Baby fever solutions?

[Tuomas]

The United states gives birth to appr. 4 million babies each year since the 90's. "As of 2007, the average birth rate for the whole world is 20.3 per year per 1000 total population, which for a world population of 6.6 billion comes to 134 million babies per year." Approximately 62 million people die each year. We all know where most of the people are born, and we know western countries bear less children than the third world countries due to same reasons why sexual diseases spread, and due to of course, cultural differences. Same places around the world are the heeps of the death toll too.

In a country like mine, the people are ageing. We're basically becoming extinct if we continue like this. The people rather build a career than a family. A lot of children were born after the war, and they're currently dropping like dead leaves. Basically in everyway, we're encouraged to breed. To provide the country with homebrew workers that'll make sure Finland stays the way it has been. Others point out the need of taking in immigrants more than what we do (which is very few), to make up the loss of population.

But as a globally orianted person as I am, I can't help but thinking all the overcrowding that is going on. And about how seflish it would seem to bring a child to this world. And this really puts me down, because locally, or nationally this would be a blessing, kind of, but globally, we'd be doing nothing good but bringing more mouths to feed, more resources directed to this place of ours and more wearing off the planet. Someone once told me there's no act that's more selfish than wanting to have a baby of your own, when the world's full of those you could take as your own and help, those a bit less fortunate.

Though is the world actually giving back at us at this point? Over the past few years we've seen some heeps in the rates that indicate death. We had the Boxing day tsunami -04, which we all remember for taking care of 350 000 people. We had the New Orleans tornado a few years back, though it only killed ~1,5 thousand people it did wake some people up. Now I guess everyone's read about the happenings in Myanmar that have taken the lives of around 100 000 people so far, increasing. I thought this was worth considering but couldn't borther. Not until I heard about the earthquake in China which in 2 days has exceeded to killing tens of thousands of people. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,552782,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,552839,00.html . Sorry about the language, I only read German news nowadays.

Then...

Everyday I see families pass me by on the street. Women carrying tiny babies in their hands and people smiling. It's spring I know. My sister is 23 and everyone keeps teasing her with the idea of having children, and she told me she hates the idea of having babyfever at this point, as she's one of those career oriented people. My brother's girlfriend has babyfever too. We tested it out, asked her if she would love to hold a baby in her hands for a while or to have one around. She was not as against this idea as my brother would have hoped, though I hope they're not getting one soon. Damn, I think I'm having one too. Though it's not the same here. I just feel, that during the winter I feel like strangling all the crying infants in the bus, while at this point they all just seem like cute little things running around and playing. What could be more perfect? Well, we're not having a baby just yet, my girlfriend doesn't want to stretch her.. well, you know, stomach. But the feeling is in the air. The pressure is in the air.

The pressure actually comes from two poles. First of all, the country needs us, but then, the world really doesn't. Or is it really so, that the world has decided to take back the births in Europe by killing some unfortunate? Because almost 200 000 casualties for the first 4 months of 2008 are quite a lot, and I don't see this number going down any time soon. We're basically killing ourselves with our politics and habits. The thing is just, we're killing everything off at the same time. You might think blowing yourself off would be all ok, but the rest that dies along might disagree. But having a baby and bringing it to this world? A lot of people think about it right now, as spring is clearly the season when most babies are put into making. I know love can cover up for the lack of global solidarity, but what about the feelings before having a baby? Should they be as contradictory as they are, and should it really be considered as selfish as it is at the moment? And is it just local nationalists speaking when they're saying countries like Finland need to have more babies of their own? Also, do you believe the world will cope as it is trying? Like a body defending against a virus that's taking over it.

[evenwolf]

Tuomas,   it should never be thought of as selfish to have a baby.    I understand your conflicting thoughts but you should never think of your offspring as digits.   

There are babies being brought into this world by people with no access to birth control.   There are some women who have babies to receive a bigger welfare check.    It's a sad fact.   But your baby is one that will have access to education and resources that could help this world.     He/she wouldn't be a burden on anybody (except maybe you at 3 in the morning )   

You're in a healthy relationship.   My parents didn't even have one of those.   Have a baby.  Why not?   The last thing the human race needs is *exclusively* unwanted babies of unprepared parents.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

These are just estimates based on census data/past figures, but the results are pretty sobering.  Especially check the counter by day where it registers over twice as many births as deaths, which is a sign of a global overpopulation trend.

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm

[Bondo]

My wife is due to give birth to our first baby this July.  She has wanted a baby since she was 13.  Some people want to be astronauts, some famous game designers, my wife wants to be a mother, and now she is very close to seeing her wildest dream come true.

