Printable View
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!
Well, in europe people should be encouraged, the native birthrate is sub 2.11 and thus is unsustainable. If we wish to be self sufficient without immigration we should enourage having children in the western world. Perhaps developing countries should place restrictions but that's up to them to decide.
62 million is enough (perhaps even too much) for the UK at least. Maybe a rate of around 1.95 should be aimed for but the current native rate of 1.6 (Last time I checked) is simply too little.
It would be wonderful if we could stop having children until all orphans are adopted out, then the world can continue makin' babies again.
i don't like kids and i'm never making any, so don't worry about me. i'm going to get sterilized when i can.
in my opinion, one of the most responsible things you can do is to not make any children. that relieves the burden those extra people would put on everyone else - no need to set aside any extra resources.
people who keep saying "the more the merrier" can go fuck a fruit basket.
If the government has this right, what else would this lead for them to enforce? preserving food consumption by governing how much food one family can buy? Governing the economy by setting restrictions on how much money a certatin family can make? To better then environemnt by governing and setting restrictions on the amount of miles you can drive your car a day?
Those examples may seem absurd now, but if you grant the government the right to control persoal freedoms like how many kids you can have, think about what else the governement might see fit to govern. It's giving the government too much power. I don't know about you, but thinking of the possibilty of having a government like that is a bit frightening.
Smart, wealthy people need to make more kids; dumb, poor people need to make less.Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
The dumb, poor people are most likely not going to stop making kids anytime soon, so if we don't then the next generation is gonna be composed solely of dumb, poor people.
bringing people out of poverty and educating them are the best ways to deal with overpopulation, especially in developing, third-world countries (the ones with insane growth rates).
i don't know why people say something like, "oh no the government is gonna go stipulatin' on us!"
we're not in china.
spart, i think you're putting too much emphasis on "smart genes." sorry, but that logic really comes across as racist or just socially darwinistic. and if these supposed smart people try to keep up with the dumb ones, we'll just have twice as many dumbfucks.
Its no bodies personal right to overpopulate this planet. You have 2 options, You can let the world overpopulate to much and have a plague come by and decrease our numbers drastically or you can regulate how may kids people have and over the next 200 years the population will decrease. Either way the numbers will decrease but atleast if you limit how many kids people have no one will have to suffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Repo!
You know what I mean, dumb as in uneducated. Thanks to wonderful capitalism, poorer people (which are quickly becoming the majority in North America) are unable to seek proper education, and thus are stuck in low-end jobs or even crime. Because of this their kids grow up in misery and are also unable to get education or good jobs. It's REALLY hard for the lower classes to break out of this cycle (but not hard at all for the higher classes to fall in it).Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
All I'm saying is that if you're in a position where you're wealthy and stable enough to properly raise a child and give him all the opportunities to be successful in life, then it is your "duty to humanity" to have kids.
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.
From a pragmatic perspective, no, it really doesn't matter what we do.
In time, as with all populations of organisms, we'll reach a population in balance with what the planet can sustain. Thermodynamics doesn't take any prisoners.
This might mean mass starvation in the near future, especially with oil running out. On the other hand, factors like economics may cause a more gradual transition. What we're actually currently seeing is birth rates declining worldwide. Hopefully that'll continue and somewhat dampen the violence of the transition.
But yeah. I don't worry about these things so much. When humans become concerned about nature... I always find that a rather arrogant position. Humans are nothing to the will of nature. If there are too many humans, nature will sort that out by herself.
The mistake here is equating population decrease with 'sustainability'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
It could well be the case that there are an excessive number of humans on the planet, so a decrease is in fact the sustainable option.
Before we started relying on hospitals and medicine to keep our population up and consistent, we were only having one or two children because the mortality rate was LOWER. Now, people are multiplying like flies because of both the increased amount of medicine and the lack of rule saying there's a limit. Now there's asses like the Gosselins having eighteen children, not only damaging the population but also donning a sort of "fake lifestyle" to their children. I agree 100% with the statement that there should be a child limit per family.
People don't need more than one or two children; it just gets too messy. Each new child to a parent will have half the attention they'd have received if they were the only child. Then there's the issue of poverty... I feel that there's not enough resources on the planet to keep all of us alive because there's too many of us to begin with.
:thumbup:Quote:
people who keep saying "the more the merrier" can go fuck a fruit basket.
