Nov 10
A Dialogue: Ultimate Outcasts and Overpopulation Insights
Overpopulation Insights:
I was critical of an article from NEWSWEEK by Robert Samuelson whose major thesis was that it is somehow our duty to produce children because it is good for the economy.
In my response I expressed some concerns about his narrow perspective. We currently have a system that rewards, encourages, subsidizes and markets to women and men who are simply able to have children.
Ultimate Outcasts:
The problem is that we have not created a system that benefits and rewards responsible reproduction. Moms are the best people to develop systems which benefits and rewards responsible reproduction. Moms are the best people to develop systems that would improve the situation because they have the experience.
The reproductive work that mothers do is too often considered a byproduct of events in society, instead of the source through which every event is made possible. The financial, social, religious and political set up is backwards and out of balance.
Overpopulation Insights:
Hence, much energy, writing and angst from overpopulation concerns is directed at those more universal and impoverished groups (often women with children), rather than the equally important task of developing systems and reinforcing attitudes and behaviors for a more select group of responsible and enlightened potential mothers and fathers.
Ultimate Outcasts:
I agree completely. We live by example. Often it’s difficult for women to see beyond the joys or pressures of a young man’s attention, which leads to unplanned pregnancies. Especially, if it is what her mother did.
For young women to take a more intentioned path, they need to see the road ahead as one wide enough to walk along with a child and dream for herself. That involves reviewing economic systems, particularly our own in this country. We have an opportunity to lead the world on this issue.
Overpopulation Insights:
I do have concerns about the role of poverty in either producing unwanted children, or children with little or no economic resources.
One idea that has been considered is paying people, especially young women at the poverty level, to delay having children and pursue more education. That would postpone their choosing to have children they cannot afford yet, raise both their skills and consequent pay level so they are more competitive and productive in the job market.
In the end we have a more mature, better educated person less dependent on society for her support, and studies have shown she will have fewer children and live a happier more stable, productive life.
Ultimate Outcasts:
I think paying women to not have children would create many ethical issues. But I support the idea of implementing greater financial incentives for child-bearing in women who have pursued education or have had a job. A woman engaged in these activities will tend to bear fewer children and select more responsible partners. Currently, there are more financial incentives for an impoverished woman to have a child than get an education or work in this country. That needs to change.
I think we should consider a grant system for all new births as has been implemented in many countries in the world. There would be a generous base grant amount for the first two births. Additional monies would be provided through the system based on the educational and work history of the individual woman. I think we can create an American version of this system through market mechanisms.
We need to create incentives for women to access a variety of opportunities, select an ideal partner to have children with and have a good life that includes a manageable number of children.
The more women can explore the world, they are more likely to find numerous reasons to put fewer humans on it.
And they would be a direct example for their sons and daughters.
Overpopulation Insights:
Just what are the ethical issues you are concerned about in paying women not to have children until they are prepared to do so?
It would seem to benefit both the mother and any future children. A win-win situation, if you will.
Secondly, paying women not to have children in essence is a grant system, so why would we need to institute a second grant system if women were already prepared through education and job training to support their children, if they choose to have them.
Finally, the trend is actually fewer births in educated families and they are the least likely to need a grant system. So far there is little evidence that most women in poverty have few if any incentives to not have children.
Unfortunately, I suspect there is so little that is available and meaningful to women in poverty that producing children is the only thing that is an option. I have empathy for their circumstances and lack of choices, but it is counterproductive to empowering women and mothers, and reducing both poverty and overpopulation.
In summary any incentives most likely should be aimed at raising the standard of living and education of those least able to afford and raise children successfully, rather than including those with more resources. Those more educated and effluent groups are quite able to pragmatically choose whether to have children or not, and be able to nurture, educate and financially support them, if they do choose to have children.
Ultimate Outcasts:
In theory, paying women not to have children does sound like a solution until women are doing extreme things to rid themselves of unintended pregnancies. I think we would also see increases in newborn abandonment.
