[666maslo666]

I dont see any reason why legal marriage should exist at all. Tax breaks and such should be tied to parenthood instead. Why should a married couple without children get any tax breaks? It is a discrimination of single taxpayers.

Abolishing legal marriage would solve gay marriage, polygamy/andry, marriage with animals and things and who knows what marriage related non-issues will pop up in the future.

[Mars]

Parenthood shouldn't come with tax breaks either - the United States needs to work on stabilizing population numbers, not exploding ones.

[Scotty]

Parenthood shouldn't come with tax breaks either - the United States needs to work on stabilizing population numbers, not exploding ones.

what is this i dont even

The United States is one of the comparatively few industrialized states in the world to have a positive population growth rate, and it's been holding steady at or around 1% for decades.  Really the only reason it's still positive at all is because of immigration.  Many are actually declining at a rate of around half a percent per year.  Europe, as a whole, has a population growth rate of less than 0.2%.

1% isn't an explosion.  Not even close.  Most places you hear about having a population "explosion" are the developing states.  There's a well-identified trend for this kind of thing.  In an unindustrialized region, population birth rates are high and deaths are proportionally approximately equivalent, resulting in slow net growth.  In regions that are in the process of industrialization, the death rate massively decreases due to the increased standards of health, improved medicine, urbanization, etc., while the birth rate remains high.  This results in the aforementioned population explosion.  Probably the most visible example of this in the last century is America, and the Baby Boom.  Coming out of the Depression, the birth rate was still high, but advances in medicine (the widespread introduction of the polio vaccine years prior and the newer introduction of antibiotics like penicillin) and a general trend of industrialization significantly reduced both infant mortality and death due to disease.  Finally, in regions where industrialization has already occurred for the most part, the death rate is still low compared to both prior states of living, but now the birth rate decreases proportionally, due to several factors including but not limited to: lower infant mortality and early childhood deaths in turn reducing the number of offspring required for at least one to mature; A more general awareness of contraceptives; Non-agricultural or family/personal employment resulting in significantly reduced need for children to help out around the house; etc., etc.

In short: I call bull****.  The United States has one of the most stable population growth rates in the world and that doesn't need to change in either direction.

(And for once my Human Geography class was good for something.  Yay college!)

[samiam]

In answer to the question, "what needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[6] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[7] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.

It's going to take way more than tax breaks to diffuse the incoming population bomb.

In short: I call bull****.  The United States has one of the most stable population growth rates in the world and that doesn't need to change in either direction.

Ah, we could always use more people. And ever since global obesity surpassed global malnutrition I think a little overpopulation would be a good thing.

A negative population growth rate is really, really bad for dependency ratios, savings rates, the workforce and economic growth. Japan's slowdown is mainly due to its terrible demographics. One of the strongest advantages the US has going forward is that its population is still growing while that of China and other countries is shrinking and aging even faster.

[Scotty]

You missed my point as well.  There is no "incoming population bomb".  It's happening now and has been happening for the past few decades all over Africa, the Middle East, and South America.  Those still-industrializing regions contribute massively to the world population growth rate until the point they stabilize demographically, at which point likely as not they'll enter a slight population decline.

Somewhat of a case in point, one of the only reasons the United States still has a positive population growth rate is because of immigration.  It's sure as hell not from people having lots of kids.

I repeat: The United States growth rate is healthy.  Forcibly changing it in either direction is a bad idea.

[samiam]

I repeat: The United States growth rate is healthy.  Forcibly changing it in either direction is a bad idea.

So are you against immigration reform, basically increasing immigration? I'm not going to start an abortion discussion because that will just go to the dogs. But there's really no danger of the US having more people than it can feed any time this century, even if it ends up with well over a billion people.

[Scotty]

Reductio ad absurdum.  Try again.

