Microwaves... (way off topic)

On Friday, February 06, 1998 3:56 PM, Dominic Thomas
[SMTP:dthomas@] wrote:
OK, now there is a lot of argument about the birth control of some sort. Chi
nese have a good method for this - if a family wants to have more than one
child (or more than two - I'm not sure), they have to pay extra tax for that.
This increases exponentially with the number of children you have.

I don't know if they have some catch about twins, and such (as would appear to
be fair), but in general (given that a most common birth is that of a single
child), this seems to be a very good method.

What happens elsewhere, for example. People don't work. They live on what the
government gives them as benefit for the unemployed. But, this is not enough.
So, they get extra money for every extra child. So, by the time they get to
about 5 or 6, they can live on that, as it takes progressively less money per
person fed, if you are cooking for a lot of people.

This is utterly wrong by concept!

So, even if we keep it all reasonably fair for poor people, let's say extra
benefit is given for the first child. Then, let's even provide a smaller amount
more for the second child. After that - no extra income.

This would discourage people from having too many children. Note that such
excessively large families are generally poor families. Quite a lot of them
have a lot of children for exactly this reason - because government is paying
them for it! Think about this nonsense.

It would also be very fair to mention the quite efficient contraception (sp?)
methods available today. This is simply to show that there are verious ways of
limiting the population increase - if people are willing to do that. And the
only way the people will want to do that is by quite simply forcing them to -
through taxes and benefits, or their lack.

I sense a lot of flames coming about this...

Gordan

Gordan Bobic wrote:
I'm impressed someone in the developed world is aware of the Chinese
approach to population control and yet is blissfully unaware of the
unfortunate
consequences. Most societies on Earth are male orientated ones, even
today.
This means that if you can only really have one child and it was a girl
you
might feel cheated or that you could have done better. Now ignoring any
inrellivant damage to a parents ego, a sizeable percentage of parents in

China do kill or 'loose' baby girls in order that they may then go on
and try
for a boy. This results in an unnaturally high level of orphaned girls
and a
infant mortality rate that is higher than it should be.
Population control, good idea, using the Chinese example as proof
that it can work, perhaps, but it's morally suspect to do so.

Humans, like nature, can react in previously unexpected ways to "good
ideas",
be carefull out there.

Pleasant Dreams,

Darren

On Saturday, February 07, 1998 12:01 PM, Snee D [SMTP:D.Snee@]
wrote:
I understand what you are saying, and I agree - you have a very good point
there. However, even if we take that into account what you say, this still
doesn't justify most the cases which I mentioned. OK, your point may justify
some of the families with excessive number of children, but as it happens,
there are many examples where your point breaks down, such as families with
several male and female children.

I agree - the Chinese example was probably not a very good one, but consider
something else - what about artificial insemenation? This can compensate for
the gender of the child. But, this has MASSIVE negative side effects.

For some reason, nature heals itself from this kind of influence. It has been
noted that after the events such as world war two when lot of men died, more
male shildren were born. After several years, this anomaly disappeared. I
remember reding about this in a magazine somewhere, so if someone remembers
where it might have been, please speak up.

Everything else aside, I think the point that we are both trying to put forward
is - everything would be fine if people were logical and sensible. In that case
there would be no problem with excessively large families in the first place.
But, trying to rectify the human nature (which is incredibly insensible and
illogical at times) is a much bigger problem. Imposing sensible solutions me
rely shifts the problem at best!

But, that is human nature...

Gordan

Previously, Gordon Bobic wrote...
Unless my memory is failing me in my old age, this is similar to the
technique used in Arthur C.Clarke's Space Odyssey books - or at least in
2061 (the only one I've read). Basically, the first two children are
free (which solves the problem of twins, presumably, as triplets etc.
must be even rarer); the first child born after that costs 1 million
credits, the second 2 million, the third 4 million, and so on.

Good, but unfortunately you still get rich morons who want to be famous
at any cost - one bloke in 2061 is "the world's most expensive baby",
costing around 32 million credits! Well, at least they were born one at
a time, rather than as the result of fertility treatment (like no less
than 2 stupid couples in the 1990s).

Two children is a reasonable limit. After all, it takes two parents to
produce them in the first place, so, barring accidents, there should be
no natural increase in population!
It's a throwback to times gone by - we learn about this in geography at
GCSE level! - although back then they also had lots of children to prove
virility / nubility, look after the aged, and work in the fields!

Incidentally, didn't Arthur C.Clarke say in "Rendezvous with Rama" that,
in space travel, sterility is not just a risk, but a certainty, because
of the radiation?
To quote Butt-Head: "Some people are dumb!" They need guidance. But,
just to contradict two of my chums in economics (Tom Hudson being one),
people should not be controlled - guided, certainly, and led if
necessary, but not turned into robots with a governing elite!
Not from me, mate! Unless you count anything written by me as a
flame... (I sense flames coming about this!)

Incidentally, can anyone remember the name of the satirical film set in
the future which had the government rendering all people "average" using
thought inhibitors? The title was the name of the hero (he shoots
himself live on TV at the end). I could just about recommend it for an
IFIS screening if available (it's more sci-fi than Scream or Seven!).

Dave (please, not just D.Chilard any more!)