The Playing Field

Sport and Culture Through the Lens of Science

Steven Kotler is the author of West of Jesus: Surfing, Science and the Origins of Belief. His magazine writing has appeared in more than 31 publications. See full bio

February 8, 2009, Child Development

Comments on "The Five Year Ban: Because A Billion Less People Is A Great Place To Start"

The Five Year Ban: Because A Billion Less People Is A Great Place To Start

By Steven Kotler on February 8, 2009 in The Playing Field

Not wrong, but incomplete.

Submitted by Jill on February 8, 2009 - 7:24am.

It's not that I think you're wrong-- I don't. I think you're absolutely right. But this article conveniently fails to address the byproducts of the kind of change you're talking about. A very good friend of mine is a delivery nurse. Her and her tens of thousands of colleagues across the country would be out of work for the next five years, along with obstetricians. If this ban were to exceed five years, kindergarten teachers would soon be out of work, too. I realize that none of these issues are as pressing as addressing the overpopulation crisis, but punishing those with careers in the infant-producing-and-rearing industry doesn't seem appropriate. What sort of programs would need to be in place to make sure these people don't fall through the cracks? How much time would be need to implement such changes?

Just curious if you're thinking beyond the numbers.

re: Not wrong but incomplete

Submitted by ChuckK on February 8, 2009 - 7:51am.

Tell 'em to go back to school and pick up a new skill. Badda bing.

Evidently you completely

Submitted by Jill on February 8, 2009 - 5:31pm.

Evidently you completely missed the phrase about NOT PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN CAREERS IN SUCH AN INDUSTRY. Telling them SOL and sending them back to school on their own pocket money is punishment in my book, friend.

Well, Jill . . .

Submitted by Barrett on February 8, 2009 - 10:21pm.

. . . that's effectively what has been done to those in the IT and other industries in the US, isn't it?

Their jobs have been eliminated or outsourced to India and China. They are told "sucks to be you!" and told to go get another degree in another field on their own dime and their own time.

No one cares about that. Why would jobs in the baby/child industry be any different? Why should they?

Human life has value?

Submitted by Anonymous on February 9, 2009 - 10:22am.

The fact that the joy that children bring to this world and how that joy will be lost by this proposal is not mentioned indicates your warped world view.

All of you would have had good company in the eugenicists (such as margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood) and the nazi party. God save you all.

Annnd there is the Nazi

Submitted by Ashley on February 10, 2009 - 6:34am.

Annnd there is the Nazi comparison. You automatically fail and your comment is void. Do you even know what eugenics was about. It was about discriminating against certain groups. Saying *no one* should have kids doesn't discriminate againgst a group like say...poor blacks. At least try to sound like you know what you're talking about. Seriously.

And I wonder how joyful starving children are. As they cry their heads off while their stomachs bloat from malnutrition, I'll be thinking about how joyful it all is. Except not.

Thanks Ashley.

Submitted by Jill on February 13, 2009 - 10:59am.

Because anonymous, you're out of your mind.

Babies are a people group too

Submitted by Mathew Brown on March 11, 2009 - 2:32am.

Babies are a people group too haha. Did you forget about that? You must have a real dislike for babies.

the starving children

Submitted by concerned citizen on March 15, 2009 - 10:20am.

You are absolutely right. There is zero joy in the sound of a hungry child. You sound very concerned. Did you know that children can live off of your spare change? And since you are so concerned about these hungry children, many you should send 5% of your income or what you spend on coffee/movies/books/ etc to feed one of these families. Please, that crying child and even more distressed mother would be sooooo grateful.

Are you kidding me? I love

Submitted by Ebonka on June 17, 2009 - 5:25pm.

Are you kidding me? I love Nacis! With their cool looking flag, funny mustaches, and kooky marches. Sure, they caused a massive genocide throughout Europe, but they knew how to party.

Are you kidding me? I love

Submitted by Ebonka on June 17, 2009 - 5:26pm.

Are you kidding me? I love Nacis! With their cool looking flag, funny mustaches, and kooky marches. Sure, they caused a massive genocide throughout Europe, but they knew how to party.

Hi Barrett, You're right,

Submitted by Jill on February 13, 2009 - 10:57am.

Hi Barrett,

You're right, and I don't disagree with you. However, it's out of scope for this article. I was simply suggesting that a societal movement like this one would put those in the child/baby industry in a similar position. I don't think IT professionals that have been replaced overseas should be high and dry as they are either, and I do think society has a responsibility to them as well. I just didn't bring it up because, again, out of scope. To say that "no one cares about that," in response to an article like this is kind of strange reaction. That's like me getting upset because it didn't show any sensitivity to lesbians. It's irrelevant.

Hope I'm clearer now.

Jill

Submitted by Anonymous on February 9, 2009 - 11:04am.

What about not punishing people who want to bring children into the world? Why do you show no concern for them?

