Dot, The idea of education is humorous. I live in Texas where we have a large Mexican population with an astronomical growth rate. I had spoken with one of my friends who is Mexican, and asked him why they produce so many children per couple. He told me that in his culture, wealth isn't measured only in money, but also in the size of your family. I thought this was an amusing but bothersome value. So it isn't just a situation where people are uneducated, it may also be cultural relativism. That means their value system will have to change somehow in order to affect a responsible birth rate. We could take a Margaret Sanger approach, and sterilize everyone at birth, until they prove themselves responsible to have a child. Some of you will have great smiles, and others will wonder if you would have made the cut.
I think most importantly, we need to stop supporting or giving incentives for overpopulation. Perhaps free abortion clinics and prophylactics. I wouldn't worry about the drain on the tax payers. Not only can we say "after the second one we tie your tubes," but I'm betting it costs less than paying additional welfare checks to eternity and back. Of course, this will be seen as socioeconomic discrimination and genocide, as people have assumed they have the right to make us pay for as many kids as they can produce. Fear not, my rabid orchid friends. You may object "well, this policy targets groups X and Y". Well no, it targets people who irresponsibly procreate, which ex post facto might be X and Y, but could just as easily be group Z. But let's take this a step further. Assume that we implement this sort of procreative control in the US. Does this help the ecosystem, and thus orchids? Maybe not. The market will always seek equilibrium, so people will flee to Mexico, Canada, Europe, etc. where the laws are not so "draconian." They will overproduce there. Yes, it sounds great to shift the burden but it doesn't get rid of the problem. So what? Well the US and Worldbank provide economic assistance in many forms. They can still suck money right out of your pocket even if they aren't in the US. But let us assume that we could make the US and Worldbank stop giving relief for such issues. We aren't impervious, and we are not an island to ourselves. In fact, most of the orchids we enthusiasts are interested in, don't have natural habitats in the US. I don't think I'll be seeing Phrag kovachii groves in the California mountains anytime soon. So the policy would have to be implemented unilaterally, which just isn't going to happen. If you want to know what our fate is, you have only to look in a commercial greenhouse. Thousands upon thousands of boring Phalaenopsis and Cattleya, all of the same few types, mass produced to infinity. There is little or no place for the tiny desirable Bulbophyllum, or the rare and reluctant slippers, or even the beautiful species Phals. That isn't what the market wants or values; we want the most fragrant, most floriforous, most obnoxious orchids we can find. Have no illusions, the masses have no appreciation for self-control or subtlety. I think orchid consumers would go into a feeding frenzy if we could breed orchids that had chrome spinning wheel rims and made keikis like crazy. Just ask Andy Easton, they are furiously working on it night and day. Steve Dorothy> Steve, Dorothy> Now we are getting somewhere. Incentives, tax or otherwise, for Dorothy> having fewer children would certainly be a step in the right Dorothy> direction. So would education. But first, governments need to be Dorothy> convinced that population control is for the common good. Dorothy> As for China, they needed to reduce their population, not merely Dorothy> sustain it. We may not agree with their methods, especially since Dorothy> their program resulted in the deaths of the undesirables (females) Dorothy> and as a consequence, now there are many more males in China than Dorothy> females (of marrying age). And who knows what the consequence of that Dorothy> will be. Dorothy> Perhaps a pro-active solution is better than a re-active one. Like Dorothy> your tax incentive idea. Dorothy> Dot Dorothy> On Apr 30, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Dorothy> [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) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
