Usually the issue of population control is one that is rarely touched upon. Of course, there are good reasons for this. Population control is a tricky subject to deal with, especially when everyone involved in the conversation are members of the population that needs to be controlled. Typically, the first thought that comes to mind is that many people need to die–it’s an easy realization and it make sense, just not in any righteous way. And that’s usually when the whole debate starts getting uncomfortable. Chances are high that there’s at least one person who believes humans are animals and not above the whole natural selection process. This leads to ideas like pulling the plug on every person on life support, putting down those with mental disabilities, cutting off medical funding for people over the age of 80, and other ideas that essentially work to rid society of those humans, who technically are a burden on resources. However, rather than trying to eliminate those already in existence we should be focused on more preventative measures.

We’re all familiar with China’s 1 child policy, but America and much of the world are not the team players that the Chinese are.  Americans are brought up with an emphasis on the individual and the self rather than the group, which is kind of ironic considering that we are called the United States of America.  Nevertheless, a policy such as the one in China would never fly in the U.S., however, a policy that would work is one that would essentially be a tax break given to those who have 2 children or less.

Face it, the days of big families are over.  As evidenced by the environmental changes, the amount of non-biodegradable waste produced, and the increased demand for resources we need to address the overpopulation issue now rather than later.   We have China and India as examples for why too many people in one place isn’t a good thing.  It puts too much strain on the land and humanity’s capability to provide a comfortable living for the entire population.  Figuring out a way to regulate population growth and reach an equilibrium point is just something that makes sense.

For one, having less kids reduces your overall carbon footprint.  With one less person on the planet that is one less person who needs food, clothing, shelter, and various luxury items.  Not only that, but that one less person will not produce any offspring.  By not existing, they just saved the rest of us plenty of resources.  Additionally, it’s also one less driver and polluter, since we all pollute the Earth on some level or another.

Secondly, and probably what is most appealing to the average American, is the financial cost involved with raising a child.  A recent study concluded that in this modern era it will cost around $221,000 to raise a child from birth to the age of 17.  That’s up about $121,000 from 2000 when a similar study was conducted and didn’t include the cost of college, which is usually a $100,000+ investment.

Now it may seem as though the environmental and financial implications of having less kids would be enough to entice people to cut back on shooting eggs with sperm.  However, the greatest incentive for having less kids is the fact that it gives parents more time and energy to devote to their children.  It seems as though the role of parent in this modern era has taken a back seat to electronic distractions, which occupy kids’ time, occasionally teaching them things of value, but overall depriving them of the necessary love and attention required from parents.

By having less children, parents can devote more of their time to raising them to be courteous, intelligent, and productive members of society.  Take for instance that wretch, Octomom.  Not only does her nickname sound like some sort of evil villain, but her insistence on being a broke ass mother of 8 is going to produce effects that are detrimental to society.  I’m willing to bet good money that at least half of her kids will have criminal records.

Obviously, imposing a tax break for people who have 2 or less kids wouldn’t be effective if people still continued to receive tax cuts based on the number of kids they have.  That is why the policy would have to put an end to giving tax breaks on a per child basis as far as it relates to families with 3 or more children.  Now it wouldn’t make sense if that applied to families who already have 3 or more kids, so their tax breaks would still remain in effect.  However, those families who have 3 or more kids after the policy is in place will have to deal with the financial and emotional burdens that come with having many kids–after all, every decision and choice has a consequence; it doesn’t make sense to reward poor decisions, and if a couple or person decide to have more kids than they can afford or handle they shouldn’t get a tax cut, especially when those extra kids are a financial burden on the rest of society.

What about those with no kids?  Do they get a tax break?  Well, yes, but a much smaller one than say a person with 1 or 2 kids.  In fact, the way it would work is on a per child level.  For instance, say one kid results in a 5% tax break.  Having 2 kids would then result in a 10% tax break.  So, if it’s a 5% break per child, a person with no children would get something like a 2% tax break.  The way the policy would be designed should create a huge incentive for people to have 2 or less kids since the average person really can’t afford 3 or more kids–most can’t even afford 2.  And there is nothing more detrimental to the development of a child than a parent who can’t be there physically or emotionally because they have spread themselves thin working all the time just to put food on the table.

The idea of an overpopulation tax break is much better than the population control policies demonstrated by nuts like Hitler or Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who actually entertained the idea of forced abortion and spiking foods with sterilization drugs.  Not only is the tax break a common sense approach to creating a population that is stable and most efficient, but it is a break from the more aggressive and immoral population control policies.  Instead of eliminating excessive burdens, we prevent them from ever occurring in the first place.  With less children, parents and schools can do a more effective job in raising and educating them, which will benefit society in the long run.  And what’s truly American about this idea is that it still gives people a choice unlike China’s policy.  Nevertheless, educating people on the benefits (financial, environmental, and societal) of less children should help sway people to make a wiser decision when it comes to having a family.  With all the medical advances, more people are able to exist at the same time, meaning more resources are required to sustain the population.   An overpopulation tax break just makes sense.

More Info:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_us/us_fea_parenting_cost

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2008/08/28/reduce-your-carbon-footprint-don-t-have-a-baby.aspx

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103707

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67293975428&ref=ts