The Laissez Faire Approach To Population Control

I’ve always been concerned about the size of the world’s population. But, many times over my life people have predicted some kind of crisis due the world population but the world has gone on doing OK.

It was refreshing to read of an environmental writer who pledges not to write about population control. He sees what we call over population as a potential problem but thinks talking of controlling population as a high cost low return activity. Use of the term “laissez faire” is my own. It means people making choices independent of government regulation.

The cost is high because the issue has embedded all kinds of religious and moral issues. We all know about the religion surrounding birth control. Then there is the sort of unspoken question of just who is going to have fewer children, people we like or those we don’t like?

Experience has shown, the writer says, population numbers find about the right balance when one thing comes to the fore: empowerment of women. When women have choices about their careers and lives in general they time their children accordingly. No one needs to tell them how many or how few they should have.

Empowerment of women also has the benefit of a larger productive workforce. As family incomes rise education usually rises and with those come smaller families.

We all know, however, empowerment of women has plenty of religious and cultural baggage. There are denominations of Christianity still that do not allow women clergy.

Time and women will solve many problems.

24 Responses

  1. Todd Boucher

    Why so much division these days? Seems to me we are all looking for more ways to disagree than to agree. Let’s not”stir the pot” any more. Let’s talk up positivity and alike and get this(these) lives of ours in the condition to be the best they can be. Thank you.

    1. Todd 2:21 Thanks for commenting, Todd. Good post.

      I agree we should all believe whatever we find to be true–we will disagree. To make this work, we all need to “stay in our own box.” That is, we need to push back on the temptation to force others to believe what we believe. Christian in the U. S. have not done this. That is why I write this blog. They have found ways, and continue to find ways, to push their religious beliefs into laws.

      1. mark anthony

        I see that you have found your way back. Like the Prodigal Son. But w/o repentance? BTW, I think that atheists should learn to stay in the box instead of pushing their gospel in the public square. You have picked up the sword but apparently have forgotten that it has two edges. Your old friend MA.

        1. Mark 3:11 Glad you found it.

          I think atheists should learn to stay in the box instead of pushing their gospel in the public square

          Now, that is a peculiar statement. The street preachers in the Bowery are trying to save souls among the drunks. They are staying in their box. They are not passing laws about what women can do with their bodies or who can marry. They are just preachin’ in the public square. That’s all I’m doin’.

          I always forget to pass the hat afterwards.

          1. mark anthony

            Ok, aren’t you the same fellow who keeps telling Christians and others what they should do or not do? Like get out of the public square. Shut up about abortion, SSM, anything that runs counter to your worldview. Atheists can legislate their version of what is right and wrong but those who disagree should stay in the box.

    1. Jinx 3:46 Glad to hear you can still find it. The home page for Area Voices will soon or has disappeared. This blog is not on the Forum scroll but will return there in some form. And, as Mark Anthony said, I didn’t have to repent. (It was close though 🙂 )

  2. Schurkey

    ” When women have choices about their careers and lives in general they time their children accordingly. No one needs to tell them how many or how few they should have.”
    Largely true. Not quite true enough. Government “handouts” are essentially subsidizing irresponsible reproduction. Best case, we’d E-N-D all “welfare” programs

    Anyone receiving tax-funded “assistance” should be sterilized for the duration of their time as a parasite. Ideally, for two years thereafter, to assure they’ve become stabilized and with some “rainy day” money.

    All mental defectives should be permanently sterilized.

    Anyone who can’t feed, clothe, and house themselves without taxpayer assistance clearly is UNFIT for adding to the burden of society by having children. They apparently cannot make appropriate choices, which is why they should also lose the right to vote while they’re on “assistance”.

    1. Schurkey 4:48 Best case, we’d E-N-D all “welfare” programs

      Indeed, the best result would be no one needing welfare. Since there have always been, and presumably always will be, people who cannot support themselves, the “theory of the second best” is we find the cheapest way possible to pay for welfare.

      Even though a segment of our politics says we should eliminate welfare, the 1930’s found widespread support for welfare for this reason: Those who were not poor found it in their own interests to vote for and tax themselves for welfare. They did so rather than being forced to deal with food riots and robbery of their own possessions. They preferred destitute relatives (mom and dad) have places to live other than move in with them.

