[Taxacom] Reducing inequality (was: Endangered species condoms)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Bob,
      Well, my main point is that the desparately poor often cannot
afford condoms (much less other forms of birth control).  Most Americans
can afford condoms, etc., but whether they choose to spend money on
responsible sexual behavior is often the real problem there.  Even with
the significant societal (pro-life) influence against contraceptive
freedom (many are now labelling EllaOne as another "abortion pill"),
Americans still enjoy a lot of reproductive options if they want to take
advantage of them.  Far too many have grown up in a culture of mindless
eating in front of expensive electronic babysitters.  Their bodies often
vastly overfed, under-exercised and diabetic,, and their minds and
spirits often malnourished and undereducated about things that really
matter.  
       However, hundreds of millions of poor people, especially in
Africa and parts of southern Asia, cannot afford even the cheapest of
such reproductive options (such as condoms).  Just getting enough food
to eat is a daily struggle.    Billionaires of the "world-eating USA"
(to use your phrase) could spend a small fraction of the money they plan
to spend (on food, vaccines, and other medicines) on the production of
relatively inexpensive condoms in large numbers.  It would give millions
(especially poor women) a very important tool in controlling their
reproductive lives.  That's where future human misery could be most
effectively minimized.  And furthermore, any curtailment of human
population growth, anywhere in the world, will reduce future pressure on
non-human species.  Hopefully the increased westernization of Africa and
Asia will be outpaced by "green" technologies making it less wasteful
and polluting as more people clamour for a higher standard of living.      
      And at the same time, many westerners will have to scale back
their expectations of excessive luxuries and wastefully life-styles.
The financial disaster of 2008 has already begun that process to some
extent.  Most importantly, a more stable human population will mean that
future technological advances will benefit far larger percentages of
humans (the benefits being more equally divided).  Ignoring Malthus and
continuing population growth madness will just continue massive levels
of human misery and inequality, not to mention a resultant increased
assault on non-human biodiversity.  Whether the Chinese have gone too
far in restricting human reproduction is a matter of debate, but most
other countries have done far too little.  Perhaps there is a middle
ground approach that would be more fair to humanity as a whole (not to
mention all of those non-human species).    
      ---------Ken  Kinman     
=====================================
Bob Mesibov wrote:

Ken Kinman wrote: 
'to the desparately poor where they are most needed, most of Africa in
particular, and many areas of southern Asia as well.' 
Ken, I think you got that wrong. One less American baby is equivalent to
maybe 100 fewer babies in the poorest countries, no matter how you
measure 'ecological footprint' or 'carbon burden'. Let's see the
world-eating USA get into negative growth territory
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate).