Population Control
Mar. 28th, 2011 02:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrThe world's population is booming. This is not necessarily a good thing. How many billions more people can the world support if we continue to find an infinite amount of petroleum from which to make fertilizer? How many billions fewer can it support if we don't? Different studies put these numbers at wildly varying levels, many of which have been disproved over the last century as we passed through previous predictions. Running out of food isn't something people like to think about, but regardless of when it happens, it will happen, and it would be prudent to make plans and procedures to keep it from happening or deal with it when it does.
My favorite solution to this plan involves limiting the number of children a family can have, but not in the naive "one child per couple" way. We have a complex enough society, including things like single parents, divorce, polyamory, and adoption, that "per couple" is a silly way to do it. We also have the technology and possibly enough social awareness to do it better. What I'd like to lay out here are some ideas on the subject of implementation of such a better and more socially adaptable solution. I don't claim to have a perfect solution, so feel free to simply treat this as a thought experiment if you'd like, but I like to think that my ideas here (many of which were lifted from various speculative fiction novels) are better than what we might otherwise end up with.
First, we assign every person the right to parent 0.75 children. I know that's a weird number, but I think it's a lot more realistic than 0.5 (the 1-per-couple equivalent) and still accomplishes long term population shrinkage.
When two people decide to have a baby, they can sign a contract stating how much of whose allotment the child will come from. Without a contract, there would be laws similar to common property laws, dictating that in most cases the child would come equally from both parents, or possibly fully from one parent if the other has met or exceeded their quota already. Cases of rape, fathers who die during pregnancy or mothers who die during childbirth, and other unusual circumstances may need special consideration. The apportionment of this burden might be a legal factor later in the child's life, when issues like child support and custody come up, or for the purpose of inheritance or government benefits.
A typical monogamous couple would thus have the right to 1.5 children. This fractional number would help drive the use of a free market in those rights. The actual trading of rights would need to be handled by the government, but the operation of the market could be distributed among various organizations (possibly of a religious, ethnic, or racial bent). Couples with low incomes or who need financial assistance to raise or support their child could sell their "extra" 0.5, and couples who can afford to raise two children could buy those rights. At a guess, I would expect that right, to 0.5 of a child, would be worth about $25k in current US currency, although values from $10k to $500k are not completely unreasonable. There would likely be a secondary market for credit to support such transactions. This should, I hope, produce a society with far fewer children in households that cannot support them.
Additional child-bearing rights could be used as incentives in government-run programs. People of renowned athletic (Olympic medalists?) or academic ability, or who have made great contributions to society (Nobel laureates?) or achievements (Astronauts, Purple Heart recipients, etc), etc. Migration patterns could be affected by granting additional child bearing rights to people who move to under-populated areas (see: every space colonization story ever). There are likely to be severe abuses of such an extension to this system, so it would need to be strongly overseen, with accountability on multiple levels.
Exceeding your quota would incur a penalty of sterilization, at minimum. There should also be significant legal and financial disincentives. They could take the form of loss of tax breaks or credits, or other social benefit reduction. Also included in such a law would be misrepresenting your "balance" when signing a contract before conceiving, although any reasonable implementation of this system would make someone's balance easy to check with their consent. Cases of undisclosed pregnancy, where a man fathered a second child with another woman before finding out he had fathered a first, would need special consideration, particularly dependent on the fault of the lack of disclosure.
I look forward to the discourse that will be generated by this post, despite the negative thoughts it is sure to bring out.
PS: This is the first post in my new habit of posting to both LJ and FB at the same time.
My favorite solution to this plan involves limiting the number of children a family can have, but not in the naive "one child per couple" way. We have a complex enough society, including things like single parents, divorce, polyamory, and adoption, that "per couple" is a silly way to do it. We also have the technology and possibly enough social awareness to do it better. What I'd like to lay out here are some ideas on the subject of implementation of such a better and more socially adaptable solution. I don't claim to have a perfect solution, so feel free to simply treat this as a thought experiment if you'd like, but I like to think that my ideas here (many of which were lifted from various speculative fiction novels) are better than what we might otherwise end up with.
