The world is over populated. To save resources, to save the planet, reduce the birth rate. I’d rather have one kid that could have a really good life than six that were going to struggle.
Why is no one saying this? I think it is money and the economy. More people = more houses, cars, TV sets, loans etc. Older people don’t buy the latest fashion, gadget etc. So much of what is being produced and consumed has a worth that evaporates in times of crisis.
Unlimited growth in the human population is not sustainable. Something has to be done sooner or later.
2 comments:
I visited the web site (OpenWindowPublishingCo.com) and looked through many of the blogs and comments. While I can see the logic in the causes that may lead to an economic collapse, I have trouble with the solution of import taxes to encourage domestic consumption.
The “protectionist” strategy is probably the single biggest cause of the Second World War. Following the Wall street falls of the early 1920’s and the depression in that started in USA and rippled out across the world becoming a tidal wave in many European countries most notably Russia and Germany. In these countries the trade barriers put up to protect national industries gave credence to nascent communist and fascist ideologies. I can therefore understand the reluctance to repeat that experiment, to get potentially similar results.
I think we have to face the fact continuous expansion in the population like companies is ultimately unsustainable. That specialising in just one area of knowledge or capability is to make yous dependant on others (something I don’t like). Whether your outsourcing your steel production, car manufacturing, food or fuel production you are dependent on others. As a personal example, in the 1970’s I used to understand +95% of the technology in my home and car. If something went wrong I could fix it with a few simple tools, readily available parts and service manuals. Maybe I’d ask a neighbours’ or friends’ advice for some trickier problems, but ultimately I would not have to employ a TV repairman, car mechanic or electrician. Today that understanding is probably down to 70%. Certainly the engine management system in my car is beyond my ability to test, let alone repair, though I can still change a tail light. On the plus side cars are more reliable and it is not essential to tinker under the bonnet every weekend (or so it seemed) to keep it going.
However I observe in the population as a whole and in particular the younger generation, a lack of knowledge (capability) of the things they depend on, but take for granted. The unquestioning solution for most problems, is to pay for a repair or replacement/upgrade. This attitude is expensive and wasteful. It means that the “total cost of ownership” is not the initial purchase price, plus some minor operating costs, but some significant services and repair charges, that can multiply the initial purchase price. Expand this to my family. I have three kids and each has a TV, a bicycle, there are a couple of games machines, PC, laptop etc while I might be able to purchase them, repairing or premature replacement becomes very expensive. Insurance, extended warranties, borrowing and other debt gives temporary relief, but ultimately you have to pay and loans just mean you pay more in the end.
When infant mortality was high (not so long ago) 11+ kids in a family was just playing the odds that some would survive. As survival rates increased in the western world, most have reduced their family size to three or less. As families expand they make a conscious decision (for the most part) to have more kids, or not, based on their ability to support them. If you can’t support your family you don’t have more kids. If you can’t support your population you need to make a similar conscious decision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sP291B7SCw&feature=uploademail
RSA - People and Planet
Post a Comment