The decision to have children was a no-brainer for my wife, but I wasn't so sure at first.  I tend to weigh the situation before making a decision like that, and after a lot of thought, I decided I wasn't getting any younger, and I was ready to be a father.  We began trying, and by the next month, we discovered that we were going to be parents.

In making this decision, we didn't factor in global population.  We didn't worry about children without parents, or couples unable to have children.  Our decision was based solely on our own desire to procreate, and whether we had the resources in order to raise a child.  There is nothing more natural than wanting to pass on your own blood.  It's ingrained into our very being, and it's stronger than concerns over global population.

It's a boy, and we're naming him Lucas.  Add one digit to the population count.

[Nacho]

Feel lucky that your parents didn' t had the same ideas than you...

[SSH]

Most people who claim that having a baby is selfish seem to come into two categories:

1. People without kids who don't like that their taxes pay benefits to families with children
2. People without kids who are being pressured into having a baby by their partner

There does seem to be a noticable lack of people saying having a baby is selfish in this category:

3. People who have actually themselves adopted children

Draw your own conclusions...

The thing about overpopulation is that it would also be a disaster if the birth rate became too low. There's no chance of that  occurring any time soon, globally, but I don't think anyone really thinks it is a good idea for there to be zero births. See the movie "Children of Men" for that scenario!

[Emerald]

I think the funniest thing about this argument is about how pro-lifers say that "over 10 million people die every year through abortions" like it's a bad thing. And then you realise, if it weren't for abortions the whole world would be packed.


Anyway, the thing that really pisses me off is when privileged, upper-middle-class white people (specifically Americans with their SUVs and food courts) bitch about how bad they've got it with rising gas prices, and illegal immigrants, and over-population. I don't know if any of you have been to Africa, but those ads on T.V. are true. They are actually out there, and are actually starving to death on a daily basis.

People don't realise this. They think they do, but they don't. It's not like when you skip breakfast because you're running late and then your stomach is grumbling by lunchtime. These people are dying.

It's actually terrible. There are these pencil-thin kids everywhere, and they follow around white people the whole day, just hoping that you'll feel sorry and share your lunch with them. There were a couple times on that trip I nearly cried...

[miguel]

Hi Tuomas,
My wife had two kids (boy and girl) when we decided to have another one.
We thought about all those things you mentioned, money, work, it's only normal and couples should think before taking that important step.
One thing we never thought was global population!
Think about it, as we speak (or write) kids in Africa are dying. It's a fact.
Now, if you really care about it, and have no strings attached to you (kids, family in need) why don't you join the Red Cross? Or any other organizations that help those situations?
When you want a child, you want him to be better than you. And that means progress and evolution.
Also, when you have a child, all things that confuse your brain become clear. You find your ultimate goal. Your quest starts the day your child is born.
The Quest of Life.

Emerald: I posted the same time you did, but I guess both posts get related

[SSH]

I think the funniest thing about this argument is about how pro-lifers say that "over 10 million people die every year through abortions" like it's a bad thing. And then you realise, if it weren't for abortions the whole world would be packed.

You're right. There's nothing funnier than a murdered baby!

And you're so right about killing people helping overpopulation. Why not drop hydrogen bombs on the 100 largest cities in  the world, and we can get rid of more than a billion, even better!

[Nacho]

Anyway, the thing that really pisses me off is when privileged, upper-middle-class white people (specifically Americans with their SUVs and food courts) bitch about how bad they've got it with rising gas prices, and illegal immigrants, and over-population. I don't know if any of you have been to Africa, but those ads on T.V. are true. They are actually out there, and are actually starving to death on a daily basis.

My friend, that' s a very common way of thinking, since it' s on the international left manifesto, but it has a problem... It's not true. It' s not "Greedy America" or "the Capitalism" or "Colonialism" which has take the third world to where they are. You only need to know a bit of history to realise that the problems of the third world starts just when the colonialism ends, and those countries abandon the protective umbrella of the Colonial contries to become independant, which might have not been a problem itself, but then majoritary become communist dictadures. Just take a glance to those countries' flags and you' ll easily locate lots of stars, hammers and sickles and even a Kalashnikov, as a show of the "new horizons" that those countries took.

Saying that those countries have been "overexploitated" by the first world is quite common, but it's a lie as well, since those countries majority decided to break with any kind of commercial exchange with he first world and align with the USSR. No commercial exchange, no possible overexploitation.

