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.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (800)	4/12/1999 8:23:00 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

<<I am not suggesting government limits on birth rates. But abolishment of incentives for large families [taxes certain, welfare benefits ] and create realistic benefits for small ones. Also education and free birth control information and medical assistance for the same. I believe that in this way we would easily reduce the population growth to zero or less in this country at least.>> Tax incentives are government coercion on its citizens to adopt a course of action it deems worthwhile. This is, in practice, government trying to force birth limits. In effect, tax incentives are punishment for having more than the desired births. Education and birth control efforts have been undertaken in the third world for years now by the UN, to negligable results. As Ron has pointed out the cultural resistance to such efforts makes them an upwards battle. Aside from the simple distaste of contraceptives or ignorance of how babies are made (dont laugh, many people in the third world make no causitive link between pregnancy and semen), the cultural grounds for large families to manage subsistence or care duties is a high wall to mount. You make some good points about food supply. However, only a fraction of the worlds agricultural capacity is tapped to its limit. Vietnam for instance has the capacity to produce enough rice to feed its citizens and export enough to feed most of Asia. China for chrisakes has the potential to feed all its citizens and more. But, the catch is, is it economically feasible? When there is no profit, full agricultural capacity will not be tapped. Most of the midwestern US sits fallow not to refresh the soil but to keep prices up. As long as agricultural goods are in surplus, there is no incentive for Vietnam for example to carve rice patties out of the hills, or for US and Canadian farmers to plant every acre they can. Is this sustainable? You bet if there is a demand someone in the West will develop technology to double output. I'll try to cut this short, since my posts are starting to turn into dissertations ;). The third world is the problem area and you are quite right that they will be yammering for a cut of the pie. The question is how t.w. government will supply this demand without money. Ron makes the point of what I believe is the real danger in that question. When a nation can not provide for its needs by internal production or from trade with other nations, war is the end result. When you combine a burgeoning population (note a young population, examine the age cohorts dominant in any age of tumult, for example the American Revolution or the '60s) with an underdeveloped economy unable to either cope with its internal demand or deal on an equal basis in trade, you have a very explosive situation. The third world is in danger of imploding, or exploding in a craven mass of violence upon the West. There is no danger in overpopulation to the West, we have the stability and the money to weather a storm. The danger lies in the third world and its ability to cope, with itself.