Or what about our economy? We're already getting screwed with the Baby Boomers retiring. It'll be even worse if we can't replenish our own population. It isn't just for fun that Japan and Russia and other countries are trying to get their citizens to make babies.

If you don't care about any of the above, then why should teachers and nurses get special treatment?

Sorry I care about the poor and starving.

Submitted by Jill on February 13, 2009 - 11:07am.

Sincerely. Because the desire to procreate trumps the need to eat. Because those WHO DID NOTHING TO DESERVE being born into the lower rungs of society should just stay there, so I can keep squeezing 'em out to fulfill my Mommy-complex. In fact, the hell with the next two, three, four hundred years of humanity. I want a baby NOW! Right? Am I hearing you right?

First, the problem is not that we don't have enough people. If we didn't have babies for five years, maybe the unemployed could ya know, get jobs. Maybe the starving might actually have a chance at a can of Campbell's. The problem isn't too few- the problem is too few have enough.

Secondly, if having babies is more important to you than making the planet survivable for CENTURIES of humanity, then you're more warped than I'm even prepared to deal with.

And as far as our economy goes, if there were fewer children to deal with, government spending could be diverted away from a lot of early childhood resources.

The whole point of this movement is sacrifice. I'm really sorry you're too selfish to see the value in that. I'm also really frightened that a lot of humanity is just like you.

Hmm.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 16, 2009 - 2:11pm.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I agree with you. However, you're also completely wrong (I mean your reasoning is bunk, but we get to more or less the same conclusion). First, sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is always bad. Without exception. It's not a sacrifice if there's a benefit to be had for it, even if that benefit is gratification from the helping of others.

I disagree that a complete cessation of babies for five years is what is necessary. However, calling for a complete ban will not result in a 100% cessation, so it's fine to ask for it as long as a strict government-backed ban isn't enforced with punishment. I agree that it's rational to not have kids in today's world.

I would point out that most modern societies have sharply decreased birth rates without an active movement of any kind. So the second piece of the solution is to help developing nations reach a fully industrialized state as quickly as possible by mutually beneficial trade instead of mercilessly exploiting them by buying their resources and selling it back to them in processed goods, getting them dependent on imports and loans they'll never repay, backed against the wall with a global police in the form of the military.

Not to worry

Submitted by Anonymous on May 24, 2009 - 6:51am.

Not to worry, little uber-national socialist, the UN forecast is a shrinking world population by 2050. Who will attend you in your nursing home then? I guess you won't have to worry about it because by then you'll be advocating euthanasia for everyone! Yay! Death! Let's kill babies!

Mom

Submitted by Anonymous on May 24, 2009 - 6:59am.

I wish someone had suggested that to your Mom back in the day.

Nothing's that easy

Submitted by Christopher Ryan on February 8, 2009 - 8:23am.

Thanks for a provocative piece. I agree with most of your argument, except those last few words. Of course, it's not that easy.

Let's see, no kids, but 15 dogs and a private jet. That's ok? How about the resources a few kids consume vs. that factory stamping out useless pieces of junk and dumping their run-off in the river? You can get lost in this stuff.

I'd propose some sort of overall consumption system where people could choose how to spend their consumption credits. You could choose to have another kid or to add an addition on your house. Camper van or kid -- not both.

I was reminded of how in Medieval Europe, it was common to toss the contents of toilets out the window into the street. You walked at your own risk. Seems that's where we are now in terms of the pollution (dust, run-off, nuclear, etc.) of industry. They pay nothing for dumping into an environment we all share.

To me, that's as bad, or worse, than all the damned kids!

I'd propose some sort of

Submitted by Mike H on February 9, 2009 - 10:32am.

I'd propose some sort of overall consumption system where people could choose how to spend their consumption credits.

-------

I believe its called capitalism jackass.

Capitalism isn't working.

Submitted by Kingstonian on February 9, 2009 - 3:05pm.

Capitalism isn't working. That's why you now have single, unemployed mothers getting in-vitro treatment and producing Franken-litters of multiple children, then smugly sitting back and saying "God will provide." Sorry, but God doesn't have a bank account - it's *US*, the taxpayers, who ultimately end up supporting those who choose to be so selfish.

And even in less extreme cases, there are "normal" families every day who decide to add a few more kids to their rosters, and the $COST of raising those kids, providing for them, feeding, clothing and housing them, is not usually discussed beforehand. Then the family racks up huge amounts of debt trying to "make ends meet." The "consumption credits" system you think is already in place isn't, or at least it isn't working, and it will continue to fail as long as credit terms are extended to those who have not.

Um, capitalism absolutely

Submitted by Good Lt on February 10, 2009 - 4:53am.

Um, capitalism absolutely does work, and to say that it doesn't work is a ridiculous statement worthy of being classified as a joke. America is the most prosperous, affluent nation in history, and it didn't get there by being a utopian, collectivist nation. It was capitalism that made the difference (as if any comparison to collectivist economies can even be made witha straight face.). Name one collectivist economy in the that has led the production of a good or service in the world - excluding starvation, shortages, mob violence, and "revolution," of course.

