I'm bookmarking this series of articles because they contain much good information on the subject. I suspect if you sent this to whitehouse.gov or any government entity, it would go ignored. I doubt any politician would touch it with a ten-foot-pole.

You wrote:

"Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.”

I might add that to fail to solve this looming problem - even though we have the capability and the resources right in front of us to do so - is immoral. It is immoral because we are actively and knowingly destroying our own species when there is little to no excuse to do so - other than sheer ignorance, self-centered tunnel-vision, unwillingness, and an abject refusal to face the issues before us.

We humans are supposedly the most intelligent species on the planet. (?) Yet we're sitting here in our uber-consumerist, over-procreating idiot glee sawing off the very branch upon which we are perched. Doh! How intelligent is that? Oh we KNOW better. But whether we have the wherewithall, will, and intelligence as a species to DO better is another question.

Pardon the cynicism. A review of the responses to your first post re: this subject - and similar attitudes worldwide - is the source of that.

Collectively, I suspect we will likely go on to destroy ourselves beneath the weight of our own inability to evolve. Very unfortunate.

But I appreciate your efforts nonetheless, to once again bring this issue to the forefront. I hope that somehow, it can become a more prominent subject of public discourse - because it badly needs to be.

I am also childless and intend to remain that way. That's how I've done my part. I see no problem with public education programs encouraging (NOT forcing, simply encouraging) thoughtful family planning, encouraging smaller families, and encouraging childlessness or adoption - it's what we should be doing.

There are things government can do to encourage smaller families. For instance, tax breaks for dependent children can be limited to two or three children. If a couple has more children beyond that number - then fine - but they do not receive tax breaks for the additional offspring. This saves taxpayer dollars, and encourages smaller families - again not forced, but encouraged.

It CAN be done. But I'm guessing it won't. . .

Your quote by MLK sums up the sentiment I think most of us who are aware of the population issue share. We're all too aware that things don't change unless they are absolutely forced, and that's not a fact in which we take pride.

As far as a solution, though, that's obviously not so easy. A 5 year refrain from procreation doesn't seem like a good idea. In a discussion with a friend about this article, they provided the very apt analogy to attempting to diet by not eating anything for a couple months. While the results would be dramatic, and the cause would be satisfied in some ways, the negatives would obscure any good.

In the end this plan would not work, and would possibly make things worse. You hint towards a "bounce-back" after the hypothetical 5 years. Historically, the odious resistance to population limitation measures pales when compared to the enthusiasm displayed in a response to encouraging growth.

So then what's the answer? As I wrote in my comments on the first article in the series, I don't feel there is any way to avoid catastrophe, realistically. I think catastrophe is the only way things can get better, and I agree that the looming one is unprecedented. But unprecedented strife and conflict means proportional innovation.

I think our main focus should be how we innovate. Everything in the past 3 decades has been about how long we can keep our cultures on life support. Talk about flying in MLK's face, we expend all our energy not only on not applying solutions, but on the exact opposite. Our economic system dictates that we avoid change at almost all cost. When that cost becomes too great, as it soon will, complete collapse occurs. Ironically, it is proponents of this model that are "leading the way" towards our extinction by setting up more and more dominos.

All in all, though, you present a very good summary of some of the aspects threatening us and the planet, and that's refreshing to see.

u people make me sick talk about eugenics i suppose u would make an exellent concentration death camp gas attendent u would probably like to know all the elite of the planet talk about is global depopulation with mass viruses that im sure will kill u too i got some advice for eugenisists like you, wanna kill everyone how bout u all go first so we can live in peace without parasites like you we will all be better off....peace

Yes, population growth is a major global problem. But, unlike many other major problems or crises, we know exactly how to solve this problem, namely through access to information, services, education and the full empowerment of women.

It's not about preventing people from having children. It's about creating new opportunities. And societies can transform themselves with astonishing speed when the above conditions are in place. Between 1961 and 1977 the US Total Fertility Rate, which refers to the number of children each women has on average, dropped by 50% in just 16 years. Over the same number of years (but a different time period) the TFR in Iran plummeted even more. And, in both cases, it was the result of positive, voluntary approaches.

We know what works. It's relatively inexpensive. And people all over the world want it. Imagine that. A global problem with a ready solution that is the product of a rational process which enables people to have more control over their own lives.

Let's get on with it.

John Seager
President
Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth)

thanks again for the excellent information
Submitted by S on February 15, 2009 - 5:28pm.
I'm bookmarking this series of articles because they contain much good information on the subject. I suspect if you sent this to whitehouse.gov or any government entity, it would go ignored. I doubt any politician would touch it with a ten-foot-pole.

You wrote:

"Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.”

"There are things government can do to encourage smaller families. For instance, tax breaks for dependent children can be limited to two or three children. If a couple has more children beyond that number - then fine - but they do not receive tax breaks for the additional offspring. This saves taxpayer dollars, and encourages smaller families - again not forced, but encouraged.

"It CAN be done. But I'm guessing it won't. . ."
_______________________________________________________

S, I feel so awkyard talking to a letter. I would feel better if you had a name. Why be so shy?

I believe that this is the first time, in a public forum, that I've seen someone reasonably suggest tax disincentives for population control...And it's a good place to start. The government has to do nothing but stop extending tax deductions to people making the decision to have more than their fair share of children.

It's a perfect example how government can serve the interests of the people by doing less while at the same time, financing the program with a flow of fresh new sorely-needed revenues (the formerly deducted and not paid taxes for dependents in any number.

Of course, it would not be fair to withdraw present deductions from parents who made a lifetime's worth of planning based on the generosity of the IRS. We can take care of those objections by "grandfathering" those children already born before the program takes effect, say in a year or two, just to give those johnnie-come-latelies a chance to come for posterity one last time.

This program calls for no massive sacrifice on the part of any person, only that he become responsible in his reproduction and maybe pay a larger tax bill.

To make it work, it has to be simple and easily understood.

All persons shall have the singular untaxed right to reproduce only one child.

Any child born over this quota shall be subject to adoption by qualified parents without children of their own.

All persons may transfer this reproductive right to any another person for any reason he deems sufficient.

Any child born before the enactment of this program shall continue to receive his dependent status with the IRS just as before.

Any person, having exceeded his reproductive right twice shall be permanently sterilized within one year of the quota violation, and that this violation be considered only a misdemeanor.

This I believe, is a program that can work and could be a model for other countries.

In practice with good compliance, it will yield a birth-rate reduction to below the level required for simple replacement and a constantly lowering absolute population number. It will also yield large enhancements of tax revenue which our government and the people of this country need.

I'm sure that there will be some disagreement among some, as well as suggestions on how to make it work better.

So, let's hear them!

Thank you. This topic is so taboo with all of my friends and I have felt so all alone and no one will discuss it with me.