Over 100 years (between 1950 and 2050), the world’s population will have nearly quadrupled (from 2.5 billion to around 9.5 billion). How do we diffuse this population bomb? Or do we really need to?
When I was growing up there was a thing called the "Population Explosion". These days we don't hear too much about overpopulation, I assume because capitalist bosses want as many babies as can be cranked out. More consumers!
It is not good for business to discourage the births of yet more victims, so full speed ahead. And don't forget, governments love having more tax slaves.
While some have encouraged voluntary efforts to cut family size, others have proposed more coercive methods, like China's One Child Policy (changed to a 2 child policy in 2016).
Cutting subsidies for having more children is another proposed way to reduce population growth. Another idea is paying childless women a bonus when they reach menopause. A one time payment of $50,000 dollars has been proposed by some researchers.
Now I see that Hungary is going the other direction - they are paying Hungarian women to have more babies, ostensibly in order to outpace Third World immigration.
Any Hungarian mom that has 4 or more children will be exempted from paying income tax. For life.
They can also apply for a $35,000 dollar loan which will be forgiven if the woman has more children. Interest-free loans will also be available for the family to buy a house and car. It seems outrageous, but it is possible that it may not work anyway.
Birth rates are already dropping in many countries. In parts of Europe and Asia, birth rates are below replacement levels. Germany, Japan, Russia, and Taiwan are a few examples of countries not having enough babies to keep the population stable, whether there is a "cash for babies" program or not.
Canada also has a "baby bonus", but it is intended to reduce child poverty, not stimulate birth rates.
So is there a population explosion, or not? Will we level off at around 8 billion, or will we see an increase, in a worst case scenario, all the way up to 26 billion?
Some say it doesn't really matter, because we don't have a population problem - we have an overconsumption problem.
The more people on Earth, the less each of us has as our fair share of the resources available. That means as population goes up, all of us will need to live more and more simply.
When it comes down to it, neither big business nor governments will solve this issue. The power to do that lies with one group, and one group only - the women of the world.
Women ultimately decide how many babies are born, because women are not simply "hosts", and they are not birthing pods. Increasingly, they are choosing to have fewer babies.
The rest of us can do our part by consuming less so that each baby born has enough for a good life, regardless of where it comes into the world.
Actually, we might be better off if we offered incentives to consume less. Imagine that happening!
Count me as a post-menopausal childless woman...where's my $50,000!? Just kidding...but I knew as a young woman I never wanted children, and thank goodness society has changed enough that to be childless is okay. I never married either, although I've been with my dear boyfriend the last 10 years and it appears that relationship will go on for a lot longer. I agree that even with the money incentives, women no longer want to pop out child after child. At least, I hope that is true, Mother Earth can't go on like this. -- Mary
ReplyDeleteHa, ha. Linda would be getting a lump sum payment right now, too, and we sure could use it.
DeleteHow nice that you found a partner that is working out for you. I know so many people my age that are still looking for that special someone, and time is running out. I can't imagine my life without Linda. What a joy it has been to adventure through life with the best friend I have ever had. We are 32 years into our relationship now, and I look forward to 32 more (I would be 89 years old).
Too many people is the world's #1 problem. Period. Capitalism has to have more people in the pool so it can ravage the resources. I'm in favor of a cash pay out for not having kids. And I really jump up and down waving banners for free birth control for all women on the planet! I don't know why pharma isn't pushing that. Throw in free birth control for men for good measure. Make vasectomies the "in thing." Throw in cash payouts for them too! It surely would contribute to the goal of lowering population. Of course, not as much as birth control for women and payouts for women though.
ReplyDeleteHeard today that Wal-Mart sales are up over a percent for this quarter. I thought yea, it's because we've pushed more people into poverty and they now have to shop there because they can get things cheaper.
Birth control for men - what a concept! I am all for it. Don't want a woman to "trap" you into having a baby? Keep it in your pants, buddy, or try a condom. A vasectomy would really do the trick.
DeleteWal-Mart is all about the democratization of crap. Crap for everybody, although they do sell food now. Democracy at the voting station - not so much. Democracy of consumerism - full speed ahead.
"Another idea is paying childless women a bonus when they reach menopause. A one time payment of $50,000 dollars has been proposed by some researchers."
ReplyDeleteWho are these "some researchers"? I could find no information on the web about being paid to have no children.
I can't remember where I read this on the net, but it was a proposed idea from the 70s when we tended to take the population explosion more seriously. Regardless of the genesis of the proposal, what do you think of it as a way to combat overpopulation?
Delete