Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Should a Child Limit be put in place??

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
May 4, 2011 9:14:44 AM

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??

More about : child limit put place

May 4, 2011 9:32:28 AM

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.)
May 4, 2011 9:38:54 AM

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
Related resources
May 4, 2011 9:47:29 AM

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.
May 4, 2011 10:10:06 AM

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

Sorry bout that ...

I won't do it anymore !!

:) 
May 4, 2011 10:15:49 AM

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
May 4, 2011 10:54:42 AM

You should only be able to claim benefits, tax deductions, etc for 3 children, after that you are on your own, period.
May 4, 2011 10:57:49 AM

Ok that solves the Money problem but not the Increasing population

But its a correct point
May 4, 2011 11:25:19 AM

there should be more priests about, parents might stop havin so many kids then
May 4, 2011 11:48:36 AM

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.
May 4, 2011 11:52:03 AM

I am talking about the total population but the total population has effects on the economy and the environment
May 4, 2011 1:26:32 PM

The historic method of population control used by the ruling elite has always been wars, plagues, and starvation. When a global government is finally established they will most likely move to a more "humane" and less destructive method of population control such as lethal injections and gas chambers. Or, they might just sterilize a segment of the population and wait for them to die out of natural causes.
May 4, 2011 3:35:48 PM

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
May 4, 2011 4:36:31 PM

Indeed wars have been used in this way. Add up the all the deaths from all the wars just in the 20th century. WWI and II alone total almost 90 million. That includes civilian deaths.

For the ruling elite, wars have a dual purpose. Profiteering and thinning out the population at the same time.

Hitler used the war to seize the assets of the Jews and the other "undesirables" and then attempted to eliminate that entire segment of our population.

Remember, the ruling elite see the world as a giant chess game, lasting decades or even centuries; and they are very patient.
May 4, 2011 9:33:40 PM

In addition, traditional Europe can no longer sustain their population. It is now irreversible. The USA is barely keeping up with an average of 2.3 children per household which is the the minimum sustainable rate. The birthrate in Muslim countries averages 8-12 children per household. I'm not certain what the rates are in Mexico, India, southeast Asia. Africa, or South America.

So, when you talk of putting limits on childbirth per household, who exactly are you talking about? It seems you don't have to worry about Europe or the USA, nor Canada. All of the population growth in the those countries is directly attributed to immigration; legal or otherwise.
May 5, 2011 8:06:14 AM

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 :p  . 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
May 5, 2011 2:32:21 PM

[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/SB10001424052748704463804...

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.
May 5, 2011 2:39:51 PM

im pretty sure China has stopped the one child rule about 1-2 years ago
May 5, 2011 2:40:03 PM

We also abort a lot of babies in the USA. A large chunk of those being in the African-American community. In New York city alone, 69% of black pregnancies are aborted. Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, a eugenics advocate, to eliminate "the undesirables" from society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
May 5, 2011 4:10:40 PM

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?
May 5, 2011 5:35:31 PM

Well 47, if we just start teaching, at an early age, that if the one takes care of oneself, then the reliance on "the many" will be drastically reduced and the problem will mostly solve itself. Of course we have a moral obligation to take care of those that can't care for themselves, but as long as we keep fostering the thought and belief that it's societies job to "take care of me" then your plan to off people at age 60 might just actually happen in the future. Or, go even further and make it 30 like in Logan's Run.
May 7, 2011 2:37:48 PM

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.
May 7, 2011 3:12:50 PM

buwish said:
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.


The problem is, who is overpopulating? It's not traditional Europe. Their population is in decline. It's not the U.S., we are barely maintaining our population at 2.3 per household (not counting illegal immigration). It's not Canada, their population is also in decline, minus immigration. I was surprised recently to find out that pretty much the entire far west of Canada is now Chinese.

So, population control. Is this the real source of world conflict?
May 7, 2011 10:14:46 PM

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.
May 8, 2011 12:33:23 AM

I think we should feed Chinese kids to those poor starving Africans.
May 8, 2011 7:00:32 AM

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 ...
May 8, 2011 8:38:24 AM

Reynod said:


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. ;) 
May 8, 2011 11:44:38 AM

Quote:
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 $$$.
May 8, 2011 11:51:23 AM

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.

May 8, 2011 12:58:38 PM

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.
May 8, 2011 1:08:44 PM

A couple of thousand years ago Egypt was THE Superpower !!
May 8, 2011 1:46:06 PM

Practically everyone here is ignoring the Muslim problem. I work with Saudi soldiers that have 2 o 3 wives and 8, 10, or 12 children. Look at the Bin Laden (father to Osama) family. At least he can afford to take care of his family.
May 8, 2011 3:44:21 PM

Reynod said:
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.



