The Less The Merrier?
Leigh Anne Jasheway-Bryant
Before she died, my German grandmother told me that my mother was born because the family needed a new couch. It was 1939 and Hitler’s Law for the Encouragement of Marriage was still in effect. (Why does that law sound so familiar?) For those of you who slept through history class or who have forgotten almost everything you ever committed to memory including where your keys are and whether you voted for Nader in 2004, let me hit your Refresh button. Wanting to create a strong Aryan army, Hitler provided government loans of 1,000 Marks (about nine months’ average income) to each newlywed couple. With the birth of one child, 25% of the loan didn’t have to be paid back. Two children meant 50% and four children cleared the entire loan. As the third child in the family, my mom’s birth was greeted with great cheer, because her arrival meant not only a sofa, but an ottoman as well. (That’s ottoman with a small “o”, not a large one.)
I bring this up not to point with pride to my Germanic roots – I try to cover those with Miss Clairol every six weeks – but to encourage discussion of population control issues as we look for solutions to all the Earth’s current problems. If people can be encouraged to have more children for furniture, what would it take for them to have fewer offspring? This is an important question because a smaller human population would ease global warming, terrorism, economic disparity, immigration issues, educational funding crises, long waits to audition for American Idol, the chances of another Paris Hilton being born, etc. I’m not recommending we follow China’s one child policy since that has resulted in serious negative consequences including infanticide of female babies and increased abortions. But I do think we should consider new ideas to get people to choose to have fewer, if any, children. Starting in the U.S., we could:
• Give women huge tax credits for postponing childbirth until their forties. By then, most will be too exhausted to procreate (don’t ask how I know.)
• Taking a page from farm subsidies, pay young women NOT TO grow and donate their eggs. A recent article in the Register-Guard quoted one egg donor as saying, “Everyone does it for the money. No one would do that (injecting hormones, harvesting eggs) for free – maybe for your sister, but not for a stranger.” Egg subsidies would not only help reduce the birthrate, but young women could pay off their student loans with the extra money and start their careers off without massive debt.
• Charge interest and fees for making sperm bank deposits. Send complicated monthly deposit and withdrawal slips. Report interest to the IRS. Hey, Citibank does it.
• Show videos of childbirth on YouTube under the title “Deleted scenes from South Park.”
• Provide free two-seater sports cars to all young men. Nothing convinces most young men to practice safe sex like the threat of having to trade a Ferrari or Lamborghini in for a minivan.
• Hire bullies and mean kids to hang around in the waiting rooms of fertility clinics. A few swift kicks to the shin or half an hour of “Whatever” from a surly teenager ought to be enough to change couples’ desires to have a baby. Not to mention, with all the bullies and meanies away working, the nerdy kids will have a much easier time at school, which should help increase the supply of scientists and engineers in the future.
I can hear the arguments now. “If the U.S. controls its population, we’ll be overtaken by the Canadians” or “We have to have children to leave our legacy on the world” or “Who will take care of me when I’m old and bitter if I don’t have kids now?” All valid points that should be discussed. Whatever it takes – from silliness to serious discourse – population issues should be part of the conversation.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 20, '07
Declines in birth rates don't necessarily lead to a decline in population. If the number of jobs--and therefore the number of workers--needed to sustain industrial (or agriculturla) output and the overall standard of living doesn't decline, then immigration will more than make up for the lack of "native" born citizens. This is happening across Europe, perhaps most famously in Germany with the Turkish and Kurdish immigrant populations who, because of restrictive citizenship laws, find themselves without political rights and "locked out" of the German dream they have helped build since at least the 50s. Talk about a recipe for social strife. I hope they can work it out amicably.
The same dynamics are at work in this country, where the "baby bust" that followed the baby-boomers would have created larger structural problems--especially with pensions--if immigration hadn't filled the gap. Without changes to the overall economy, all you're doing when you forego having your own kids is making more room for somebody else's (and we thank you!)
But expect problems to arise when there is no perception of a social compact between generations from different backgrounds who may not be willing to pay for schools or pensions to benefit people they view as "the other." Not that we've seen any of that in this country...
Feb 20, '07
Most industrialized countries are already experiencing birthrates at below replacement levels. Within a generation, the laboring payers to meet entitlement obligations will have to come from immigration. Fewer people would most certainly ease environmental pressures, but will create an economic catastrophe unless we make significant changes to our models of subsidized entitlements. While I am thankful that all five of my children are productive working members of our society, I fear for the future of their own children.
Feb 20, '07
Wow! Something as serious as social engineering, introduced with an example from Nazi Germany, and then premised with... Well, it's not really premised at all. It jumps to the conclusion that government programs to help manage the birth rate in the U.S. would have a positive impact on the American economy and culture, supported by a persiflage of examples from pop culture. I'm not sure what to think, but to add a little historical context, since I'm one Blue Oregon reader who didn't sleep through my history classes or forget everything I learned.
