Abstinance is more of a personal contraceptive than a global solution to surplus population.

This should be taken in perspective ... lowering the birth rate in Africa, India is good because these regions have large populations, low income and high poverty. They need to focus on improve overall standards for every one and a high birth rate doesn't contribute to that.

On the other hand European countries, Japan have to increase their birth rate so the base population can be maintained and the population doesn't decline. Overall it doesn't matter whether or not Japan and Europe decrease in population but a side effect of declining population is that they become aged populations that are susceptible to all sorts of problem. This wouldn't help the United States since Europe and Japan are major trading partners. If they are affected the US is affected as well ... granted trade only accounts for a small percentage of our economy but the ripple effect in disruption of trade can be great as happened in the depression of the 1930s.

So one shouldn't be overjoyed by aggregate figures but should look to where the effect is happening and whether that is good or not. Overall the united states is in the best position because it has a low birth rate but not too low that the population will decline. I think it has what is called the sustainable birth rate i.e. enough are born to replace those that pass away.

How would abstinence (abstaining from sexual relations until married) lower the birth rate? It'll lower the STD rate greatly, sure, and the birth out of wedlock rate (well, duh) but it wouldn't lower the birth rate on its own...

Also, I agree with the above statement. Population growth is simply needed in some areas... and Europe just isn't growing fast enough. Their young populations are far too stressed by the high taxes paid for welfare, pensions, and healthcare for the elderly. They need more young blood to balance things out, or to make dramatic political changes (unlikley).

The average Saudi Arabian woman has 6 children. Thank god for mexicans, they will keep them in check while us white folks become an endangered species.

Fight the population explosion: support your local war!

Years ago, I had observed some people in the past talking about how evil it was for China to institute a 1 child policy. I remember thinking "yeah that sounds bad, but they must have a reason to do such a drastic thing, after all the more people you have the more powerful your country". About a year later I took my first economics class, and being one of those students who asks lots of questions (shit, I'm paying money to be there, why not), I was able to get the teacher to spend the entire class talking about it. He ended up introducing us to some concepts that were on the agenda a few weeks later so he could explain it. It all made sense, and I had a new found respect for that particular professor. I scewed up his agenda but he realized we wanted to understand it, so he went along with it, because other students started asking more questions about it.

Basically, China saved their own ass by taking drastic action. Surprisingly, only a centralized authoritarian communist government could pull it off. That and unifying their own language. I'm no fan of communism, but in this case it paid off. Strange how the world works.

One of the many examples of good communism.

Children cost a lot of money over the 18 years you raise them. About $200,000 per child in fact. If that money was saved for retirement instead you could fund your own retirement just fine. Choosing to have fewer kids results in more money for the individual so that they can support themselves more and tax the general population less to care for them. There's also other ways to bring young blood in besides breeding, like adoption of the spare children worldwide. Furthermore, counting on population growth to take care of the older generations only works for so long. When does it stop? Its better that Europe finds a solution to the inevitable population shift now than when they reach carrying capacity and famine poverty and death force them to deal with it later.

But I'd ultimately disagree. Assuming it costs somewhere between $134k and $184k to raise a child for most (see figures below), a child will likely pay more in taxes than it will cost (assume a working career of 40 years, and it's easy to see how).

Even with interest over time, a child is simply a better investment as far as a government is concerned. Note I didn't say a huge baby-boom of sorts, but at least a stable and perhaps slightly growing population. Europe is hardly overpopulated - there's room for much, much more.

The situation in Europe is a bit different than what you may think. As I know the most about France, I'll use that as my model.

Let's take the USDA numbers for the year 2004 [link] (latest figures available). Assuming no inflation (let's keep this simple), the cost to raise a child to adulthood for a married couple with two children - enough to maintain a static population (assuming no major health issues) varies between socio-economic classes (unsurprisingly). Those total costs listed by below tax income are:

Below $41,700 - $134,370
Between $41,700 and $70,200 - $184,320
More than $70,200 - $269,520

Let's assume these costs are the same in France (they would be slightly lower due to free healthcare and tax incentives, my guess).

A child will probably pay more in taxes during its lifetime than it will cost to rear - children are profitable, and in Europe, taxes are high. Taking into account the 19% VAT on all goods purchased and high payroll taxes (between 35% and 45% - and you thought it was bad here), this is almost a given. Assuming a French child from a middle class family spends no money (pays no VAT), earns $40,000/year, and pays 40% in payroll taxes, it has paid its keep within 12 years and has another 20 or so left in the labor force.

