dpc, I look forward to our culture evolving. I believe in social Darwinism just enough to not value cultural stasis. It is regrettable, however, that cultures that place emphasis on breeding have an advantage in the long run, but that’s always been the case. Our current culture was developed under those same influences.

   0 likes

“I’m still not worried because total world population continues to grow, and I’m not concerned with preserving a particular culture.”

Yeah, but we spent thousands of years developing ours. It would be a shame if all that effort went to waste.

“Maybe I’ll have an extra couple kids just to be safe.”

As long as you have two kids, you’ve fulfilled your moral obligation to society.

   0 likes

What’s up with your blog? My aggregator is picking up additional posts, but I’m unable to click through to the blog itself.

   0 likes

I’m still not worried because total world population continues to grow, and I’m not concerned with preserving a particular culture.

Maybe I’ll have an extra couple kids just to be safe.

   0 likes

I wouldn’t worry. Very few countries are failing to meet the birth rate necessary for population stability. When it becomes a problem, I’ll start worrying.

   0 likes

   0 likes

I was talking about maintaining our society and culture where it is. I want my kids and their kids, and their kids, etc. to be able to enjoy the same freedoms that I was able to enjoy under our Western liberal democracy. It would be a shame to see it wilt away because of fewer and fewer people.

“It’s also incredibly arrogant of me to assume that my culture and values are the “right” values.

Then again, I can’t say that I’m not disgusted when I read about the treatment of some women in Saudi Arabia or in various countries.”

That’s the dilemma of every moral relativist.

   0 likes

I disagree with this statement. I don’t think that increasing the population in “western” countries is the answer or a good long term solution. I would think we should work for change within many of the cultures to promote human rights, knowledge, understanding, etc. As far as the environment goes, each human born adds to the amount of carbon they will add to the atmosphere.

So, if we’re concerned with global warming and the impact of humans on the environment, it would make sense that we would try to increase the education, core values (like women’s rights), decrease poverty, etc. within other cultures instead of just attempting to “breed” them out.

It’s also incredibly arrogant of me to assume that my culture and values are the “right” values.

Then again, I can’t say that I’m not disgusted when I read about the treatment of some women in Saudi Arabia or in various countries.

I don’t know that there is an answer.

   0 likes

“Since the inception of social security in the 1880s in Europe, birth rates have dramatically fallen. Social security has yet to fail anywhere. The reason for the program’s counter-intuitive success is that per capita productivity has outpaced the decline of family size.”

I think you make valid points with which I agree. However, even though the system may not bankrupt itself, if there are no people around for the system to benefit, what good is that?

That’s why I believe that every person who is physically and psychologically able to have children should have two children in order to maintain population stability. I can’t think of any justifications for an exception. I’m sure that someone will say something about financial constraints or timing, but I can’t think of any optimal time to have children. You’re going to be poorer whether you have them at age 21 or 31. The timing issue is somewhat irrelevant. You should have two children while you are still fertile and healthy and have the psychological wherewithall to have children. The younger you are, the less likely you will be psychologically prepared for children. The older you are, you are more likely to have fertility and health issues.

   0 likes

The ratio of old to young people is not necessarily the relevant figure to determine the viability of pay roll tax financed programs. What matters is the productivity of the work force. As long as the GDP grows somewhat faster than two percent per year, which is the growth that the bankruptcy studies assume, there won’t be a problem with social security.

Medicare is a different story. Unlike social security, there is a real crisis with Medicare. That has to do with the rapid increase of health care costs.

That could be substantially alleviated if we modernized the American health insurance system, which is the most wasteful and inefficient system in the world. We are spending twice as much per capita than anyone else only to achieve life expectancy and childhood mortality rates of some third world countries.

Since the inception of social security in the 1880s in Europe, birth rates have dramatically fallen. Social security has yet to fail anywhere. The reason for the program’s counter-intuitive success is that per capita productivity has outpaced the decline of family size.

In fact, productivity could not have increased as rapidly if families had not become smaller because parents could not have afforded to sufficiently invest into their children’s education.

   0 likes