This diary began as a comment in reply to this thread. It was instantly obvious that it wasn't a long comment; it was long DAIRY. I've tried to edit it down as best I could, but this is a complex, multi-faceted issue that isn't as simple as many view it - and I still haven't covered the full spectrum on the topic, by any means. Not even close. But it is a start.
Converting this piece from a comment to a diary wasn't as easy as I'd hoped; it may come across as a bit scatter-brained (which I am, ANYWAY). Of course, I've already linked above to the comment which got this rolling, but I'm not going to mention the OP by UID here, in a likely-silly attempt to show the OP respect (the OP is a Kossack whose presence here I've long enjoyed, and greatly respect). The OP will only be referred to, as OP.
Please review the thread linked above before making the hop to a dissertation on over-/under-population. This piece won't come across as coherent without reading that thread first (this diary really strays considerably from the thrust of the original diary).
This IS, basically, an opinion piece, and, in a sense, directed at the OP - but not in a hostile way at all. I chose to make this a dairy because I believe the issue is too important to be buried at the end of a old, dying, diary (and it was an INSANELY long comment). There aren't a lot of links here.
Further, this is IN NO WAY an attack on the Original Poster; one of the purposes (certainly not the only one) of this diary is to try to convey to the OP that we're on the same side - and why. Largely, we simply have a difference of opinion on how to reach a common goal, although I do see more possible scenarios and have covered one of the alternative scenarios that, in my mind, is one of the most likely alternatives.
IMNSHO (FWIW, IMHSNO, IMHO is an oxymoron) the OP has made some suggestions that lead to a VERY slippery slope. These are issues involving basic human nature and survival instinct. Two-child families aren't adequate to MAINTAIN the current population. I'm not saying that's necessarily a BAD thing - to ME. But this is like trying to tell people not to have sex (theoretically, it's telling people EXACTLY that). Or like trying to teach a pig to dance - it doesn't work, and it annoys the pig...
A bit of (hopefully relevant) personal background:
My father was one of 5 kids; my mother was an only child. I was the oldest of 3, and I have 1 (adult) child, myself (as such, I'm BOTH the child, AND the parent, of an only child). I saw the exact same trend all through my childhood; ALL my friends had fewer siblings than at least one of their parents, most had fewer than BOTH. I see it TODAY, as well. Admittedly, I reside in Canada ATM, and Canada's birth-rate is 25% lower than the US, so I see it even more acutely than I did while I was still in the US.
I highly doubt an attempt to "reverse" a vasectomy performed nearly 30 years ago would be successful, so this issue isn't relevant to me PERSONALLY (COLLECTIVELY, it very much is). And, at age 52, not currently in a relationship, I can't envision ever being in a future situation where I'd WANT to father another child (it would be YOUNGER than my GRANDSON, and, effectively, a SECOND "only child").
I have a number of friends (most are KOSSACKS, in fact), all parents of adult (or close) children, who actually hope they do NOT become grandparents; in every single case, because of the likely quality of life those children would have. In at least one case, it appears they're going to get their wish. I became a grandparent 2 years ago; denying someone that opportunity is, to me, a tragedy; I didn't feel that way UNTIL I became a grandparent myself. And I worry TERRIBLY about the quality of life my grandson is going to have.
Al Gore was MY Senator for decades (and my political hero most of my life; he's currently sharing that post with Barack Obama ;) ). I backed him for POTUS in 2000 from DAY ONE, and Barack starting about 2 weeks after attending his breakout session at YK '07 in Chicago, late July, 2007 (thank you SO much for your hospitality, jdog and sherm! ;) ).
I'm a militant environmentalist: 100% CFL; former manager of an urban organic community garden plot for the NGO where I volunteer; a sq-ft organic gardener on a rental property with only about 30-50 sq ft available; a compulsive litter-picker-upper. I prefer REUSE to RECYCLING; I use FREECYCLE.COM; I GAVE UP DRIVING in 1996 - PERMANENTLY - SOLELY for environmental reasons. I'm currently looking for an ecovillage to join - permanently. I visited my first one in December, and plan to visit several this year.
I was an early member of the "flip off every Hummer on the road" club, and I'm in a city with a wealth of targets. As a full-time pedestrian living downtown in a city of well over 500,000 people, in an average day, I flip off 1 to 4 Hummers. Every day. No injuries (or even attempts at same, which has actually surprised me) to date.