It is already in the works Reynod, and has been for some time.

http://www.africom.mil/
May 8, 2011 10:39:36 PM

Maybe we just need to "thin the herd" the good old German way. Chuck all the Jews ,Gypsys, Homosexuals, Grandma, with her colostomy bag, anyone with-out blue eyes into a work camp. If the Russians sign on we can put the camps in Siberia on the foundation of the gulags. Oh yes no 4 eyed glasses wearing defectives allowed to breed either. Oh it will be a great leap forward and no one will cry a trail of tears for anyone who isn't them.
May 8, 2011 11:40:42 PM

Quote:
When the snow hits, just grab a 6 pack


I think you forgot the alcoholics.
May 9, 2011 1:59:11 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
When the snow hits, just grab a 6 pack


I think you forgot the alcoholics.

Only if they wear glasses.
May 9, 2011 5:31:09 PM

It's ironic how we try and stop animals like cats, dogs, rabbits, etc... from breeding uncontrollably, yet it's what we do. I'm a big fan of animals, especially many of those on the endangered list across the world. They have as much of a right to be here as us- nature and evolution has said so. Eventually though, there won't be anything left due to over population. Yet another casualty of our breeding habits.

Again, I'm not saying kill a bunch of people to make room for animals. The point is that the balance of the natural order has been thrown off. I suspect though that one day mother nature will find a way to restore the balance, whether we like it or not.

Not to mention things like asteroids, comets, etc... are always a threat. Remember, it's a big ass sky fellas.
May 9, 2011 5:41:11 PM

buwish said:
It's ironic how we try and stop animals like cats, dogs, rabbits, etc... from breeding uncontrollably, yet it's what we do. I'm a big fan of animals, especially many of those on the endangered list across the world. They have as much of a right to be here as us- nature and evolution has said so. Eventually though, there won't be anything left due to over population. Yet another casualty of our breeding habits.

Again, I'm not saying kill a bunch of people to make room for animals. The point is that the balance of the natural order has been thrown off. I suspect though that one day mother nature will find a way to restore the balance, whether we like it or not.

Not to mention things like asteroids, comets, etc... are always a threat. Remember, it's a big ass sky fellas.


Indeed: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/09/big-asteroids...

Mother Nature does try to balance things out. We just interefere with that balancing act becuase we a compassionate people. We can't just sit around and watch millions of people starve to death. So, we send in the marines' meals on wheels program to take care of it thus upsetting mother nature's attempt at balance.

I argue with people where I live all the time about deer hunting. They can't seem to understand that hunting them to control the population is far more humane then letting them over breed, and then die slowly of starvation and disease.

I think we agree that population management is one of the biggest issues facing this planet and our existence and some sort of management needs to exist. The big question is, who gets to decide? Obama? The Bilderburgs? Queen Elizabeth? The idea that politicians get to make the decision who lives and who is a "worthless eater" makes me cringe.
May 9, 2011 9:46:35 PM

No, politicians should not decide, nor do they have the right. Of course, the Chinese have done so, but that is wrong. It may be stabilizing their population, but most here would agree that abandoning baby girls just because the parents wanted a boy is wrong on so many levels (boys are prized in China).

I think it is a decision that all of us need to come to on an individual basis. It won't happen until the effects of over population hit home, but it very well may eventually. I suspect that no Western politician will even udder such words in this century- it would be career suicide. But to counter that, just like every other creature on this planet, we are programmed to proliferate our genes at any cost. It's very hard to counter instinct.

I don't have any kids (much less a girlfriend- hallelujah- I rather enjoy doing what I want, when I want right now). I've actually thought long and hard about whether it would be a good idea to introduce a new human to the world one day, much less in America where a single person consumes so many resources. I haven't really arrived a decision, but I would be satisfied with one child- good enough- the genes have been passed on.

And yes, I did hear about the asteroid that will be making a close approach in November. Evidently it will be closer than the moon at some point. It should make for an interesting night sky if it can be seen. It makes you think though, as it takes just one asteroid to end it all or most of it. It's a shame that Jupiter didn't grab it and give us yet another cosmic firework show, i.e. the 1994 comet, 2009, and 2010 impacts. Heck, without Jupiter's massive gravity grabbing every rogue object we probably wouldn't be here.
May 9, 2011 9:55:13 PM

Politicians will have the right if we give it to them. Politicians do talk about it, they just use high brow words like "sustainability" and phraseslike "be more GREEN". In the end, that's what they are talking about. i.e. We are using to many resources so we need to get rid of the worthless eaters. Of course they don't, and can't use those words in public so they shroud those agendas in wonderful sounding terms to get sheeple to blindly follow not realizing they are voting for their own demise.
May 9, 2011 10:07:40 PM

At this point I think a lot of the sustainability talk is about resources, energy, etc...- not life. Most Western nations want their populations to grow, not decline. Why do you think you get tax credits for having kids? Heck, the Russians were offering something like 20K rubles per kid or maybe still are due to their population declining faster than most industrialized nations. By 2050 it is estimated that their population will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 111 million- down from today's 143 million. They have Stalin and communism to thank for that. Stalin is estimated to have been responsible for over 60 million deaths during his tenure. With numbers that high, not to mention WWII losses, the Russians had to know that their population would decline in less than 3 generations.
May 9, 2011 10:59:39 PM

