[OGD] Population and pollution

[Dorothy Potter Barnett]

Steve, Now we are getting somewhere. Incentives, tax or otherwise, for having fewer children would certainly be a step in the right direction. So would education. But first, governments need to be convinced that population control is for the common good.  As for China, they needed to reduce their population, not merely sustain it. We may not agree with their methods, especially since their program resulted in the deaths of the undesirables (females) and as a consequence, now there are many more males in China than females (of marrying age). And who knows what the consequence of that will be.  Perhaps a pro-active solution is better than a re-active one. Like your tax incentive idea. Dot On Apr 30, 2006, at 6:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still enjoy the idea that we must reduce the population growth in order to avert catastrophy.  It takes a couple to have at least two children just to sustain the  population.  I hate the idea that we should limit the freedom of people to procreate, but there will always be the dregs of society. Perhaps there should be tax incentives for people to NOT have more than 2 children, instead of bribes for having more.  I highly respect womens' sovereignty over their bodies, but not to the extent where it will impugn upon the earthly ecosystems that provide the opportunity for such respect to exist. What would you suggest? Has China got it right? Regards, Steve

_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
orchids@orchidguide.com
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com