I owe you an appology Donald for not seeing satire then. I am sorry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Donald, I understand from his statement of “economic incentives” where Pete was going. However this, again, translates to an odd form that results in only the wealthy being able to afford large families. And again, if it’s an average/mean of population growth, what happens when the wealthier take advantage of the large family ability, negating the ability of lesser solvent families doing the same?

What happens when the quota is reached? Do we go over the magic number? Or do we start issuing licenses to procreate? Perish the thought, and all attempts lead to some sort of government enforcement for an end goal.

Lastly, I can’t think of anything more counter productive than protectionist trade policies based on birth rates. This is counterintuitive to the entire notion that better education (which generally results from a developing economy) naturally leads to a more reasonable birth rate. Might as well shoot one’s foot off, eh?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Mr Irons

My last post, with the exception of the proposals concerning illegal aliens, was a feeble attempt at levity. I’ve always been a bit of a court jester, just not a very good one.

@ MataHarley

I do believe that Pete’s “left to the people” is not a call for any sort of vote on who can and cannot procreate. I have been to Pete’s website and from what I have been able to gleen from his writings his primary aim is a protectionist trade policy using population density as a weighting factor for determining various tariff levels.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thank you for illustrating my point that while it’s common to inject race/culture into so many issues, it is distinctively absent – even dodged, as you so aptly demonstrated – in the population control debate, Pete.

Rather than suggesting some nefarious reasons as to my statement on the high Muslim birth rate, you might want to consider that culture/race plays heavily into family size and attitudes towards procreation. This is even true with Christian vs Mormon family size. Another “racist” religion demeaning statement? Hardly. Just a recognized fact with no attitude whatsoever on my part.

To rely on the UN’s predictions (scoff, cough, snort…. the same group in charge of climate change predictions…. LOL) stretches credibility. I shall instead turn to the current CIA Factbook statistics on birthrates by country, where the US is ranked 153rd in 223 nations.

Fact is birth rates among Muslims is, according to an Asia Times summer 2005 article, the second highest in the world next to sub-Saharan Africa. Had one of those UN graph predictions then, where the Muslim population, tho declining, was still well ahead of China, Germany and the US.

In 2003, even Europe’s Muslim Street was acknowledging that the Muslim population growth was 3 times that of non-Muslim.

This all begs, once again, the question of you… will you be the one to tell the Muslim, or even those of the Mormom faith, how many children they are allowed to have? How do you propose doing this if not with government mandates to accomplish your ‘save the earth’ population control?

China has had a one child law since 1979, established by Deng Xiaoping. Yet the 2009 CIA Factbook statistics still have Chinese population growth at 14 births per 1000, positioned at 150 to the US at 153.

I do agree that illegal immigration control weighs heavily into a nation’s population growth. I doubt you’ll get any conservative’s argument about cracking down in illegal entry into this nation. But perhaps more important than nanny government mandates and immigration control is the obvious… education and literacy.

As even the UN noted this past April, when addressing Muslim birth rates, the drop in Middle East birth rates seems to suggest that education plays a huge factor.

Conversely, one would think that advocating for a modern and free Middle East… perhaps using that Dubya unpopular term of advancing freedom and Arab/Muslim democracy in nations run by despots… is far more effective than simply placing rules and regs on family size. In other words, voluntary and not mandated. And most certainly not the goal of Sharia rule nations, or the quest of the jihad movements.

“Some slight reduction in fertility is necessary”…. really? How do you reasonably factor in natural catastrophic disasters… from pandemics to other natural forces…. that are virtually unpredictable? How has mankind survived as long as they have without such minds as yours? Baffling…. One might also wonder that if we had “just enough” population to suit you, a fast moving and uncontrollable pandemic could theoretically wipe out the perpetuation of the human race. In fact, if all the “climate change” gloom and doom happens, aren’t we supposed to lose immense numbers of human life?

Then you say:

Who should get to decide who gets to procreate? That decision should be left to the people. All the government needs to do is provide some economic incentive in the form of tax policy to influence that decision toward smaller families in general. There’s no need whatsoever for the kind of coercive practices employed in places like China. Who cares how many children any one family chooses, as long as the overall fertility rate drops slightly?

No, “the people” should not get to decide who gets to procreate. That is a very individual freedom… family size… that I will die fighting before relegating to “the people” – which is another way for saying a law/voting process.

And what’s with this “how many children… as long as the overall fertility rates drops slightly” bit? Are you also suggesting that if “the people” decide upon a x drop in population via government mandate, that it not be distributed evenly? Should those who wish one to two children sacrifice their nominal desires because another family chooses 9-10? Because my farmer/neighbor wants a large family, should I yield my desires for a small family because it achieves the overall “drop” you desire?

