Why Doesn’t Overpopulation Get Mentioned by the Press?

This week NPR did a story about food shortages in the developing world, but the word “population” was never said.  Other stories they have recently done about similar evidence of global environmental issues have similarly avoided mentioning overpopulation.  I have noted this phenomenon so many times that it is making me a bit crazy.  Why does the overpopulation problem, clearly behind our problems of pollution, ecological degradation, climate change, immigration, and various other economic woes, never get mentioned by the press or political candidates?  Is it THAT awful, that huge a problem? Does it have such terrifying implications that nobody can face the fact that, as a species, we humans are rapidly overpopulating the planet, and already suffering the inevitable fallout from doing so?

Perhaps this subject _IS_ too terrifying for most people to face.  Dr. Albert Allen Bartlett notes in a podcast interview (link) that immigration, a part of the population picture, is itself too politically incorrect, too risky for politicians to say much about lest they be labeled a racist or otherwise attacked.  Is our human propensity for political sensitivity and B.S. going to keep us standing still on the tracks, like a deer in the headlights, until the population train runs us down?  We each need to take some action to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Interestingly, Dr. Bartlett points out that, if every couple has 2 children, stability still won’t be achieved for about 70 years.  This is compounded with the expectation that world population will pass global food-producing capacity within two or three decades.  Dr. Bartlett also argues that, if humans can be shown to be responsible for any part of global climate change, we are already beyond a sustainable population.  He recommends a book, “The Ecological Footprint” (link), which indicates that to bring everyone to the standard of living we have in the U.S. would require a half dozen more earths.  He feels that we are already in a very dire situation, and ignoring it is just making matters worse.  He also recommends the book “Twilight in the Desert” (link), written by a Texan in the financial industry about the coming exhaustion of Saudi oil.  The book indicates that the Saudis are exhausting their oil fields quickly, and actually speeding the exhaustion of their fields by pumping water into the ground to increase production – a short term strategy with serious long term problems.

Dr. Bartlett says that modern medicine is making things worse by prolonging life, but not putting enough resources into birth control development, which would help the situation.  He notes that the Chinese policy mandating one child per family (link), conceived 30 years ago, was based on the idea that population growth was getting in the way of economic development, and that this seems to have been borne out by the facts.  China now says that they have avoided the births of over 300 million people, and the social costs and pollution those people would have generated.  He said that China’s birthrate is still around 1 to 1.5% per year, or 10-15 million more people per year, in spite of the law.  Interestingly, a 1998 U.S. Embassy report (link) says that a combination of education, family planning, and improved living standards have worked at least as well as the One Child Policy where that approach has been tried.  This fits with the perception I’ve mentioned here that these factors can successfully reduce birthrates, and are the most cost effective way to do so.

Dr. Bartlett says that waiting for smart people in Washington to warn us of real trouble, or take action to mitigate the population problem, is wrong.  Those people are smart, but not in the way that would cause them to do the right things as far as the global population problem.   I believe that economic and political incentives that could motivate positive political action are not in place, but we in the electorate can put them there. 

Please write your representatives – the population explosion MUST become a first item on everyone’s agenda!  Also contact members of the media and demand that they cover overpopulation as the root cause of climate change and other environmental problems.  Point out that, while it is difficult to accept, China’s one child family policy has worked, and that the same results can be achieved without legislation but by economic assistance, better education, and family planning.  We all need to weigh in on this now to mitigate future problems that we, our children, and our descendants will surely suffer.

interesting and related information:
Who Knew?, Dec. 14, 2007, George Kenney w. Dr. Albert Allen Bartlett
Oil Crises Delay – A World Oil Price Forecast, Vincent Ramirez, July 1, 1999


28 responses to “Why Doesn’t Overpopulation Get Mentioned by the Press?

  1. Yes, Tim, this taboo on discussing overpopulation is tiring, isn’t it? It’s also fascinating, so I’m digging into it in my documentary. Keep writing!

    Dave Gardner
    Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity

  2. I think we need some sound research by some talented social psychologists … if it isn’t out there somewhere already. I’m sure more will be needed.

