Legalize polygamy
It's in my econ book, for one thing. It's also in my psychology textbook. Don't ask me why it's in either book, but trust me (or rather, don't trust me, go find it yourself), 2 minutes of Google will find you sources that show several European countries (especially in Eastern Europe, most notably Russia) have low or negative population growth. Other parts of the developed world have significantly lower birth rates than the developing world.
eastern europe isn't the "western world".
True. Eastern Europe has this problem very severely. Many parts of the Western world have it to a lesser extent. Pointing out that Russia is not a "western" country does not refute the statistics showing decreased birth rates in a number of places, so stop nit-picking.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
eastern europe isn't the "western world".
"Western world" is a pretty meaningless concept. I mean, there is not even a consistent west. The major issue is just that a select group of countries has a low-negative level of growth overall. There is no other meaning to the term than that. It is not a term in reference to the entire world, not only that, but one of the issues is the term "significant", as if you are a fan of social security, than negative birth rates *IS* a significant population problem. Really though, overall, I will agree with you, the concept of a problem is pretty meaningless to me, and there is generally no reason to be concerned about population growth rates.
It's in my econ book, for one thing. It's also in my psychology textbook. Don't ask me why it's in either book, but trust me (or rather, don't trust me, go find it yourself), 2 minutes of Google will find you sources that show several European countries (especially in Eastern Europe, most notably Russia) have low or negative population growth. Other parts of the developed world have significantly lower birth rates than the developing world.
eastern europe isn't the "western world".
True. Eastern Europe has this problem very severely. Many parts of the Western world have it to a lesser extent. Pointing out that Russia is not a "western" country does not refute the statistics showing decreased birth rates in a number of places, so stop nit-picking.
if you're discussing law, it's good to nit-pick about where has the underpopulation. in the US, i could give less of a rat's ass about underpopulation in russia and it's not an issue to legislate about domestically.
the OP was proposing legalizing polygamy in the name of some faux population crisis.
The population crises is hardly faux skafather.
For some basic primers, wikipedia:
Sub Replacement Fertility
Population Decline
Aging of Europe
Aging of Japan
Population Aging
etc.
The source for a lot of these is this UN report. It has a lovely little graph which indicates that world population could crest as early as the 2050s.
It is common knowledge that the developed world has below replacement fertility, and an aging population. These demographic shifts in some places are going to have significant economic impacts; furthermore, as the entire world develops, the entire world is going to age. Although according to this, all continents except Europe have above replacement population rates presently.
Since 1950, the share of persons ages 65 and older has risen from 5 percent to 7 percent worldwide. As the map shows, Europe and Japan have led the way, with North America, Australia, and New Zealand close behind. However, older persons are now more than 5 percent of the inhabitants in many developing countries and by 2050 are expected to be 19 percent of Latin America’s population and 18 percent of Asia’s.
The overpopulation problem is resolving itself, which is good and all unless you consider the economic ramifications.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
"While almost all of the developed world, and many other nations, have seen plummeting fertility rates over the last twenty years, the United States' rates have remained stable and even slightly increased. "
so we don't need polygamy in the US yet.
In China and India girl children are bad and boy children are good, so they have way too many boys. Obviously they can't all have one woman, much less two or more. Polyandry is the only viable alternative, whether culturally acceptable or not.
What about just not having marriage as an institution at all? How about raising children in a communal creche, so it doesn't matter who is the biological father so much? How about doing away with the whole institution of biological inheritance?
_________________
q/p
The issue isn't just one of cultural acceptance, but of uncertain descent. It is better for various reasons if people know who their father is.
I don't see that as being a viable alternative to the nuclear family.
Biological inheritance isn't a societal institution we can choose to do away with- as much as Stalin and T. Lysenko attempted to. It simply is, whether we choose to believe it or not.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Overall, the world is overpopulated, and we are abusing our resources to a great extent. As many third world countries are developing better economic systems and gaining (even slightly) in prosperity, their populations are consuming more meat products. Depending on the type of animal protein, be it egg, dairy, or meat, it takes anywhere from 4 to 25 pounds of human-quality vegetable proteins (according to FDA reports) to produce one pound of animal protein. This inequality combined with the increasing overall human population could ultimately cause increasing problems in feeding the entire food chain on Earth.
