Comments on: Overpopulation, finally

By: R McKay

R McKay — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:52:39 +0000

Pete, Brett has a point here. The idea itself is very logical not racist. Its your own perception of different productivity levels being classified under groups (such as racial groups) that makes the idea racist. That would be like saying all black people are less productive than other racial groups–which is not true.

Putting that aside Pete, how do you feel about the idea?

By: Frank Azzurro

Frank Azzurro — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:46:40 +0000

Ah, the racism card, even when race wasn’t mentioned in Brett’s article.

I was glad to see the caveat in there, personally. We would always have the problem of certain examples, but generally speaking, people who live in the suburbs and buy all their food at the local Whole Foods are not “producing” much; they’re worker bees. Advancing humanity via allowing the most intelligent – the best examples of humanity among us – to breed, how is that “racism”? Brett didn’t mention races. It might smell of eugenics to you, but we should define that term properly and let loose its baggage before discussing that.

By: Francis Dillon

Francis Dillon — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:03:03 +0000

Brett, you stated:
“but my thoughts on that are so controversial that none of you will support me”

Try me.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:24:10 +0000

I hear you, but in the regards to the “Jim and Michelle Duggar” comment don’t you think there is a little self-absorbed narcissism in what they are doing? I appreciate their family values and all but it comes across as a bit self-important that someone thinks they deserve to populate to that extreme. Sure, better them than some of the breeding knuckleheads out there. But I’m just saying…

By: highduke

highduke — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:17:58 +0000

@ Pete Murphy: the policy you suggest wont raise the birthrate because people are not having kids because they ‘cant afford them’ & tax incentives are supposed to ‘fix’ that, but because they’re liberal INDIVIDUALISTIC people with no religion & real culture to pass on, something your monetary solutions dont address. The problem isnt ‘racism’ & ‘money’, racial differences are real and without a collective identity based on blood-kinship & ethnic pride, people lose the will to procreate.

By: Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:04:32 +0000

So too does any advocacy that favors one group of people over another, as you’ve done by saying “Let those who are more productive, more intelligent, of better character or just nicer breed more.” It smacks of racism.

I disagree here and think you’re way off base. Saying “let the more productive breed more” says let the more productive breed more, and doesn’t specify that as a group. Unless you’re suggesting that one group is less productive than others?

By: Adrian McCoy

Adrian McCoy — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:32:39 +0000

I agree with you guys on overpopulation, there are way too many dumb people on the planet…

By: Pete Murphy

Pete Murphy — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:04:03 +0000

Brett, China’s one-child policy has given the cause of population management a bad name. So too does any advocacy that favors one group of people over another, as you’ve done by saying “Let those who are more productive, more intelligent, of better character or just nicer breed more.” It smacks of racism.

There is a better way. Economic incentives (such as tax policy) to choose smaller families can drive down the birth rate while leaving people free to choose how many children to have. Such incentives need to be income-neutral so that people of all economic classes are equally motivated to choose smaller families. In the U.S., the reduction in fertility that we need to achieve stability is small – a reduction from about 2.09 children per female to about 1.84. (Why less than 2.0? Because of our steadily increasing life expectancy.)

We’ll never make any progress toward acceptance of the need for policies aimed at stabilizing our population as long as we advocate such heavy-handed techniques.

And, of course, no discussion of stabilizing the U.S. population is complete without including immigration policy.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”

By: Elle

Elle — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:15:26 +0000

Not sure if the one-child rule would be very workable globally. If a country wants to adopt it, more power to them, but I think a better solution would be to research more reliable contraceptives. Sad fact is, they're still not perfectly effective and though I've been pretty lucky so far I am keenly aware that I'm playing a game of Russian Roulette every time I unwrap a condom wrapper. Barring that, it could at least be made easier to make one's self sterilized or perhaps even a simpler task to adopt (without forgoing any child's safety, of course).

By: magog

magog — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:31:31 +0000

read the article again patterson, you missed the point.