Thread: Should there be child restrictions

Originally Posted by cygnus

did you not read the first half of my post?

that would solve nothing. if we agree on the poverty issue, don't you think that if you leave the underprivileged on their own that cycle is just going to continue to churn out more people in the same situation?

making more high class people just so that they can have a cool life is just... no.

If every upper class couple had 2 children, it wouldn't add at all to the world population. In Canada and many European countries, we actually have a negative growth rate and rely on immigrants to fill the gap. A negative population growth is terrible for any country but China. How are we supposed to help the developed world if there are none of us left?

So to tell your developed world compatriots to have zero kids would just worsen the problem. Aim for sustainability, not decrease.

Originally Posted by cygnus

spartiate just had to use that phrasing
q(-_-)

Sorry, English as a second language

I think that child restrictions would fail horribly. If a couple did have more than allowed, what would happen then? Would the child be killed? Taken away from it's parents? I think either of these things would cause enough public outrage that the law would soon be removed. If it wasn't, then that wouldn't be a world whre I would want to live in.

Originally Posted by Saturos

I think that child restrictions would fail horribly. If a couple did have more than allowed, what would happen then? Would the child be killed? Taken away from it's parents? I think either of these things would cause enough public outrage that the law would soon be removed. If it wasn't, then that wouldn't be a world whre I would want to live in.

No the couple just has to pay fines or go to jail... Just making a fine would lower the population alot.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If every upper class couple had 2 children, it wouldn't add at all to the world population. In Canada and many European countries, we actually have a negative growth rate and rely on immigrants to fill the gap. A negative population growth is terrible for any country but China. How are we supposed to help the developed world if there are none of us left?

So to tell your developed world compatriots to have zero kids would just worsen the problem. Aim for sustainability, not decrease.

i never said that people should have zero kids. i said that i'm happy to not have kids, and pointed out high rates of growth in OTHER PLACES like 5 times - areas where overcrowding is more of an issue (and it's not just china).

but i do think that an excess shouldn't be tolerated so much in regard to the US.

Maybe if the Pope would shut the hell up about condoms.....

Originally Posted by Replicon

Maybe if the Pope would shut the hell up about condoms.....

But then Hell would be overpopulated, it's bad enough down there...

No. There's plenty on land to live on and I have my money on future technology solving the resoruces issue.

Originally Posted by Dreamsun

No. There's plenty on land to live on and I have my money on future technology solving the resoruces issue.

It is very ignorant to think we can continue to over expand like this and for everything to be alright...

Originally Posted by bradysdreaming

Do you guys think that there should be restrictions on how many kids you can have? I think that every person/family should be only allowed to have one kid. Because resources run out eventually and as time goes on our population on this world will only grow.


Let the arguments begin!

Really? Well if that is the case, I think all the useless eaters should be wiped off the face of the planet allowing the intelligent to have as many kids as they want.

Don't think you want to go in that direction, which your argument is a complete fallacy derived from social engineering. What you are asking for is a purge.

If every woman had no more than one child, in a few generations there would be more resources available, more water available, more wealth available. Rich people having more babies just makes there descendents poorer. Many of us poor people are descended from rich aristocratic people who had many children.

We should not adjust our population to what the economy can support, but for what the earth can support, without expense to the ecology and other species.

If I were dictator of the world I would regulate how many children were allowed to be born. I would allow rich women to have 2-3 children and poor people to have 0-1 child.
Of course this is fascist, but people need fascism if they don't take the responsibility themselves.

We don't need so many people. It would be nice to go hiking across America and go 4 months without seeing another human being (like Louis and Clark did). I went 4 months without seeing another human being but by staying in one spot.

Real estate would be cheaper, everyone would be able to afford a home. Also, everyone would be richer. We wouldn't need to destroy the last of our rainforests to grow food for the world.

These are issues I am concerned of. Other people seem to think "It is my right as a woman to have a child" fine, have one. But then "My child won't be a perfect well adjusted healthy person without a sibling." But then the excuses just reveal themselves to be bullshit when they have a third.

People seem to think "The Earth and technology and resources and economy will support us forever, as long as we get the right President to make the right decisions. There is no real problem with population. We can keep on breeding and breeding. Anything that goes wrong with the economy is the politicians fault."

We will see when we end up all living in slums and cardboard shacks like in Bombay (Mumbai). Especially as oil is running out and the price skyrockets. That will affect the price of everything.

PS. I don't care about immigrants coming. Wouldn't that be great to be able to let anybody go anywhere because it isn't an issue? There would be a lot less racism and xenophobia.

