Message-ID: <365BA0D6.D45D686D@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:16:54 -0800
From: Ted Toal <ttoal@jps.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ppn <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: One Child, Two, None?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Angela says:

"if ed thinks one child is the limit, and you think that two are - on what
basis are
these projections made such that it is assumed there is sufficient moralising
force
behind either position such that others are expected to comply?"

Finally, another direction for discussion.  There are those, such as the VHEM
(Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) who believe no one should have any
children.  There is a big faction that believes 1 should be the limit.  I argue
for 2 as follows: If everybody had 3, that would lead to exponential growth.
If all have 2, that leads to a stable population.  Since some choose to have 0
and some to have 1, then if NO ONE had more than 2, the fertility rate would be
something less than 2, and population would eventually decline, which I firmly
believe we desperately need.

I respect the opinion of those who say we should limit it to 0 or 1 for a while
to speed up the time at which we decline to a level at which human and other
life can thrive.  I'm looking for something that is feasible, though, and I
think a limit of 2 is more likely to become the morally accepted norm than 0 or
1.  Once we are down to a close-to-optimum level, a limit of 3 might still keep
us within replacement-level-fertility.  In fact, the more people come to want
very small families, the less need there is for any limit at all.

Ted Toal.