Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewTherefore, women have two children or fewer, on average....
Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies
The population has been on a sharp incline since just a bit after the Industrial Revolution but I concede a SLOW DOWN of population growth OVERALL is in conjunction with 1) countries that implemented a one/two child rule, most notably China, who is still a leader in population numbers, 2) the rampant epidemic of AIDS, civil wars, droughts, & food scarcity in developing countries and 3) the urbanization and industrialization of countries. In an agrarian and/or semi nomadic lifestyle, children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at a young age on a farm, pulling weeds and harvesting or simple workshop labor. They become a source of income & the more you have the better. Since there is no retirement plan in such societies, a large family can more easily support parents in old age. In a developed urban & industrial society, the economic value of children declines & children turn from instruments of production into objects of massive consumption. Not only are chances for employment at an early age diminished, but educational requirements explode dramatically so kids need to be supported much longer, sometimes into their mid-20s & nowadays into their 30s. In a cost benefits analysis a child cost a tremendous amount of money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer children. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a result, the population contracts as it has OVERALL. BUT .... The population has only SLOWED DOWN in growth not declined overall and as a population grows, however slow, it unavoidably consumes more and more resources and needs more and more land. My contention is that the Earth has a limited amount of life sustaining resources that should be taken into account. Their is only so much freshwater, there is only so much arable land we can grow food on, there is only so much oxygen. Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ? Any life form, if the pollution grows higher then the area can sustain, unavoidably dies off. A lion pride that produces too many offspring and eats up all the animals in the area, will have to expand their territory in hopes of finding more food or die from starvation. A virus once it has overwhelmed and consumed all of a bodies energies, resources to the point that it can no longer maintain its systems, causes the body to die. it is a proven scientific fact multiple time & by various species. Humans may be a higher order thinking life form, but we are still a life form, & unavoidably we depend on the systems in place on Earth for our survival just like any other life form living on Earth. We can continue to grow and deplete resources and stretch life styes to their limits, all the while causing the extinction of species that are cogs in the wheels of the systems that sustain us, causing those systems to eventually collapse. It has been our business as usual for the past 100 years and can probably last for another 30-50 but why not implement actions to stop or at least extend the period of time BEFORE system collapses ? HOW those populations controls are written and implemented is a whole nother can of worm lol Religion, country infrastructure, medical systems, cultural traditions and views on family, ect ect, would play a part in any laws and policies. But I contend that with out some form of population control, no climate change/sustainable policies will make any meaningful impact. You can create policies that say every person is only able produce about 3,000 pounds a day ( which can be reduced with car pooling, sustainable energy, ect ) and that takes into account an urbanized citizen with access to a car, a home with electricity, and consumer goods and assumes the gradual industrialization of developing countries. With a global population of over 7 BILLION that equals about 21,000,000,000,000 pound of carbon A DAY. The oceans can absorb about 30%, though that is declining due to various climate, ecology, and environmental reasons, about 40% accumulates in the atmosphere, and about 30% is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. An average mature tree (at least 10-15 years old) can only absorb 48lbs A YEAR so each person on Earth would need about 33 MATURE EVERGREEN TREES each to be carbon neutral. ( thats just for our own HUMAN consumer needs and does not take into account the habitant needs of other animals, ecosystem balance, ect ) SO as the population grows, we will need more trees to be carbon neutral, and we can't cut down these trees, so eventually they will take over the arable land we need to feed ourselves. Personally population control policies I personally propose would be : 1) contraception is easily available, low cost or free 2) abortions are legal, easy available and at low cost - there would be attached policies and requirements but thats another issue 3) sex education is more readily available & a required course in public middle & high school & includes sexual misconduct laws & sentencing, responsible relationship guidelines and actions, sensitivity training - private schools that don't receive ANY federal or state funding, and schools with a religious guideline & charter are exempt from sex education classes as required a course but may not criminalize students from obtaining or possessing sex education materials unless it actively disrupts teaching when it is conducted (this time does not include recess, breaks between classes,mealtimes) 4) murders/harassment/repetitive slander/&intimidation against people, businesses, or organizations that perform sexual disease testing,abortions,adoptions,foster care,family planning & reproductive health service, shall be persecuted as a felony/hate crime 5) a two child limit on all citizens - those that wish to have more offspring agree to renounce all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding 6) adoption policies and procedures should be fast tracked and more openly available to all within the 2 child limit- excluding foster care and those that have renounced all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding More stringent policy would be : 1) pregnancy before the age of 25 (better if 30 ) results in a large fine, & a choice between abortion or adoption - if the mother chooses neither options, she relinquishes all right to federal & state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, & crowd funding I base these policies on on factual financial, social obligations and pressures of raising a child and the impact of a growing population on the environment. I an not religious therefor I do not take religion values into account THOUGH I do know and understand that religious values would be brought into any policies that touch on reproductive rights, for or against them, because many of these policies goes against religious teachings. My argument is that these policies are to promote social and environmental good and/or agendas FOR ALL REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIACTION and not for promoting religious good or agendas so religion should not be involved as that