People aren't cranking out kids saying that "GOD WILL PROVIDE." Morons like that obviously know that it's no big deal because GOVERNMENT WILL PROVIDE. Socialism has given us such wonderful things as welfare, subsidization of children, etc. That doesn't sound very capitalist, does it?

People arguing for the "cost" of kids now will be the same ones wondering why nobody is paying into their socialist pension and welfare funds later. Who do you think is going to grow up and run businesses (provided socialism doesn't kill them all) and pay taxes that fund all of these "generous" government goodies? Are a whim, a child's smile and hopey-change going to pay for Medicare?

Decide what you want - if you want socialism, freebies for all, massive government, pensions, state-run health care, welfare, etc., then you NEED capitalism to pay for it even as these things strangle it. You can't have one without the other - socialism fails unless capitalism is there to bankroll it. And capitalism is starting refuse to bankroll socialism in the US. You're seeing what happens when the bill actually comes due for socialism and government intervention in the private economy. It's about time.

Couldn't have said it better

Submitted by Zack on February 10, 2009 - 9:27pm.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You trounced that clown.

Seems like this message board sure is full of quite a few left wing social engineers. They all just know in their wittle hearts what's best for us Bible thumping rubes, don't they?

You damn fool

Submitted by GuyverZen on April 14, 2009 - 10:02am.

There is a lot of finger pointing going on in this comments thread.

LISTEN, you are obviously misinformed. Unfortunately, most people are, so don't feel bad. There is not a good system on the face of the planet. I'm not talking "perfect", I mean good. Outside of your dated, rosy, good capitalism vs. bad socialism view lies the truth that all political systems have ruined us.

The reason that the United States is so affluent is because of capitalism, sure. The problem is, YOU think capitalism is about free and fair trade with all nations and peoples. You must to make a statement like that. The reason we live in an affluent society is not because we're hard-working, you numnuts, it's because we dominate and exploit the resources of others, just as someone above had mentioned.

A verbose comment wouldn't be enough to explain this in detail. The content we'd need to cover just to give you an overview of how this works easily rivals the typical amount of content in a rigorous single-semester college course.

Just please do us a favor and don't frame the problems of today in this decades-old, cold-war era nonsense.

Wrong!

Submitted by Doc_Navy on March 31, 2009 - 8:36am.

Umm no. Capitalism works JUST FINE. In fact, it's worked so WELL that it has maintained this country since inception, AND with less than 50% of the total taxable population ACTUALLY PAYING TAXES! Remember all those "Rich" people that you Lib crybabies want to increase taxes on? Yeah, THOSE GUYS. They already pay more than 65% of all taxes taken in by the US Govt.
Let's see, that's 65% of all taxes paid by less than 10% of the population. (With 50% Paying nothing at all.)
Hmm, what happened to your liberal sense of "Fairness"??

As for Nadia Suleman:
1. She should be put in jail.
2. She won't and on top of that she'll make MILLIONS because she's entertainment for folks like -YOU-!

People in developed

Submitted by Jpfjpn on February 8, 2009 - 8:23am.

People in developed economies and of higher education, your readership, are already having far fewer children. Given that children born to advanced economies waste far more resources, that is a good thing. But I doubt you are ever going to reach the peoples of the developing world. So, now what? We are all supposed to have Mexican, sub-Saharan African, and Chinese girl babies? I, like you, resent people who have more babies than is reasonable and lack the resources or will to care for them. But nothing is going to stop poorer economies from pumping out babies. Educated people will just breed themselves into extinction before that ever happens.

China

Submitted by Anonymous on July 4, 2009 - 5:16pm.

I'd like to point out China's 1 child policy for population control. if you have more than one child, you pay greatly increased taxes. not a bad idea.

Educated people will just breed themselves into extinction befor

Submitted by Jiyu on December 8, 2009 - 11:23am.

I'm reminded of the movie "Idiocracy".

But with less idealism.

If humans were only smarter than yeast

Submitted by Baka Karasu on February 8, 2009 - 9:38am.

Excellent rant. I concur with all you say, though I've come to believe that humans are not smarter than yeast. If only Angelina & Brad had stopped at adopting and not bred themselves there might have been a chance for a meme launch of the type you describe. I've ranted on this topic myself:

http://bakakarasu.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-humans-smarter-than-yeast.html

For those of you who don't "believe in" overpopulation (kinda like not believing in gravity in my opinion) here are some good resources:

Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-t...

Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca

Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

...and of course the classic "Overshoot" by Catton

Brainless

Submitted by SteveM on February 8, 2009 - 2:42pm.

What a stupid inane mind dump. Utopian...er...Dystopian drivel. Might as well reprint the lyrics to "Imagine" and hope for the best.

And I'm still waiting for the Sanctimonious Steve Kotlers of this world to take the lead. I.e., give up all your materialistic trash, become a Vegan and adopt 2 kids from Africa.