“Green” is a major hype and propaganda these days. Hybrid cars, compostable cups, re-usable grocery bags, this and that. Makes us believe we care for the environment. Fancy TV advertisements regularly feature a smiling family of four “living green” in a huge mansion, driving a hybrid monster SUV.
What an epic hogwash in the light of overpopulation and global warming.
The biggest inconvenient truth is that we don’t need more humans for several decades before the world’s population comes down to a stable level. That means one thing – “thou shalt not reproduce unless you contribute to the society”. In other words, there should be incentives and rewards for people who choose to stay childfree, and high taxes for parents opting for more than two children.
Childfree by choice couples can even drive hummers and live opposite of a “green” lifestyle and still be consuming resources several orders of magnitude lower than a family with one or two kids. Living “green” is like saving up pennies, and when a child is born, the effective expense of the planet is of the order of several hundreds of dollars in comparison. Saving those hundreds of dollars and spending pennies in “guilty luxuries” is much much better in my opinion.
In a geek friend’s words: “Don’t have a kid unless he/she can invent cold fusion.”
#1 by Pooja on July 14, 2010 - 4:02 pm
Good brain dump made me think
-
I am thinking how does one ensure that the kid they bring up is going to meet these standards? because most of the educated parents I know would never ignore their child’s development and would like to bring up a smart individual. But despite all the efforts not every kid turns out to be an inventor. A parent can ensure good values and skills.
Also I am trying to ponder on what does “giving back to humanity” and “contributing to society” mean ? A freelance artist who does not earn good money by his art is a good addition to the society but not a tax payer. All the workers that help make the environment around us a better place might not be exceptional individuals but are contributing to our well being in certain ways….
#2 by therider on July 14, 2010 - 4:21 pm
The main point is to make sure upto two children (replacement reproduction) are just fine for any couple who are at least working or doing anything meaningful. Remember paying taxes is a big enough contribution. Poor freelance artists have the smarts to do creative things, and they are fine as well. So this simple criteria alone covers all of us educated/resourceful folks. In an ideal world everyone should have some education and will be meaningful members of society. Why do we have to use the tax money the workers pay to feed the freeloaders and their offsprings ? Our system can sustain (water, food, shelter, job) only a finite amount of humans which is more than enough.
Everyone does not have to be inventor or a genius. We only have to make sure everyone has enough resources to live a decent life. That means no more crimes. Won’t this fact alone make all this worthwhile ? No one is born a criminal, the life situations make them. The society’s goal would be to eliminate the chances of those situations to arise. And it is infinitely better to prevent a hundred undesirable births than to allow the untimely death of just one resourceful person.
Make no mistake, the educated and well-to-do are encouraged to have children but at the same time the non-contributing people should be incentivized to abstain from breeding.
#3 by Pooja on July 14, 2010 - 4:46 pm
hmm I see.
So your point is that till now our society’s approach has been to give resources to the less privileged to be able to sustain their basic needs. And that has been going on for decades without any improvement.
Instead you suggest to cut that cord and let the best of the lot survive.
Agree. Though the suggestion sounds cruel on humanitarian grounds but it is just basic principle of Darwin’s theory applied to 21st century.
#4 by therider on July 14, 2010 - 5:01 pm
Giving resources to less privileged to just survive is still ok as that will cover some folks going through a temporary hard time. The critical mistake the system does is to allow the barely surviving to breed free like rabbits. And it is a downward spiral all along – no need to work, free food and shelter, even free medical care. There is practically no disincentive to abstain from breeding. THAT has to stop. Maybe those living under government help for a long time should be made to get sterilized in exchange of continued support.
#5 by Pooja on July 14, 2010 - 5:21 pm
Yup. Valid point.
#6 by Naveen Bachwani on July 20, 2010 - 10:49 pm
As an extension to your argument, why not adopt a child or two, and really make a dent in the resource-utilisation balance of the Universe?!
#7 by therider on July 20, 2010 - 11:12 pm
Naveen, adoption is a very noble idea, and it would be great to see young couples wanting to raise children adopt a few.
The childfree people truly love freedom in life and their position is like being neutral between the two ends – raising own kids, and raising adopted kids.
We should not forget that childfree people have the time and energy to volunteer for charitable work which somewhat makes up for not adopting one or two kids and spending all the free time on them.
#8 by Naveen Bachwani on July 21, 2010 - 3:10 am
I was merely pointing out that it’s a bit far fetched to say that one ought to be childfree because it’s in the interest of the Earth…
We may each have our reasons for doing what we choose to do (and not doing so, too)! The next kid that walks this Earth may not invent cold fusion, but that doesn’t mean that his time on this planet was purposeless…
#9 by Sandeep Menon on July 26, 2010 - 1:45 am
well… yes, the World could do with far fewer people.
But there is an issue with the idea of “stop reproducing”… its just too simplistic. You would then be stuck with an aging population in pockets. This is what you see in places like Europe today. This aging population will start to lose ground to the countries that refuse to follow the policy, and produce lots of young people. The World order of rich and poor, strong and weak nations will start to get unbalanced… Countries with aging populations need to spend more and more on healthcare, while the populations productivity keeps dropping…. it can turn into a death trap for individual nations…. thats why today Singapore rewards you for having more children
#10 by therider on July 26, 2010 - 1:52 am
“Stop reproducing” is never the answer. The answer is have upto 2 kids without paying more taxes. No enforcements like China. The wealthy can enjoy more kids while they can also afford to provide good education to them. The poor and middle class will stay within limits. The world might be doing fine with the replacement reproductivity level of 2. And not to forget that laws/rules/systems can change every few years depending on the current population scenario.