May I ask why rich people would be allowed 2 more children than poor people?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

May I ask why rich people would be allowed 2 more children than poor people?

Thats basically why I said what I said.

If a one child policy is allowed, the wealthy will end up having more than one child. They are technically royalty and make the laws. A large segment of the wealthy got to where they were based on who they know, its a club. As so, the same immoral principles will be taught to their children, who will carry on the wealth etc.. Eventually with the one child policy, the result will be a super inferiority complex against the poor, which one already does exist. Presto, the purging from WWII is reborn. Maybe caused by ideology or maybe masked by a fake ideology.

So, since people think the ideology of a one child policy is a fantastic idea, then I would support a purge on the wealthy who push the idea and all those who support it. Those are the useless eaters. I'm currently classified as poor, but I contribute a shit load to society and beyond. To hell if I'm going to told I can only have one child for the idiocy and greed of others, and be collateral from an eventual purge that would birth from such a decision.

If people don't want to have children, that is their decision. Don't fuck with mine.

The thing is Dannon, you even advocate rich people having 3 children, and a brith rate of three would increase the population substantially, what qualifies a rich person (and what qualifies as rich anyway) to have 3 children vs 1 for a poor person? You complain about lack of resources but the rich consume the most, and you want to encourage these consumers to reproduce faster? Your logic appears to be flawed on this one.

I think that it has its pros and cons, obviously because everything does.

If everyone (EVERYONE) was restricted to having one child it would be fine. I think if they want a sibling for the child, they should adopt

There are so many kids out there who are orphans or have been abandoned (especially in China) and they all need to be adopted, so why not?

But then this brings me onto the cons. China has child restrictions and that's causing many babies to be abandoned and orphaned all the time (although that's also due to the fact that some families traditionally think boys are better because they can look after their parents when they're elderly. So if they have a girl, she gets chucked away)

IVF is also popular, so people are having more children anyway because they're twins or triplets. This dodges the restriction law.

But i agree, if we don't do something fast then things are gonna go pretty damn wrong. Anyone seen Doomsday? people are packed into street alleyways and this causes disease to spread (i'm not saying people are gonna start turning into zombies haha) and kill people off. No one wants that. We're also destroying the planet and being rather selfish.

I'm pretty sure that when i want kids, I'll adopt I don't care where people come from, so it won't really bother me if the child isn't actually mine. If everyone had one kid of their own and adopted however many more they wanted, wouldn't it improve things dramatically?

No, not really. The only place I think you should be able to have one kid is in China. Because thier population is outragously high, but in the US. I don't really think so, people die of natural causes every day. Not to mention human causes, like war. People are always going to find a way to get gas, food, etc.. That would be so funny if one day they had to use potatoes for electricity.
I mean look at this we've got all those crops in the US (mostly in CA) for food, we've got solar panels for electricity, and we've got plastic (yeah plastic, did anyone know that plastic was made out of oil?) that floats into the middle of the ocean and sinks to the bottom of the ocean and sits there for hundreds of years and eventualy turns back into oil. So unless another ice age happens, I think everyone is going to be OK. At least in my lifetime. Anybody with me?

Originally Posted by WarBenifit156

I think everyone is going to be OK. At least in my lifetime. Anybody with me?

No, that kind of thinking leads to inaction and complacency. Try to think beyond yourself and not fuck up the planet for future generations, OK ?

Originally Posted by WarBenifit156

No, not really. The only place I think you should be able to have one kid is in China. Because thier population is outragously high, but in the US. I don't really think so, people die of natural causes every day. Not to mention human causes, like war. People are always going to find a way to get gas, food, etc.. That would be so funny if one day they had to use potatoes for electricity.
I mean look at this we've got all those crops in the US (mostly in CA) for food, we've got solar panels for electricity, and we've got plastic (yeah plastic, did anyone know that plastic was made out of oil?) that floats into the middle of the ocean and sinks to the bottom of the ocean and sits there for hundreds of years and eventualy turns back into oil. So unless another ice age happens, I think everyone is going to be OK. At least in my lifetime. Anybody with me?

Well I agree with all the solar panels and stuff but... really, we're on our way to destruction.

I don't like to think of it as just our survival, but animals too. I dunno about anyone else but i hate the thought of killing loads of animals and taking away their homes. We're killing the planet and there's nothing they can do, it's up to us.

As for the "not in our generation" stuff... It might be. The death rate is lower than our birth rate (those who've studied biology will certainly know this) so therefore our population everywhere is on the rise, fast. Medicine is getting better and better. And there are people out there who aren't bothering to use a condom so more and more people are getting knocked up. And there are people who have 10 kids to get more benifits, the list goes on.

