Digest 715 - Population Control Policy Issues

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> On Thursday 02 October 2003 16:58, victoriatangoman wrote:
> (...)
>> The TFR of 2.1 or 2.2 children insures a broad representation
>> across developed and developing countries. The fractional number
>> represents those children who don't live into their childbearing
>> years.
>>
>> Here is a good primer on Human Population Growth:
>>
>>http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Population
s.html
>>
>> Here is a mortility table that I used in my demographic
>> spreadsheet model:
>>
>> http://www-mtl.mit.edu/Courses/6.095/notes/mortality.html
>>
>> You'll note for a country like the US with a low infant mortality
>> rate, that by accounting for deaths of those under 20, the TFR
>> could be as low as 2.02.
>
> Thanks for all the interesting explanation and links! I should
> have figured out by myself the reason for the fractional number...
>
> Anyway, I see now that my bizarre system of trading of birthrights
> could (and perhaps should) have a tunable fractional number set
> according to the policies of the government (or whatever is the
> power controlling the habitat).
>
> > TangoMan
> (...)
>
> Lucio

Actually, the system as you've outlined it is intresting, but
makes me wonder about those cases where a woman wants to sell more
than just her "extra" ~0.2. And would companies set up as brokerage
houses to buy all the fractions available, to turn around and sell
them to any comers? Would there be a restriction against buying
fractions if you didn't already have a fraction of your own, or
could just anyone buy rights to have as many children are
available? And from here my thinking turns to what measures may be
necesary to protect such purchased children from abuses... though I
realize that a well ordered society would likely already have
measures to protect children from exploitation or abuse. Just
thinking out loud.

Joe.