@diehardbrownsfan said:

The quota wasn't on gender per se, but yeah, de facto it was.

That ratio of foreign language isn't what I normally go for, btw

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Saw that as well. Pretty sure it was a Vice segment.

@logicisforsquares said:

Well, they should choose to be gay, clearly, problem solved!

The rest of the world is actually headed towards a different population crisis. China is facing down the problem of having 30 million men without a lady by 2020. They are well below pop replenishment rate. It is going to be wild dealing with issues related to millions of horned up guys with no outlet.

Actually (unless you are basing your opinions on a storybook hundreds and hundreds of years old) it would seem hard to argue with this. And this is something that Margaret Sanger believed in very much.

Also see Dysgenics.

WSS

Now, I'm not saying anybody's a saint, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the idea behind planned parenthood.

Anyhoo, as for the idea of population control, yes, it's clearly needed imo. The developed world is holding steady, more or less, in terms of reproduction, but the world as a whole is still reproducing at a fair rate. There's no 'good' way to manage it, particularly in developing countries.

China's one-child system is potentially viable - the idea being, for those who don't know, that you get benefits for your first child only; subsequent children are 'invisible' to the government in terms of benefits - but that has its flaws. For example, families giving birth to a daughter were apparently leaving the daughter to die, in the hopes that they'd bear a son next time. Not likely in developed world where gender equality is more or less there, but in countries where the man is still dominant it could be an issue. Another sticking point is that it requires something resembling a stable government. You may not agree with the communist manifesto, but at least there weren't daily coups in China. In Africa, for example, it would require that a government, or at least this policy, be in place long enough for it to take effect, which is basically a generation or two. Not many governments lasting 30-50 years over there. Finally, there becomes a sense that multiple child families are the exclusive right of the wealthy, which means that the upper class continues to sustain or grow while the middle/working/lower classes shrink.

So how else to stop people from having children? I honestly don't know. Clearly, punishing people for having children isn't a viable option, from a humanitarian standpoint. So that basically leaves the carrot - making sure that there are incentives for only having one child at most (zero children also an option for incentives, but unlikely to be taken up, I somewhat naively suspect, in countries where family honour is held above all else).

Difficult.

@mld-woody said:

How?

instead of paying people for HAVING kids....ie, welfare, food stamps, and other Gov't programs

Let's pay people for NOT having kids. If you are on assistance and you can go an entire year WITHOUT having a kid, then the Gov't will reward you.

If you meet the Gov't standards for assistance and you don't have another child, then you get a one time payment. And then you are not eligible for such a payment next year. And if you have another kid, you don't get to add that kid to the system

@westside-steve said:

there you go, yo buddy Al is at it again - this time with your slant! “eco-imperialism"

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/al-gore-once-again-suggests-fertility-management-to-fight-global-warming/

It will take sacrifice to make an impact. No one likes to sacrifice or plan ahead.

Companies and other large groups will need to be compelled to make these changes. I would think that could be accomplished with taxes and other legislation. The problem there is the distrust of the govt among a lot of people. Also that is assuming this can be done correctly.

Another problem is the public view on the issue, as they are the ones voting for congressman. Nuclear power is probably a good way to go, but there is ignorance in the public. Hell, a good portion of our country probably believes the Earth is 6000 years old. To get public opinion to match the scientific community will be tough.

Increased funding can develop solutions to the problem at hand, but it will take the right financial incentives for the free market to make those innovations wide spread.

This is something that will take cooperation from a lot of people, a lot of groups and a lot of countries. Sadly, that probably isnt going to happen. Something demonstrably bad and easily attributed to climate change will need to happen.

@westside-steve said:

The third world is already starting to show the same trends as the western world. When you have more money, you have fewer reasons to have more kids. The problem is that they will be burning fossil fuels like wildmen until they reach and maintain a stable middle class.

All that hot air......................

WSS

@gftchris said:

Absolutely, stopping the deforestation is a great start. And Steve, no not everything has an easy answer, and most especially something as complex as this. In addition to the stopping of deforestation, I'd make it compulsory to have solar panels on roofs; in most places, you can generally make yourself independent of the main power grid by just generally being efficient and having solar panels.

But I think the idealists, or Pollyanna's if you choose, ard being realistic when you overlook the fact that this, if it's going to be addressed at all, is a global problem. If co2 emissions need to be halted, yes halted, then a small reduction by the United States really does nothing compared to the emerging third world.

And I realize some people are offended when I say I just don't care that much about solutions that will do almost nothing. Just do something seems to be the mantra.

You may be better off in a car crash if you are wearing clean underwear but... Flip? Sure but given the research that says we have to drastically reduce or stop the emissions worldwide should make it pretty obvious that tiny steps buy a small portion of the world isn't going to help. The same goes for all those people who shout about man made global warming who refuse to take any steps on their own, and yes woody, I'm talking about you guys. And you are correct. If you sell your car and bicycle everywhere it won't really make a difference to the Worlds climate. But as you are so fond of saying why can't you just try??? It would be a little help wouldn't it?

WSS

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-R----R---R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-H-H-H-H-H- !!!!!

****************************

What gov money? We are already at or headed towards 17 TRILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS IN DEBT ?

Our United States of America has a population of 316,668,567 . You going to take over a company

or put the gov in the solar panel biz? Seriously?

All sorts of states have a very, very long rate of return on the investment.

Now, multiply our population by say, only $10,000. I'm pretty sure you'll get 3,166,685,670,000.

Now, just double that by your closer estimate of 20,000, and you have to laugh at the idea.

And the cost of the gov going into the biz? Startup costs have been tried with the investment

with Solyndra. That plundered into failure...

That's assuming that all houses would be generally the same in size and energy requirements,

which everybody knows in nonsense.

More likely - cut spending and offer tax credits to homeowners if they buy any size solar panel outfit,

for lighting. That's all. That wouldn't cost so much, no expenditure (but less in taxes), a lot less drain

on the grid overall.

But gearing all households with the solar power to handle microwaves, fridges, freezers, computers, tv's, radios,

dishwashers, ovens clock, lights, well pumps, furnaces, air conditioning, elevators (house down the road has one, really),

farm equipment in the barn, all sorts of other appliances.... with solar power? Seriously? It would take a lot, lot

more than any 20 grand. Bunch of pie in the sky nonsense.

Of course, all liberals could just unplug from the grid completely, and live like they did in the George Washington days.

Oil wick lamps, and coal/wood stoves. That's all you really need. And it is so much for the environment.

You go first. The rest of America will "think about it". Come on, Chris - let's not go too utopian here.

@legacy-fan said:

this^ there has been ZERO activity on job creation and without which the discussion on how to best spend tax dollars on green alternatives is totally innane.

Im all for responsible environmental conservation, and Im all for tech advancement in renewables and the training needed to get / keep people employed.

But when are people who are massing in the unemployed columns going to get back to work? huh Barry?

I miss Big Business over Big Government - but to borrow a tired expression, "I didnt vote for this guy"