www.ditl.org

Maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm right. I dont particularly care. I just find it disgusting that people wish to deny possible mothers offspring. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it....it quite literally makes my skin crawl.

Well I wasn't defending them, I was just pointing out that it isn't necessarily eugenics. In any case, you could have tax incentives to encourage people to have a certain number of children.

A "have less children" incentive. I like it.

That would be preferable.

Well, I'm stopping at two. PM me for the PO box to which to send money orders.

Mikey wrote:Well, I'm stopping at two.

Ideally, all societies should settle down around the replacement rate (2.1 children per woman for developed countries, 2.3 for developing countries) in order to have a stable population.

Can I just have the .1 kid to make up the difference?

Lazar wrote:

Mikey wrote:Well, I'm stopping at two.

Ideally, all societies should settle down around the replacement rate (2.1 children per woman for developed countries, 2.3 for developing countries) in order to have a stable population.

Why is it an ideal to have a stable population?

At this point, it would be ideal to have a negative population growth rate everywhere. We can't pave the whole planet.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Why is it an ideal to have a stable population?

Because there's only a finite amount of space and resources on the Earth. If the fertility rate falls too low, then you risk a demographic collapse and the failure of social security systems, and if it gets too high, then you risk resource scarcity and environmental degradation.

Tsukiyumi wrote:At this point, it would be ideal to have a negative population growth rate everywhere. We can't pave the whole planet.

Yes - I should add, it would be ideal to have a stable population once you're at a level that's comfortably sustainable.

Aye, it's also an unfortunate truth that the highest growth rates tend to be in the poorest populations/nations. It's a real economic pickle.

On abortion, I'd say it'd be sensible for people to take the appropriate precautions but people aren't always careful, but then babies may be born into undesirable situations. In theory every new life is a blank slate full of naught but promise, but the cold, uncaring world often spits on that idealism; an ill-prepared mother can be a real detriment to a new life. This is as unfair to the baby as it is to the mother, hence, abortions may often be in order.

Lazar wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Why is it an ideal to have a stable population?

Because there's only a finite amount of space and resources on the Earth. If the fertility rate falls too low, then you risk a demographic collapse and the failure of social security systems, and if it gets too high, then you risk resource scarcity and environmental degradation.

If resources are finite then the only way to avoid using them up is not to have a population at all, is it not?

Lazar wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:At this point, it would be ideal to have a negative population growth rate everywhere. We can't pave the whole planet.

Yes - I should add, it would be ideal to have a stable population once you're at a level that's comfortably sustainable.

Aha. And what level is that?

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:On abortion, I'd say it'd be sensible for people to take the appropriate precautions but people aren't always careful, but then babies may be born into undesirable situations. In theory every new life is a blank slate full of naught but promise, but the cold, uncaring world often spits on that idealism; an ill-prepared mother can be a real detriment to a new life. This is as unfair to the baby as it is to the mother, hence, abortions may often be in order.

True, unfortunately.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Lazar wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Why is it an ideal to have a stable population?

Because there's only a finite amount of space and resources on the Earth. If the fertility rate falls too low, then you risk a demographic collapse and the failure of social security systems, and if it gets too high, then you risk resource scarcity and environmental degradation.

If resources are finite then the only way to avoid using them up is not to have a population at all, is it not?

Lazar wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:At this point, it would be ideal to have a negative population growth rate everywhere. We can't pave the whole planet.

Yes - I should add, it would be ideal to have a stable population once you're at a level that's comfortably sustainable.

Aha. And what level is that?

We can at least buy some time for technology to advance enough to start moving people off of this rock by limiting the growth of the population. Overpopulation is a problem across the board; there are dozens of reasons why it should be avoided. Like I said, we can't pave the whole planet. We're reaching the limit of how much humans can intrude on nature without completely screwing up the planet's habitability.

I don't even like living in an apartment, let alone a high-rise with people crammed in like sardines. There's just not much more room for us.

GrahamKennedy wrote:If resources are finite then the only way to avoid using them up is not to have a population at all, is it not?

We should make them last as long as possible, use renewable resources as much as possible, and try to avoid destroying ecosystems.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Aha. And what level is that?

Well I'm not a demographer, but I think having a billion people in the US, or five hundred million in Britain, would be excessive. However many you can feed and house without resorting to things like bovine growth hormones or experiencing things like deforestation, fishery collapses and water shortages. It would certainly change depending on your level of technology.