Because I am trying to work on a manuscript, I have been restraining myself from returning to this Listserv since my initial posting last week, which presumably started this whole procreation-environment debate. However, seeing Edward's comments just compels me to respond.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 07:30:14 -0800, Edward Sismour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Like it or not, demographics rules the world. Which part of the world is currently experiencing the largest demographic increases as a consequence of child-birth? It's not the US. The author's criticism of the birth rate in the US (it's a 1994 article) misses one small point. If people in the United States stop having babies, then eventually there won't be a United States or the United States will begin (and by some accounts has already begun) to become the dis-United States as more people come to this country that choose not to assimilate. In other words, there won't be enough people born into this culture (by any race) who grow up to appreciate and value it. (Don't suggest that I'm bashing anyone here. It boils down to a sense of ownership. Generally speaking, when someone has a sense of ownership they value that thing more than if it were common property.) You mean like how native Americans used to own this continent, and now it's "dis-native America"? > > Look at the demographics of Western Europe. They stopped having babies at their replacement rate a long time ago. If you want to read something, go read about the impact of demographic changes that Europe is now experiencing. > Here are two quotes from The Population Media Center (http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/demographics.html#popgrowth): > "For at least 25 years, 20 European countries and Japan have had below replacement-level fertility rates (2.1 children per woman). By now a total of 44 countries have fertility levels that low. Without the projected gain of 2 million immigrants a year from developing countries, many industrial nations would shortly experience population declines." > "The 48 countries classified as least developed have even more rapid population growth. If current trends continue, the combined populations of these nations will almost triple by mid-century-from 658 million to 1.8 billion. Among the 16 countries with extremely high fertility rates (seven children or more per woman) are Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, and Yemen." I'm all for populaiton regualtion in all these places, however, the right- wing Bush government (whom I assume Ed voted for based on his tone of voice) has threatened to cut aid to many of these countries for family planning related projects. > > It would be nice if the world operated by a few simple rules or solving one particular problem would be the keystone to solving everything else, but then there are always unintended consequences. What will be the (unintended) consequences of these demographic trends? What consequences would you like to discuss: political, societal, environmental, cultural, religious, (have I left anything out)? It would be nice if birth rates in all countries could be lowered, some have but many have not. But people will be people, influenced by factors other than "environmental footprints" and babies will be produced (let's not forget the possible unintended consequence of sex-selective infanticide in countries where birth control is mandated). And, unless you live in Communist China where having more than two babies could get you jail time (or worse, tell me if I'm wrong), reducing the number of babies is an entirely volunteer effort counter to biological imperative. That's why in countries like China where the overcrowding problem is beyond the initial stages (or even mid stage), voluntary effort is not the most effective solution. Have you ever been to China or any east Asian countries? New York city looks like Kansas compared to them. I'll try to petition to send Ed to "commie China" one of these days. > > For a couple lying together, hearts racing, palms (and other places) sweaty with anticipation, what's the incentive to deny the biological imperative of reproducing the species? (If contraception were the answer, would we be having this discussion?) How about the thought of preventing the earth from imploding on itself as a result of overpopulation? Is that good enough? And some final thoughts: In case you haven't noticed, I'm Chinese. I came from Hong Kong, so I know first hand about all the consequences of overpopulation. And consider that HK is a place where 80% of the public don't even own cars. Imagine how the US will be like when it reaches a population density comparable to HK. People like Ed give me doubt about choosing to come to the US. I'm just glad there are at least still people like Kristina and Doug here. -George Wang
