A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child. Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime. Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits. And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India. FULL STORY
There was a time when large families were valued. There was a time in western culture when human life was cherished. Times have certainly changed. Now, that same life that was once cherished is now looked upon as a burden.
In the US, 30 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, the vast majority of these for the convenience of the mother. Stem Cell research is applauded, despite the life that is lost in the process. That life doesn't carry much value when it is lost in the name of "research". Most recently I blogged about a British woman who sterilized herself for the benefit of the planet.
And now, an Australian enviro-Nazi advocates taxing babies and implementing population controls. If you think this is fringe, don't be too sure. It may sound outrageous, but many environistas (extremist or otherwise) wouldn't be too opposed to the idea. In the states, we currently give people tax breaks to help raise their children, but if the environistas have their way, this may change.
One has to be concerned when his culture stops valuing human life. It seems like the cornerstone for the survival of a society or culture is the protection and nourishment of the next generation. Has that vanished from western culture? Indeed, if the enviro-extremists had their way, there wouldn't be a next generation. And don't forget, "green" is in. It's the hippest thing since L Ron Hubbard wrote his devotion to self-fulfillment. And when you couple this new fad with a do-your-part call to action, which can include not having babies, then you have created a dangerous situation, ie the beginning of the end for western society.
It's also important to realize that our lack of respect for human life is part of the reason why western society is hated so much by traditional cultures. In my mind, there is nothing more sacred than the life of another human being. It represents the future. It represents the continuation of the work we do, the things we build, the nation we sustain. When we stop cherishing that, we stop living. Eventually, the human race is reduced to shambles. It's self-destructive in a simple sense. If we stop protecting the next generation, stop valuing what they represent, then we risk our own survival. And then, a healthy environment becomes pointless.
13 comments:
Algeria Bombing Takes Dozens Of
Lives Today. Not much respect for
life & limb there either, Doctor!
reb
_____________________________
_____________________________
DEMO'S WANT CHANGE NOW...
>
Of course they do; they know
when their diapers are full!
reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
______________________________
The problem with large families IS the sheer amount of resources they use. It cannot be denied that our world population even know is boarding on too much for our planet to sustain. People may believe that they don't need to stop having a child because a child is a gift from God and they'll have as many as they want, but in my personal opinion, having twelve children at a time when all of our resources are being wasted and abused and will soon run out is selfish and irresponsible. If you want that many children, adopt some, because there are millions of children in this world already whose lives are not valued.
And for the 400th time, stem cells for research are taken from embryos that would be disposed of anyway. Unless you have a plan to implant and bring all of them to term somehow, I don't think it's fair to say that it is killing a human life. Why is this fact consistently ignored?
I don't know that I have an opinion on this particular proposal. But for those opposed to any policy designed to slow our population growth, I wonder if they think there's ANY point at which it would be wise to slow down how many folk are on this finite planet?
If the earth can accomodate our current 7 billion, do you reckon it can accommodate the estimated 9 billion we'll by 2050? 20 billion? Is there any point at which we could all agree, "Okay, we really can't have any more people on this planet..."?
I know some might say that resources will limit how far we can grow and that is certainly true. When deer populations reach a point beyond what the resources can support, they die off in famine or through sickness.
With people, we could add war and genocide into the mix of how population will be limited.
But is that really the most humane, human way of limiting our population?
I'm just curious.
So if "ie the beginning of the end for western society." etc,etc, You have been reading Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West again?
Neither population growth or "global warming" is enough cause to impose a tax on people for having kids. That is so wrong that I'm not sure how anyone here can defend it.
allison and dan: Overpopulation is simply not a problem. The UN says that growth has dropped from 2% to 1.3% (annual) recently. Right now we're at 6 billion worldwide, and this is expected to peak at just above 10 billion in 2200. If current trends hold, it will then decline.
But of course those are world figures. The West will experience dramatic population decline once the baby boomers start to die in 20 or so years.
What is going to happen in the West is that the percentage of older to younger people will increast. The problem this will cause is that we will be completely unable to fund our old age benefits programs (social security in the U.S.). The problem is bad enough in the U.S., but far worse in Europe and Japan.
Europe is trying to solve their problem through immigration. Since most of their immigrants are Muslims who reproduce at more than twice (almost three, really) the native rate, Europe will be majority Muslim well before the end of this century.
Japan has no immigration, and will largely cease to exist. It's population will halve every 35-40 years starting in 2030 or so (when their boomers start to die).
As for the "Australian medical expert" who wants the baby tax, and the young woman who sterilized herself... sigh.
