Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom Message-ID: <11700392@inmet> Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 00:31:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.11700392 Posted: Wed Sep 10 00:31:00 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 03:07:22 EDT References: <3013@watmath.UUCP> Lines: 139 Nf-ID: #R:watmath.UUCP:-301300:inmet:11700392:000:6839 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Sep 10 00:31:00 1986 [bstempleton@watmath.UUCP ] /* ----- "Population control & Freedom" ----- */ >There really isn't a problem here because free societies increase >wealth, and wealth is the most powerful contraceptive known to >man. True. There are two other simple effects in free and wealthy so- cieties which tend to solve the problem. One is that life expec- tancy grows, compared to child-bearing age. This reduces birth rate, irrespective of people's intentions and habits. The other is, of course, wealth itself making population growth painless. >Wealthy nations like Canada and the US actually have NEGATIVE po- >pulation growth rates at the current time, due to birth. Any to- >tal growth is coming entirely from immigration. The first sentence is not quite true, but it is moving that way. *With* immigration, the growth is not negligible, but easily absorbed. Much faster growth could be absorbed without misguided social legislation such as minimum wage. >So this is a non-issue. A government in a free state would see no >need to even think about population control. Agreed. >The biggest problems arise when the not-so-free states are extra >fecund, and later come claiming a bigger share of the planet be- >cause they are so numerous. In theory, that might be a problem. In practice, these claims are not correlated to fecundity. Germany used that pretext, but she was far from overpopulated (in today's FRG, density is much, much higher, but there's no Lebensraum talk). The USSR is the current superexpansionist power, but it is clearly underpopulated com- pared to most nations. China does *not* make claims even in Si- beria, though she has historical rights; she claims Taiwan, which is densely populated, and Hong Kong, populated more than densely. India is not expansionist. Population excess isn't the issue in any current territorial debate. Mexico could well make a claim against the USA - with some justification even. But she makes other claims, not land. So this is a non-problem. If someone claims your territory, they are just as likely to be less fecund than you are, as more fecund; and the answer shouldn't be different. >Currently it is not a good political move to deny this. If we >ever do have to run into this problem, the best (although un- >pleasant) solution is to say that rights to the commons are in- >herited, with a slop factor while both generations are alive. >Thus if you come from a family of 2, you get the same rights your >parents had. Family of 4, half the rights. If you don't have any >kids, you may sell or transfer your inheritable rights to rela- >tives or the highest bidder. I don't think this is realistic. Most commons are common because they aren't easily divided - such as air and the ocean. Land is either privately or nationally owned, except the Antarctic and the Moon. (Those will be probably divided later). Returning to fecund, not-so-free countries, the problem is lack of freedom. It may yet kill us. If not, the relatively free, cap- italist nations will expand spaceward, and the problem will be less fatal then - and if the unfree nations become free, it will go away. Meanwhile, liberal immigration policies would both cushion the pressure and accelerate progress. >This is not perfect, of course. Since fatherhood is harder to >verify, we get a can of worms. It would be nice if technology >could fix this - a gene scan, perhaps. Please don't. Not another area of state supervision! IRS & FBI scientifically snooping on marital infidelities - that's all we need :-(. >Now the big problem with this (or any other population limiting >scheme) is that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the >sons. But if you get people arguing that 1/4 of the world's popu- >lation (China, for example) should own 1/4 of the world's common >property (air, water, some resources, electromagnetic spectrum) Just give them the finger. They mostly don't mean it - just appealing to the morbid Western guilt complex. As the Oriental proverb goes, "Ask your relative for a camel, he'll get scared and give you a donkey". In any case, the answer to such a claim is simple: *governments* don't have a good claim to resources because *people* are numerous. As for giving all *private individuals* equal access to common resources in conditions of freedom - this is quite accept- able. But they (3d world governments) are almost all nationalis- tic, and most of them are dictatorships. They'll refuse. >Note that overpopulation among the poor is en- >couraged by most forms of welfare. If it became popular policy to >cut all charity to any family with more than 2 kids, a lot of the >problem would be solved. Certainly nobody should get extra chari- >ty because they have an extra kid. The welfare system is a mess, but we need healthy, well developed kids. Discriminating against large families won't do it. Elim- inating most welfare, but letting adults and kids earn a living, would. There is no reason why children need be a great burden on parents *or* taxpayers. A five-year old could do some kinds of work al- ready, and learn in the process. (Apropos to net.socialists: this idea was propounded by Marx, and is, if I am not mistaken, in the Communist Manifesto). School years are mostly wasted, for poor kids and rich kids, too. The 12-year course, properly taught, need take no more than 2 years. (I'd undertake to do it in 18 months, working full-time with one pupil - and beat the SAT of the average school products). Abolish most welfare, abolish public schools, abolish minimum wage; permit child labor under healthy conditions. Create (privately) a network of apprentice schools where kids would be paid a little, and fed, and taught. Let charities chip in where the parents can't; but that may not be needed. Industries will likely jump at the chance to have a workforce tailored to their needs many years in advance, meanwhile doing something useful. Kids will be *needed*. Get rid of race prejudice interfering with adoption of minority kids. Babies are needed, too. The problem is not inequality, but lack of social mobility. As we are graduating into a post-industrial era, a part of our popu- lation is stuck and unable to adapt. It is *not* a matter of their getting too little, or too much, of the pie. The problem is qualitative, it is one of skills, incentives and role models. And of intermediate steps; a family does not have to make it in one generation. What's wrong with this progress report: grandmother on welfare, mother a cleaning lady, daughter an electrician, granddaughter an engineer? Even the Kennedy clan didn't make the presidency in one generation... Jan Wasilewsky