Paying women not to have children should coincide with paying people not to procreate altogether. It takes two after all. So neither are
realistic policies since pregnancy is (usually) the by-product of one brief act. It’s a women who carries all of the evidence. And in
unfortunate situations, it has created a certain degree of punishment for women.
This reproductive bias and feminine suppression is ever-present in religions, politics, economics. Having children is still viewed as quite negative.
China has proposed it’s solution for years. Chinese mothers still remain in a difficult ethical, emotional and some may argue moral dilemmas when a fleeting moment turned into another human being to feed. Abortions are common, but the elderly are living longer and longer. We need to pay attention to both problems:
Are babies the problem or is it an aging population?
Overpopulation Insights:
In an ideal world what you advocate is certainly a reasonable scenario. Unfortunately, we are very far from an ideal world, and this country and others are already in serious crisis mode. Dramatically slowing fertility rates in the near term have to be the major foundation for any real change in population dynamics. That can only happen if the focus is on the groups in our societies producing most of the unneeded and unwanted children, specifically in this country, but also in the rest of the underdeveloped nations.
It would seem only logical then to funnel most allocated resources to the poor and uneducated, both women and men as you rightly point out.
But first, for any potential solutions to occur, there must be a general acknowledgement by all that overpopulation will doom us and our children to ongoing conflicts and economic decline. That universal consciousness does not yet exist.
Conclusion:
In the end it will be the mothers (and fathers) that will carry the burden for not only educating their own children about the dangers of too many people, but who also represent the biological means in which fertility rates will fall to more sustainable levels.
That is a burden and responsibility that needs all the assistance we can provide, whether in the form of grants or incentives.
Remember: One Billion people = 1000 Million people
Credits: Many thanks to Ultimate Outcasts
Guest Author, Overpopulation, Society Children, Mothers, Overpopulation
Sep 25
A few miles from the White House in southeast Washington sit some of the worst public schools in America. The students there are mostly poor, mostly black, and their test scores are low. Only one in three finish high school; of those who do go on to college, just five percent graduate.
60 Minutes: How the Seed School Is Changing Lives: May 23, 2010
This is certainly a glaring indictment of the wealthiest county in the world, which in its own capital is unable to successfully graduate the vast majority of students in their public school system. Even more disturbing is that apparently until more recently no one seemed to care. A new high profile Chancellor, after three years of hard work and many changes, has been only marginally successful in restructuring a system everyone agrees is in ongoing terminal crisis.
But right in the middle of this same area is also one of the most successful and innovative public schools in the country. Started in 1998, the school is called SEED. It’s the nation’s first urban public boarding school. Ninety one percent of the students finish high school, and 95 percent go on to college. It’s a charter school that’s getting national attention.
60 Minutes: Seed School
So, right in the middle of one of the worst school districts in the country is one of the best schools in the country. How can that happen? And more importantly, why isn’t it happening all over the country and in every school district?
Admission is by lottery, open to any family in the district willing to take a chance. This last spring, parents and children showed up for a lottery with a unique prize: a $35,000-per year education paid for by private and government money. Only a third of the over 200 or so kids who applied heard their number called. It all starts on SEED’s campus, a four-acre oasis, a safe zone where 340 kids can focus on school, free from distractions back at home.
60 Minutes: Seed School
Some numbers are helpful here. According to a Washington Post series in 2007, which is somewhat dated but still puts much into perspective, the Washington DC School District has 55,000 students, of which they spend somewhere around $13,000 per student, which is the third highest per student in the 100 largest school districts in the country. The total school budget for FY 2009-2010 was $773 million, which included the cost of 11,000 teachers and employees.
Try getting your brain around those costs and demographics! It is a logistic nightmare to imagine this school district even runs at all.
A Few Things Stand Out
-
It takes a boarding school (five nights a week) to get results. In other words home is not a great environment for succeeding in school.
-
That boarding school environment costs $35,000 per year per student, paid by a combination of PRIVATE and government funds.
-
There are only 340 students in this walled-off “safe zone”. What’s going on outside the zone?
-
Only 200 applied for the available openings. What were the other 50,000 children/parents thinking about? It is a lottery.