      1. Schurkey

        ’30s? The big problems developed in the ’60s and later, and are getting worse, not better. The main thing I remember from the ’30s is Social Security, which has it’s own problems but is supported primarily by payroll taxes, not “income tax”, and payouts vary depending on how much was paid in. Social Security payouts have been expanded well beyond the original intent–students qualify, disabled qualify–so “retirement age” is not a requirement any more. A damned shame. Between that and Congress stealing funds for various side-projects, it’s no wonder that SS is in trouble.

        Just to be clear, I FULLY support the retirement supplementary income that SS provided initially.

        There is some consideration given to requiring “work” from those age 59 and under, to qualify for SNAP, but it will be too little, too late–if it materializes at all. (It ain’t happened yet…)

        Politicians buying votes with our money. Dirtbags.

        1. mark anthony

          Seems that you don’t know much about the early 19th century eugenetics movement: forced sterilization of the unfit, racism, etc. And, if you look around you will find that the eugenics mentality is still very much with us (abortion of Downs babies, etc. N.B. eugenics has been around for a long time, as in the culture of ancient Greece. Apparently, one of mankind’s enduring temptations.

    2. Jinx II

      Shurkey, your statement is incredibly cruel, viscious and throughly unchristian. You, who through work + good fortunes have much more that the people you judge and then condemn. Recall Matthew…Judge not or thee will be judged 10 over. You have some heavy crap coming your way.

      About 2/3 rd’s of recipients who receive social net benefits are children, temporarily too ill or sick to work, a parent caring for a severely disabled child, elderly, the disabled and temporarily unemployed but done qualify for UP benefits. Stats are from numerous sources about this.

      Most new jobs have been in the service sector and retail, long known for its poor wages, shift work and little or no benefits….and they can’t find enough American people in Science, technical fields and skilled industry partially due to our poor education system that lacks emphasis on Mathematics and Science. Its not cool to be a nerd and it never was.

    3. mark anthony

      great stuff Shurkey. actually it was so awful that ia first glace I thought that you were putting us on. However, I guess that you really meant it. Reminds very, very much of the eugenics rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s. For once I have to agree with Jinks: a real first for me.

      1. Jinx II

        Thank you Mark! Its Jinx, like the old cartoon Pixie and Dixie and Jinx the cat……loved that cartoon when I was a little kid….perfect fodder for my bursting imagination.

    4. unregenerate

      Schurkey 5.15.2018 @ 4:48 pm
      “Best case, we’d E-N-D all “welfare” programs.”

      Hey Schurkey while you’re neutering and spaying fellow human beings referred to as “parasites”, “feeders”, “the bungled and the botched”, what say we sterilize some other creatures in our kingdom. Let us abolish all tax exemptions and subsidies for churches, corporations, cities, states, and any other denizens nursing on the federal coffers.

      While you’re disenfranchising and depriving citizens of their virility you might as well revoke their 2nd amendment rights. Of course with 350,000,000 firearms in the wild some of these folks are going to come for your privates and also relieve you of all your worldly goods. Smiley face.

      1. When it comes to what should be provided from tax money and what not there are no shortages of reasons why what I like should be provided by taxpayers and what someone else wants should not. In the case of food stamps, housing assistance, child nutrition, etc. it doesn’t seem like we have had an explosion of lazy people. As pointed out, a large portion receive assistance because of medical bills, the majority are temporary.

      2. Schurkey

        “Let us abolish all tax exemptions and subsidies for churches, corporations, cities, states, and any other denizens nursing on the federal coffers.”
        Fine by me. Corporate welfare is at least as terrible as individual welfare.

        “While you’re disenfranchising and depriving citizens of their virility you might as well revoke their 2nd amendment rights.”
        Lifetime NRA member here.

        This is what I’m saying:
        1. Tax-funded “assistance” programs are CAUSING (enabling–encouraging) people to reproduce irresponsibly. The next generation of welfare deadbeats is always larger than the previous generation. More kids, more “benefits”. We’ve EXPLODED a previously small problem by providing benefits to single-mothers-by-choice.

