{The United Nations [continued]}[7th February 1970]

[Redbook1:119-122][19700207:1100a]{The United Nations [continued]}[7th February 1970]

Saturday 7th February 1970  11 a.m. [continued]

            Similarly, the idea of votes according to population in the Assembly could penalise countries which introduce birth control as against countries which allow unlimited breeding on U.N. aid.  One could get the committee [sic] to award crude bonuses in voting power based on estimates of what the population would have been (ratified by [the] Intermediate Court) if birth control had not been encouraged, and similarly one might penalise overpopulated countries to the extent of the percentage of the population who would not have lived, without U.N. (and other) grant aid, or to the extent of those who would not have been born if [a] U.N. plan for birth control had been accepted -- a " double " penalty.  But these calculations are difficult and would eventually become absurd, if not impossible; and they are in some sense a negation of democracy.

            One could base voting power on one or more of these factors plus an estimate of economic power and significance, similarly calculated.  An estimate of military power should not be used, since that would encourage armament, just as conventional democracy might encourage breeding.

            A good figure might be arrived at using an equation which contrasts economic wealth with population giving a figure which is directly proportional to wealth per head -- and somewhere near average standard of living.  However, this would result in tiny countries having the same vote as large ones -- pointless.  Perhaps the equation should provide for waiting to be based on either total population (as allowed for above) or total wealth -- whichever is bigger.  One could incorporate a sliding scale of wealth against allowed "population" which retained wealthy countries their lead while encouraging a low population and a high standard of living.

            Perhaps (Wealth / Population (i.e. wealth per head)) + (Wealth + Population/2 (or whatever figure is thought “appropriate”)).  A common standard of wealth=population would, of course, have to be found, based, perhaps, on a reasonable standard of wealth per head.

            I'm not sure whether this would work or not.  The idea of this (or something like it) is based on the need to encourage nations to build up their wealth per head and total wealth and yet retain some semblance of democracy -- but without making population rather than standard of living an advantage.  Obviously the calculations are complex, but there must be one equation for all countries.  Collection of statistics will also be difficult; nor is it possible to ensure that (Wealth / Population) reflects standard of living at all easily -- it could all be spent on internal security.

[PostedBlogger20122012]