Malthus and Population Control...

Lower class nations? There is nothing to set us above others.....

Population control by the government is never a good idea, and any genuine democracy would never do such a thing. Perhaps people themselves will simply choose not to procreate. It's becoming a lot more common in countries where additional children become an economic burden rather than a help (like the US).

I think that attention should be given to the observable reality that success and wealth, plus, women participation in the work place, tends to reduce population growth, as a general rule. Most of the developed wealthy nations have much lower population growth rates than do undeveloped nations. Some parts of Europe have essentially a zero growth rate. America’s population growth rates are higher due to Immigrants from developing nations and a less wealthy black population that has a higher birth rate.

In nature, the animals that are under the most stress from predators seem to reproduce more than those who higher up on the food chain and thus have less stress. Thus, there seems to be a coincidence or correlation between environment stress and increased reproduction. I say this because the prime directive of biological life is survival and reproduction. It may seem counter intuitive mentally, to have more children when you are poor and stressed, but biologically it makes sense as it increases the chance that one will be strong enough to survive and carry the gene pool to the future.

Countries with low population growth rates cannot grow their economies, nor support social security and pension systems, in the long run. In order for economies to grow, it requires new workers and new consumers, to be joined with owners of capital. Thus, countries with low fertility rates will have economic problems in the future, unless they increase fertility rates or, as most are doing, open up the doors to immigration.

I think redistribution or a more equalized distribution of wealth in the world would solve the problems of populations. As poor developing nations increase their wealth and reduce environment stress, it will reduce their birth rates at it has done in the West. If the West reduces its wealth and gluttony and pursuit of materialism, thus allowing wealth to be controlled by others, this will put more emphasis on family and reproduction, thus increasing population growth from more births that deaths, as opposed to immigration.

Much of the problems of the world, such as health issues, crime, wars, terrorism, and population control can all be treated effectively by a more equitable distribution of the world’s wealth and resources.

Well, noah, it reduces birth rate in places where a woman's place as a child-raiser is incompatible with her place as a bread-earner. But in other "less developed" places, raising children is beneficial economically to the family, because the children help out with the work. So child-raiser necessitates the role of bread-earner no matter what. In the use, it's a financial burden to raise a child. They don't do any work, you have to buy them things so that they can keep up with the social trends, you have to buy more food that they don't help produce, they invariably go to school after high school which costs a minimum of a couple thousand a year and as much as 40 or 50 thousand a year, of course they can't get any sort of money-earning job until they finish that education either.

What's so first-class about our society, I wonder?