The current United States population growth rate is the very next best thing to the definition of "sustainable".  What you seem to fail to realize, or perhaps willfully ignore, is that by the very way immigration policy works, the legal growth rate cannot and will not grow significantly.  The absolute number of people, obviously, will increase, but the rate as a percent will not now or barring very significant reform change in either direction.  Furthermore, the land area of the United States being used to produce crops is over 40% of the available landmass.  That's over 1.5 million square miles.  Over 1 billion acres.  That's as of now.  But where does all of it go, you ask?  Over 25% of the corn crop is used in ethanol production alone.  Millions of tonnes more crops are used in commercial applications, or other non-foodstuff functions.  The farmland available in the United States right now could comfortably feed 500 million, 800 million, perhaps even yoru hypothetical billion people.  Even taking the argument to it's (il)logical conclusion, there is very little legitimate threat in the form of population growth.

Also, I feel the need to remind you that, assuming 1% growth annually, compounded continually, it takes 72 years for a population to double.  That means it will be well over 100 years before the U.S. even conceivably reaches 1 billion population, by which point the infrastructure damn well be in place, or the failing isn't in the population sector.

[samiam]

Reductio ad absurdum.  Try again.

The current United States population growth rate is the very next best thing to the definition of "sustainable".  What you seem to fail to realize, or perhaps willfully ignore, is that by the very way immigration policy works, the legal growth rate cannot and will not grow significantly. The absolute number of people, obviously, will increase, but the rate as a percent will not now or barring very significant reform change in either direction.

Hey, no offense intended. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about, either.

That's over 1.5 million square miles.  Over 1 billion acres.  That's as of now.  But where does all of it go, you ask?  Over 25% of the corn crop is used in ethanol production alone.  Millions of tonnes more crops are used in commercial applications, or other non-foodstuff functions.  The farmland available in the United States right now could comfortably feed 500 million, 800 million, perhaps even yoru hypothetical billion people.  Even taking the argument to it's (il)logical conclusion, there is very little legitimate threat in the form of population growth.

Illogical indeed. But thanks for the information. It's a matter of land use as well as productivity and crop selection. If the United States supported the population density of Israel, a desert country self sufficient in food production, it would have a population of 3 billion. Food for thought.

[Scotty]

Herp derp, I missed the word "no" in your last post.  My mistake.

[samiam]

Glad that's cleared up. Maybe I should stop being so sarcastic though.

The potential for food production since the invention of industrial nitrogen fixation is so great that carrying capacity, overpopulation, Malthusian catastrophe and so forth are not even useful concepts in modernized countries. Even in countries where malnourishment is significant, that's usually a distribution and institutional problem rather than a resource one. It still seems like some people hear about peak oil or peak phosphorus and equate slightly increased food prices with an across the board crisis.

[666maslo666]

It still seems like some people hear about peak oil or peak phosphorus and equate slightly increased food prices with an across the board crisis.

Slightly increased food prices? Peak oil is a legitimate threat that could very well lead to a Malthusian catastrophe leaving billions dead. Because contrary to other resources, it has very wide uses in the economy and most importantly, is also burned for energy. I can agree that Malthusian catastrophe is unlikely for other resources, tough.

[NGTM-1R]

What? Is my wife my property? Awesome! Thanks, legal heritage of the Western Roman Empire.

lrn2read.

[Mars]

My point was that children do not need to be subsidized.

[Nuke]

anyone whos covering more asses than their own should get tax breaks. while you could breed to the point where you dont owe the irs anything because you are claiming a ****ton of dependents, that is really impractical. the irs can only refund the taxes you pay, and the amount you would save on taxes would pale in comparison to the extra money you would need to spend to care for more children. when it comes down to it the cost of having more kids in the first world is astronomical, and that is why our birth rates are where they are. now we do have lower class people who breed like rabbits, but kudos to the ones that hold a job and dont need to rely on other social services to care for their kids. these people most certainly deserve a tax break.

