Why Is Population Growth Seldom Discussed?

[Warren DeMontague]

206. So yes, you yourself acknowledge that there's a rather large gap between the 1st world

Situation and the reality in places where population growth actually is a problem.

Here it is a "solution" in search of a problem. If less than replacement birth rate isnt good enough, what is it you think you're going to get? And this idea that the US is just a hair's breadth or a few "less draconian remedies" away from shit like limiting the number of kids people can have- look, maybe you have an inordinately bad commute or think the subway is crowded, but I don't think your finger is on the pulse of US public opinion.... Speaking of gallup polls.

For what it's worth, though, I don't think "pro-choice" is all one piece.

For what it's worth, I DO. This isn't Communist China, or even Corporate/Communist China.

I also, getting back to the upper point, suspect that the same Constitutional rights which have been interpreted, in cases like Griswold and Roe, to protect individual liberty, conscience, and privacy, would make short work of any hypothetical asinine proposal to legislate family size.

There are many instances in which we prohibit people from doing something because of its social consequences, even though we therefore limit their choice.

Sounds legit. But here's a fun thought experiment- just for shits and giggles, why dont you make a list of all the "legitimate" instances in which we limit, or try to, the personal life choices of individuals, when they arent directly harming or endangering others. And also make a list of the authoritarian bullshit- from arresting pot smokers in their own homes to arguments against gay marriage equality- that is justified in the name of controlling people, because of those same sorts of nebulous "social consequences" arguments.

You post on a political message board to opine that people's opinions on politics are irrelevant? How you feel about something generally doesn't change whether there's an objective problem but it does affect the political prospects for taking effective action.

No, I think that "the fact that people dont think there is a problem is the problem, or proves that it exists" is crappy reasoning, and I like pretzels as much as anyone.

Lastly, again...leaving aside promoting wanted children in the places with high rates of pop. Growth, access to contraception etc... Which I suspect has wide agreement-- what sorts of "effective action" do you envision being taken politically, here, you know, before the draconian shit "has to be" implemented ... because the fertility rate is still a whopping 1.9 or whatever?

And what makes you think any of it would be more effective than what has already been done in the past 50 years, namely, giving people access to contraception and reproductive choice?