h a l f b a k e r yKeep out of reach of children.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Much like how we have a trading scheme for carbon
emissions.
I would wonder what it would be like if people could
trade
birth credits.
Basically you designate the number of
births/immigrations
you can allow, and distribute the credit pools to the
entire
citizen pool.
They can
then sell and trade these credits rights to
either
other people who want a baby.
--------
An alternative scheme, could be to make the system
include both birth and immigrations (which would allow
for
overall population growth control).
This could by via government putting an expiry on the
credits, and using the extra credits for immigrants and
refugees.
--------
Pros: Distributed population control. Extra money to
those
who don't have babies.
Cons: Dealing with those who break the law. Richer
people
affording more babies.
Preheated ?
http://tvtropes.org...terature/KnownSpace
The ARM police (the law enforcement agency of the United Nations, regularly go on "mother hunts" for those people who illegally go over their reproductive limits. [normzone, Dec 13 2015]
[link]
|
| |
//Richer people affording more babies// Can you explain why that is a con? |
|
| |
Too many old people. Not enough young people. Also distinct lack of girls, since too many girls were selectively aborted by their families. |
|
| |
The chinese government is annoyed at that, but they did manage to get most of the job done of population reduction in the long term. Now they just need to avoid committing demographic suicide (and too many angry young men), by letting off the break a little bit. |
|
| |
//Too many old people. Not enough young
people.// |
|
| |
We're meant to be aiming towards stabilizing, and
then reversing, our disastrous population growth.
But as soon as any country actually moves toward
this, they suddenly realize that they need three
young people to support every two old people. |
|
| |
By this reasoning, the human population will just
have to keep on growing exponentially until
everything turns to shit. |
|
| |
//Dealing with those who break the law.//
1st illegal birth: Small fine.
2nd illegal birth: Huge fine or voluntary vasectomy/hysterectomy.
3rd illegal birth: Enforced vasectomy/hysterectomy.
But the important thing is educating the populace as to WHY these laws are coming, for at least 10 years before they are put in place. If the people understand the reasons, the laws will barely be needed. For example, bike helmets. |
|
| |
I don't know of any country that has banned bike helmets though. |
|
| |
[pocmloc], I meant that (at least here) there is a law that you must wear a bike helmet. But even before the law came in, most people already did so anyway, due to a good education campaign. So most people don't even care that there is a law, because it is "the done thing" anyway. |
|
| |
//Richer people affording more babies// Can you explain why that is a con? |
|
| |
Because modern capitalism is temporary and success at it is not necessarily conducive to the long-term genetic health of the species. |
|
| |
// Extra money to those who don't have babies. |
|
| |
Uh, they already have extra money by virtue of not having babies. |
|
| |
Oh I see [neut]. But that's based on marketing, bad science, and peer pressure, not understanding of reasons. |
|
| |
[Max] //But as soon as any country actually moves toward this, they suddenly realize that they need three young people to support every two old people.// - I think we're sort of hoping the Japanese, who are further advanced up this demographic creek (whilst possessing insufficient paddles), find a way to solve this problem before it hits us in a big way. |
|
| |
Well their sexbots technology is getting better if that means anything. |
|
| |
// Because modern capitalism is temporary and success at
it is not necessarily conducive to the long-term genetic
health of the species// |
|
| |
So we should call up Elon, Gates and Brin and stop working
on Mars, malaria and immortality? |
|
| |
Of course not. However, those men were not product of
this invention, so I'm not sure how your question is
relevant. If you want to make an argument from extreme,
the better one is: do we want only those men to reproduce?
Or do we want some kind of hereditary capatilist royalty? |
|
| |
The type of post capitalism future you postulate
would necessarily not rely on dna limitations in any
case |
|
| |