Why governments should not encourage baby booms
It was reported that Hungary plans to encourage a baby boom to counter its population decline of 32,000 people per year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47192612
Encouraging baby booms should not be done by any government, whether they be in the form of tax breaks, grants or other benefits specially for those having large families (4 children or more) as opposed to standard child benefits. Here is why:
1. Artificially encouraging population booms has adverse consequences. These come in the forms of such things as overconsumption, housing shortages, overcrowding, and excess unemployment, amongst other things. Plans should instead be made for slowing population growth or decline, because as of 2019 all EU member states, and Britain, have a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1, which will for some time continue to decrease overall with the ageing populations we have.
2. How will those extra large families be catered for sustainably? State support for people carriers, as hinted in the link, will consequently increase pollution and fuel consumption simply because vehicles with seven seats have to be larger and less aerodynamic than four or five seat vehicles; fossil fuel powered cars will not disappear overnight and the transition to entirely carbon-neutral vehicles will, on an international scale, take at least 20 years from now even with the latest technological developments.
3. A natural population decrease will actually prove useful in all respects. Baby booms have been encouraged for too long, due to a focus on continuous growth we have now proven not to be sustainable or desirable in the long term. A natural population decrease, one that is neither artificially encouraged nor discouraged, will indirectly free up resources and alleviate housing shortages, unemployment, pollution etc.
Encouraging baby booms should not be done by any government, whether they be in the form of tax breaks, grants or other benefits specially for those having large families (4 children or more) as opposed to standard child benefits. Here is why:
1. Artificially encouraging population booms has adverse consequences. These come in the forms of such things as overconsumption, housing shortages, overcrowding, and excess unemployment, amongst other things. Plans should instead be made for slowing population growth or decline, because as of 2019 all EU member states, and Britain, have a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1, which will for some time continue to decrease overall with the ageing populations we have.
2. How will those extra large families be catered for sustainably? State support for people carriers, as hinted in the link, will consequently increase pollution and fuel consumption simply because vehicles with seven seats have to be larger and less aerodynamic than four or five seat vehicles; fossil fuel powered cars will not disappear overnight and the transition to entirely carbon-neutral vehicles will, on an international scale, take at least 20 years from now even with the latest technological developments.
3. A natural population decrease will actually prove useful in all respects. Baby booms have been encouraged for too long, due to a focus on continuous growth we have now proven not to be sustainable or desirable in the long term. A natural population decrease, one that is neither artificially encouraged nor discouraged, will indirectly free up resources and alleviate housing shortages, unemployment, pollution etc.
Comments
Post a Comment