Time for a rational decision on population levels?

[Jovial Monk]

Humankind will soon cross the 7Bn population mark. Can the globe really support such numbers?

We know people live in appalling conditions in many third world countries. We also know populations of animal and plant species are being threatened by loss of habitat. Global warming can but increase while population increases.

In the way of a rational decision is religion, esp Muslim and Catholic faiths.

The spectre of the State regulating families is not a nice one.

So. . .?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

So what? What is this 'rational decision on population levels' to which you speak? I contend that none exists.

[boxy]

Oh, it exists... no bastard who wants to get elected will listen though.

We all live in mom'n'dad electorates. Telling them they are breeding the world into a bust phase isn't gunna get you re-elected.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Oh, it exists... no bastard who wants to get elected will listen though.

Well don't be shy about it man, speak up! Tell us! What is the rational solution to population levels?

[boxy]

Stop the idiotic practice of paying otherwise wealthy people to have babies, and to raise families, for a start... that includes tax breaks.

Shot the missionaries who preach against controception.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Stop the idiotic practice of paying otherwise wealthy people to have babies, and to raise families, for a start... that includes tax breaks.

Define wealthy in dollars Boxy. Can't know if you are making sense otherwise.

Shot the missionaries who preach against controception.

That's not rational, but then you knew that.

[boxy]

I don't think a dollar term is useful.

Don't pay people extra for breeding. Welfare should still take into account dependants (to keep them out of poverty), but it shouldn't be enough to make having kids an economic decision.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

I don't think a dollar term is useful.

Don't pay people extra for breeding. Welfare should still take into account dependants (to keep them out of poverty), but it shouldn't be enough to make having kids an economic decision.

So the Family Tax Benefit, Child Care Benefit, Child Care Fund, Immunization Allowance and Education Allowance remain, but the Baby Bonus and Maternity Allowance should cease? And this will reduce populations will it?

Assuming it does, how will this smaller population tend to the needs of the large aging population? How will Economics deal with a contracting economy?

[Jovial Monk]

Baby bonus was a bad thing, record numbers of babies being given up etc.

[boxy]

Assuming it does, how will this smaller population tend to the needs of the large aging population? How will Economics deal with a contracting economy?

Not a smaller population... a population that isn't growing. And we're going to have to deal with the economics of a contracting economy sooner or later. "Fixing" the problem by constantly advocating moar and moar growth isn't fixing anything, it's only multiplying the problem, and putting it off for later generations.

How do we deal with it if we decide to be the ones to say "enough"? We finally decide to limit our consumption. We innovate (after all, the technological revolution is supposed to allow us to mechanise rather than "labourise"). We take the economy into the virtual sphere, which can allow for expansion with limited physical consumption.

Just for a start.