    Often I think the most beneficial advance in our knowledge would be in better knowledge of ourselves. I have long (since the 60’s) felt that, if we took 10% of the money spent on incarcerating drug offenders and put it to studying why people do what they do, we’d get a 100-fold payback, with a significant reduction in drug offenders incarcerated being a sizeable result, but minescule compared with what else we could learn.
    … but NO-O! We have to keep slamming people into prison for the victimless crime of using one drug, while we pay to ensure that users of another drug (alcohol) are guaranteed purity and availability of their drug of choice. WTF is wrong with us??? I want the social psychologists to work on answering that! (pardon my indignation and frustration)

    Thanks to Dave for his comment. I welcome them all (though I will not let them be viewed if they are mean-spirited or off topic – I think that’s only fair to the other readers).

  3. This morning, again, the press failed to mention either the overpopulation problem or the coming exhaustion of fossil fuels when they had the chance. A relatively lengthy interview on NPR with Gordon Brown (Prime Minister of the UK) hit on a number of the challenges he faces, and, while he mentioned the failure of third world economies, he never mentioned overpopulation. He also discussed rising oil prices but never touched on the fact that fossil fuels will run out in the next century, and current price increases may actually be reflecting the increasing scarcity of petroleum.
    The press fails to get to the bottom of things again … what a disappointment.

    I will continue to “agitate” on this until I see change for the better. Please join me. (And thanks for reading.)

  4. And again … this morning NPR news did a segment on the food riots and unrest in Haiti, and the plans of the UN to ship tens of thousands of tons of food aid to them. But at NO time did anyone mention the population problem in Haiti.

    It becomes increasingly obvious that, as a species, we have already dug a substantial hole for ourselves as far as overpopulation, yet we continue to ignore that fact. It has been pointed out that the U.S. negative trade balance is proof of overpopulation in North America, as is the fact that we need so much of our energy supplies from outside the continent. The US government makes noises about the security risk of being dependent on foreign oil, but gives little support to family planning, preferring instead to pander to idealogues. We are the deer in the headlights, and we’d better do something (need to NOW) so we don’t get completely flattened by the oncoming truckl of the population explosion.
    Keep demanding that your politicians and members of the press face the facts, for the sake of our children, grandchildren, etc.

  5. Excellent blog, and great to see more people are aware of the way overpopulation is ignored due to its politically incorrect status.

    The main issue here is a moral one. The West is known for its dead end abstraction through which it can justify anything, “freedom”, and yet the only way to control the overpopulation issue is to encroach on that. We’d essentially be aiming to take away something that is their “right.” I agree that something needs to be done – it’s inconvenient but necessary – though I don’t think that most members of the public will see that as they tend to run with knee-jerk reactions. “No one’s gonna tell me what to do!”

    You mention China’s one child policy — do you think that is the solution?

  6. Thanks for the comment, K.
    I agree that the overpopulation problem has a lot of tails … we don’t want to reduce people’s rights (the Bush administration has done more than enough of that). I don’t think anyone likes a “one child policy” approach. It was interesting to me to see that, in an area of China where they reduced enforcement of the one-child family law and added family planning, educational, and economic assistance, the results have been as good or better than just under the law.
    Different countries have different rates of population growth and average education levels, and I can’t expect that some countries will be able to curb population growth without such a law. I do hope that we can put our money behind the education, family planning, and economic assistance angles, though, as the “bang for the buck” seems by far the best with those approaches.
    The overlying knowledge is that the faster we get measures in place to reduce population growth, the more suffering we avoid. I hope the next administration takes a more progressive and constructive approach, and fast.
    Thanks again for your comment, and, everybody, please lobby your representatives.

  7. I actually have put a lot of thought (no research, mind you), into this topic which has also driven me batty. Nevermind the idea that so many problems may be caused by overpopulation, how about the simple consideration that – wherever the true fault may lie with so many global issues – proactively decreasing global population is a viable solution to so many, many problems we face now, and in the future.

    The only answer I can think of as to why we completely shy away from even discussing population nationally is that there is may exist a hidden agenda of actually promoting population growth for the sake of conflict.

    The powers that be may actually fear a shortage of war fodder – it’s all I can think of.

    As for myself and my wife, we have limited our household to ourselves and a single child, and we feel that everyone else should do the same for the sake of our future.

  8. By the way, I also proactively give obviously large families disgusted looks and whisper about them just barely loud enough so that I know they can hear xD.

    I do the same to SUV drivers, lol.