-
Multiply 55,000 students by $35,000 plus building infrastructures. Any hope of that happening anytime soon so a majority of the remaining students could be included?
Overpopulation and Education: A Grim Scenario
SEED (Schools for Educational Evolution and Development) is the brainchild of Raj Vinnakota and Eric Adler. The two former businessmen quit their jobs 13 years ago to take an old idea and make it new. “There’s boarding schools for rich kids; why aren’t there boarding schools for poor kids?” Vinnakota said. “The intense academic environment, the 24-hour aspect and constant access to role models. Why wouldn’t all of those things be just as important for poor kids as it would be for rich kids?” “We believe very strongly that there is a group of kids for whom the answer is a 24-hour supportive educational environment. And they’re not gonna have a shot if we don’t give it to them,” Adler added.
They (SEED) don’t simply have to raise a kids’ test scores – they have to change their values.
60 Minutes: SEED School
-
An educational environment, ethical values, committed role models and substantial amounts of money make all the difference in the world of public education
-
Where are parents in this formula – they are purposefully excluded because they are the major cause of student failure
-
The Seed School makes up only one-half of one percent of the school children in Washington DC
-
Kudos to SEED. but what are the chances of adopting this throughout the district, not only for college bound students but for the majority of students seeking technical and trade school curriculums
-
So it is plain to see we are chasing the numbers game again, and the chance for catch-up is depressingly bleak
-
In fact it is time for all child-rearing age people to really rethink whether they have what it takes to be a parent
Education, particularly for young minority women, is crucial for both birth rates and hence overpopulation to decline.
If there is any hope for education, total student numbers must be drastically reduced so programs such as SEED and the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education can be more universally adopted.
That would mean significant progress is not only a reality for a few, but a realistic scenario for most.
Society Children, Education
Sep 10
If Newsweek wants to understand why its readership is declining it need only look to Robert Samuelson and his latest ramblings in the Business column for the August 16th issue of the magazine titled, The Parent Trap: How our budget policies hurt families.
His major points:
- Our society does not – despite rhetoric to the contrary – put much value on raising children
- Present budget policies punish parents, who are taxed heavily to support the elderly
- Tax breaks for children are modest
- Americans may choose not to have children or to have fewer children if we have deficit reduction measures
- Fewer children translates to economic decline
- Societies that cannot replace their populations discourage investment and innovation
- They have stagnant or shrinking markets for goods and services
- Some European countries and Japan’s fertility rates are falling to 1.2
- The United States’ fertility rate is at 2.1 and 40% of the births are to unmarried, poor and unstable mothers
- In wealthy societies government now supports the elderly, diminishing the need for children
- Deficit reduction must include spending and benefit cuts for the elderly and higher taxes for everyone except parents
- He quotes another economist, parenting is “one of the most important services any American can perform”
Major points in response:
Does Mr. Samuelson not watch any television, read his own magazine or any of the other major magazines that not only emphasize, but glamorize and glorify every aspect of motherhood. There are entire industries, corporations, associations, marketing minions that do nothing else but mindlessly encourage motherhood and the value of children. Billions are spent. “Not much value”, I don’t think so!
And why shouldn’t parents bear the full responsibility for living in this society. They were raised by parents who are now elderly and need some help, especially when medical science continues to extend their life expectancies beyond their wildest dreams. The elderly haven’t chosen to be old, while parents have chosen to be parents, or at least should have chosen. What do you want to do, throw the elderly out on the street or maybe we can just euthanize those old folks. Now there’s a solution we can all live with!
Modest tax breaks for children? Get real. If you call the personal tax exemption, child tax credit, child-care tax credit ,adoption tax credit and public education modest, just go talk to the people who have no children and make up for all those credits and benefits with their increased taxes and see if they think those tax breaks are so modest. Not to say what it cost to subsidize that 40% or more of the population that have no business having children in the first place.