Maybe reincarnation DOES happen. You can't know for sure, so you never know. Maybe we'll all there when things go to pot. If that's true then... karma

i hate the thought of killing loads of animals

Well they don't care about you. You may refuse to kill them but they wouldn't hesitate to kill you may the need arise.

This discussion is ridiculous.

There is absolutely no way a one child policy will ever be adopted in the U.S.. If it were adopted it would create a huge war between two opposing forces, where in the end, soooo many people would be dead from it that the illogical reasoning for originally having the one child policy wouldn't even matter in the first place due to the population being decimated.

Screw a caste system.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

our population everywhere is on the rise, fast. Medicine is getting better and better. And there are people out there who aren't bothering to use a condom so more and more people are getting knocked up. And there are people who have 10 kids to get more benifits, the list goes on.

Is there any medicine for alcohol, smoking, drugs, radiation, war, texting/talking on the phone while driving? Have you heard about the soldiers that come home today? The millitary is so despirite that they don't care if your addicted to drugs. They'll take anyone these days, as for the soldiers who come home. Half of them are hooked on drugs, were at war because of everyone who bring illegal drugs to the US.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

Maybe reincarnation DOES happen. You can't know for sure, so you never know. Maybe we'll all there when things go to pot. If that's true then... karma

Well if I see George Washington I'll let you know. There's alot worse drugs than pot. Drugs such as Cocaine, (I spelled that wrong?) Heroin, Meth, etc.. Pot users don't want to hurt anybody, they just want to hang out. And I've never heard of anybody dying from Pot, Weed, Mary Jane, whatever you want to call it.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

i hate the thought of killing loads of animals and taking away their homes. We're killing the planet and there's nothing they can do, it's up to us.

Well, the fact is that humans half to survive too. I don't know about you but I bet Bambie likes those logging roads that they closed down because they can get to places easier. Also if you've ever been to Oregon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. There are alot of animals. I've seen bears, deers, chipmonks, squirrles, eagles, bear cubs, otters, etc.. Just hike around in Yellowstone or Oregon for a while and you'll see how many animals there are. Also how are we killing our planet? Look at the biggest volcano on Earth, Yellowstone. If that volcano went off, it would kill most of the population on Earth. I think you worry too much.

This argument is starting to get rediculas (spelled it wrong) so I'm probably not going to post anymore on this thread.

But one more question that you and I would probably argue with, do you believe in Global Warming?

There are some people who just shouldn't reproduce. In an ideal world, people would be cut off from their reproductive cells until they prove they can use them responsibly. You have to pass a test to adopt, but literally anyone with some sperm and a set of working ovaries can have a child. It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by WarBenifit156

Is there any medicine for alcohol, smoking, drugs, radiation, war, texting/talking on the phone while driving? Have you heard about the soldiers that come home today? The millitary is so despirite that they don't care if your addicted to drugs. They'll take anyone these days, as for the soldiers who come home. Half of them are hooked on drugs, were at war because of everyone who bring illegal drugs to the US.



Well if I see George Washington I'll let you know. There's alot worse drugs than pot. Drugs such as Cocaine, (I spelled that wrong?) Heroin, Meth, etc.. Pot users don't want to hurt anybody, they just want to hang out. And I've never heard of anybody dying from Pot, Weed, Mary Jane, whatever you want to call it.



Well, the fact is that humans half to survive too. I don't know about you but I bet Bambie likes those logging roads that they closed down because they can get to places easier. Also if you've ever been to Oregon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. There are alot of animals. I've seen bears, deers, chipmonks, squirrles, eagles, bear cubs, otters, etc.. Just hike around in Yellowstone or Oregon for a while and you'll see how many animals there are. Also how are we killing our planet? Look at the biggest volcano on Earth, Yellowstone. If that volcano went off, it would kill most of the population on Earth. I think you worry too much.

This argument is starting to get rediculas (spelled it wrong) so I'm probably not going to post anymore on this thread.

But one more question that you and I would probably argue with, do you believe in Global Warming?

Well uh, first things first, I'm British. In Britain the army/royal marines etc don't take on just anyone. I've just visited my brother to see his training and I don't think i saw one drug addict there because they wouldn't pass the medical, so i doubt they'd pass the training. Maybe america is different but... I really doubt that they'd just let anyone into their military. There are so many people signing up nowadays that they can afford to be choosey

"Things go to pot." Sorry if you misunderstood, it must only be a british saying. It's a phrase that pretty much means "if things get bad". I didn't mean the drug

Never been to any of those places so i wouldn't know. But yeah I still think it's kinda sad about animals and stuff And I don't worry about this stuff, this thread just got me thinking.

