Publications
Preparing for the baby cull
IPA REVIEW ARTICLE
Global warming is bringing out the usual suspects who will use any alleged threat to humanity's existence to argue that the world would be a better place with less humans living on it.
Having a degree in any branch of science seems to especially qualify one to tell the citizens of the world how many children they should have.
The Australian biologist Allen Greer recently posed the question ‘Is another billion of us going to make life better overall or worse?'
The extra one billion might conclude that their lives could be ‘better overall' if they are given a shot at living.
Population growth in many western countries is now below replacement rate. Even the world's population, while projected to grow by another two billion by 2045, is expected then to stabilise.
Barry Waters, an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia, has suggested a carbon tax on those having more than two children (presumably only in western countries where the replacement rate is scarcely being achieved and not on developing world peasants).
One wonders if he had considered a sliding scale where teenagers who get pregnant would have to pay more, because these parents and their offspring are more likely to be living simultaneously on the planet and using resources at the same time, with perhaps a discount for teenage smokers and drink-drivers, as they may drop off the planet sooner. Furthermore, should the tax be applied to sperm donors?
Perhaps before we go to these surreal lengths, we should address the whole range of current incentives in Australia for having more children that could be removed-Medicare funding for infertility treatment, the baby bonus, subsidised child care, education funding and so on.
It seems everywhere there is someone telling people they should have more or less children for the good of society. How about leaving that decision to potential parents?