I have to agree with Repo here... I'm all for not overpopulating the world, but I don't think the government should have the power to force people not to have babies.
IMHO having more than a few kids is just a lack of self-control, that should be controlled. We're clearly failing at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden
that's a little off - a higher mortality rate actually means that people have more children. the point is that the infant mortality rate in developed countries is lower, life expectancy is up, and it's more sensible to not have such large families. those in developing nations have such a high rate of population growth partly because they need children to support them, especially as they age. [edit: this is also caused, worldwide, by women having children earlier in life - which is strongly related to education]Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
again,Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden
the government has more of a responsibility to address these things more competently, and actual control like you mention is very unlikely to happen in the western world.Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
Ah, well... :P I knew what I was trying to get at.
Erm... Source? From what I've read, people have less children now than they did before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
Yes, although I think there are also benefits to having siblings.Quote:
People don't need more than one or two children; it just gets too messy. Each new child to a parent will have half the attention they'd have received if they were the only child. Then there's the issue of poverty... I feel that there's not enough resources on the planet to keep all of us alive because there's too many of us to begin with.
It's more than just a simple lack of self-control. I'd say it's more from poverty and a lack of education. The general trend seems to be that more affluent families have less children than poorer ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
Edit: Sniped.
@cygnus: Well then, bring people out of poverty and educate them if that will deal with overpopulation. I was only trying to say that the government shouldn't be able to directly limit the number of children a couple can have (which probably wouldn't happen anyway, as you said, so it's kind of a moot point).
Overall trends say our population is going up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden
this is also because of fundamentalists who think contraception is evil because according to their religion, every sexual act must be an act open to life and between two married people - assuming the woman is a virgin before the marriage or she'd have to be killed. so be abstinent or just take it in the ear \sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by Hidden
in addition, that kind of control wouldn't happen because the christians who run this country also believe that it's virtuous to have a number of children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden
as i said earlier, people have fewer children in developed nations. this doesn't consider overall population growth and especially high rates of growth in developing nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
our population is growing exponentially.
during my first year in a university the world population was 6.5 billion, now it's fucking 6.8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
That's what I meant to say. :P The population may still be going up, but its rate of growth is going down.Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
yeah, that's the thing... the death rate went down and the birth rate went up after the industrial revolution. for a country to survive and do well, the birth rate needs to be much closer to the death rate (as is the case in many european countries).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden
human population growth
ok, i'm going to summarize part of this with the difference between a more developed nation with no overpopulation (sweden) with one that's less developed and has population issues (mexico)
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...s/S/Sweden.gif
notice how in sweden the death rate fell coinciding with the industrial revolution. but more importantly, the birth rate gradually fell so that they are now more or less at equilibrium, an example of responsible population management.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...s/M/Mexico.gif
so, mexico is very different. the death rate fell, too, but look at how the birth rate is still very high. the rate of natural increase is much much higher, and this puts a lot of strain on the entire population - mexico is definitely not one of the more well-off countries.
indeed the world birth rate should be slowed but in europe it needs to be increased slightly.
Saying dumb people should have less kids would end disasterously. Would 5 GCSE's equate to a pregnancy licence? The thing is, the more educated people complain about the fact that less educated people have higher birthrates, then refuse to have children.
when are you people going to separate "dumb" and "uneducated"?
goddammit, they're not interchangeable.
spartiate just had to use that phrasing
q(-_-)
Normally, this falls under my "all people have all rights to do all things, so long as they hurt no other people or the environment" rule, but this gets a little bit dicey. One has the right to have as many children as they want, but overpopulation is something that would severely affect other people and the environment.
We've either hit or are about to hit the so-called "peak oil" phenomenon, and cheap energy has largely been what has enabled the human population to grow and develop so much. Modern agriculture relies on petroleum; anyone who says that organic or fossil fuel-free systems will sustain our current expanding population is very stupid. If we continue to grow, shit will hit the fan pretty hard when it finally does.
I wouldn't be one to place a fixed limit on the children per family ratio. It somehow feels wrong to do that, and especially wrong to give the government that kind of control over my personal life. Maybe a prohibitive tax structure should be used instead? It kind of follows along the line of "more children=greater burden on society." You can have all of the children you want, but you will pay for them.
holy shit imagine what the tea baggers would say to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odd_Nonposter
but yeah, i like your idea.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
So to tell your developed world compatriots to have zero kids would just worsen the problem. Aim for sustainability, not decrease.