But yeah i agree with you about the drugs, alcohol etc. But it still doesn't tip the balance

In the modern society there are a lot of leechers(at least in my country), who get pregnant, meanwhile they beat themselves so they will have a mentally/physically challenged kid, thus they get more money from the government. They get a lot of money and it's disgusting that taxpayers have to pay for such actions.

I can safely say that majority of the people are incapable of raising a kid. I mean that they aren't prepared being a parent. I never saw in my life such parents besides mine, who wouldn't shout at his kid for doing any minor childish stuff. Caring for a child is the most important fact in his/her life, since the developmental stage is extremely vulnerable, but 90% of parents aren't giving a shit.

But the law of nature is unwritten. You can have 32 children if you want to. I'm only planning 2 in the distant future.

Humans have to survive too

Yes but they don't need to over-run the planet. Yes there are animals in Yellowstone and Yosemite. There are a few corners of the world where they can still exist, mainly in places humans can't or don't want to live. Unfortunately, I have to drive thousands of miles to see a wolf. But I can't get away from people. Not that I don't like people, just that there are way too many of them. It is out of balance.

Even if we can feed every single person (which we can't) it still is out of balance. We can't just go destroying all the forests in order to make farms. California is turning into a desert because of farms. The world is becoming desertified.

I didn't think before I spoke earlier about rich and poor. I was just speaking what was in my mind at the moment. I think that I was thinking that the rich would breed themselves poorer while the poor would restrain themselves and be more prosperous in the next generation. For instance, if two poor people (and perhaps grandparents) combine their income it might be possible to send one child to the University. If a rich couple has ten children the inheritance will have to be split up 10 ways. And there are way way more poor people than rich people that the population would still decrease even if the rich could have three children. But you are right, this is an elite caste system and is getting into communism or the like.

Basically, I don't care who takes the initiative, poor or rich people, but someone has to. And it has to be a large segment of people who do, to make up for the people who don't. I think that it is a wise, conscious, responsible choice to do. Overpopulation is the root of all our problems. Overpopulation is why we consume so much resources, it is why the economy is crashing, it is why the environment is being destroyed, the oceans polluted, the forests killed, it is why there are so many wars...

Food is not the only issue, energy is the biggest issue. Right now the global economy is backed by energy, and mostly oil. The reason they are drilling in deep deep oceans now is because all the easy to get to places are tapped. This is the last of the oil. As it gets more and more scarce, prices go up. Having our food shipped from Mexico, California, and China, etc. takes a lot of gas. When gas costs $15 per gallon food will be too expensive for all except rich people, even if there is enough food for everyone. This is called inflation. If you haven't noticed it has been going on for 30 years gradually and slowly. It has been happening a lot faster in the past 10 years. The price of everything has increased, but people are being payed the same or less. We are losing jobs. Not because there isn't work to do, but because there isn't enough money to go around and it is worth less.

Energy is the real money. Yes, solar panels can make some electricity. But what about in winter? What about in foggy, rainy climates? We could get by on a survival level of electricity, but the way we are used to living is not sustainable. Grocery stores with open refrigerators and air conditionning with the front doors open. People leaving lights on and their computer on. If you covered your roof with solar panels you could not run your house. And what about in the city? There aren't enough roofs.

All our technology that we take for granted was made possible by discovering how to use oil. When we figured out how to use oil we had a cheap and seemingly endless supply of energy to fuel our scientific experiments. Now we are dependent on it. If the electricity went out for two weeks in a major city it would be as bad as Hurricane Katrina.

Anyway, I am ranting. Our population is a luxury we cannot afford. We either need to limit it voluntarily, or there will be famine and disease and natural disasters and war doing it for us. For those people saying "I am not going to let anybody tell me what I can do!": nobody should have to tell anybody what to do ideally, we should think about these things and take initiative ourselves. If everybody decided they weren't going to work anymore, we would all starve and die. Someone would have to make everyone go to work. That would be fascist. People need fascism to a degree when they don't take responsibility. I am not defending fascism, I am just saying how to prevent it.


Current population then and now clock

We don't need to see how high we can let the population go before it all falls apart. We don't need to bring it to the maximum possible limit and say "As long as we don't go higher than 8,000,000,000 we can just barely not kill ourselves!" Think about the quality of life for the children. Think about exercising your right to bring children into a global ghetto. Have ONE child, when you are ready, and teach him/her about how to make the world a better place, and how to live in a fucked up world without turning bitter. Prepare your child to be a survivor and to help others survive. Show your child love. But don't have two children. And definitely don't have three.