The US does not have a pro-natalist policy. This is a policy making it easier for expanding families to cope, and it combats the aging society troubles of which there are many. What are the primary features that constitute such a policy:
*Paid time off from work for mothers, (sometimes fathers to) to be with the newborn. This varies around the world from a few weeks to almost a year. The mother must then be allowed to return to the job.
*Pre-natal and post-natal health care for those who need it. This increases health of mother and baby, decreasing the death rates for both. The US is now 3rd world status on this, Kansas is the lowest of the states for black infants.
*Early nutrition and education. Takes different forms but often includes breakfast at schools and head start programs for the needy.
There are variations and degrees around the world, but those nations who bring these programs on board see healthier and better educated kids, fewer abortions, happier work force, and as is the focus here, higher birth/survival rate, a future for the nation.
What we see in the US is a total lack of this and the Republicans opposing it in every way, instead claiming hands off government survival of the fittest and control of reproductive rights will fix something, not sure what, they don't get very far into a pro-natalist discussion. In fact they don't ever talk of it, instead the discussion is always about abortion and nanny state scare stories about feeding a Mexican at school for free, communism help help!
Any thoughts?
fringe -
ReplyDeleteEverywhere in the world, in every kind of culture, the poorest people have the most children.
There are those who think population growth causes poverty and advocate programs in family planning and population education. Then there are those who think poverty causes population growth and favor direct economic aid, jobs, capital investment. They believe that if you take care of development,the birth rate will take care of itself.
I believe that both those trains of thought are right to some degree. The scale of the challenges, and the benefits of success to individuals, communities and families of the world, are enormous. Global population is expected to increase from 6.5 billion today to 9.1 billion by 2050, and the population of the 50 poorest countries will more than double to reach 1.7 billion. Almost all of the net increase in population is occurring in the urban areas of developing countries, and in almost all of them, the number of people living in poverty is rising.
Moreover, the supportive development environment that has prevailed for most of this century is now threatened as the world faces a global economic slowdown and a food security crisis.
All this at the same time, the effects of climate change are becoming ever so apparent.
Homo sapiens sapiens are on their way to an unpleasant future.
I think having kids is a choice and don't know if we necessarily need a ton of government assistance to parents. Requiring time off and guaranteed return may be fine for huge corporations but it can literally kill small businesses.
ReplyDeleteThat said, taking some of the government aid from corporations and agribusiness, and redirecting it to family related items might be okay.
Immigrants (legal and illegal) are one reason the US has not seen as much damage from an aging society up till now.
Poor families having more children than wealthier families is a bit of Darwinism on the micro- scale. All species try to survive and pass on their genes. When a family is low on resources they have many babies and only the best suited ones survive.
ReplyDeleteOr is that the way it was 20,000 years ago? I can't remember.
Sarge (one angry zebra) sent me via email the following two line note:
ReplyDeleteClick here: Natalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I want to read your thoughts on this.
Sarge,
Well this is the definition, it explores and explains many of the variations of birth related policies used by various nations, for some it is to increase their populations (out of various needs), for others it is more a method to ease young families strains and stresses in modern society. I have a lot of friends in Spain, they get a few months off with the new baby. One good friend tells of what a wonderful time with the child giving her a long period to secure a care-giver and return to work, ready to work.
I am not much for or against this. It has interested me though that so many GOP and thumpers want to stop abortion, and stop head start and school breakfasts for the poor, it doesn't add up, infact at some levels it seems the pro-natilist view would fit the conservative ideals, in past times perhaps but not now, so I thought to provoke some thought down this avenue, I was very interested in the responses, very smart views.
Illuminated One,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your good comment. I do not have so much a position on this issue as a jaundiced eye view of the potential good it can do some young families and the potential it can have for correcting the imbalance in our population, which is significant and will become stark in the next 20 years. Increasing the population of the world is not an interest of mine either.
Skinny,
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Immigrants are a hugh source of the nations coping ability right now, and I guess it has been like this most our history. People do not believe it, but besides the hotel cleaners and roofers, industry is now top heavy with scientist and engineers from the middle east, asia, and a few from Europe. Without these we are in a mess. Go to the university and ask: how many white US born boys are signing up for engineering class? They are a minority, immigrants and guest students want these classes and have the disipline to graduate and fill our industry. OK, strayed from the subject.
Agreed the program if suddenly implemented would create havoc for many companies especially the small.
NAC
ReplyDeleteDarwinism on the micro-scale, at the family level is an amazing phenomena. 20,000 years ago or now, well, I think it is the same.
Fringe:
ReplyDeleteWhat would the US do without the brain drain from other countries?
man I hear you but I also remember Dad telling me - 'you have to be responsible for who you bring in this world,' and I don't think we as a country should be responsible for all the frigging kids that are born into poverty stricken families.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't have any solid ideas on how to handle it - I do think we should have some kind of policy to assist young families, i.e. time off work and etc, but handing out food, and money, and cell phones shouldn't happen.