Women and couples are choosing to have fewer or no children because they are more educated and smarter. It has nothing to do with higher taxes, deficit reduction or whatever. Any fool can produce a child and many do. Some of the more thoughtful among us are beginning to realize their parenting abilities and skills are limited by circumstance and temperament.
Now the truth comes out, what children really mean in a consumer economy is another commodity and future purchaser of goods and services. And without a steady increase in that commodity, according to economists such as Mr. Samuelson, we will wander through years of want and suffering. Declining economies decline for many reasons but lower fertility rates is not one of them. Only fools and economists believe that growth economies are infinite.
I don’t understand this concept of declining fertility rates (less people) translating to less economic investment and innovation. What kind of thinking is this? Why wouldn’t people be more confident about entrepreneurship and more creative in their thinking with a society that lives within its means, creates a more educated and dynamic populace, and understands that a successful civilization is not measured in numbers of people but quality of its people.
Shrinking markets for goods and services is a good thing! People are forced to make choices based on real need not whim and fashion. Most Americans don’t need half the things they have already, much less anymore stuff. What we really mean is that we must produce more useless goods and services for jobs creation when we choose to grow populations. Reduce populations and we no longer have that requirement. Seems simple enough to me.
So what! Japan’s women and couples are obviously getting smarter. Why would you choose to have children if you didn’t want any and destine yourself to a life of drudgery and suffering, especially in a small geographically challenged island nation that needs less people not more. Again, the choice is not to produce children because it is your duty as a citizen or a woman, but because you actually want children, and can afford them and make all the sacrifices that come with such a choice. And as for Europeans, they have been through the war and turmoil thing for millenniums and my guess is they are finally understanding the connection between overpopulation and war – which is long overdue. We would do well to emulate them. And besides all that, their quality of life quotient – except for their growing immigrant populations – seems to be much superior to the rest of the world’s.
America’s fertility rate would be much less except for Latino and other ethnic groups that haven’t got the message yet. You don’t need four or five children to take care of you in your old age, and besides most of the new immigrants live in big cities not in rural farming areas. So much for the “help out on the farm” justification. As for the 40% that Samuelson slips in as almost an aside, that speaks volumes to where we are going to end up in this culture if that trend continues. Except for Walmart’s love affair and feeding frenzy relationship with these people, I suspect most Americans would like to see this trend go away in a hurry. That 40% gives new meaning to the words, government supports and subsidies. To all of us taxpayers out there that translates, more money for people we don’t really need and less for people who truly do have needs.
Sorry, but I don’t get this. How does helping the elderly – a necessary and right thing to do in any civilized society – diminish the need for
children. First of all we don’t need children, what we need are couples that are capable, diligent and dedicated enough to choose to have children. We can all rest assured that children will never be on the Endangered Species List, at least not until we finally turn this planet into an inhabitable desert by continuing to reproduce quantities of human beings that we DON’T need! Mr Samuelson we can continue to help those elderly that need it and continue to have children, we just have to make economic choices and sacrifices that foster care and nurturing for both groups. By the way I guess it didn’t occur to you that by emphasizing quality children over quantity, we will reduce future elderly populations – exactly the group you seem to feel takes up way too much room and resources in this society.
First, read the last paragraph again! We are all in this together, like it or not. Reducing budget deficits should mean equal sacrifices for all groups. If that means people choose to have fewer children so be it, that’s all part of it. But I guess for you that means this generation that created this nasty, selfish economic crisis we find ourselves, should now place the burden of the debt we have created on the backs of increasing numbers of future generations so you can be assured of collecting your Social Security and Medicare checks. Wow, I get it now!
“One of the most important services an American can perform”? Does that not seem eerily close to the German Nazi propaganda machine of WWII? Having children is now our patriotic duty, a “service” to “perform”. Whether cannon fodder for the “fatherland” or a commodity to fuel a declining economy, we now know what the real value of children has become. Why don’t we just line up all those unpatriotic, self-centered women and AI all of them. What could be more important than the American economy? Instead of a “chicken in every pot” we could have “five kids in each home”.
Now that would surely take care of all our economic problems.
Economy, Society Children, Elderly, Growth Economy
