|
At 11:38 26/03/99 EST, Catherine <CathGeorge@AOL.COM> wrote:
>With regard to sustainable population, my thinking has been that we should
>immediately stop tax deductions for children. That way, parents will be
>required to shoulder more of the true cost of their children, give it more
>thought. Society encourages what it subsidizes, and we subsidize large
>families, to our detriment.
>
** I agree, for all after the first child. Raising a child is an
enormously educational experience for most parents, and it's the first (or
only) child that does the most educating of the parents.
** A majority of OECD citizens (the rich nations' club) have become
noticeably more selfish during the last 20 years, as a consequence of the
elevation of "the Economy" and "the Market" to the level of gods, so
without the reality-check of having a child such people are even more
destructive of world ecology (that's my god) than after their child has
educated them.
** It's not that simple, of course. It's really tough on the first child,
so (s)he needs the sort of support an extended family used to give. I don't
know any good answers here (surprised?).
>On the other hand, is it ethical for wealthy families, like the Kennedys, to
>have a dozen children because they can afford it? I don't know the answer to
>this.
>
** I wouldn't be concerned about parents with that level of wealth - each
child is only one, out of the 140,000,000 richer half of Americans; that's
in contrast to the parallel argument about "how much tax should the rich
pay?": a much more signficant fraction of the total tax take.
** The main concern is: "is it ethical for any parents in the richer half
of the USA (or the top ~10% incomes in the world) to have more than 1, or
at the most, 2 children?" The concern becomes ethical when others have to
die or be ground into the dirt, as a consequence of the expected
consumption of these new human beings.
** However, there is an out. If "all" parents in the US did what Diane
Fitzsimmons is doing ([pf] 13:41 26/03/99), these new humans will have a
drastically reduced effect on the earth (and its other humans) throughout
their lives, and won't be the albatross-around-the-neck that the current
rich are.
>And if not, is it ethical for a government to put limits on reproduction? I
>shrink from that.
>
** As a closet anarchist, I am implacably opposed to heirarchical methods
of controlling people. There may, however, be a need for some sufficiently
powerful institution, perhaps government, in order to put enforceable
limits to the actions of our current robber-barons, the Trans-National
Corporations and those people who benefit from their power and wealth.
** I personally don't think the rich need to be treated that way, as
regards their reproduction. Here is one case where the argument: "they are
people, after all, and _can_ be educated" can and should apply. In
distinction from big corporations, where the economic-survival-based
corporate ethic has virtually no room for "normal" hunan concerns.
David.
** http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
David MacClement <davd@geocities.com> , or davd@tao.ca for secure mail
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top