First, we assign every person the right to parent 0.75 children. I know that's a weird number, but I think it's a lot more realistic than 0.5 (the 1-per-couple equivalent) and still accomplishes long term population shrinkage.
When two people decide to have a baby, they can sign a contract stating how much of whose allotment the child will come from. Without a contract, there would be laws similar to common property laws, dictating that in most cases the child would come equally from both parents, or possibly fully from one parent if the other has met or exceeded their quota already. Cases of rape, fathers who die during pregnancy or mothers who die during childbirth, and other unusual circumstances may need special consideration. The apportionment of this burden might be a legal factor later in the child's life, when issues like child support and custody come up, or for the purpose of inheritance or government benefits.
A typical monogamous couple would thus have the right to 1.5 children. This fractional number would help drive the use of a free market in those rights. The actual trading of rights would need to be handled by the government, but the operation of the market could be distributed among various organizations (possibly of a religious, ethnic, or racial bent). Couples with low incomes or who need financial assistance to raise or support their child could sell their "extra" 0.5, and couples who can afford to raise two children could buy those rights. At a guess, I would expect that right, to 0.5 of a child, would be worth about $25k in current US currency, although values from $10k to $500k are not completely unreasonable. There would likely be a secondary market for credit to support such transactions. This should, I hope, produce a society with far fewer children in households that cannot support them.
Additional child-bearing rights could be used as incentives in government-run programs. People of renowned athletic (Olympic medalists?) or academic ability, or who have made great contributions to society (Nobel laureates?) or achievements (Astronauts, Purple Heart recipients, etc), etc. Migration patterns could be affected by granting additional child bearing rights to people who move to under-populated areas (see: every space colonization story ever). There are likely to be severe abuses of such an extension to this system, so it would need to be strongly overseen, with accountability on multiple levels.
Exceeding your quota would incur a penalty of sterilization, at minimum. There should also be significant legal and financial disincentives. They could take the form of loss of tax breaks or credits, or other social benefit reduction. Also included in such a law would be misrepresenting your "balance" when signing a contract before conceiving, although any reasonable implementation of this system would make someone's balance easy to check with their consent. Cases of undisclosed pregnancy, where a man fathered a second child with another woman before finding out he had fathered a first, would need special consideration, particularly dependent on the fault of the lack of disclosure.
I look forward to the discourse that will be generated by this post, despite the negative thoughts it is sure to bring out.
PS: This is the first post in my new habit of posting to both LJ and FB at the same time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 04:43 pm (UTC)Also ditto the below sentiment: forced government sterilization, brr.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 04:18 pm (UTC)And the idea of government forced sterilization is... scary.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 05:13 pm (UTC)I don't think having children is a right or a privilege-- it's biology, and it's gonna happen no matter how many laws we try to put on it.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 05:39 pm (UTC)In my opinion, the government needs to stay the hell out of our private lives anyway.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 06:09 pm (UTC)As to the "rich" part, to some degree, yes. You, as a hypothetical financially-poor mother of 4, are doing your children a great disservice. Raising children costs money. Raising them well costs more. I'm a firm believer in not punishing children for their parents' stupidity, and people who can barely support themselves having multiple children are exhibiting a high level of that.
As someone who grew up that way, the idea of a family with one poverty-level income living in a trailer park with four kids is a lot scarier than most other social problems.
PS: Adopt.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 09:41 pm (UTC)They don't clarify how much less, but plenty of other sources put the average below $3000, and with tax credits it's certainly net profit.
Private adoption is the equivalent of buying a pet from a classified ad. Buy from the pound instead, you'll be doing a greater public service and get just as much out of it.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 09:44 pm (UTC)Am disabled
Date: 2011-03-29 04:01 am (UTC)