Should a Child Limit be put in place??

[jfs123]

I believe that a child limit of 3-4 should be put in place as we are becoming to large of a population for this planet I think it should be in place for at least 100 years also

What do you think??

 

[4745454b]

While not "PC" I prefer world wars. Jocks go off and kill each other, while us geeks stay behind and advance technology at a faster pace and add some IQ back into the gene pool. Kill enough people and your population problem goes away, but unlike your idea you get all that cool new tech. (think about what was developed for WWII.)

 

[jfs123]

That is True but we couldn't go to the World leaders and tell them to kill each other but we could tell them to put a child limit in place

 

[4745454b]

Seeing as there is no world leader, not a problem. We could just do what has been done before. Promise something to X country, while building up their neighbor. Then when things "explode", just move in. With any luck it will take several years for the conflict to resolve, helping the population to decrease. Ugly, but probably needs to be done every now and then.

 

[Reynod]

Yes we should ... unfortunately I have had 4 already.

Sorry bout that ...

I won't do it anymore !!

 

[jfs123]

lol well as I said 4 I believe is enough but its when people have like 6-10 and then cant afford them then apply for benefits or get rid of them. and its gotten to the fact that people purposely have 6-10 for the child benefits

Which a child limit should fix

 

[jitpublisher]

You should only be able to claim benefits, tax deductions, etc for 3 children, after that you are on your own, period.

 

[jfs123]

Ok that solves the Money problem but not the Increasing population

But its a correct point

 

[johnners2981]

there should be more priests about, parents might stop havin so many kids then

 

[4745454b]

Most if not all states have fixed that. They have whats called your MAP if I remember right, and it can't really be increased. Each family member counts as one, and only those born up to 12months after signing up will increase the MAP. Any other kids born afterwards won't count.

Here I was thinking you were talking about a total population thing, not an economic thing.

 

[jfs123]

I am talking about the total population but the total population has effects on the economy and the environment

 

[jfs123]

Wars and Sterilization are probably the most effective ways but they will never be enforced (well wars might but not for the reason of decreasing our population) what I am saying is that you have a choice to have kids but just don't have so many to our population stays at a healthy balance and at the moment I believe it needs to be decreased slightly

 

[jfs123]

I see what you mean but we couldn't say to eastern countries you must have a limit of 3-4 but we are allowed as many as we like ....Though that could probably start a war which would decrease the world population . what we could do though is set it for everybody but there will still be a war as it will effect human rights and their religion and people are very touchy when it comes to religion

 

[wanamingo]

[Devils Advocate]

But this is America no one can tell me how many children I can have. My religion states that my reproductive organs are there only for reproduction and I'm to have as many children as possible before my vagina literally falls off.

[/devils advocate]


Chinas One child Policy is finally starting to have some severly negative consequences http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704463804576291010133986864.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

China now has less younger working in its economy supporting more old people. If we did implement (Which I think we should) breeding restrictions it would have to be more gradual then what China has in place......Oh yeah and it should have been implemented decades ago.

 

[jfs123]

im pretty sure China has stopped the one child rule about 1-2 years ago

 

[rolli59]

A good reading material about the aging population http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/
The problem is we are not dying soon enough!

 

[4745454b]

Thats a huge part of the problem. Not only do we not die fast enough, but we put a drain on the younger generation to support us. Toss in the medical strains from caring for the elderly, and you get a huge part of the problems you have with the medical field today. Its horrible to suggest this, but perhaps we should do what Kelon 2 (ST:TNG) does and have people kill themselves when they reach X age. (don't forget to harvest useable parts so people can get new cornea's, livers, kidneys, hearts, etc.)

At what point does the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

 

[buwish]

Overpopulation is not a problem now, at least in the sense that we still have food to eat (at least in the Western world), but one day it will be. Thomas Malthus, a 19th century scholar of sorts proposed a theory that is known today as "Malthusian Hell." The theory suggests that while the population grows exponentially, the food supply will only grow geometrically. In other words, we'll run out of food eventually if the population keeps expanding at this rate.

Having a child limit is probably the best solution to curb this issue. Other means of "population control," such as diseases have been kept in check thanks to modern medicine. I don't want anything like that to happen, but the point is that something has to be done eventually or we'll run out of food and other resources one day down the road.

 

[buwish]

At this point, no it isn't the cause of world conflict. World conflict right now is more who controls the resources, rather than the amount of resources used. Yes, you can say that China's industrialization has driven up prices of raw materials, but they'll make it to a post industrial economy eventually.

I agree that most Western nations are at a point now where replacement rates are just maintaining the population. People are having less kids these days, plain and simple. The brunt of the world's population can be found in China and India, obviously. Combined they make up 2.54 billion people or roughly 37% of the world's 6.91 billion people. The US on the other hand only makes up 4.5% of the world's population at number three and the percentages go down and down as you make your way down the list.

If China didn't control so many resources, I could careless about how big their population gets. Yet they do control many vital resources and needless to say, those 1.3 billion people will use such resources rather quickly, regardless of lifestyle.

 

[swifty_morgan]

I think we should feed Chinese kids to those poor starving Africans.

 

[Reynod]

Good to see you popping down here swifty !!

Not sure i can agree with your strategy though.

What would be great would be the Chinese helping the African's with farming technology to improve their food output ... thus helping feed the world.

If the Western world would "remove" these tin pot despots who are tearing the country apart so stable government could be formed, then they would have a base on which to build a better agrarian society ... instead of falling back to primitive hunter-gatherer or feudal messes.

I guess that is what you really meant to say eh?

lol ...

 

[buwish]

If the Western world would "remove" these tin pot despots who are tearing the country apart so stable government could be formed, then they would have a base on which to build a better agrarian society ... instead of falling back to primitive hunter-gatherer or feudal messes.

Thomas Jefferson would like you reynod.

 

[4745454b]

What would be great would be the Chinese helping the African's with farming technology to improve their food output ... thus helping feed the world.

If the Western world would "remove" these tin pot despots who are tearing the country apart so stable government could be formed, then they would have a base on which to build a better agrarian society

Oh if it were that simple. It was my Geography instructor in college who explained this concept to me. I'll give it a shot. "Some countries will never become super powers. It has nothing to do with the people, or their work ethic. Earth's climate simply won't allow it. An example would be the islands around Cuba. Even if they all banded together and shared resources, Earth will simply send a Hurricane and everything will get wiped out. Again. Hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, expanding deserts, etc will all stop these countries from being able to become like we are. Even if we stopped to help them, it would again all get wiped out in a few years."

So even if China or the USA tried to help some of these countries, it wouldn't make any difference. I say don't waste the $$$.

 

[Reynod]

There is not the stable geography / temperate climate issue in Africa in terms of the middle down ... essentially after the British and French pulled out ofter "Colonialism" the power vacuum created never resolved into stable govt.

 

[4745454b]

Perhaps for some areas. Other areas like Egypt don't have the same climate concerns and have become a super power at some point. However that doesn't mean any area will be able to do this. Some will be slaves of their spot on earth and will forever (or until global warming comes in and changes things) be a "lower" society.