prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/01/86)
{ I hope this isn't a duplicate posting; I'm trying again because the
inews program complained "no title" ... not sure why ... }
In article <1166@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>If you assume wealth per capita is the measure of quality of life, then
>increasing human numbers can only result in less wealth per capita because
>of the finite resources on earth and diseconomies of scale.
On the topic of population expansion and ecouraging birth control in
poor countries, I would like to interject a topic for conversation.
Unfortunately, I have forgotten where I heard this; can anyone else
recall the source?
Namely that the major personal economic/social incentive in such countries
for having a large family is for security in one's old
age. Thus, programs to reliably insure security for the elderly will,
in the long run, do more to eliminate overpopulation and hunger than
any other program will w/o security for the elderly.
A hypothetical
program that prioritizes infants and youngsters sounds reasonable,
but contributes to the problem in the long run (more because of
perceived bias than actual results, so it's the perception of the
program by adult "natives" that counts, not the actual practice).
I bring this up because several others mentioned population expansion
as one of the driving forces behind the extinction of species.
If this subject is already old hat, my apologies for joining the
discussion late.
- Phil
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)