I still enjoy the idea that we must reduce the population growth in > order to avert catastrophy. It takes a couple to have at least two > children just to sustain the population. I hate the idea that we > should limit the freedom of people to procreate, but there will always > be the dregs of society. Perhaps there should be tax incentives for > people to NOT have more than 2 children, instead of bribes for having > more. I highly respect womens' sovereignty over their bodies, but not > to the extent where it will impugn upon the earthly ecosystems that > provide the opportunity for such respect to exist. What would you > suggest? Has China got it right?
Amusing - I am just going through this discussion with one of my Biology classes. Here a few comments: 1) Germany is doing exactly the opposite. They are going to introduce extra tax for people that have no children. Shows the extreme intelligence of the German politicuans [Note the sarcasm]. 2) According to serious counts (UNO, US Government - you can just google for "Human Population Growth") we are going to have 8.9 billion people in 2050 and more than 14 billion people by 2100. 4) The area available for living and food production, however, will by that time be reduced considerably. 3) Germany (as an example) has a birthrate of 1.4 - you need 2.0 to break even (assuming that both children survive). The problem does not lie with the western countries. 4) So how are we going to cope with all that. "Human Rights" are great ... as long as you have humans. After that, they are pretty damn useless. And don't ask me what I want to say with that. Figure it out for yourself. But note that you can't feed 1000 people on 1 pizza. Guido J. Braem -- Prof. Dr. Guido J. Braem Naunheimer Str. 17 35633 Lahnau Deutschland/Germany Tel. +49 6441 65333 _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