Worrying about falling population rates in Europe sounds a bit racist by comparison. Inequality in the number of boys vs. girls in China is an inevitable result of their own efforts at population control combined with their cultural traditions. I'm certain the people of China have recognized the problem and will find a way to sort it out. Perhaps allowing the emigration of more Chinese men to Europe would be an interesting solution?
Of course, I'm still strongly of the opinion that what's good for the gander is good for the goose, so polyandry should be as acceptable as polygyny. Just think, one could mow the lawn, while another fixed the roof, and a different one changed the oil, and then there's that sticky faucet... And don't forget ME... And then my co-wives and I could share the child care and the housework. I hate washing dishes, but I can cook nearly any cuisine on the planet. I'm not good with toddlers, but I used to teach K-12 all subjects. I'm good with laundry, but hate to put it away. I don't like cleaning, but I do every type of needlework and sewing known to humankind, I think. Just think how well we'd be dressed! But that would require that no one could be the jealous type, wouldn't it? Ah, the foibles of human nature. Sigh.
Averick
Veteran
Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!
ThatRedHairedGrrl
Veteran
Joined: 10 May 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 912
Location: Walking through a shopping mall listening to Half Japanese on headphones
First, can we use the correct term here? What you're talking about is polygyny - a man having more than one wife.
Polygamy means people of either sex marrying multiple spouses. Polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, does exist but is rare; it used to be practised, and may still be, in parts of Tibet (and, if the Mahabharata has any grain of truth in it, may have been accepted in ancient India as well). Where it existed, it seems to have had to do with making sure ancestral land didn't get split up by marrying all the brothers in a family to one woman. (And there was also, of course, a sort of serial polyandry in ancient Jewish law, whereby a man was were obliged to marry his dead brother's widow and do his duty by her if the brother hadn't given her children.)
Polygyny, multiple wives, probably originated among the upper classes; kings and nobles had multiple wives to maximise their offspring, and because they could afford to keep a harem. Later, like many things, it filtered down to the common people. And, in every culture that's had the custom, the folklore is full of tales about the appalling rivalry between wives and their respective children. You only have to read the Old Testament.
I'm not absolutely convinced that all humans are built for lifelong monogamy - at least not for as long as we live now. But, we do (most of us) seem to have a sense of sexual and emotional attachment to one person at a time that we can't just drop. I know that those people in the Pagan community who practice polyamory - like polygamy but of course, in the US, not involving legal marriage - invariably start off with great intentions of 'sharing', then someone decides to run off and be exclusive with someone else, and there are all sorts of horror stories...So, I'm not convinced it would work.
As for the 'more babies' argument - whatever the truth about the population anywhere - that makes the huge assumption that every woman wants to have children. If you're going to force women to become mothers by any social means, there are a lot of women who are going to resist very strongly. Me, for one. The Handmaid's Tale is still, thankfully, fiction...at the moment.
_________________
"Grunge? Isn't that some gross shade of greenish orange?"
I don't think that would work.
What in God's name is a communal creche?
Let us take a Libertarian tack, shall we? This "exploitation" is actually due to two factors. First, OTHER laws against child exploitation that do not rely upon outlawing polygamy are not adequately enforced. Second, it is the illegal nature of polygamy that forces individuals who might wish to practice it to go "underground" or cluster together in isolated communities, and the isolation fosters a lawless attitude.
PS: For the ignorant:
Polygamy means many spouses.
PolyGYNY means many wives.
PolyANDRY means many husbands.
Polygamy does NOT mean "one husband, many wives", no matter how many people might mis-use it in such a fashion.
Every time you fail to recognize that the meaning of words is determined by the consensus of those communicating, God kills a kitten.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Every time you fail to recognize that the meaning of words is determined by the consensus of those communicating, God kills a kitten.
Semantics, semantics. A never-ending battle.