  9. Vincent Radosevich

    Keeping in mind the difference between regional and global overpopulation is critical to prevent a world wide die-off of humanity. Isolating high population growth areas slows down growth because those areas will experience a die-off. Including high growth areas within low growth areas increases exponential growth. Allowing the free movement of people and goods across international borders mixes low population and high population growth areas. This is why, I am opposed to globalism.

  10. Vincent Radosevich

    Humanists see globalism as a means to reduce world poverty. So, they made a deal with the devil, corporatists. Humanists can’t allow a discussion of overpopulation because people in the developed world would see third world people as a threat. Corporatists can’t allow a discussion of it because people in the developed world would see how bad free trade and mass immigration is for their standard of living. Also, this is why the humanisists took over the environmental movement, e.g. the Sierra Club battle. To solve environmental problems, solving the reducing the population is critical.

  11. I can’t agree with you on all of your comments, Vincent.
    First off, I don’t think it’s possible to stop the movement of people across borders, and it is clear they do it because it does make them and their families better off. Isolating high growth areas couldn’t be maintained, and would generate major strife and war – not helpful. We need the high growth areas to have better standards of living so people don’t feel pressured to have big families OR emigrate, IMHO.
    I don’t know what you mean by “humanists” or “corporatists”, either. I try not to adopt labels if I can help it, as it polarizes discussion and distracts from the real matter at hand. People function first as individuals, with essentially selfish motives, and one big challenge will be to help as many as possible understand that we will be better off collaborating against our common problems, predominantly population and the inevitable decline of fossil fuel supplies (and increasing costs of same), and that won’t be easy. I think free trade and mass immigration are inevitable. Trade, of course, will be throttled back by higher energy prices, but immigration will continue, and an approach that addresses the root causes will be our best bet.
    I do agree, though, that the population explosion is at the root of a lot of our problems. The issue is that most of us take too short a view of the future, especially those among us who are worrying where their food will come from in the very near future. I only hope that the species can evolve more quickly, become more educated, get a better collective understanding of our long term problems, and get our governments and corporations taking focused action on the long term issues before things get too tough.

    Thanks for your comments. – Tim

  12. Vincent Radosevich

    Only, a few years ago, people were saying globalism which I define as the free movement of people and products across borders was inevitable and even desirable. Now people are objecting to and protesting against globalism all over the world because globalism is bad for the environment, anti-democratic, and produces more social inequality than the status quo. You wrote yourself that it was inevitable and then a few sentences later said that free trade was in trouble because of high energy prices. Mass immigration is in trouble too because the natives know one simple truth: the immigrants are coming to take what we have. The more immigrants that the robber barons pack into a country to drive down wages the more fear, anger and hatred will build up until it finally blows up into violence. This will be the end of globalism in its totality.

  13. Vincent Radosevich

    Tim you made the following statement: “We need the high growth areas to have better standards of living so people don’t feel pressured to have big families OR emigrate, IMHO.” 1)Two things: What does IMHO stand for?, and 2)Where are you going to get the resources to raise the standard of living of 3 billion people living on less that $3.00 per day? Just this year the people living on less than $1.oo per day passed one billion. David Pimental, Paul Elrich, and Garett Hardin have told us we do not have the resources for this. Providing the current population of 6 to 7 billion with a dignified standard of life is not sustainable. The Earth will not support more than two billion people at a dignified standard of living for say 100 to a 1000 years. We have about 50 to 100 years before all hell breaks lose. How are you going to deal with this if you can’t tolerate some “negative” words?

  14. What do you mean by “globalism”?
    If you mean globalization, I thought there had always been some people in favor of it and some against it. After all, it’s just world trade. It has been around for centuries, if not millenia, but has only become so incredibly fast and cheap in the last century or two.
    While I do believe it is inevitable, what I was trying to say is that, when energy (predominantly fossil fuel) prices rist higher, it will reduce the flow of goods and make travel more expensive.
    As for “robber barons” and immigrants “coming to take what we have” … you’re losin’ me there, man. We’re all immigrants or descended from immigrants.
    IMHO is an old internet abbreviation for “In My Humble Opinion”.
    As for where the money would come from … take a look at what we’re spending now. Our military alone will spend around 650 billion dollars this year, a portion of it spent dealing with strife in countries with major population growth problems. Giving people money won’t help, either. If people can be helped to reduce their birthrates, develop economies that provide jobs and better living conditions than they have today, and provided good education in family planning, they will be more likely to stay home and have smaller families. With smaller families and increased opportunities for education, they will bring more brain power to bear on our problems of population and energy. There is debate around how many people the earth can support, but it is clear that it won’t support the current population in the absence of cheap fossil fuel. We need to be proactive and work on reducing the long term problems and risks now. I doubt there will be a single time when “all hell breaks loose”. Instead we will probably see a nearly endless variety of ways things can go wrong, and the problems will be local, regional, national, and global in scale.
    I don’t understand what you are referring to as “negative” words.
    I hope you will continue to read and learn more about these important topics. Thanks for your comments – Tim

