redewenur wrote:
- The loss of population in wars is generally incidental to the overall goal and less commonly part of a controlled extermination plan; and I'm sure you don't really think it can be considered good - it's as bad as it gets.
- You haven't mentioned a very effective and undramatic way of controlling population, i.e., reduction of birth rate. Perhaps you intended to include that in a discussion of eugenics. While the extremely bad reputation of eugenics in WW2 was well deserved, it's back in a very different form: prenatal testing and screening, genetic counselling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.
Extermination plan? is this what you're calling the tactics of nations and empires which go to war? I will admit the good I am talking of is more like a silver lining in a storm cloud and it is not actual intended as good. I believe that while war can and should be considered hostile, it is far better than any of the other three ways I listed in over population control where there is no real way of limiting the loss of life other than by living in smaller comunities, but if that were possible there would be no need of over population control. As far as Eugenics go, I feel this is they most evil of the methods of over population protection because I am a firm believer in my right and the right of my wife to decide if and how many children we want.
Ellis wrote:
One of the proven way to reduce population growth is to educate women. Countries that value women's contributions have lower birth rates and healthier populations. When this is allied to high standards of living and social welfare, then people do not have to have huge families in order to have someone survive to care for them in their old age. It has to be a better and more successful idea than war.
I have to disagree with you here, but only in semantics. First off, I would have to say it is not proven that countries which educate their women have a lower birth rate, but that is where the statistics lead to, and it is not a direct path. Women who are educated can still wish to have children but in nations where women are eduated they tend to be more prosperous, have a better health care system, and a much lower infant mortality rate, so that less children are needed, but in poorer nations one line of defense against a high infant mortality rate is to have lots of children.
I took a tour of a General's home in the Saratoga New York area where he and his family lived during the American Revolution and during the tour there was a picture of the General's wife over the fire place. I commented on the picture as sort of racy because the Wife's blouse was very revealing and one could almost see the tops of the woman's nipples. The lady who lead the tour did not bat an eye at my question and she said that in those days it was common for a family to have several children because of the high infant mortality rate and as a result the woman had to be able to breast feed at almost any time so the fashion of the day was that it was ok for women to show cleavage and where it was a faupax to show skin was if a woman's elbows showed.
Where was I going with this? I am not really sure. I am having a hard time keeping a single line of thought so I will have to get back to you when I am a litle more clear of mind.
