So, country A has: high immigration levels, high population, low resources as a result of influx, and seeks to control birthrate to compensate for increased immigration, where immigration + birth rate must = death rate (or close enough).
Where country B has: high emigration levels, medium population, equal resources, and seeks to increase birthrate to compensate for increased death rate and/or departure/loss of citizens.
The logical conclusion of a writer? Always the worst case scenario, man! Such as: children as commodity. Or parents/spouses pressuring women into having more children, as a way to increase the household income. However, for it to be widespread, there'd have to be several things at work: would the benefits from the govt/orgs substantially outweigh the emotional/physical/financial costs of a child (which are enormous; multiply exponentially for each additional child, it seems), would the alternatives present to a woman be substantially reduced (ie, women able to bear children are ostracized/penalized for working outside the home)? It would have to become a lifestyle choice - from the stuff I read today - for it to take any lasting effect. Until then, it's a temporary measure, and once it's no longer enforced/rewarded, people will go back to their original patterns of many or no children, whatever existed before the govt programs.
no subject
Date: 23 Nov 2004 05:19 am (UTC)Where country B has: high emigration levels, medium population, equal resources, and seeks to increase birthrate to compensate for increased death rate and/or departure/loss of citizens.
The logical conclusion of a writer? Always the worst case scenario, man! Such as: children as commodity. Or parents/spouses pressuring women into having more children, as a way to increase the household income. However, for it to be widespread, there'd have to be several things at work: would the benefits from the govt/orgs substantially outweigh the emotional/physical/financial costs of a child (which are enormous; multiply exponentially for each additional child, it seems), would the alternatives present to a woman be substantially reduced (ie, women able to bear children are ostracized/penalized for working outside the home)? It would have to become a lifestyle choice - from the stuff I read today - for it to take any lasting effect. Until then, it's a temporary measure, and once it's no longer enforced/rewarded, people will go back to their original patterns of many or no children, whatever existed before the govt programs.
At least, that's the lesson in China, so far.