Just take a look to India, Cuba, Iraq (Pre Gulf war, if you want, I don't  mind...), Egypt, North Corea, Vietnam and the black Africa Countries. Compare those with Countries which chose to go on being close to the West Countries and accept the laws of free market as Singapur, South Corea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Taipei, Israel and Japan... See the difference?

In Cuba, Palestine, Zaire, people does not have hungry because "America is Evil". In those countries people is hungry because their leaders, auto-declared "socialists" or "communists" have entered in the list of the 20th biggest fortunes in the world... In North Corea the people dies of famine while his leader has started an armamentistic war that the contry can' t afford... and the list goes on.

Inneficient economical politics is what takes those coutries to the situations and nothing else.

[SSH]

I think EuroAmerican protectionism also makes a difference, Nacho.

[Nacho]

Less than 0.5 % compared with the other reason, you must agree...

[SSH]

Oh well, now you said I must...

[Nacho]

Oh, come on, I thought you were kidding, you can' t be serious.

Do you really mean that if a governor in, let' s say, Pennsylvania, says that cheaper coal coming from Zaire is not good for the american economy and forces the President to ban it, that' s going to seriously affect Zaire' s economy?

What happens with the other 197 counties of the world? Do you really mean that all the countries from the first world do have a systematic program to ban certain products coming from the third world?

I don' t think so... and "now you said it..." doesn' t work for me, sorry.

Have you gone to a toy store lately? Take a look to the labels. China, India, Bangladesh... When an economy from the third world gets opened to free market the first world happily go there to stablish factories where the workers are less paid than in their original contries (but are still better paid than the average worker of that coutry). Everybody is benefited. Many counties, Polan, Spain, Taiwan, Czech Republic, etc have been benefited of that.

Saying that "The first world does not buy my timber/wool/coal/rice, ergo, I am poor" is silly. No product has been overally banned by "the first world".

[Emerald]

My friend, that' s a very common way of thinking, since it' s on the international left manifesto, but it has a problem... It's not true.

That's a very typical Westerner way of looking at things, isn't it? Statistics, economics, and cold hard logic.
"Dude, sure, it sucks, but according to my calculations there's nothing we can do to help. It's their government's fault."

So, you get to stay all happy and complacent and shit, talking about how unfair the world is while you munch on your bacon double-cheese burger and curly fries.

"What do you want me to do, send all my money to Africa? The government just takes most of it anyway."
So? This isn't about you changing the world with your 5 bucks a month, this is about principles. It's about realising that you're goddamn lucky you don't have to drink out of malaria-infested mucky ponds every day.
America spends enough money on porn each year to run a small country in itself. How fucked up is that? There's no excuses for that sort of inequality...

And Nacho -- what the hell are you talking about "problems start when the colonialism ends"? Most of the first world countries were colonies at some point, including America.

[SSH]

Do you really mean that all the countries from the first world do have a systematic program to ban certain products coming from the third world?

Effectively, yes. Agricultural subsidies and more blatant forms of tarriffs mean that not only do American and European farmers not have to worry about cheaper foreign imports, but if they have a surplus, it gets dumped on the world market and destroys the price that third world countries can get for it. It's not a ban: if you really want to import very expensive stuff from the other side of the world you can, but who would want to?

[Tuomas]

Do you really mean that if a governor in, let' s say, Pennsylvania, says that cheaper coal coming from Zaire is not good for the american economy and forces the President to ban it, that' s going to seriously affect Zaire' s economy?

The point of exploitation here is taking advantage of the price, whereas it would be more than justified for them to pay the full market value as we go down that road. Of course changing the provider to another won't help, the truth is, that these third world countries are just another rival as the other providers, and they are used because they don't demand as much. Damn, if Finland had lower paychecks, Nokia would still be Finnish. But it goes to other places to point out the corruption the rides the global policies. Instead of taking advantage of other people one should in fact work with them.

Oh, and it's Congo since 1971. And Yes, Congo is run by a corrupt clan leader who provides extreme coal supplies in exchange for weapons. This all dates back to the civil war. I had a reason to learn about the situation in Congo some months back. The mines that way are owned by the goverment and you are right about the totalitarism being what brings these countries to despair. And frankly I'm not sure what to think about outside interfering since in a way, everyone should be aloowed their national independency. But as we see here, The Republic of Congo is going the right direction after the previous elections, as long as the market world allows it. Basically the situation there would be something the Nato would ultimately have terminated already, had it not been for their interest to keep the corruption alive. And that's unacceptable, even on a global selfish spectrum


About the topic again. I'm aware that you suggest that I have a baby. It's not anything immidiate, we're 21 and 19, hardly the age you want to reproduce in. But I do like children, considering I have a little sister and a brother, in the primaryschool age at the moment, and I have always wanted kids, I've even thought of names at times. But isn't it kind of like global ethics that we're discussiong here related to ones personal sense of what's morally right. You see, I completely understand how a natural thing can't be considered bad, but I can as well see how the birthrate has grown to worrying numbers. And isn't it kind of like eating, sure, making it safe would mean cutting back on something that is part of you naturally, but overdiong it leads to global heartdiseases and starvaton on some sides.

