Why though? There are more than enough people on this planet. Delaying the failure of pension systems for a few more decades is not a sufficient reason to screw over all of humanity.
But why prevent births in France while emerging/ developing countries are spawning armies of babies -maybe under their own policies? Don’t we want to have some births in western / rich countries as well? We’re already below replacement rate if I’m not mistaken…
The main reason poor and developing countries have high birth rates is that their rate of child mortality is higher and that they have no social systems to take care of the elderly so having many children is sort of their pension system. If anything we want to introduce measures there that make the high birth rates unnecessary.
Also, why would we want to make the problem worse by having births here in addition to theirs? Assuming you don’t mean the obvious racist or nationalist motivations?
Also, this commenter escalated “not pushing rates” to “preventing” pretty quickly. Noone is keeping you from getting children, mate. It’s a personal choice that should neither be prohibited nor rewarded.
It seems though that our pension system is failing, as you pointed out yourself. So maybe having a stable number of children is the better pension system?
Given the productivity rate that we have in industrialized countries, we don’t need 5 children per mother, but 2 seem reasonable. And there isn’t “more than enough” people. Any number of “enough” is arbitrary, until the planetary limits are exceeded from the number of people. But we could easily sustain another 2-4 billion more people with a good life, if we would get rid of capitalism.
I like diversity… and I wish my culture survives, same as the others.
I believe you’re wrong on the rest: by having birth rates that exceeds the infancy mortality rate they are still largely growing in absolute numbers. Just check the numbers; there’s growth. Likely they would grow further without the sad and unfortunate mortality rate but still.
Gotta boost that birth rate somehow
Why though? There are more than enough people on this planet. Delaying the failure of pension systems for a few more decades is not a sufficient reason to screw over all of humanity.
But why prevent births in France while emerging/ developing countries are spawning armies of babies -maybe under their own policies? Don’t we want to have some births in western / rich countries as well? We’re already below replacement rate if I’m not mistaken…
The main reason poor and developing countries have high birth rates is that their rate of child mortality is higher and that they have no social systems to take care of the elderly so having many children is sort of their pension system. If anything we want to introduce measures there that make the high birth rates unnecessary.
Also, why would we want to make the problem worse by having births here in addition to theirs? Assuming you don’t mean the obvious racist or nationalist motivations?
Also, this commenter escalated “not pushing rates” to “preventing” pretty quickly. Noone is keeping you from getting children, mate. It’s a personal choice that should neither be prohibited nor rewarded.
It seems though that our pension system is failing, as you pointed out yourself. So maybe having a stable number of children is the better pension system?
Given the productivity rate that we have in industrialized countries, we don’t need 5 children per mother, but 2 seem reasonable. And there isn’t “more than enough” people. Any number of “enough” is arbitrary, until the planetary limits are exceeded from the number of people. But we could easily sustain another 2-4 billion more people with a good life, if we would get rid of capitalism.
I like diversity… and I wish my culture survives, same as the others.
I believe you’re wrong on the rest: by having birth rates that exceeds the infancy mortality rate they are still largely growing in absolute numbers. Just check the numbers; there’s growth. Likely they would grow further without the sad and unfortunate mortality rate but still.