Now, take into account other factors in France, mostly political:

- 10.1% unemployment rate (CIA World Factbook 2005) that is not expected to go down anytime soon - France's best unemployment rate over the last 30 years has never been as good as the worst unemployment rate in the US (approaching 6%, presently around 5% and steady). It is difficult to fire people in France, so companies don't hire - it is very difficult to "right size" a company. Seasonal employment is very rare. People do not begin working (and are not considered part of the job pool for unemployment purposes) until they have left college.

- Excellent benefits for the unemployed - the 10% of those who are out of work receive excellent benefits - better than most low wage workers. That's funded by tax dollars.

- The biggest employer in France is the government, which has over 20% of the work force (closer to 25% if memory serves). Government workers may retire with a full pension at the taxpayer's expense at the age of 55 (and the overall life expectancy rate is approaching 80). Many private companies have similar arrangements.

- State provided health care and university education for all.

The likelihood of any of this changing is slim - it's death for the political party that suggests it. Recent labor reforms were met with amazing opposition by the powerful labor unions (I was in Paris at the time), and I'm surprised that the very limited packages got through.

Now, since most of the older people are no longer paying payroll taxes, and are actually taking away from the tax funds for their pensions and healthcare, France runs into a bit of a problem - how do you support a population that retires and then lives for 25 years, all the while costing the tax payer money while not contributing to the economy and with steadily increasing medical costs? Young people aren't helping either - it's not like the US where everyone works a dinky job in high school, most wait until they've gone through college. Those that don't go to college fill the ranks of the unemployed. That $200,000 savings, even with interest, is much less than what the government is payiing out to maintain someone alive for 25 years during the most expensive time of their life (medical bills particularly). And good luck getting any French party to change these rules. As noted before, it'd be political suicide.

So, you need more people. The French have generally accomplished that by allowing immigrants to come in and work. In general, they are not happy with having to allow immigrants into the country, but the simple fact is they need them - the French are not having enough children to maintain a static population and are unwilling to change their regulations. However, the culture clash created by immigrants is slowly creating a backlash, and the doors to immigrants may not be wide open forever.

As far as the future of famine and death - doubtful. There is plenty of food to go around, and with the way the French defend their agriculture, there will be for centuries to come. Even in countries where poverty truly is an issue (not discussing severely impoverished nations here, that's more a result of political issues), there is enough food to go around.

So, basically, kids are profitable for Europe. They need more of them, and the governments are initiating programs to encourage higher birth rates but it may be too little too late, as cultural forces push back the age of mothers and discourage environments where children are traditionally born and reared - nuclear families.

I sure hope that made sense...

It should also be noted that Mao Zedong strongly encouraged very high birth rates - China's population had been steady at 400 million before he took power, and spiked to 700 million because Mao thought it would be a great asset to the country. [link]

Communism - screwing something up royally, and then fixing it brutally - preferably while finding a way to blame capitalism for your problem.

[link]

From what I understand Mao was a piece of shit, in general, while Dung (who replaced him) is the primary reason China has achieved such drastic improvements in such a short time.

Interesting, nice post. :yay:

Impressive. Even for you.

Isn't it true that the French just instituted a policy that a family with 4 children or more does not pay ANY income taxes? I must be wrong on this because it sounds like too good of a deal. They are desperate for kids.

Interesting, but I'd ultimately disagree ;) Especially with the last bit about pushing back the age of mothers and such. Your message is that the government needs more workers to pay taxes. If mothers have babies at younger ages, they will either work low-paid jobs or no jobs at all. Parents need to push back the age they have children or else they will not go to college and get a higher paying job, or progress farther in their careers. A higher paying job, nevermind a job at all, means more tax revenue for the government, therefore the 'cultural force' are in their best interests (I think its more due to economic forces really, since both parents need to work these days in order to make ends meet). This is a well-known economic problem when a nation's workforce is all unskilled laborers.
But even so, population growth is only a temporary solution. Whats the solution to the big-picture problem? If the economy relies on population growth there will come a day when they reach carrying capacity and it won't work anymore. France isn't in that position yet, but why should they wait until they are? Its better for the environment if they find an economic solution now that doesnt involve pushing the country to its brink. We are going to have to do the same thing since we have the baby boomers approaching retirement. You can't whip up a batch of next-generation workers, because the people that are supposed to pay for them are already in the workforce and there arent enough of them. Someone will have to find a solution that doesnt involve population growth because it won't solve the problem at hand in time anyway.
If what France needs is population growth, then India and Africa should have wildly successful economies. But thats not the case, because of political issues. And France could do ok with its stagnating population, if it weren't for political issues. Given the choice between people existing to starve to death or not there in the first place, i think the latter is the better option. At least the French made the bed they sleep in, have a chance to make it work but won't, but all those children being born into places of overpopulation and political problems is a tragedy.