Estimates of German killed in action during World War I tend to range from about 2 million to 3 million, with millions more permanently disabled. Also the Allied blockade caused serious food shortages in Germany in 1917 and 1918, which increased infant mortality and led to wide-scale malnutrition. The "Spanish" flu pandemic of 1918 also flourished in the post-war conditions. The need for incentives (or propaganda) to increase the population was also recognized in Britain and France as a response to the horrible impact of the war. The economic incentives described were not just a Nazi scheme at controlled economy.
The efforts to breed this great Aryan warrior for the Third Reich were more manifested in Himmler's Lebensborn program, part of which were the "maternity" camps in which women who were deemed to be racially pure would mate with SS officers.
12:34 p.m.
Feb 20, '07
I'd definitely not do anything to encourage women to wait until their 40s. This increases the chances of all kinds of problems, including the mother dying and the baby being born with major health problems.
Encouraging them to wait until their 30s might be good. But their 40s? Not only would we increase the number of children born with major problems (who therefore often times receive government assistance), you'd be looking at lawsuits from families. They'd argue that the government was encouraging people to wait until their 40s when they knew that doing so was dangerous to the mother and child's health.
I came from a family of four girls. Thus far my eldest sister has had two, and that will be it. I've had one, and we plan on having one more at some point in the next few years (Abby will be 5 in April, so we don't want to wait too much longer) and then I'd like to adopt -- my husband and his sister were adopted into a loving family at the age of 6 and 7 and we'd like to do the same for some child. My next sister has one, and I'd be surprised if she has anymore. She had a really hard pregnancy and an even worse birth. My youngest sister will likely have none, but she helps raise her nieces and nephews. Thus far we've had 4 kids inbetween us.
We were part of the baby boomer's boom. When all the baby boomers then went on to have a lot of kids, making for at least two huge generations (X and Y). Many of the people of our generation are seeing how hard our parents and our friends' parents had providing for their families. And with times tougher now, we're less likely to have the big family our parents did, and more likely to have 1 or 2 kids.
Among our generation it seems to becoming more and more common for the husband to have a vasectomy after child number 2.
It would be pretty interesting to see some figures on the birth rates of people in mine and my sibling's generations (me and my oldest sister are Gen X, youngest two Gen Y). I have the feeling that while many of us may be having our children early, they're not having as many as their parents. I had my daughter at age 24. That was pretty old for my hometown -- most had theirs within a year of graduation, if not before. But still, when I look through profiles of classmates or talk with them, I find they've only had one or two. It's only occasionally I find more than that. And this is from a town where 4+ kids in the family wasn't rare. 6+ kids wasn't either. One friend had 11 siblings.
Feb 20, '07
You'd better take your idea to the Pope because his followers around the world are among the worst at overpopulating the planet. You're also going to have to have some discussions with a few imams, because the notion of women having any say in the number of children she is forced to bear doesn't go over well with their followers, either. And then there's the problems of poverty and ignorance throughout the Third World, so it's going to take convincing the leaders of the First World to fund a massive training effort and provide free birth control to the masses. If it weren't for immigration here, we wouldn't have population growth. So unless you want a significantly smaller ratio of freedom-loving, educated American-types in the world you're sort of barking up the wrong tree with this one.
5:46 p.m.
Feb 20, '07
People, please.
"Whatever it takes – from silliness to serious discourse – population issues should be part of the conversation."
That was a hint. Did it need to be titled "Some Modest Proposals"?
Your best effort yet, LAJB. You had me cracking up the whole way through. I thought the sports car suggestion was particularly creative.
6:01 p.m.
Feb 20, '07
I think the ottoman was my favorite. But I've always had a weakness for ottomans (yes, lower-case o).
Feb 20, '07
I don't really think it would be a good idea to encourage women in their 40's to have children, considering the added health risks both to the woman, but of birth defects.
What about teaching family planning to people? As in, make $X to start family so you can afford a house and put them through school, rather than just getting pregnant at 21 with your "boyfriend" who dumps the girl 2 days later.
Getting smart is definitely the solution (which is just the opposite of the current federal birth control planning, which might as well be titled "the young and the dumb..."
Feb 21, '07
Doretta and Stephanie V,
Insert big grin here. I actually thought of going with the modest proposal'ish title, but could hear my sister in her sing-song voice whispering "copycat, copycat." Thanks for seeing my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.
Feb 21, '07
Hey Leigh Anne,
Although I understand your attempts at humor, it seems that you're the one who has been sleeping through class. If you were paying attention, you would know that birthrates have been dropping precipitously (below replacement rates) in industrialized countries such as Germany and Japan. It is not countries like the US that are the problem. It is the underdeveloped countries such as those in Africa or parts of Asia and the Middle East. When those economies start to develop and costs of raising kids overwhelm any economic incentive for having them as free labor, that's when population growth will start to decline.
