CB,
You could tax those in the world's richest nations who have more than say 2 children. Apparently a rich child costs the equivalent of up to 200 poor ones in terms of resource, people and planet abuse. Though I doubt you'd be in power for long.
Then do something helpful to poorer ones with the money.
But I don't follow why an allowance to promote self-sufficiency would encourage moderate reproduction.
Are you saying desperately poor families have lots of kids at the moment simply because it improves their chances of overall survival? Like a dandelion on some stony ground .... if they throw out enough seeds and 1 or 2 may by a miracle live to repeat the process. What a depressing thought. But it doesn't sound right to me. From a survival point of view, surely it would make more sense to have fewer children when resources are very scarce?
Though I see that in case of rife disease the situation is less clear, perhaps there would be safety in numbers in this case.
In my ignorance I thought it was lack of contraception (plus a fair amount of brainwashing of the god doesn't like the pill variety) that is the main cause of profligate breeding. Perhaps some of the allowance could be used for giving that out for free, thus sparing several children from unpleasant, preventable fates.
hmm yes, I think thats the way nature works.(if you threaten a plant with its survival ,control its conditions, it will go into flower to produce more seeds ,humans the same ? ) If infant mortality is 50/60 % sorry dont know the exact ,but guessing, then it makes sense to sow many seeds ,that 1 or 2 may gain a hold to grow. Now I did type contraception funding, but scartched it, thinking o.k. if death rates ,due to resources (food,shelter,improved health as a result) being available, then a more considered family control mindset might take hold, as it has in the west. So yes ,contraception after improved facilities will need to be available .
hmm but they are a long way off having the luxury off discussing contraception morals, a' la Kilroy Silk day time TV.
We get payments offered, an allowance to continue to breed in the U.K. so maybe an allowance to keep breeding in check in areas that need it is the solution, but whilst the catch 22 of scant resources prevails , then i can see the ironic sense in a few out of many might make it.
I think its something like 30,000 infants per day, die because of hunger.
But why not a humanitarian Tax imposed, maybe even make it optional, but all tax payers will pay for the administration and the controlled ethical distrubition costs of resources, so that every dollar counts.
OK so we get charity ,donations, concerts all trying to bang home the message now and then, that makes public news. But if the governements get more involved, with a humanitarian tax deduction showing on pay slips alongside. N.I. and Income tax then I think a more sustained progress will take hold and gather a natural momentum.
As a by product of this, the entire worlds psyche towards humanitarian issues may be more prominent,leading to postive and sustained change for the better. Governments have the influence to effect change, so why dont they. ?