  15. Vincent Radosevich

    Tim, are you a globalist, trying to globalize us with a policy of globalism? Anyway, the proper use of words is important, and most of us, including myself, need to polish up on our writing skills. Maybe my defenition of globalism is an operational defenition for American workers. My working friends know exactly what I mean. To us globalism is a policy to eliminate trade barriers and allow workers to cross international borders to find employment. Examples of trade barriers are tarriffs, environmental laws, and saftey laws. Examples of opening up borders to allow workers into America are the H-1b system and laws like the American Competitiveness Act which up the limits on how many foreign workers are allowed into the country. There are also “wink and nodd” progams like not enforcing immigration laws. Of course there has always been trade, but the details are important. High tarriffs, which we had from the founding of the country until about world war two ,protect American workers from cheap foreign labor. Also, American workers know that increasing increasing the supply of workers drives down wages. You made the statement “After all, it’s just world trade.” This to me indicates that you would prefer not talking about the details. This would make implementing the current policy of globalism easier for the ruling elite. This indicates to me that you favor the policy of globalism. What is your defenition of globalism? As I defined it, do you favor globalism?

  16. I work, too, Vincent. Who are your “working friends”? I can’t say whether I favor globalism or not, since I don’t believe it exists. At least, I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy by some “ruling elite” to drive wages down by overlooking illegal immigration.

    I believe people are naturally going to move to where their economic lives are better, especially when the real issue to them is food on the table for their kids. No government can stop that, though they can cause a horrendous amount of human misery trying.

    I don’t believe in paying for lost causes, so one other option is to absorb the immigrants so they pay taxes and benefit the country. You and I descended directly from immigrants. As for wages, the less isolated we (and every country) are, the easier it will be for people like you and me to buy the cheapest goods, and if they come from another country, many of us won’t be able to afford to buy otherwise.

    I believe we in North America have been living high on the hog, but now we’re going to slide down to some kind of near average life, an average compared with the rest of the world. I know it doesn’t sound like fun. I was laid off for 3 months last year, and probably half of my colleagues from Ford are only just now finding jobs, around a year later. But we’ll survive and create new concepts that will ease the fall and hopefully lead to a sustainable future. The sooner we get our legislators and everyone else thinking along these lines, the easier it will all go.

    So, that’s a bit of my world view. It is rooted in everything I’ve learned throughout my life, and reflects a large number of independent sources spread over a long period of time. Sorry, Vincent, but there is nothing I know that would lead me to believe in what you call globalism, or feel it is worth worrying about it.

  17. Vincent Radosevich

    Now, we can begin to understand why overpopulation is not mentioned in the press. In short, it threatens people’s beliefs and values. Humanists are threatened because they know there is not enough time, money, and natural resources to save the 3 billion of the poorest people an the planet. But, their hearts are breaking; so the try to convince the rest of us to make a vain effort to save these people. Corporatists don’t want to mention it because they want the cheap labor to keep rolling in because it makes them rich. Also, people who are in love with the dream of American immigration, a form of humanism, must shift into heavy denial because they know it can’t go on forever, nothing does. Overpopulation of America will end the dream of America immigration. Infinite growth in a finite space is illogical; it’s the survival strategy of the cancer cell. It’s the way bacteria grow on a Petri dish. People know this to be true, but they can’t deal with it, so they just don’t talk about, as if that will make it go away. The press doesn’t want people to stop buying their information, so they just don’t mention it. People who understand the problem are marginalized, mocked, shouted down and ignored. In a last ditch effort, alliances are made to keep the denial going. The worst of these is the alliance between the globalists and the humanists which opened the flood gates of globalization on the American people.