There are a few holes in your argument, let me explain...

There's a huge difference between sudden, rapid population growth and steady, reasonable growth.

India, Africa, and China, for example, experienced extremely rapid population growth in the past century due to a variety of factors. China, for example, was almost entirely the cause of Mao's great economic ideas (hint - not everyone should be a farmer/doctor/steel smelter/whatever, oh, and don't kill off or exile all of your intellectuals).

Rapid growth in most areas is bad - it's unsustainable.

Take the US, Europe, and other countries who have also experienced big population jumps in the past centuries. The growth was relatively slow, and matched with economic and technological growth. The population of the US at least doubled in the last century and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future, although it is slowing. However, at the same time, the economy (in terms of GDP) grew, crop yields per acre sky rocketed, medicine improved and caused drastic drops in infant mortality. However, changes in culture pushed back the age at which women gave birth to their first children and offered a higher opportunity cost to having children - work outside of the home - and these changes have naturally brought that growth down.

Look at India, most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and China. They received the benefits of medical improvements - cheap vaccines, for example. Infant mortality dropped dramatically, but then what? No increase in crop yields. The economy remained stagnant or shrank due to corruption, colonialism, or in the case of China, Mao and his many "great plans". The population grew at a rate much faster than the necessary supporting factors, women continued to have no alternative to slow birth rates, and now they're in trouble.

If you want to discuss global poverty in terms of population, that's fine, but the population isn't necessarily the problem. With the exception of some countries such as Bangladesh, India, China, look at the population density (especially in Sub-Saharan Africa) - they could easily support more people assuming the other factors were in place. But they aren't due to the political problems of the regions in question.

In the end, slow, steady growth is sustainable. As time goes on, medical technology improves, crop yields per acre increase, and dwellings change to adapt to the higher growth rate. Will it hit critical mass one day? Perhaps, but societal pressures appear to be encouraging stagnation in the developed world and even less growth at some point before technology has hit its peak.

If you want to rejoice over low birth rates, that's fine. The difference, when you get down to it, is only a smaller group of people leading bleak lives with little hope of anything better. If you want the world to be a better place, you should encourage the improvement of the other factors as well.

As far as your arguments regarding Social Security, I couldn't agree more. Essentially, what you're arguing for is something along the lines of Bush's Social Security plan. Never thought I'd see the day, squee ;)

the statistics are an inherently good thing. Although, yes, there is starvation in the world and there clearly needs to be a reduction in birth rates in certain places, a much more lasting and enduring investment would be helping those third world countries achieve their demographic transition, the transition whereby a nation has a high mortality and birth rate achieves a low mortality and birth rate, through education, economic growth, and fostering political and social equality for women. This would solve the birth problem on its own and increase the standard of living within these countries. Yes, easier said than done. However, I believe its a more worthwhile investment than merely lowering the birthrate which, because of high mortality rates in some areas due to disease and poor standards of living, may wind up shrinking the native population leading to an even more crippling situation.

That being said, the countries listed in the report include third world developing nations and, ostentably, Europe which, as has been discussed, cannot afford a shrinking population due to high levels of taxation needed to support social services. I assume Japan, which has major problems within its younger population and their lack of procreative activity, can also be included. The countries that would have benefitted most from this reduction in birthrate, the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, have largely been unaffected in any substantial way. I wouldn't pull out the party favors yet.

Seeing squee's position, one can gleam that she believes that masses of starving children the world over is a major justification for lowering the birthrate worldwide. However, in those countries most affected, the birthrate is still extremely high. Furthermore, lowering the birthrates in first world countries is not a panacea to the overpopulation dillema. Adoption, squee advocates, may would help alleviate the problem. But, if one can assume, economic reasons prohibit these citizens from procreating in the first place, what incentive would lead them to adopt a child they didn't want to create on their own? By conclusion, the resulting situation we have in the first-world is a shrinking population in an area capable of supporting a growing population which it overwise needs to maintain a first world economic structure and social programs. Conversely, the resulting situation we have in the third-world is still a growing population in an area incapable of supporting the population it already has. Absolutely no problems have been solved; in fact, more problems have been created.

Altogether, I believe we have shot ourselves in the foot here. Lowering the birthrate is desperately needed in certain areas - yes - but through a wholesale increase in economic capital, political freedoms, women's rights and the institutions that preserve these. Although, achieving an equilibrium of population would ultimately be the best course of action in the long run for both first world countries and the rest of the world, the more pressing issue currently is not overpopulation - as there is still and will be more than enough food to feed billions more - but instituting the world-wide reforms that would alleviate the cause of those deaths in the first place while easing the creation of more people.

What he said ;)