The future of this planet (Gaia, to me) is the primary focus, and concern, of my life. Many people's orientation to life is to attempt to grab as much of the planet's wealth as they can use up while here, or somehow "take with them". Mine is to see how much of Gaia's bounty I can LEAVE BEHIND - in usable form.
The OP appears to believe that we are on opposing sides of this issue - IMNSHO, we ARE NOT. Read my original post again, if necessary - I agree completely with ALL the OP's goals; I disagree with SOME of the tactics proposed to accomplish those goals.
I want to make clear that I am NOT biased, in any way, toward children w/o siblings - both my mother and my daughter fall into this category. I DO, however, believe that siblings are beneficial to a 'family unit' in numerous ways. I'm in a bit of a unique situation: my mother and daughter are sole children; I was the oldest of 3 boys born in RAPID succession: I'm 50 months older than my YOUNGEST brother; my mother was, of course, pregnant for 18 of those 50 intervening months. Further, my mother's mother's father died in an industrial accident when she was still quite young; her 8-yrs-older brother effectively became her father - leaving HER, in effect, an only child, as well. As such, I've been exposed heavily to both environments, over multiple generations (I have over 2 DOZEN cousins on the paternal side), and have been able to compare them pretty closely. I believe I MIGHT have some unique insights as a result. Maybe; maybe not.
NOT (all...) about me:
You don't need 7 kids once you transition from a subsistence farmer to a factory worker, merchant, or professional, etc. Until that point,however, you DO; THEY are your LABOUR FORCE.
It's well-known that virtually ALL societies' birth rates drop SHARPLY as they become "advanced (sic), industrialized" nations. Check the world map, and the top and bottom of the chart.
The problem with sole children isn't kids throwing tantrums every time mommy says, "NO!" when they are 2, as the OP references - the problem is THE ADULTS THOSE CHILDREN MAY BECOME. I'm NOT saying that all sole children are overly self-oriented and/or grow up to be criminals, or that children from larger families automatically grow up to be saints. I know from my own family that is far from accurate across-the-board - in both directions. I'm saying sibling(s) are a key part of Hillary's "village." GREED, and self-interest placed before community interest (aren't those synonymous?), are MUCH bigger enemies than overpopulation. A person more concerned with the overall welfare of their community than with their own personal desires will VOLUNTARILY do what's best for the COMMUNITY. IMX, siblings learn concepts like sharing, "do unto others...", "I am my brother's keeper," etc, earlier, more naturally; it becomes a core part of the personality earlier - remember; 95% of a child's personality is developed by age 5 or 6. IOW, "Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in Kindergarten" is really a misnomer. A child's personality is largely developed before she even starts Kindergarten. A sibling 2-4 years apart is, in reality, a better and more natural teacher. Yes, I do realise that most kids are in day-care or some such at that more critical 2-5 age range these days. That's a good thing.
And yes, I AM a major optimist (in this regard, at least) - I believe humans CAN evolve into a society where most people instinctively give a higher priority to the needs of the community than to their own personal desires. In fact, I believe that evolution will NATURALLY lead humanity there - because that's our ONLY HOPE for long-term survival, and that's the inherent "mission" of evolution - evolving in ways which will ensure continued survival of the species.
IMNSHO, a population that is 10% larger, but where empathy and a spirit of mutual cooperation are the social norms, has a MUCH better chance of survival, long-term, than one that is 10% smaller, but full of people who aren't community-oriented. Yes, we face a population crisis - but it's NOT the only crisis we have to deal with. IMNSHO, the CRITICAL element to ensure our long-term survival, is to begin to instill a community-oriented mindset in our progeny - at a young age. A community-oriented culture will VOLUNTARILY minimize the number of kids they have if they see that having more children will be detrimental to the community. IMNSHO, this IS the AMERICAN way. FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Disallowing more than a certain number of children is (a) simply not feasible in the US today, period, and (b) something that is only done in TOTALITARIAN countries (e.g. China). Exponential taxes on larger families is both an added burden on a family which ALREADY has a heavier financial responsibility; and a direct request for class warfare. Telling people they're too poor to have CHILDREN is just about the most effective way to START a class-based civil war I can think of. A government that decides who can and cannot have children fits the definition of totalitarianism in my Webster's pretty close. That might be a BIT of an overstatement, but not by much. Name a non-communist, non-totalitarian government ANYWHERE that controls it's citizens right to bear progeny. Sorry, OP, that is NOT freedom. Millions of Americans have died defending "liberty", "freedom" (and WAY too many have simply been cannon fodder for scoundrels hiding behind a flag). "Give me liberty or give me death." Those words were, at one time, spoken in complete earnestness. "Liberty" without the right to even decide how many children you want, is a shell game.