  18. Vincent – I agree that all this is tough stuff to face and that, beyond that, some don’t see their personal or organizational pursuits benefited by accepting the problems publicly, but I lose you when you start talking about “humanists”, “globalists”, “corporatists”, and “alliances”. None of that name calling is needed to explain what is going on, and frankly it sounds paranoid. There are simple ways to understand what is going on, but they don’t require sinister forces/people/organizations to be valid. The notions of “corporatists” or “humanists” are just distractions from gaining a real understanding. Human nature is what’s going on, essentially. Understanding that, I can’t see a better way forward than through consciousness raising and grass roots action. For example, I will think twice before voting for a politician who doesn’t acknowledge our long term problems, and, more importantly, I tell them so fairly frequently. They make law and policy that, with a long term view, can mitigate our current and future problems with overpopulation and energy, and we are lucky to be able to be heard. We may each be one in millions, but we each have our vote AND the ability to communicate with others and help develop the broad understanding and grass roots action that can limit the suffering we can expect to occur as our problems become more severe over the next few decades.
    Best of luck – Tim

  19. Vincent Radosevich

    Tim, I know you and I will never agree on the causes of the current silence on overpopulation. In case other people pick up on our debate, I want to correct a mistake I made on my comment that I made on 6/7/09 at 6:35 PM. In the last sentence I said, “The worst of these is the alliance between the globalists and the humanists which opened the flood gates of globalization on the American people.” I meant to say, “The worst of these is the alliance between the corporatists and the humanists which opened the flood gates of globalization on the American people.” This goes back to an old disagreement between the supporters of Garret Hardin, like myself and supporters of Barry Commoner, the humanists. I would recommend that people read the writings of these two men to understand how a debate like ours could start. Also, read some archeological texts, and you will see lots of labeling of groups. The most frequent are class groups. You’ll see words like “ruling elites”, “alliances”, etc. These are not conspiracy theories, they are groups emerging with like intrest which work together to protect shared intrests. As far as the question you raised (“Why Doesn’t Overpopulation Get Mentioned by the Press?”), Only Dan and I proposed possible explainations in any detail (Dan said: “The only answer I can think of as to why we completely shy away from even discussing population nationally is that there is may exist a hidden agenda of actually promoting population growth for the sake of conflict.”). Dan is right, their is a hidden agenda. The elites see overpopulation as a resource to make them richer and more powerful. The origin of this agenda is what I am trying to expose.

    Good luck Tim, Thanks for letting me present a view point on this important subject.

  20. Peter hagenrud

    Very easy Tim, exponentiall growth, thats all i need to say.
    The more people the more economic growth and besides that more workforce whitch keep down the price for labor.
    I can qoute two people
    Georg Orwell is the first
    In atime of universal deciet telling is a revulutionary act.
    The other one is kenet Boulding
    If you belive that exponentiall growth can go on forever in a finite world yuo are either a madman or an economics.
    Every human on this planet only have some 22000 sq meters each of the total landmass.
    And only a little more than half of this area is suiteble for humans.-
    And we are not the only speices on this earth.
    We increase with close to 220000 new people netto every day, one billion every 12 year and 8 months.
    The question is for how long time.

  21. Let’s keep it simple: In modern economies, at least half of economic growth IS population growth and the rest is financial conjuring. As long as economic growth is seen as the solution to everything, population growth will not be questioned by the primary hegemony. It’s a vicious cycle being mistaken for a useful cycle because absolute resource limits (or peaks, in the case of fossil fuels) have not been reached yet. When that finally happens, the blaming will begin, then, when it’s clear that blaming is a waste of time, something might change. Most people are too wrapped up in hustling for paychecks to think much beyond their own living rooms until a major crisis appears. They let crises happen, then take action for awhile (usually financial trickery that doesn’t address limits) then get apathetic, wait for another crisis, then try to mitigate it again. There is no mass intelligence driving the human race, just a handful of people shouting largely unheeded warnings.

  22. While most people are wound up chasing paychecks, enough people are thinking and making decisions that the social and economic environments are changing, though slowly. Increased costs, for example, are a powerful motivator that affects the behavior of even the most blind consumers. I think that is the “mass intelligence” – that people will change their behaviors, some of them because they ARE looking ahead and thinking rationally.

