How to save the planet: have fewer children?

[Vuljatar]

I completely agree with what people are saying here. There needs to be a child cap. One per couple. And it needs to be strictly enforced, at least for 10 years or so. In Larry Niven's Ringworld, people were implanted with a small device that releases chemicals that make it impossible to reproduce. When a couple wants to have a SINGLE child, they could have the device removed. It works, and it's fair. If people weren't having enough children then regulations could permit more pregnancies.

We could have programs like this, make them voluntary at first. Then once people warm up to the idea, require it.

People like you scare the hell out of me. That is absolutely monstrous.

I never plan to have more than one child--simply because I don't think I could handle more than one--but I would rather die than live in such a fascist society.

 

[crudus]

Really? Really now? Ok, I have an idea you big shot researchers: if you have all this extra grant money that you can blow on obvious research and conclusions, don't waste your time doing it. Take the next week off and give half of the money you saved to me! Everyone wins!

How is it barbaric not to have children?

Am I missing the part where they have the kids but eat them before they grow, or something?

If this is barbaric then what is my idea of committing mass genocide to reduce our carbon emissions called? (don't lie to yourself, you know it would work)

 

[Xorghul]

Kill everyone or just stop consuming so much natural resources. Currently the americans use the resources equalient to 6-7 earths and the europeans use resources equalient to 3 earths(or something like that).

 

[asinann]

The only industrialized nation that I know of that is actually losing people is Japan, so maybe the rest of us should stop having so damn many kids. Tired of seeing families of 6 on welfare or disability from birth (I'm REALLY tired of families of barely disabled people collecting benefits.)

Octomom shouldn't get a damn reality show, she should have had all 14 of her brats taken away split up and put in 14 different foster homes until they could be adopted out. Octomom should have been sent to prison for being a leech on society. She had 14 kids all through fertility treatments. After the first kid the doctors should have stopped giving her the treatments. And on that note, the doctors that gave her the treatments (and several refused) should all lose their licenses to practice medicine and brought up on charges of some kind.

But please explain how it's barbaric to just not have kids? I don't mean just abort every pregnancy, I mean condoms, the pill, the patch, etc... Just never conceive the kids in the first place, where is the barbarism?

You want barbaric, I think it's time to start sterilizing everyone that has a major genetic disorder, anyone that is on disability or welfare, all prisoners and everyone over 40 (just because I hate it when parents start over then make their teenagers raise the new kids.)
THAT is barbaric, and doesn't do enough. Maybe if we added everyone with an IQ under 80 it would be enough.

Another option is to nuke the Vatican to beaded glass. They have done more harm to reproductive freedom in the last hundred years than any other group.

 

[Nmil-ek]

We need more than a one child cap, we need to shut the pope up for one and stop all his anti-contreception crap, we need to educate and really start enforcing condoms on the people of africa. Adoption needs to be more heavily emphesised why bring another child into this world when you could help one whos already having a shitty life? Pro-lifers need to shut the hell up once and for all. People who plop out kids like sport need ot have whatever benefits they have cut off completley 8-12 kids feck off and go hunt for food then you drain on the economy.

Other than that we have two solutions mass sterilisation or a big war I prefer the more liberal approach myself.

 

[asinann]

Voluntarily having less children is not barbaric. This is barbaric:

I completely agree with what people are saying here. There needs to be a child cap. One per couple. And it needs to be strictly enforced, at least for 10 years or so. In Larry Niven's Ringworld, people were implanted with a small device that releases chemicals that make it impossible to reproduce. When a couple wants to have a SINGLE child, they could have the device removed. It works, and it's fair. If people weren't having enough children then regulations could permit more pregnancies.

We could have programs like this, make them voluntary at first. Then once people warm up to the idea, require it.

I'm actually stunned.

When people are wandering through the streets looking for food and our cities are ablaze, you might have different opinions about what is barbaric. If things get that down right ugly, my "suggestion" will seem tame compared to what others propose. But by then, it will be far to late. We must do what we have to survive, everything else is secondary as long there is a future.

Ok Cama Zots What if a woman has twins or triplets? Is someone just supposed to come down to the hospital and kill the extras?

Actually, they could have been aborted (the way most implanted fetuses are, they start with 8 and abort down to 1 or 2) so if a law like that were to go through, that is what would most likely be done.

 

[Razorback0z]

Population and population density are commonly tagged as indicators of a low standard of living. However any examination of the various statistics on the subject show that while there are strong arguments for a variety of different positions;

higher population density = lower standard of living

As a simple proposition is difficult to support by the facts.

This is probably the simplest set of information to illustrate the point. Sorry that its Wiki but it is a good start if your interested in the actual facts and not urban myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_density_map.PNG

Have a look at the main map.

If : higher population density = lower standard of living - this map would show it and while there are correlations, like India for example. There are also clear anolmolies like :

Certain parts of Africa with the same average population density as the best parts of the USA, but incomparably different standards of living.

As usual the simple act of not growing your population is no guarantee of improving the quality of life of your people. As usual these things are more complex.

 

[EchetusXe]

Oh god, not more planet saving propaganda.
Look, the planet is fine, the ozone layer is fine, that hole is closing again, global warming happens anyway (THE ICE AGE!).

lol

Old news. Ever heard of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Tried and failed

It didn't fail. Birth rate went down. Mission accomplished.

Well, it's technically not bad, you're just not having kids

Technically bad? Whichever you look at it its good!


