Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (50306)	8/9/1999 6:15:00 PM
From: Kid Rock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Only good looking, healthy parents that enjoy Star Trek Next Generation are allowed to breed. Everyone else gets Norplant.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (50306)	8/9/1999 6:50:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

I think we can presume that at the present time most people in the "free world" still believe that the right to have children is an inalienable right. China has already decided it isn't, at least in their society. But if you think abortion is a hot button issue, wait until you try determining who may have children and how many they may have. That said, rationally there is good reason in principle to limit procreation. But even if you got general agreement on that, implementing it would be impossible. Is it one or two to a customer? The wealthy and powerful will never accept that. Should the governent issue a certain number of baby licenses every year and auction them to the highest bidders? That would probably solve much of the poverty problem as well as working on the population problem, since the children of the poor tend to be the next generation's poor. It would also put a huge dent in the deficit. Should every person be granted one lifetime license which they could use or sell as they chose, on the free market? If a person has a baby and it dies within a certain period of time, say a year, or maybe more, does that "count" or do you get to try again? If a person dies without using their license do they get to will it to somebody else? Or do we attack the problem the other way -- by taxing children instead of giving tax breaks for them? When children were a necessity of a growing nation, it made sense to subsidize them through taxes, free education, etc. At this point, though, the equation is changing. Should our approach change? You raise great questions. I don't know the answers either! <g>

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (50306)	8/9/1999 7:12:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

We expand our living space as the Europeans did and reach out to the planets.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (50306)	8/9/1999 7:53:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Lather, the questions you raise just do not apply to the developed industrial world. The population of the United States is coasting along at just about the replacement level, whereas in much of Western Europe and in Japan population growth is at below-replacement levels. As a matter of fact,according to an article I just read (Sunday?) in The New York Times, the projected huge decline in the Japanese population in the next twenty years are so is expected to have a very negative effect on the country's economic standing. The population explosion that everyone is so alarmed about is taking place in the "Third World." There are a lot of reasons for that, of course. Among them is the widespread belief, in traditional societies, that children are "wealth," and that they are in any event needed to take care of the parents in their old age.And even when that belief has crumbled, there often is no knowledge of or access to modern birth control methods. And even when there is, there may be religious objections to limiting family size, especially, but not exclusively, in Islamic countries. And finally, the population explosion has probably been accelerated by improved medical care, which has led to greater longevity. And so forth, down the line. Would you propose that we impose population limits on the Third World? Even if that were possible, don't you think we could reasonably be charged with discrimination? After all, if the citizens of the Third World were as wealthy and urbanized as we are, they would cut back on family size of their own accord. Intelligent development assistance, family planning assistance, etc. -- that's what we can offer, and hope for the best. The questions you have raised about genetic engineering and population control do remind me, on some level, of those raised by the eugenics movemnt. Tell me what you think of this article: techreview.com Joan