Sorry, English as a second language :PQuote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturos
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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.....
But then Hell would be overpopulated, it's bad enough down there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamsun
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradysdreaming
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?
Thats basically why I said what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
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 :panic: (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? :D
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?
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 :)?Quote:
Originally Posted by WarBenifit156
Well I agree with all the solar panels and stuff but... really, we're on our way to destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by WarBenifit156
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 :lol:
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.Quote:
i hate the thought of killing loads of animals
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspberry
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspberry
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspberry
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.
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 :shadewink:Quote:
Originally Posted by WarBenifit156
"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 :shock: 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 :cheeky:
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.
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.Quote:
Humans have to survive too
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.
We all know that this law wont be passed... This is just a hypothetical disscusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis
Basing how many children one can have simply upon numbers is as brilliant as a burnt out light bulb.
It is amasing, that given the chance to say something intelligent, people avoid it like the plague.
It is by definition that a living organism competes for its existence. Removing the competition negates evolution.
The intelligence of humanity has been on a decline with the advent of civilized culture---because man is too stupid to begin with to know how to establish a civil state without violating what he must be. The use of technology to replace human functioning instead of using it to augment it.
The mind learns by experience, remove the experiences and one removes the learning. Intelligence declines. Social Structure as it stands promotes human decadence.
Increase population invokes stress, people are once again challenged. Intelligence in a segment increases, at least for a time.
Now, man can choose to let his future be guided by his own stupidity, and therefor it becomes simply an accident if he lives or not, or he can grow a damn brain.
Perhaps humans can evolve to consciously take control of their own population and evolution? This hasn't happened in the rest of the animal, plant, fungal, etc. kingdoms that I am aware of.
Lovely, my post didn't post. Humans are the only known species to go to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Needless to say, it is an illusion. I wish people wouldn't be so stupid and repeat the same mistakes.
Joy, that is what matters. Regardless of thinking on this single topic, things will work out or the planet will purge us to the point we are manageable. A purge by the planet is painless, but it is definitely meaningful in the sense of failure. For all we know, this could be our third trimester. Who wants to chance it? Don't be naive. Don't believe everything you hear. Listen to your heart.
The world is indeed the grand parent. Do you know what immorality is? Most likely, you just don't remember.
I believe people should be more educated about what a carrying capacity is and how rapidly our population is increasing. We haven't hit our carrying capacity, but when we do all hell will break loose.
People will die of starvation faster, more widely, and disease will (in the hopes of a balance-seeker) help lower our population to a more sustainable level.
I think people should be able to have as many kids as they like
Its their own personal right and I dont think you should take that away
me, im only having one of my own kids. if I want more ill adopt
this wouldn't be a bad method. but people would probably have a problem with it too
I do kinda think sometimes that people should have to pass a test in order to become parents but then there would be a whole lot more orphans . And then they should be tested like every two years following, and if you fail the government will take your precious baby away
there is no better motivation.
and then they will know the things they should
could not agree more with you. the problem isnt with over population in general. its over population of dumb shits. the kind of people that live at wal mart and think the tv is reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
That isn't true. I believe there are species of insects that go to war all the time, examples are ants and possibly bees. Granted not on the same scale as humanity, that is just a by product of civilization. I believe rival bands of chimpanzees even have "battles" from time to time. War and violence are as integral as love and peace in the minds of human beings, whether you are aware of it or not. It's anything but an illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis
Dumb poor people generally do the physical labor for the smart, wealthy people. Have you ever seen a wealthy smart person lifting beams at a construction site?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Also, some wealthy people are not smart, just lucky *cough PARIS HILTON cough*.
Please read Huxley's Brave New World.
There needs to be a balance of poor dumb people and rich smart people for a society to be productive. If everyone is poor, there are no employers. If everyone is rich, there are no employees. Can you imagine the Monopoly Guy driving a truck full of lumber? I can't.
Where was I going with this? Oh right, restrictions on the number of children an individual can have. For everybody, no more than 2 should be the result of sex. Feel free to adopt, though. That's my thought. Children are disgusting.
However, America fears communists and restrictions on God's commandment to "bear fruit," which is a shame because I don't think God said, "F:shock:k like rabbits," but whatever. Education is very important, I think, whether there are restrictions of baby making or not.
Sorry for the double post.