the OP's China/Somalia/Rwanda comment makes NO sense to me at all - AFAIK, neither African nation has ANY population controls, and they're (relatively speaking) primitive, primarily agricultural societies - that's why they have so many kids. Again; when you're farming using fairly primitive equipment, your children are your LABOUR FORCE - required for survival of the family unit. IMO, the OP is making MY point with the contrast.
I stand by my earlier statement. Limiting the number of children a family can have - ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT NUMBER IS ONE - will lead to a huge increase in abortions as potential parents discard a child of the "wrong" (almost always FEMALE) sex. And 15-20 years later, you've got an entire generation of ANGRY, impulsive, young, strong, men looking for love. Who could blame them for taking it out on their government? Their government CREATED the problem.
I've NEVER heard Al Gore suggest ANY of the measures the OP suggests with which I've disagreed. Ever. And I try not to miss ANY (new) speech he makes - I'm a native Tennessean, myself, and I find the man to be a very captivating speaker. I HEART Al Gore, and always will.
IMNSHO, James Howard Kunstler's 'The Long Emergency' should be required reading for every Kossack. It's an EXTREMELY dark volume, and I don't buy in to a lot of his political crap toward the end of the book. But, as a lifelong and rabid student of logic (and mathematician and amateur astronomer), I find VERY few holes in his logic. If even a few of his predictions in the earlier part of the book come to pass, UNDERpopulation will be our problem! Once the combines, fertilizers, and other petrochemical-based or fueled products used in farming today are gone (or unaffordable), and the large cities (NYC/CH/LA/etc) are totally gang-controlled, the term "unemployment" may well disappear from the language - we're going to need every productive body we can lay our hands on - to FEED OURSELVES. Manual farming is EXTREMELY labour-intensive. I don't accept his prognostications as gold, and certainly agree that, ATM, we're best off erring on the side of trying to limit population growth. But the possibility DOES exist - and again, his logic in the first 2/3rd's of the book seems ROCK-SOLID to me. This time is much closer in the future than many people are willing to accept mentally. Just as we collectively continued to allow Detroit to build gas-guzzlers (by BUYING THEM), not just in the 1970's, but f'ing HUMMERS in the 21st CENTURY; just as we ignored the blatantly obvious signs of an impending economic meltdown for at LEAST a decade (at least TWO decades, IMNSHO), today we collectively choose to sick our heads in the sand rather than face up to (AND PREPARE FOR) the fact that we're not going to have petroleum available at anything approaching an affordable price long before automobiles on the road TODAY are worn-out. The same is true for many combines currently in operation.
IF Kunstler is anywhere near correct (I've tried repeatedly, and I can't disagree with most of Kunstler's predictions), we'll be NEEDING 7 children each in 30-40 years, just to grow enough food for the family to survive - and a LOT of people are going to die (both domestically, and in combat) once we reach the point of permanent resource wars. And yes, they are inevitable - UNTIL we evolve to the point where we naturally place a higher priority on the needs of the group, than on our own personal desires.
I've long respected the OP's contributions to DKos, and I certainly don't want this to become an issue between us. We only disagree on how, not what, or why. Same strategic objective; different tactics. That's ALL that we disagree on - and we don't disagree on THAT many of them! I hope you can see that. Really.
NO 2 people here are going to agree on EVERYTHING. But there's no need or reason to consider me as opposed to the OP's goals. They are also MINE. But using force, law, or extreme economic sanctions is NOT the way for a free society to deal with this issue. As I stated in the thread, people look at tax credits and TAXES in two VERY different ways. It's one thing to limit the number of children a family may write off on their taxes; you start telling people every kid after the first will cost an EXPONENTIALLY RISING amount of money, expect to start seeing pitchforks. We know how rabid the gun nuts in the US can be. Does anyone really think people would be less rabid about their CHILDREN than their GUNS? And only a subset of Americans own weapons. The VAST majority of families contain childREN - PLURAL.
IMNSHO, options 4 and 5 in my poll would highly upset the electorate. Options 6 or 7? We've ASKING for a revolution.
What do YOU think?