"Dennis Paull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent me this note, and after seeing
the other note which Ed had reposted to the list, I went back and read it
again, and noting the salutation, I believe this was also intended to
go to the list, so I'm forwarding it...
Hi all,
> "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Thomas: Population is a problem, but I believe that when people are able to
>>fulfill some of their goals and needs is will become less of a problem. In
>>those western countries that experience affluence, the tendency is for the
>>birth rate to drop. I think a Basic Income, over time will act as a form of
>>birth control.
>
>
>Perhaps, but this is a different situation than that which drives low
>birth rates in affluent countries. I wonder what the birth rate is
>among the moderately independently wealthy, that is, those whose
>fortunes allow them to live just comfortably without ever having to
>work. That is a more relevant comparison for people who will have
>a modest but secure income and freedom from financial worries.
>
>It is possible that such security will lead to increased birth rate.
>
> -Pete Vincent
>
It is also possible that what drive a high birthrate is a "greedy" need
to provide for ones eventual old age. Families tend to serve that purpose.
If this "social security" is provided in other ways, then big families will
be seen as the drag on ones freedom to engage in activities other than
work and child raising.
Of course, not everyone will choose to have small families, but what's wrong
with that?
The "moderately independently wealthy" often like to travel, spend nights on
the town and engage in other less family friendly activities. My guess is
that most will choose to minimize their family responsibilities.
Dennis Paull
Los Altos, California