Restricting the number of children produced would be a societal evolution, as it would help prevent overpopulation. In my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
How about this? Instead of tossing around theoretical "BAN ALL SECOND SIBLINGS" laws or arguing over what the right number of kids is, we focus on creating a society where people with more kids than they can count on one hand are shunned for the irresponsible overbreeders that they are? Outlawing things is dangerous, because the government really has no role in the bedroom unless someone's getting murdered. Shifting the societal expectation to "less kids is more responsible" and "adoption makes real families too" and away from the idea that it's better to harvest sperm and eggs from healthy people and make test tube babies than it is to adopt from some poor teenager who made a mistake.
I thought we already had that...Quote:
Originally Posted by katemorrigan
Last I checked "shunning" and "giving them a reality TV show" weren't the same thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
Overpopulation, in the long term, reduces the quality of life of everyone in a country. A government has the right to step in and prevent this from happening. Your right to bear children doesn't override the right of others to live in a stable and productive society that can't exist with overpopulation.
Want to bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by horsey101
yes? That's not much of a rebuttal...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis
Here's what happens when you meet and exceed the carrying capacity of the earth: people start dying as fast or faster than they're born. One of the greatest threats from overpopulation is that with such a high volume of people, many will be forced to live in close, cramped quarters. Places like these are a breeding ground for traditional viruses, but also new and far more lethal ones. It would take one solid virus to wipe out billions. This is not a question of if, but when. Then you face other problems like energy production and consumption, as well as food and fresh water. The American lifestyle is not immune to the effects of overpopulation.
Most definitely, so you should go read my original comments I made in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by horsey101
There isn't overpopulating problem worth mentioning in Europe... no idea about US. The real problem imho are muslims. Nothing against them in general, but if i remember right, their birth rates should be something around 8. Not much to do with self control either like somebody mentioned here. Just religion and traditions mostly. Look their population and do the math... Frightening numbers if you ask me.
Indeed, very good point. The way to stop overpopulation in North America/Europe is by substantially reducing immigration (with no muslim immigration at all ideally).
Ideally, this would be a good idea, but practically, though, I think that this would be very unlikely. There would be a load of protest and suggestions of bigotry and whatnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
I've no doubt there would be mass protests if one were to suggest a reduction in muslim immigration whislt others would rejoyce. People may one day realise practicality does not equal bigotry.
The practical thing to do would be to place restrictions on all citizens and all immigrants, the bigoted thing to do would be to single out a certain population due to their ethnicity or their religious beliefs. You are deluding yourself if you think your opinion on this matter isn't bigoted.
Trying to reduce population growth from the top down with population controls just introduces new complications. The one factor that reliably lowers birth rates is education, so rather than wasting time telling people what they "should" do, try opening a school in the Third World.
is there anything more evil than a concentrated effort to depopulate certain groups of people? i agree we need education. not starvation, not sterilization, not abortions. we could all use a little more education...(not the establishment education of course)
Sorry if someone's already pointed his out, but, no, it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnus
It's still growing at a very high rate, but in recent years that rate has steadily decreased as people in developed countries choose to have less children in order to save more money for themselves (lol) so technically it's not exponential growth any more.
I have to agree with Spartiate here, go on about educating the poor masses and all that, and globalizing contraception or whatnot, but the reality is -- it's not going to happen.
Keep dreaming.
A more realistic approach would be to do absolutely nothing.
Baby factories like India and China will be stricken by plague and lack of sufficient food resources, there will be death on a massive scale, and meanwhile the wealthy people in the elite countries, with their much-lower, more sustainable rate of reproduction and better technology, will be fine.
The population will be much reduced (or at least stabilized), and the average intelligence of those remaining will increase!
And what's more, we don't even have to do anything!
Win-win! :P
Call me a cynic but that's my take on it
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Colonies of ants go to war all the time. Have you ever heard of the Soldier Ant?Quote:
Humans are the only known species to go to war.
More importantly:
To poopman: establishment education? What, so you believe in Time Cube or something? Look, it doesn't make the laws of physics wrong if the so-called establishment teaches them.
To Thatperson: Reducing immigration isn't going to help anything. Most of our population increase comes from people who are already in the nation. Most of the population is congregated in small clusters in different parts of the country, with thousands upon thousands of square miles in between. All we need to do is start building in those areas.
Furthermore, humans have been able to raise their carrying capacity through technology, but that only goes so far: when we breach it, people are going to die. I'd say about 30% of the world's population will remain, at best.