        Don’t breed ’em if you can’t feed ’em. Having kids when you know you can’t feed/clothe/house yourself let alone feeding yourself and the kid(s) is child abuse, and should be punished.

        A reasonable person with kids, who’s situation changes and they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own surely deserves some aid. This does not HAVE to come from the Government, it can come from private charity. Charity should not last forever–generation after generation. Government is bad at charity, the current system is designed to disperse money as fast as possible to as many as possible, and there’s some evidence that the most-deserving are at the ass-end of the list. Third-Generation freeloaders and the mentally-deficient get first grab.

        2. Spending tax money to support people with a lifetime history of poor decision-making prevents/discourages them from learning from their mistakes.
        3. Spending tax money on people who have no way (or no intention) to contribute to Society is like throwing dollar bills on a campfire. Gives a few folks a nice, warm feeling, but does nothing really useful in the long term.
        4. Yes, it was a mistake to stop sterilizing retards. They are by definition incapable of caring for their kids. Having children is irresponsible, but they can’t be expected to know that. Therefore, YES, the decision should be made FOR THEM for the good of society. You call it “eugenics”, I call it well-needed bleach in the gene pool, along with economic and social benefits.
        5. Importing poor people and then putting them on every “assistance program” available is a huge mistake, and a disservice to both the taxpayer and the existing workforce. Last I heard, every man, woman, and child “refugee” costs $65,000 over their first five years. A family of four requires a quarter-million dollars in “support” which will never be paid back to the government in the form of taxes on their earnings. The current “refugee” program is unprosecuted human trafficking–supplying a distressed and compliant workforce to companies that can’t/won’t treat citizen workers properly.
        5. RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE (and tax automation) so that the “working poor” stand a chance.

        1. Jinx II

          Shurkey, you have absolutely no insight into why people are in the situations they are in. You need to walk in the shoes of the people you condemn in order to get a clue.

          Years of research on the impact of certain social programs highlight the impact of these programs on the betterment of children and people’s lives. The biggest impact on the family is poverty, teen pregnancy, poor education, lack of access to decent health care, lack of opportunity, low paying jobs and on and on.

          Access to reliable birth is shown to significantly reduce teen pregnancy. Rape and incest contribute to early pregnancy and a host of life time problems. Lack of quality sex ed, information needs to include practical information about STD’s and birth control as well as abstinence.

          Strong arm approaches may work in the military but not out in the day of the the lives of your condemned people.

          I still find you to be vicious, cruel, hardhearted and inhumane.

        2. mark anthony

          Shurk, sugar coat it anyway you want, but eugenics by any other name is still eugenics. “Bleach the gene pool” any hint of racial bias in that statement? A suggestion: get a history book and look up the Nazi T-4 program. As I recall that program facilitated the premature demise of as many as several hundred thousand “useless eaters”.

        3. Grandma

          Shurk, you wrote: “3. Spending tax money on people who have no way (or no intention) to contribute to Society is like throwing dollar bills on a campfire.”
          Since most people receiving government funding are senior citizens, or are children, what would you have us do with them? What should we do with those who are so ill they cannot work and “contribute.” You have a very shallow and selfish mind.

    5. Grandma

      Have you ever lost a close relative to cancer, someone who as a result of the cancer lost the job that provided the health care insurance and the income that provided food and housing?

  3. Jinx II

    Most religions link salvation to helping others who are less well off. In our Calvinist type of capitalist type of economy, the rule seems to be Those who are wealthy are a sign that they are the Chosen ones. The complete opposite of what Jesus preached in the bible. From his statement about the chance the wealthy would get to heaven to was as good as a camel passing through the eye of a needle to his examples and teachings towards doing unto you fellow man to judge not lest yee be judged 10x over.

    It seems these teaching have been brushed aside by those in power with in and outside churches (there are individual and church exceptions) and embraced by the public who have so much more than the “takers, freeloaders and lazy they condemn.” A number of these judging people love to say the above teachings of Jesus are overblown. It sounds pretty clear to me.

    Jesus is pretty much why I am agnostic instead of athiest. Even Gandhi admired him while lamenting the christians are so unlike their Christ. Not all of them are that way, but enough of those who carry the christian banner and are in power make a huge difference in the lives of those who have less.

Comments are closed.