but children are one thing. you can claim a stay at home spouse as a dependent as well. i think the same should apply to any adult in your household that does not earn an income, including same sex spouses. point is you are supporting others on your income, and as stated in my previous post this bestows a number of things beneficial to society. again they are deserving of tax breaks. ultimately dependants add up to deductions, not FREE MONEY (tm). while these deductions do reduce your taxes, if you make a lot of money (if you for example live in the middle class bracket) and are required to pay more taxes, then these deductions will have a proportionally lesser impact on how much less you are required pay. when you get into households with a number of dependants, but also a number of wage earners, then the net income vs deductions gets tilted into the irs's favor and you pay more tax (less dependents to go around). without even touching on gay marriage i think that joint filings shouldn't be limited to spouses anyway, as there are other socially beneficial living arrangements where multiple people share a property.

again, taxes are one thing, benefits are another matter entirely. throwing a switch and forcing companies to pay them to same sex spouses would be one hell of a ****storm. to be fair these companies should be allowed the time to adjust their buisness models to pay the additional benefits, but its still something that would ultimately need to be done should gay marriage be accepted.

[samiam]

Slightly increased food prices? Peak oil is a legitimate threat that could very well lead to a Malthusian catastrophe leaving billions dead. Because contrary to other resources, it has very wide uses in the economy and most importantly, is also burned for energy. I can agree that Malthusian catastrophe is unlikely for other resources, tough.

I don't think so. But, I don't feel like arguing either. So you win.

[jg18]

Slightly increased food prices? Peak oil is a legitimate threat that could very well lead to a Malthusian catastrophe leaving billions dead. Because contrary to other resources, it has very wide uses in the economy and most importantly, is also burned for energy. I can agree that Malthusian catastrophe is unlikely for other resources, tough.

I don't think so. But, I don't feel like arguing either. So you win.

Proof by opponent exhaustion. Q.E.D.

[samiam]

Okay, I feel like elaborating on that point a few sentences more now. The thing about Hubbert linearization is that it doesn't distinguish between falls in production due to demand or supply reductions. There's a great deal more accessible oil out there than most peak oil curves seem to indicate. It's just lower quality and more expensive oil, like shale or Venezuelan heavy crude, that doesn't make economic sense to go after when there are cheaper alternatives like renewables. The price of gas isn't a whole lot lower than solar, wind or coal anymore, after all the continual price deflation and tech levelup. The only people claiming peak oil is going to end civilization are the Chomsky/Jenkins types who make a career out of showing everyone else how edgy and radical they are.

[Nuke]

we will stop using oil when alternatives become less expensive than the cost of gas. it will be a gradual decline and the industries that depend on gas will have plenty of time to adapt to alternatives.

[666maslo666]

There's a great deal more accessible oil out there than most peak oil curves seem to indicate. It's just lower quality and more expensive oil, like shale or Venezuelan heavy crude, that doesn't make economic sense to go after when there are cheaper alternatives like renewables.

Yeah, what you just described sound very much like peak oil.

Renewables are an intermittent energy source, so direct cost per mwh comparisons are misleading, not to mention that I really doubt they will approach fossil fuel cost levels anytime soon, if you disregard various subsidies. They are also just an energy source, while oil is an energy carrier and a vital industry chemical. Countries with both abundant means and determination for renewables (such as Germany) are a global exception rather than a rule, and yet still it wont be enough by itself to mitigate peak oil.

The only people claiming peak oil is going to end civilization are the Chomsky/Jenkins types who make a career out of showing everyone else how edgy and radical they are.

Peak oil will not end a civilisation (tough it may be a great threat to many things we take for granted today), but an increase in oil price coupled with peak population at the same time may very well result in a Malthusian catastrophe. Mostly in the third world, I mean.

[samiam]

Peak oil will not end a civilisation (tough it may be a great threat to many things we take for granted today), but an increase in oil price coupled with peak population at the same time may very well result in a Malthusian catastrophe. Mostly in the third world, I mean.

It won't. What you're suggesting is so ridiculous that I can hardly find anything about it. The world can switch to different energy sources without anyone starving. Most sub-Saharan African countries consume very little oil anyway.

The main problem for agriculture is going to be global warming, but even then that will largely cancel out future gains in agricultural productivity, not reduce the food supply.