It is dangerous waters into which you wade. You are not given the rights, nor carte blanche power to determine population growth… or power over life and death… simply because you wave a “save the planet” flag.

Ultimately, our population will stabilize one way or another, as dictated by simple laws of physics. It will happen either through a lower birth rate or a higher death rate, or some combination of the two. Those opposed to any effort to reduce the birth rate have, by default, chosen a higher death rate. There is simply no escape from that simple fact.

Yes, it will. And all without government control. Just as in past cultures when they over farmed their lands, and ended up dying of starvation if they did not advance and wisen up, it’s part of life’s cycle. Life spans may be getting longer, but we are still carbon units, finite and vunerable to our own failings.

Those who oppose mandates to reduce birth rates do not choose a higher death rate, as you suggest. This is rather an extreme position, taken from a defensive stance, I might add. However if you are suggesting that a refusal by government to control birth rates translates to a government who achieves that same control by having death panels – those in high government positions who decide who is worthy of treatment based on productivity – then I might agree. Either way, it is government mandated intrusion into where they have no right to be.

Your population arguments truly defy the state of economic affairs all over the world today. THe baby boomer generation is rapidly advancing the end of life. Yet the problem remains that there are not enough working young to contribute to their care by robbing their future Medicare dollars (in the US, or similar systems in other western nations) to replace the government’s irresponsible theft of Medicare trust funds they’ve been collecting from us boomers since mid-60s. Ponzi schemes never work.

With your notions of population explosion, a robust young population would have no problems sustaining the boomers into the future… just as the baby boomers provided numbers and tax revenue to care for the WW generations. To use this as a foundation, I’d say we need population increase, not decrease.

But frankly, I don’t advocate any human body of rule attempting to play pious deities. Most especially on a “save the planet” argument.

Just does not compute.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The histories of the American landmasses piror to Spanish invasion weren’t as peaceful or blissful as that Donald. Many tribal conflicts and major wars between the likes of the Aztec and Mayans and other major Empires predating European assault racked this land for centuries. And even of those of Native American decent are themselves immigrants themselves, nomads traversing lands for milliena before the Spanish awoken to the prospects of the “New World.” But I will give you that one, it was the British and the Spanish arrogance to divide up and claim what land, “they owned.” But each single man and woman on this piece of land did not orginaly hail from these lands naturaly, all of us had to migrate here by land or water. What has happened is the fact each future generation of our families have adapted to these lands, and all of us now passionately call this home as it should be. That is where the problem is: We are splitting ourselves apart just because of orgins of our family lines when we are all in the same problem together.

The one thing that was truly horrific of United States History is the horrifc series of Native American conflicts during colonial eras of the 1600′s up to the 1800′s bloody warfare. The Tribes of freemen of the Native American population did not unite against a common enemy, and if they had done so then the Spanish up to the British Colonists who called themselves American later on would have been defeated and pushed away from attack by a force well adapted to mobile warfare well before Europeans undersood the concept in alien terrain for their militaries. And then there was the racist attitude of the US Federal Government and Army towards Native tribes in the 1800′s whom were either netural or peaceful for the most part which created a shut down of all means of diplomatic solutions to a rising issue that lead to horrificly unneeded bloodshed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The hidden “benefit” of cutting 500 billion from Medicare and expanding the number of people utilizing its services is the huge savings the US will reap from the early demise of seniors that are currently drawing social security benefits when some government bureaucrat (read that “death panel”) decides that because said senior is no longer an actively producing member of society we can off them. Screw the health care cost savings… those would pale by comparison to the savings we’d see in reduced Social Security benefits. In addition, the sooner we off these parasites of society the sooner we can tax their estates.

Obama Care…. die baby die. No pills for you! Has anyone seen where I left my soylent green?

Let’s kill two birds with one stone…. and a few old people too while we are at it!

Oh damn, I’m old! Never Mind….

@Mr Irons

The way I’d handle illegal aliens. I’d give people here illegally notice that they had 90 days to liquidate their assets and leave the country. Those that failed to depart, when caught, would have all assets confiscated and auctioned with the proceeds used to pay down the National Debt and then immediately deported.

Until such a time as that occurs, I’d bill the nation of origin for any medical care furnished to illegal aliens that are native to that particular country.

I’m sure glad my ancestors got here before there was a United States…. it means we didn’t immigrate to the US, we founded it.

Which brings me to the subject of Native Americans (Indians for the unPC)

Chief ‘Two Eagles’ was asked by a government official, ‘You have observed the white man for 90 years. You’ve seen his wars and his technological advances. You’ve seen his progress, and the damage he’s done.’

The Chief nodded in agreement.

The official continued, ‘Considering all these events, in your opinion, what did the white man do wrong?’

The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied.