Regulated population control is silly. You see the problem is that resources are limited and we are all in competition for those limited resources. If one group decides to limit its population growth is all it does is create a vacuum for another group to step into.
We see this today in Europe. The 'intelligent' Europeans decided that they would not make babies anymore. So what is happening? Is their population going down? Yes, the native European popultaion is shrinking and being replaced by the overflow from other parts of the world where they still have no problems with having babies. Go watch the movie 'Idiocracy' to see what the end result of pupulation control would be...
I am an ecologist. There are four main ways in which a natural population is limited in its growth.
1 - Predation - People have few predators, 'nuff said. Inter-species competition
2 - Disease - This could happen. Look up the Spanish flu pandemic that occured about 100 years ago. It infected one third of the world's populace within 18 months. Modern medicine is really good most of the dead could have been saved with a simple aspirin to bring down their fever. This is actually a sub category of predation. I guess we do have predators...
3 - Competition - One group of a species dominates another and takes the resources. We call this War. Ecologists call it Intra-species competition
4 - Niche Collapse - The resources needed for a species to survive run out. The population crashes and if there are survivors they either use what little remains of the required resources or they adapt to use other resources.

This is why population control can't work...
Scenario 1 - You decide to not have kids - your genes are removed from the gene pool. Then your resources are used by the guy next to you that decided to have 10 kids.
Scenario 2 - You decide to have a 1-2 kids. The guy with 10 kids comes over with his horde and takes your resources. Your genes are removed from the gene pool.

Scenario 3 - Your intellectual group decides not to have kids. The group that has no qualms with making babies uses your resouces and replaces you.
Scenario 4 - Your intellectual group decides that # of kids are limited to 1-2. Another group comes along with all their babies and takes your resources. They prosper, your group is removed from the gene pool.
Scenario 5 and 6 - Repeat Scenarios 3 and 4 on national levels. Baby makers win.
Scenario 7 - Utopian scenario - The world gets together as one and decides to limit the number of children born to sustainable levels. Alien race comes along and takes the resources. All removed from gene pool xP.
But seriously there can never be a utopian society because the guy in the cubicle next to me whacks off in the bathroom on his breaks. Someone is always going to do something that pisses someone off. Likewise some group will always piss off another group. You can't force ppl to like eachother even if it is for the greater good...
May 9, 2011 11:16:57 PM

Guys we need to keep this pacioli guy on staff down here in the dungeon to help us with our wprld domination program.

Some very good points mate.

badge ... tie him up out the back with the marine biolologist and the snake charmer (oldmangamer).

:) 
May 10, 2011 1:53:02 AM

None of this is needed if we can figure out how to leave the planet like Hawking wants. Once we have new planet(s) to thrive on we won't have the limited resource problems anymore. Heck, we'll need people to have babies so that we can colonize the new planet.

I wonder. We spend time worrying about what happens if the aliens we find will be friendly. Has anyone wondered if we would be?
May 10, 2011 10:57:57 AM

We have a pretty awful track record with aliens in movies ... we kill the bad ones and the good ones.

A few like ET and Paul get away.

If the aliens are viewing and listening to our communcations they will probably give us a miss and move on to another star system.

Alternatively ... they are likely to make contact with the Buddists first or the aborigines in the outback.

I'd steer clear of the the other faiths as they are busy squabbling over everything unimportant to the planet ... which is pretty sad.

Goodwill to all mankind isn't even a universal concept we seem to have worked out let alone goodwill to all.

May 10, 2011 11:23:27 AM

Quote:
We have a pretty awful track record with aliens in movies ... we kill the bad ones and the good ones.


I meant have we decided what kind of aliens we'd be? If we found a way to travel to a planet and there were intelligent life form there, how would we treat them? Avatar or Star Trek (prime directive.)? Considering our issues and need for more space I'm ashamed to answer how I'm sure we would respond.
May 10, 2011 11:33:28 AM

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

Why should a parent, regardless of how many children they choose to have, be able to receive any sort of government assistance? Kids cost money, if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em. We need to eliminate the ridiculous tax deductions for having kids. That makes no sense at all and punishes people like myself that wait until we can afford kids so that we won't need any assistance to begin with.

A limit on how many kids you can have is an impractical idea that would never be implemented. However, teaching sex education so kids know full well the consequences of what early parenthood means is absolutely practical and is proven to reduce unplanned births.
May 10, 2011 12:34:53 PM

I don't know aaron, the libertarian in me wishes for as many tax breaks/cuts/lower taxes I can get for myself and anyone else no matter what their income level.

As far as figuring out how to get off the planet, hmmm, well we HAVE figured out how to get off the planet. We just have no where to go that we can survive and prosper.

When it comes to aliens making contact with us; would you bother to make contact with ants or chickens? Would you try to teach a pig how to build a FTL drive system for a starship? Or teach a monkey how to cure a disease? Waste of time, right?
!