"having twelve children at a time when all of our resources are being wasted and abused and will soon run out is selfish and irresponsible"
Allison, with respect, this statement is born of sheer ignorance. I don't mean that as an insult. You obviously DON'T have children or you would realize that having a child and being a nurturing parent is the most self-less act a human being could do. As far as the earth sustaining the human population, I have seen no evidence that we are "bordering on too much for our planet to sustain". Are famine rates higher now than they were 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Were less people starving when there were only 1 billion people on the planet? Please tell me how you came to that conclusion, because I don't see where humans have overpopulated.
And since you are so concerned about the environment, I wonder if you've seen the recent study that shows divorced couples consume far more resources than married couples. With that in mind, and in the interest of the planet, are you prepared to take governmental action against this threat to our environment? Are you prepared to take action against divorce?
And, person-for-person, you'd be surprised at the resource consumption of large families vs small families.
Dan, to me there will never be a point where implementing population controls would be acceptable. Yes, I think the earth could sustain extreme population growth, mainly because humans are adaptable and technologically proficient. In short, we would find a way sustain our population. And, as TOM pointed out, this population boom doesn't appear to be a reality.
Implementing controls is a certain way of harming our civilization. Without a future generation, there is simply no future. But at least the atmosphere will have less CO2.
And how could anyone NOT have an opinion on this matter? The evidence on human-induced climate change is inconclusive, and this nut wants to implement population controls. You don't have an opinion on that?
Tom, thanks for the input. Please come back anytime.
First of all, I understand that being a nurturing parent is a self-less act. My argument had nothing to do with that--simply stated, having upwards of 10 children is irresponsible because of the strain on the planet. I fully intend to be a parent in the relatively-near future, but I can nurture only 2 or 3 children of my own and if I want more, there are plenty of children without homes and mothers who I will be able to adopt.
Secondly, the only ignorant thing that has been said here is that population growth is not a concern.
http://dieoff.org/page57.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/populationgrowth.htm
We are NOT doing kind things to this planet, and denying it will not change anything.
We are currently able to feed our ~7 billion people because of "advancements" made in agribusiness by using petrochemicals. But guess what? Petrochemicals are a finite resource.
My question remains: IS there any point at which you'd agree something needs to be done? You think "ingenuity" can feed 20 billion people? 100 billion?
I'm not asking you at this point to agree that we could reach those numbers, I am just asking if there is a point at which you'd say we have too many people.
Be reasonable.
Okay, John made most of my points in his previous comment. However, I do have a couple more.
First, in the US, we are having a natural population control, right now. There are many people who are choosing to have NO children. This did not happen much in the past. Since we were trying to populate our world, most people felt it a duty to have as many children as possible.
Most couples also limit the number of children they have. There are several reasons for this. 1. They feel that is all they can handle financially. 2. They feel that is all they can handle emotionally. 3. They are physically unable to have more children. Indeed our national average for having children has dropped in the past 10 years. During the 80s, the average was 2.5 children per couple with children. Now, the average per "family" with children is 1.86. The average for all families (meaning households without children and households with children) is .90.
We are not even replacing the adults in this country. In order to do that, we would have to have an average of 2 children per family. Granted, there are now many family units in this nation that only have one adult, but .90 is still less than that! If it were not for immigration, we would have a negative population growth. Japan DOES. And, if it wasn't for those "irresponsible" families that have a dozen children, our average would be much lower.
Second, for the purposes of replenishing our current population, having a large family is actually more "green" than having a small one. Having 12 people living in one household is much more "green" than having 4 households with one child per couple in each. Maybe, we should tax people who only have one child.
I agree that there are a lot of children that need to be adopted. If you really get to know some of these large families, you'll find out that a lot of them do adopt! They desperately want to help as many children as they can.
Finally, I see no point at which I would agree with population control. I am all for trying to find other worlds to populate. But, I am not for population control by governments. It's not right.
And if a population explosion leads wars, starvation, hoarding, genocide and/or mass deaths, THAT'S okay?
Understand, I'm not advocating forced gov't population controls, as China has implemented. But we as a people coming together to find ways to live in responsible numbers, I'm all for.
For me, it's about responsibility. We would criticize the poor family who continued to have child after child after child that they could not support.
We as a planet ought not do this either. It's just stupid, quite frankly. The problem is - what do we do about it? Forced abortions and limitations? Heaven forbid!
But could responsible families agree to live within its means? I say yes, and I think a responsible society would do so, as well, in some form or the other.
This is a perfectly clear economic issue.
With 6.5 billion people in the world, most of our problems boil down to a basic lack of economic demand. If we could get global population up to around 30-50 billion, the increased demand for food, water, energy, and clean air would stimulate supply to the point that we'd all be rolling in extra resources.
It's old-fashioned supply and demand: the basic problem with the world economy today is that we don't have enough people chasing the resources. More demand = more supply. When will these environmentalists learn?!
I found a bunch of good articles on this subject here. Thanks!
Post a Comment