Welcome to the Next Generation of House Buyers!
There's a lot of problems on Earth these days: a widening gap between rich and poor; rising housing costs; increasingly limited land on which to live or grow things; environmental damage and global warming; the extinction or endangerment of more and more species; and the slow but steady decrease in natural resources. That's not even the tip of the iceberg, really. A lot of intricate issues, a lot of diverse problems, with myriad answers and possible solutions.
Yet for all the complexity, there's a simple solution: zero population growth. It may be that global warming is already tipping the balance, and the rise in new diseases means that Mother Nature will do the job for us and cull the population down to more manageable numbers, but there's no reason why we can't do our share. Considering that the world's population was approximately 1 billion about 1800, and is now at about 6.5 billion, we're talking a massive population explosion in just over 200 years. Is that growth sustainable? Hardly.
One of the most immediate things we can do is limit our family sizes. Even though 2/3 of the world's population is in either India or China, that fact doesn't absolve us Americans from helping to make a dent, especially considering that immigration, both legal and illegal, continues to keep our population steady, if not growing. The simplest method, of course, is to just have two children: one to replace you, one to replace your partner/spouse. When the two parents shuffle off their mortal coil, the kids replace them, but don't add to the overall population.
What's dismaying is that a lot of people don't make the correlation between family size and the changes in our society. I once knew a woman who wanted ten children. Ok, so say she and her husband can afford the ten kids, are willing to squeeze them all into an oversized McMansion, into a huge van or two cars or whatever, spend $100 on McMeals per night, sock away money for their education, and raise them. That's their problem, right?
Nope-- *our* problem. Each of those ten kids grows up, and wants the same thing for themselves: ten kids, a McMansion, oversized cars, the works. In turn, those ten grandkids per original child want the same thing. Keep that up over four or five generations, and you can see how we got where we are today. Thus it was kind of bothersome to read about one particular family today that seems to have no clue about zero population growth, or any idea that maybe limiting the family is a good idea. In Arkansas, a woman had her 16th child. Yes, in Arkansas, and no, you can stop sniggering-- they're all hers and her husband's, no one else's.
Now, aside from the fact that this is the good ol' USA and she can do whatever she wants, think about it: she's contributing sixteen new house buyers of the future. No, perhaps more-- she and her husband have said that they will have more, "if [that's what] the Lord wants." I don't pretend to be a theological expert, or know the Lord's desires, but somehow I don't think the initial vision of two people in a garden, or a handful of people here and there somehow amount to wanting 6.5 billion to dominate the entire planet. Additionally, are those kids getting the quality time and attention they need? I know in some large families, there's a concern about that; it certainly is a stereotype/joke at times: witness the "Home Alone" series. Despite the implausibility of leaving a kid behind on a major European trip, it highlights the perils of being lost in the midst of too many people. Personally, if I was a woman, I'm not sure I'd want to wear out my vagina before I'm forty (Mommy is now 39, has sixteen kiddies, and plans more??)-- I think I might want my genitals to last a little bit longer. But, anyway-- whatever you may think about this, I think they may want to quit while they're ahead. Right now they plan on a house with dormitory-style rooms for the kids-- Camp Duggar.
As for myself, I'd prefer to just have two kids, and that's that. We'll see what happens, but whether I have children or not, I don't plan on adding to the world's woes if I can help it.
Yet for all the complexity, there's a simple solution: zero population growth. It may be that global warming is already tipping the balance, and the rise in new diseases means that Mother Nature will do the job for us and cull the population down to more manageable numbers, but there's no reason why we can't do our share. Considering that the world's population was approximately 1 billion about 1800, and is now at about 6.5 billion, we're talking a massive population explosion in just over 200 years. Is that growth sustainable? Hardly.
One of the most immediate things we can do is limit our family sizes. Even though 2/3 of the world's population is in either India or China, that fact doesn't absolve us Americans from helping to make a dent, especially considering that immigration, both legal and illegal, continues to keep our population steady, if not growing. The simplest method, of course, is to just have two children: one to replace you, one to replace your partner/spouse. When the two parents shuffle off their mortal coil, the kids replace them, but don't add to the overall population.
What's dismaying is that a lot of people don't make the correlation between family size and the changes in our society. I once knew a woman who wanted ten children. Ok, so say she and her husband can afford the ten kids, are willing to squeeze them all into an oversized McMansion, into a huge van or two cars or whatever, spend $100 on McMeals per night, sock away money for their education, and raise them. That's their problem, right?
Nope-- *our* problem. Each of those ten kids grows up, and wants the same thing for themselves: ten kids, a McMansion, oversized cars, the works. In turn, those ten grandkids per original child want the same thing. Keep that up over four or five generations, and you can see how we got where we are today. Thus it was kind of bothersome to read about one particular family today that seems to have no clue about zero population growth, or any idea that maybe limiting the family is a good idea. In Arkansas, a woman had her 16th child. Yes, in Arkansas, and no, you can stop sniggering-- they're all hers and her husband's, no one else's.
Now, aside from the fact that this is the good ol' USA and she can do whatever she wants, think about it: she's contributing sixteen new house buyers of the future. No, perhaps more-- she and her husband have said that they will have more, "if [that's what] the Lord wants." I don't pretend to be a theological expert, or know the Lord's desires, but somehow I don't think the initial vision of two people in a garden, or a handful of people here and there somehow amount to wanting 6.5 billion to dominate the entire planet. Additionally, are those kids getting the quality time and attention they need? I know in some large families, there's a concern about that; it certainly is a stereotype/joke at times: witness the "Home Alone" series. Despite the implausibility of leaving a kid behind on a major European trip, it highlights the perils of being lost in the midst of too many people. Personally, if I was a woman, I'm not sure I'd want to wear out my vagina before I'm forty (Mommy is now 39, has sixteen kiddies, and plans more??)-- I think I might want my genitals to last a little bit longer. But, anyway-- whatever you may think about this, I think they may want to quit while they're ahead. Right now they plan on a house with dormitory-style rooms for the kids-- Camp Duggar.
As for myself, I'd prefer to just have two kids, and that's that. We'll see what happens, but whether I have children or not, I don't plan on adding to the world's woes if I can help it.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 4:04 PM
<< Home