Population control misguided
Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, discussed his latest book, “Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits”, at the Heritage Foundation. Mosher argued that state population control has adverse effects on many facets of society.
According to Mosher, the U.S. fertility rate is 2.1 births per woman, which is the ideal replacement level. High tax rates have deterred couples from acting on their fertility desires, Mosher said. In Europe, 50 percent of the income from couples with children is taxed. This also deters couples from getting married.
The problem with global initiatives like the United Nations Population Fund is that they often ignore the specific situation of the country they are aiding, Mosher said. For instance, the UN offered Pakistan $200 million to allow the UN to assume control of the school curriculum. The UN wanted to teach sex education classes to control population, but the Pakistani government was completely against it.
Additionally, the AIDs epidemic in Africa was partially caused by state population control, Mosher said. Many resources were used for population control instead of other areas like healthcare, which could have prevented the rapid spread of AIDs.
Since the world population doubled between 1960 and 2000 from 3 billion to 6 billion, overpopulation has been a constant fear. This monumental growth will never happen again, Mosher said. What caused the growth was that after World War II, many more countries industrialized and life expectancy rates soared, so more people were living longer. Now that many countries enjoy high life expectancy, there will not be another dramatic jump in population.
At the initial stages of industrialization in developing countries, the environmental effects are quite severe, Mosher said. Sometimes the reaction is to start controlling the population because leaders search for the “wrong solution to the wrong problem.” But the reality is that when the countries are developed, the income per capita is $3000, so more people means more money for the economy.
Categories
Related
- Women Can Make Or Break Climate Change, Says UN Report
- Discussion on Population Growth and Climate Change Effects
- The Gulf now the economic center of the Middle East
- Robert Kuttner says that OECD countries use low taxes in other countries to argue for a race to the bottom, that we could restore high tax codes without hurting the economy, and that Democrats should argue for higher taxes
- 1.3 million illegal immigrants fled U.S.
Latest Audio
Happening Now - TRNS on Twitter
- @travisAmartinez: Sen. Specter and Leahy bones it out before the vote. Lieberman and Burris high five after the vote.. -- 8 hours ago
- @jackrice: So 60 votes in the Senate. Now come the real fight. -- 8 hours ago
- @bobney: Sen. George Voinovich: Why waste time on a badly flawed health-care bill? | OPEN: Ohio Politics - cleveland.com - - ... http://shar.es/aiCnd -- 8 hours ago
- @jtamboli: Voinovich didn't vote because he's in Cleveland celebrating the beginning of his political career. http://bit.ly/85eHNR .. -- 8 hours ago
- @travisAmartinez: With 60 votes Senate agrees to begin debate on health care reform bill.. -- 8 hours ago
- @bobney: Buckeye Blitz !!!!!!!! Another year down -- 13 hours ago
- @jackrice: I Embed with the the 82nd Airborne in Afghanistan in Dec. http://ff.im/-bOlF2 -- 15 hours ago
- @bobney: Wow, money for votes, doesn't that get you in trouble? :-) - POLITICO.com - http://shar.es/aiGGE -- 15 hours ago
- @bobney: Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) will vote for cloture to begin the healthcare debate, has reserved her right to vote no on passage -- 15 hours ago
- @tdowlats: RT @huffingtonpost Reporters Uncensored: How to Build a Continent: A Do it Yourself Guide http://bit.ly/48dl6X -- 17 hours ago