I do know insects don't control their productivity, and they're wider in number than we ever will be. Though still, the way a human reproduces has come to represent that of a parasite, and it's really a more common opinion than you'd first think. I'd love to see people considering this option instead of telling me to go for it, to give the discussion a wider purpose. If we should not be vary of reproducing, then why is the earth going to be filled with people who are close to starvation and why is there no more room for even more species that are beginning to depend on the human race?

[Nacho]

Emerald... I don't  know if you had the answer pre-preppaired or something, because there is NO WORD in my post implying that "We can' t do nothing, it' s their government' s fault". Maybe you have learned the manifesto so well that you go on repeating it no matter what they say to you?

Of course it' s their government' s fault, but there' s something we can do. Restrict tariffs, impland a micro-credit system for their governments and people, build factories in that countries taking the advantage of the low salaries they ask (compared with the salaries of the workers in the origin country), aid that countries to implement a democratical free market system...

Basically what people like you refuse to do, hypocritically conforming to give them a few crumbs in spite of recognising that free market works and communism not.

Fortunatelly this is changing, and the Peace Nobel has gone this year to someone who has become inmenselly rich giving micro credits in India (but also helping millions of people to start a business and get a life, becoming wealthy enough to pay that micro credits back)

Everyone wins, just the opposite to communism, which is "everybody is equally... poor. Except the Party commissioners, of course"

SSH. Tariffs are something that is becoming more and more rare in Western counties. They have never been really popular in capitalist counties, but sometimes some governments like to populistically keep some minority sectors of the economy with tariffs in the import goods or with subsidies. In Spain that minority sectors are Coal and Shipyars. I am sure each West country has a couple of sectors that are being over protected of the foreign competition, but I repeat... THAT never TAKES a COUNTRY to POVERTY, since that country is free to sell their products in any other contry, or market (let's remember that those countries that "we shed to poverty" had 20 years ago half of the world to commerce with, and they were not specially wealthy)

So, basically, if you are a baker who owns a bakery in a neighbourhood with 200 people, and 5, 7, or 10 of that guys say you that they preffer to eat their own crappy home made bread than yours, what you gotta do it sell the bread to the other 195, 193 or 190 guys.

If you don' t sell a bread and you get no money in your safe it' s not because of those 5, 7 or 10 guys, it' s probably because your boss is a corrupted "communist" with 100 or 200 USD in Switzerland.

EDIT: And to prove that Westers counties are open to commerce, you just gotta consult the trade balance of those countries, which is majority negative (they import more than export)

[Tuomas]

You do realise, that the ways you are speaking of are clearly not communism but corruptions made by it's name. The original point of communism makes no-one porr due to money not being a factor. If the leader chooses to have his possessions, then he is a capitalist and opposed to the communist ideology.

It's true it's not directly our fault, as much as it is the government's fault there. But you should consider that at the time of colonialism those countries didn't exist. They were concured, divided into countries with a pane and a straight line. Look at Maroc and Algeria. The countries were taken advantage of, left behind in development on purpose. The European countries had no resources in keeping up a whole continent, but as we reach their time in independency, the countries remain behind in technology, with the original use of them as the only product on the market with a stable ground under it. And these banana republics will remain like that.

[Becky]

Nacho, if you knew a bit of history (like you insist you do) then you might also be aware that the total lack of political or economic infrastructure that occurs when decolonisation consists of upping sticks and running away (the Congo is probably the best/worst example of this) also completely destroys these third world countries.  No wonder they have military governments in power - they are the only viable institutions left! 

Additionally, you seem to be insisting that every decolonised country is somehow "communist"?  Military dictatorships, mostly, I believe.  Not communist.

Colonialism severely damaged many of these countries, keeping their economic development at a level where it was entirely based on exports (to feed the manufacturing economies of the first world countries), basically enslaving their economies to a point where all they can do is produce raw materials for export to the detriment of growing food for their own people (Angola, Mozambique).  I think arguing that "well we left and then they fucked it up!" is very ignorant. We, the citizens of the ex-colonial powers must recognise the problems that were set in motion due to the pasts of our own countries and do what we can best to help them.