‘When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex.’

Then the chief leaned back and smiled.

‘Only white man dumb enough’ to think he could improve system like that’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey Pete, a political party that headed Germany in the 1930′s up to the end of World War II kinda tried to shove that snake oil of yours; oh I think it was that infamous little Nazi party with a madman spewing that same little ideal. Millions onto millions of humans dead due to a radical ideal such as yours with the hell bent attitude of a super race, a point you’re subtly making at. If you so want the population to decrease then either sterlize yourself and your children and leave those who refuse to follow your ideals alone.

And I am highly disturbed how you are viewing Immigrants and their familes of America as a substitute bane in replacement of the Jewish People that Nazi Germany went after. Ignorance is bliss apparently, as almost every Citizen that is Caucassian hails from an immigrant family, so by your own postings that you and your family along with over 100 million Americans should be surpressed and/or killed due to Immigrant histories? That is a madman’s stance and I don’t partake to that kindly. America has been one of the, if not only, nation that has been highly accepting of legal inbound immigrants for decades. Up until Union and Government regulations hindered businesses and technological progression, there was a serious need for more workers than there were Americans and legal immigrants gave the ablity to fill this demand for labor. Illegal immigrants is of a different matter, the easiest way to address this problem is to force a National Trade Langauge which forces all advertisements, press, and business to be conducted in English only yet allowing people to privately communicate in any dialect and langauge they see fit. Ontop of this Trade Langauge would be a fair labor law that mandates a business can not pay employee people below the minimal wage (which Illegals are) and have heavy enforcement in place to use current business laws that shun paying employees under the books. A page from Oklahoma relating to how to deal with Immigration problems should be taken, not from your fantasy piece of work in Facist tounge.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Pete Murphy:

Hey Pete….have you had your vasectomy yet?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

To MataHarley:

First of all, it is you who is injecting race into the discussion, not me. Instead of jumping to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions, you could have just asked how I’d propose addressing the issue.

First of all, yes, the rate of population growth is declining. The world’s population is now growing at a rate at which it will double in 50 years, instead of 40 years as it was doing. (The UN projects that it will not double in the next 50 years, instead growing by about 50%, since they also project the decline in the growth rate to continue.) But the end of population growth is nowhere in sight.

You might like to visit my web site to learn more about my proposals for addressing this situation. I’ll try to “nut-shell” it here. First of all, it’s impossible to address globally. It can only be done nation-by-nation. What better nation to show how to do it ethically than the U.S.? No one likes the approaches taken by China and India.

First of all, it’s important to understand that U.S. population growth comes from two sources almost equally – from immigration and from the net growth in the native population. Our current fertility rate is about 2.09 children per female, not 1.6 per thousand as Red 73 above states. But, upon closer examination, we find that the highest fertility rate is among the foreign-born population. The fertility rate among native-born Americans is very close to 2.0. (Even that rate is slightly too high, due to our steadily increasing life expectancy. To understand, imagine a life expectancy of infinity. The fertility rate would have to decline to zero to attain population stability.)

Thus, the key to attaining population stability in the U.S. is to reduce immigration to the point where it eventually equals the rate of emigration, eliminating it as a factor in population growth. Reducing legal immigration that much will be difficult enough. So it only makes sense that illegal immigration needs to be completely halted. Cuts to legal immigration should begin with employment preferences, followed by students, followed by family preferences.

Still, some slight reduction in the fertility rate is necessary. Who should get to decide who gets to procreate? That decision should be left to the people. All the government needs to do is provide some economic incentive in the form of tax policy to influence that decision toward smaller families in general. There’s no need whatsoever for the kind of coercive practices employed in places like China. Who cares how many children any one family chooses, as long as the overall fertility rate drops slightly? Ultimately, nearly every family’s decision about how many children to have boils down to an economic one – how many they can afford. Since taxes are perhaps the biggest drains on our incomes, then taxes are a major factor in that decision. Tweaking tax policy slightly (like reducing the deduction for each dependent, for example) is all that would be needed.

Ultimately, our population will stabilize one way or another, as dictated by simple laws of physics. It will happen either through a lower birth rate or a higher death rate, or some combination of the two. Those opposed to any effort to reduce the birth rate have, by default, chosen a higher death rate. There is simply no escape from that simple fact.

Of course, you’re not going to buy into any of this unless you understand how overpopulation is driving up unemployment and poverty. So I encourage you to put aside preconceived notions about the subject and look into my theory with an open mind. Once you understand the need to stabilize our population at a sustainable level, you’re faced with some very tough issues. If you arrive at that point, I’d be interested in hearing how you would propose achieving population stability.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great topic and commentary. Mike your film is the best horror film in 60 years.

Like or Dislike: 0  0