Feb 21, '07
Hey Leigh Anne,
Although I understand your attempts at humor, it seems that you're the one who has been sleeping through class. If you were paying attention, you would know that birthrates have been dropping precipitously (below replacement rates) in industrialized countries such as Germany and Japan. It is not countries like the US that are the problem. It is the underdeveloped countries such as those in Africa or parts of Asia and the Middle East. When those economies start to develop and costs of raising kids overwhelm any economic incentive for having them as free labor, that's when population growth will start to decline.
Feb 21, '07
I'm with the author, whether she's emulating Swift or not....zero population growth is fine with me. I did my bit. That wasn't my plan, just how it worked out, but I feel less sad about it in light of the erosion of quality of life, and the environmental, social and economic hardships facing today's younger generations.
There is a lot of controversy about our local urban growth boundaries....pretty much "not in my back yard"..."they're ruining my city" attitudes. You have to ask the anti-development folks if they have children. More often than not they say yes...sometimes they have grandchildren too. Then you have to ask if they would like their offspring to be able to own their own home....well of course they do. Then you can ask, how do you suppose that will be possible if we don't build more housing. You can't have it both ways. If you dare to state that these folks who are happily procreating have no right to complain about any of the problems caused by overpopulation, it's not long before they go into the xenophobic diatribe. Then they will tell you, "well, it's all these immigrants coming here causing the problems", and "who says we have to open the coutny's doors to any third-worlder who wants a piece of our pie?"...even "the wrong people are breeding". Honestly, I have heard all this and more from educated people. I say we are citizens of the earth....why not?...our leaders have insisted that we must have a global economy, and convinced us NAFTA would help Americans. Wealthy Americans only, as it turns out. The world population has more than doubled since 1950, and whether we like it or not we all have to face and address the issue. Curbing childbirth is not only advisable, it is humane. The quality of life is not improving for the average American. Sad, yes. As to the argument, who will work in the factories? Most of them are off-shore anyway. Gone away along with living wage jobs. We are a nation of consumers, all heavily in debt, with an eye to the furture but no plan for the future. Our most brilliant doctors & researchers are leaving in droves as well...to countries where scientific research is not overshadowed and controlled by religious doctrines.
I really don't see how anyone can get indignant or queasy when we raise the issue of curbing overpopulation through incentives. We are approaching procreation as though it were a business model....continually grow, or go under. How's that working out so far?
Feb 22, '07
saw this and thought - exchange Oregon... I'm a VHEMT.org supporter - less humans would be a great thing for this planet, live long and die out!
Population growth doesn't serve Vt.
By Mark Powell
January 30, 2007
Judging by his remarks before the Vermont Economic Outlook Conference, ("Ages are high; housing is low," Free Press, Jan. 13) it seems that Peter Francese thinks we need to encourage continued population growth as the answer to all of our problems. Regrettably, policies implemented over the past two decades suggest that the federal government agrees. The article, however, leaves out an important piece of information, one that I'm betting Francese neglected to mention in his speech: population growth also has a down side.
I don't know how anyone who sees how much the cost of housing has gone up relative to wages can argue that our population isn't growing fast enough. While Francese claims we are not doing enough to increase the supply of housing, wouldn't the situation be a little more healthy, especially for low-income Vermonters, if there were fewer people competing for the housing that already exists? He clearly thinks a better solution is to pave over more land, build more houses and create more jobs so that people fleeing the other overcrowded regions of the country will come up here and make Vermont more congested.
While Francese thinks the worst case scenario would be having Vermont resemble upstate New York, I think it's the Vermont he envisions: overrun with sprawl and indistinguishable from the rest of the coastal Northeast. It's easy to say that Vermont has to ease regulations on new construction so that more housing can be built, but isn't it also possible, indeed isn't it fairly obvious, that our state is already crowded enough that it is losing the quality of place, and quality of life, that make Vermont so special?
As for the aging of the Vermont population, any honest demographer will admit that the baby boom, the bulging cohort of Americans that threatens to lead us into several decades of top-heavy age distribution, is a demographic anomaly and not a historical norm in terms of fertility and population growth. The boomers created challenges when they starting flooding school classrooms, when they started looking for jobs, and when they started buying houses. They'll no doubt create some challenges when they start retiring. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the best response is to increase future population to the point where this demographic anomaly becomes the norm.
Someday those baby boomers are going to die. We will mourn their passing, but we will mourn also any further erosion of Vermont's environmental heritage and natural beauty that we allow under the pretense of making sure the boomers can afford quality time at the shuffleboard court.
In the process of ensuring them a comfortable retirement, do we really need to encourage a new wave of population that will, in its own turn, have to be supported in retirement by yet another wave? If we do, we run the risk of leaving future generations a Vermont that they will no longer feel proud to call home.
Mark Powell lives in Worcester.