending public subsidies for large families - like no tax reduction after two children.
I've heard the issue before and my fundamental problem is that I don't believe you can talk about population in isolation without consumption. For instance for Minnesota specifically he proposed the state government pass a constitutional amendment stating population stabilization as a goal. Then set about making policies that support this goal. He also claimed even "sprawling landscape" of Minnesota was still overpopulated relative to our current population and consumption.
I believe Minnesota has the highest population increase in the mid-west, and of course largely focused on the Twin Cities metro area. It is difficult for me to imagine any policy that could do a "head count" for limiting population. I mean the only system I can imagine would be basically to make living here less desirable (winter!?!?). At least that discourages people moving here. But the other side we equally don't want to be an "exporter of people" - that's the traditional response to population, and what brought my ancestors to America.
I agree on the minimum - education and family planning, most especially in regards to poverty and immigrants. And most of all I believe in the "empowerment of women". More than a few women will boldy say that "having children is natural", and if they love their husband, (and devote their energy fully to "homemaking"), having 4 kids can seem quite reasonable and desirable.
On one side, good education and opportunity for women to particpate as equals in the community is a strong "tool" to encourage women to "want" fewer kids. It might be "enough", but ultimately many couples will want 3,4,5,6 kids, AND at least in our times of abundance, have the resources to raise them. WELL, to proper thinking, there IS real disadvantage to kids in larger families for opportunities and attention, but I'll certainly accept single-child families even as wealthier can lead to a diminished upbringing.
I can think of my own childhood - one sister, one brother (adopted), and so perhaps a "fair" size, and so far only 1 "grandchild" for the next generation, and good odds it'll end there. But really I meant to note that a 3 kid household was not too much by love and attention, even if my learning-disabled brother needed more attention than me.
It is sort of a crazy world to "blame" people for having kids. I mean at least if they really want them. It is easy to mentally think PEOPLE are the problem, while even if not at this moment, "underpopulation"can become exponentially a problem as easily, at least in terms of exponential declines can happen, and COULD happen - like my little "failed" family branch.
One way to think perhaps is not of people as a problem but as a miracle with a "cost". There's the cost to parents to devote their time and energy to raise the kids and give them the opportunity to thrive on their own.
There's a GOOD desire to define "human rights" - fundamentals to human dignity and all that. But such good thoughts need to have some extrapolations to costs.
If "religion x" says women should all have as many children as possible (to spread the word of god), and this belief causes poverty for many of the followers, I'm sure everyone will agree it may not be in the best interests of wider society to subsidize the costs of this belief, well at least for people who are concerned for "overpopulation".
In talking religion (or culture) there's as much a fear of this in other groups - that MY cultural values are going to get diluted and lose influence. Ultimately EVERYONE can consider themselves as a part of some minority group, and consider that more kids as a "duty" to keep my cultural influence. It may be in an "open" culture that GENES can be passed in this way, but not necesssarily culture. Probably the U.S. is one of the weaker world locales worried on losing our culture, even if it is increasing with serious "goals" of minority groups to "grow" themselves into power, most specifically thinking of the Mexican population in the Southwest.
My thoughts are generally for open borders, but not to encourage immigration, but to make it clear that we HAVE TO care about the well-being of our neighbors. If our neighbors are suffering, even if deserved via poor planning, their problems become ours whether we like it or not. What sort of "aid" to offer neighbors is a deep question. Aid ought to empower them to meet their own needs where they are.
Probably states like California will end up overpopulated no matter what, because of the great resources, but ultimately their success must have costs and will drive out people until an equilibrium is found.
It is horrible to imagine - how steep variations in wealth and power can exist. Minnesota deals with "affordable housing" but nothing like on the coasts. In high population centers, minimum infrastructure "cities" will form as people come to cities without the ability to shelter them.
I still try to imagine what Minnesota could seriously do. Overall I'm very tempted to follow the republican ideals of empowering government as close to the people as possible. The state government can't well defend in my mind subsidizing local government taxes, or offering subsidies for families with kids.
If I go that way I know the result. All school funding becomes localized. The wealthy choose to live together to get the best of the best, and the rest make do as they can. Economics works at the cost of equality. As soon as social classes form where children are treated differently for their parents, the game of democracy is over. I mean in degrees, but direction is undefendable.
The two contradictory goals are (1) Moving power close to results (2) Keeping equal opportunity. It is an illusion to pretend democracy really exists under unequal means, and the only defense is to believe that those with a dispoportionate share will see their means as stewardship to the needs of the whole.
Overall I'm pretty hopeless, no clear "incremental" policies that give me hope.
posted by Ares Olympus at 9:15 PM
1 Comments:
Of course, there is a little problem; no demographer in the world is predicting the type of population growth that world population balance is claiming. Even the UN is setting the human population to peak in within the next 40 years and then begin declining.
Post a Comment
<< Home