    • I try to agree with your upbeat angle, but it keeps getting dampened by the annoying fact that so few people actually “get it.” It would be much better if everyone was on board the logic/evidence train instead of randomly being dragged along by it. For example, if anti-science Republicans regain a majority in Congress, we could see recent environmental progress vanish as it did in the Bush years. Many things remain precarious. There is no general public will to deal with reality, just a handful of “elites” who might get lucky.

  23. I appreciate your comments, Jack. I used to think most people didn’t get it, but the news has been out there for quite a few years now with the picture becoming ever clearer – humanity is headed for some huge challenges over energy, pollution, and their root cause: overpopulation. Based on the new people I meet all the time, I believe the majority have come to accept that we have problems to deal with and they are just looking for information on what to do, which is all too scarce. They realize that without a car in the United States one is going to have a really tough time getting work, for example, but they also understand the environmental impact, and increasingly the economic and political impacts, our transportation systems involve. As the percentage of people who are aware and concerned grows, the percentage who are willing to do something grows, and when behavior changes it moves markets. There are plenty of examples already – more hybrid vehicles than ever, more serious efforts to have or improve mass transit, and increasing thought and press being given to alternative energies and serious conservation measures. I think things are heading in the right direction, driven by rising cost if nothing else. My biggest concern is how much of our cushy lifestyles we will give up before the situation starts to turn around. Don’t underestimate the young people. My kids are in their 20’s and are thinking about the future and what needs to be done, and their friends are, too. There is hope, but there are some frightening challenges ahead, too. I hope we both get to see humanity overcome them.
    Thanks again for your comments. – Tim

  24. Hello everyone,

    I am a graduate student at the St Mary’s University in London and starting to work on my dissertation. My topic is on the impact of overpopulation on Java’s (Indonesia) resources, mainly dealing with food production and consumption, and thought might be good to get advise from experts and people passionate about the topic.

    I will also be looking at the economic, social, and environmental issues of this region due to overpopulation, while analysing possible future consequences and give recommendation on how to resolve the problem.

    Java -population by square mile, 86,370, one of the most densely populated regions in the world.

    I would appreciate any advice,
    Many thanks in advance,

    Jose Garcia

    • Hello Jose,
      I am so glad to hear of your dissertation topic.

      One of the things that concerns me is that at some point the expanding population will begin to exceed food production, even if rising energy costs aren’t already increasing costs and decreasing availability of food. We are stretching our food production and distribution systems thinner and thinner, and increasing our risk to the point that smaller and smaller hiccups in energy supplies, weather, etc. can cause larger and larger problems. Continuing trends of population growth suggest a number of scenarios that could cause these mega-cities to suffer infrastructure insufficiency, if not outright collapse, sending incredible numbers of people to a countryside that can never generate enough food to sustain them. I am not sure where things go from there, but expect the situation won’t be pretty.

      I also predict that such events will happen repeatedly with worsening conditions caused mostly by rising energy prices (not to mention other factors including the political strife that will result). Other types of population-driven problems, such as water and sewage system breakdown, will parallel and compound problems with food supplies. The biggest risk is that the world is still failing to acknowledge the population explosion problem and see how it is driving other problems ranging from illegal immigration to financial malfeasance in the public and private sectors. The added wild card of corporations that can act as entities but have none of the ethics or morals, nor connections to the welfare of real people, is going to be as big a problem as the conservative religious organizations that block improvements based on what are essentially ancient fundamentalist concepts.

      We need a lot of work such as you are doing in order to understand where we are going and make critical plans. At times it seems we need simple but broad consciousness-raising around overpopulation if we are to avoid major catastrophes. Good luck to you in your work and I hope you will give me the chance to read your dissertation when it is complete. Feel free to ask questions of me at any time.

      Best regards and kudos on your selection of a most important topic.
      – Tim Prosser

  25. Writing as a woman, the thing is there is this MYTH out there that having babies is a RIGHT. Everything else we do has rules around it (ie. driving a car, paying taxes etc) and so, reality is when you make a baby it must be provided for with shelter, food, clothing. Ignore that and it equals child abuse. This idea that it is a RIGHT to get pregnant no matter what, is the problem. Perhaps means-testing for parenthood, or requirements up-front for folks to have ONE child will be the way of the future. I hope so. It can’t come soon enough. OR b) making it expensive to own a house or even support ($) a child could be way of slowing this all down. *I wonder if that isn’t already going on with deflation-happening coupled with fewer jobs for average people. Thank you – that’s all I have to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s