American billionaire club wants to curb overpopulation
timesonline.co.uk
timesonline.co.uk
The best way to slow population growth is simply by making the poor more prosperous. What about some re-distribution of wealth....
Which merely exhibits a superstition about money, as though it is separate from what it represents. Merely redistributing money does nothing about the disparity in wealth. Modern wealth is a derivative of education, natural and human resources, ambition, hard work, the rule of law (wealth won't exist for long where the nearest thug can walk away with it unhindered), and other factors.
Merely telling governments to force people to "redistribute wealth" won't solve the problems that lead to the wealth inequality between third and first world nations, and the money will merely evaporate, as most aid money evaporates today...into the pockets of local banana republic leaders and their supporters. Fix what's broken about government, education, and ideology, in those third world nations, and you'll solve the wealth gap.
There is no way to "redistribute wealth" without redistributing the engines of wealth. And most first worlders, particularly those most successful at creating wealth, aren't going to jump at the chance to live in third world nations.
How about creating markets so that the 3rd world farmers could sell their products? So much gospel on free markets and the U.S. and E.U. are still protectionist when it comes to agricultural commodities...
http://www31.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+growth+in+...
What is it about the Ukraine that is curbing population growth? Also, what seems to increase population growth inside countries?
Unfortunately, there are not enough resources to guarantee everyone a high standard of living. Poverty is the result, and poverty leads to people breeding like rabbits. We are doomed.
etc.
large-scale literacy campaigns started 200+ years ago, and even though we have much left to do, you can already see the effect of childhood education on the world.
Seems to have little/no effect.
> Curb the rampant influence of organized religion on private matters.
Good luck doing that without coercion, substituting a different organization's influence on private matters.
> Empower women and give them equal employment so they have more time to reach for their dreams and less time popping out kids to latch onto a single source of income personified as a male patriarch.
Nice theory, but there's plenty of "overbreeding" in societies where women work as much as/more than men.
"X is bad" and "Y is bad" does not imply that X and Y have anything to do with one another.
> Develop family farms and agriculture and introduce automation to the process, so farmers don't depend on their offspring for labor.
Wrong. Automation doesn't make kids useless. It actually makes them more useful. A ten-year-old girl without automation can't do nearly as much as a 17 year-old boy. The more automation, the closer they are in productivity. (Having actually worked on farms, I'm often amazed by what people say about working on farms.)
If you want to keep farmers from breeding, don't have family farms.
Family benefits as they're in the U.S. seem to be optimized for the maximum yield of babies, and reduction of intact, 2-parent households. Single women simply get more buck for their bang (sorry!) here. And the fact that said benefits demand the removal of the father from the house, what you're left with are women raising children by themselves, and children of single moms becoming single parents themselves and going back to the system. Where generations ago they might have gone to the family farm or shop, now they're going to the family social worker to collect their own welfare checks.
I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that many "welfare services" are failures in many ways, including population. Perhaps they should have been on the list from the beginning.
So does education, higher standard of living and positive outlook towards the future.
Think positive thoughts, for your own happiness.