Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Population control in America

56 million babies have been aborted in America since 1973. Is that a bad or good thing?

Oh well

Addressing an audience hosted by the Center for American Progress, he said, “If Republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor, let's hear them. I want to know what they are.”

He also said that “This is a challenge to the essence of who we are as a people.”

He was referring to income inequality, of course.

“Economic inequality is the difference between individuals or populations in the distribution of their assets, wealth, or income. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a society, but can also refer to inequality among countries.”

In this instance, President Obama was addressing the extreme concentration of wealth in America, and the shrinking opportunity for citizens access to quality jobs with upward mobile potential. Much more consideration needs to be given to the nature of work and how persons are rewarded for their contribution to society in four dimensions:

  1. Self sustainment
  2. Social responsibility
  3. Environmental responsibility
  4. Invention and innovation that creates products and job opportunities

Every person born into the world has a responsibility for self sustainment as soon as they are prepared and able. Every set of parents who bring babies into the world have a responsibility to care for themselves and their offspring until their children are prepared and able to assume their own responsibility. Those are informal rules, however it in the world of the future in which populations must be managed and controlled, the rules may have to be codified.

The consequences for bringing more children into the world that one can care for results in other citizens having to assume that responsibility. There are times and circumstances when natural disaster impedes parents from caring for their children that requires public assistance. Yet, those circumstances must be codified also.

It is also necessary to codify the consequences for bearing more children for which parents are prepared to provide care. Such social irresponsibility deserves punishment. Yet, rendering punishment may further impair the irresponsible parties by making them even more impaired. Therefore, special case management is necessary to monitor and control irresponsible persons under this and other circumstances.

When the rules are codified, citizens can be educated in advance about the rules, and both the positive and negative consequences. A sustainable economy requires codification.

“One child policy

The one-child policy, officially the family planning policy,[1] is the population control policy of the People's Republic of China. Many demographers consider the term "one-child" policy a misnomer, as the policy allows many exceptions: rural families can have a second child if the first child is a girl or is disabled, and ethnic minorities are exempt. Families in which neither parent has siblings are also allowed to have two children.[2] Residents of the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, and foreigners living in China are also exempt from the policy. In 2007, approximately 35.9% of China's population was subject to a one-child restriction.[3] In November 2013, the Chinese government announced that it would further relax the policy by allowing families to have two children if one of the parents is an only child.[2][4]”

There is considerable debate about the morality of China’s one child policy. The nation’s population was growing out of control. Some believe that it still is. Government imposed a policy prohibiting parent couples from having more than one child.

Imposing that rule was seen as impeding individual freedom. However, under the circumstances, the policy was practical and correct. Than, there were nuances in administration that discriminated against female children and favored males. That just serves to illustrate that people and their governments can make mistakes in administration. When governments are controlled by people in a democratic society, people can mitigate and correct mistaken policy.

In the United States today, it is desirable to maintain the population at a status quo. Therefore, the rule might be no more than 2 children per parent couples, providing that the parents are able to care for them for their projected development cycle to a point of being self sustainable.

Religious beliefs may contradict codifying rules that limit childbirth. Religious beliefs may contradict policies about birth control, for instance. Child inception can be managed by personal self control, birth control devices including pills, and more extreme measures such as abortion. In a sustainable economy, it is necessary for society to come to an agreement about population size and the methods and means of achieving quantifiable and qualified goals.

Because the world population has grown to such an extreme size that threatens human existence, it is essential to codify the rules about reproduction and family bearing.

What do citizens of the United States believe is necessary to manage the population? When it comes to immigration policy, there is little agreement. When it comes to managing the citizen population, the topic probably isn’t even being considered. Yet, we are at a time when population control policy must come to the forefront as a policy issue that is a part of comprehensive sustainable economics.

The topic isn't new, but this discussion is.

"Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People?

Slowing the rise in human numbers is essential for the planet--but it doesn't require population control
May 17, 2009 |By Robert Engelman

In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back—and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each. Less water for every cattle herder in the Horn of Africa. (The United Nations projects there will be more than four billion people living in nations defined as water-scarce or water-stressed by 2050, up from half a billion in 1995.) Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.) Less capacity in the atmosphere to accept the heat-trapping gases that could fry the planet for centuries to come. Scarcer and higher-priced energy and food. And if the world’s economy does not bounce back to its glory days, less credit and fewer jobs.

It’s not surprising that this kind of predicament brings back an old sore topic: human population and whether to do anything about it. Let’s concede up front that nothing short of a catastrophic population crash (think of the film Children of Men, set in a world without children) would make much difference to climate change, water scarcity or land shortages over the next decade or so. There are 6.8 billion of us today, and more are on the way. To make a dent in these problems in the short term without throwing anyone overboard, we will need to radically reduce individuals’ footprint on the environment through improvements in technology and possibly wrenching changes in lifestyle.

But until the world’s population stops growing, there will be no end to the need to squeeze individuals’ consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources. A close look at this problem is sobering: short of catastrophic leaps in the death rate or unwanted crashes in fertility, the world’s population is all but certain to grow by at least one billion to two billion people."

Report this ad