There are MORE than enough kids around. Try adopting a child instead of conceiving one. Then you solve a problem rather than create one.

 

[Duskwaith]

In the east the population is massive but population growth in the west is much slower. Like the UK and France have major schemes to promote familys.

So ive been right all along. China will destroy us one way or another...

 

[Cama Zots]

Voluntarily having less children is not barbaric. This is barbaric:

I completely agree with what people are saying here. There needs to be a child cap. One per couple. And it needs to be strictly enforced, at least for 10 years or so. In Larry Niven's Ringworld, people were implanted with a small device that releases chemicals that make it impossible to reproduce. When a couple wants to have a SINGLE child, they could have the device removed. It works, and it's fair. If people weren't having enough children then regulations could permit more pregnancies.

We could have programs like this, make them voluntary at first. Then once people warm up to the idea, require it.

I'm actually stunned.

When people are wandering through the streets looking for food and our cities are ablaze, you might have different opinions about what is barbaric. If things get that down right ugly, my "suggestion" will seem tame compared to what others propose. But by then, it will be far to late. We must do what we have to survive, everything else is secondary as long there is a future.

That's why you eco-fascists are so dangerous. You can justify anything you do because you believe its for the good of the planet.

like I said earlier

THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM AND THE DESCRIPTION I OUTLINED WAS THAT OF A B-GRADE SCIFI NOVEL. STOP TAKING THIS SHIT SO SERIOUSLY. HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M NOT A TROLL?

 

[Del-Toro]

Oh god, not more planet saving propaganda.
Look, the planet is fine, the ozone layer is fine, that hole is closing again, global warming happens anyway (THE ICE AGE!). Although some people do have too many kids when they cant afford them leading to disease and death. Well done to those people who haven't discovered contraception.

Did you know we're coming out of a minor ice age? Don't believe me? During the middle ages you used to be able to skate of the Themes, that came to an end before the industrial revolution, then again the ice age was centralized in Eurasia. Not only that but there is an increase in sun activity that should die out around 2040, and hell, other planets in the solar system are apparently heating up too. I guess they have industrial complexes and SUVs too. Also, the increase in sea level is nothing compared to what it was supposed to have been by now. I'm still all for renewable resources though, we'll run low on oil and coal eventually so it's good to have something to fall back on. As an athsmatic I'm also in favor of reducing smog, that shit is unpleasant as hell. Oh and cleaner water, I think that's a given. How's this, if we ignore "global warming" and worry about issues that aren't theoretical like water and air quality then the rest should sort itself out.

 

[Fulax]

Voluntarily having less children is not barbaric. This is barbaric:

I completely agree with what people are saying here. There needs to be a child cap. One per couple. And it needs to be strictly enforced, at least for 10 years or so. In Larry Niven's Ringworld, people were implanted with a small device that releases chemicals that make it impossible to reproduce. When a couple wants to have a SINGLE child, they could have the device removed. It works, and it's fair. If people weren't having enough children then regulations could permit more pregnancies.

We could have programs like this, make them voluntary at first. Then once people warm up to the idea, require it.

I'm actually stunned.

When people are wandering through the streets looking for food and our cities are ablaze, you might have different opinions about what is barbaric. If things get that down right ugly, my "suggestion" will seem tame compared to what others propose. But by then, it will be far to late. We must do what we have to survive, everything else is secondary as long there is a future.

That's why you eco-fascists are so dangerous. You can justify anything you do because you believe its for the good of the planet.

like I said earlier

THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM AND THE DESCRIPTION I OUTLINED WAS THAT OF A B-GRADE SCIFI NOVEL. STOP TAKING THIS SHIT SO SERIOUSLY. HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M NOT A TROLL?

I realise it isn't your idea, you said so in your first post. However, your posts clearly show that you share that view. Even if you are a troll, and for your sake I hope you are, there are many others who do support it.

 

[JBarracudaL]

The population is steadily increasing and we only have so much space on the planet, it is a real threat to the world. However, dumb, horny people will always compulsively have sex with no regard for consequence and have truckloads of kids, no matter what policy is suggested to us by the news. And the intelligent people who can see why overpopulation is something to be concerned over will have less children or none at all. So, all we are left with is a surplus of average and unintelligent people, and the population will resume a steady increase until we're packed together like sardines. There is no way to solve this problem short of some catastrophic war or event that kills an abundance of people, or barbaric totalitarian action to ensure people cannot procreate.

I'm reminded of that film Idiocracy....

 

[Cama Zots]

Voluntarily having less children is not barbaric. This is barbaric:

I completely agree with what people are saying here. There needs to be a child cap. One per couple. And it needs to be strictly enforced, at least for 10 years or so. In Larry Niven's Ringworld, people were implanted with a small device that releases chemicals that make it impossible to reproduce. When a couple wants to have a SINGLE child, they could have the device removed. It works, and it's fair. If people weren't having enough children then regulations could permit more pregnancies.

We could have programs like this, make them voluntary at first. Then once people warm up to the idea, require it.

I'm actually stunned.

When people are wandering through the streets looking for food and our cities are ablaze, you might have different opinions about what is barbaric. If things get that down right ugly, my "suggestion" will seem tame compared to what others propose. But by then, it will be far to late. We must do what we have to survive, everything else is secondary as long there is a future.

That's why you eco-fascists are so dangerous. You can justify anything you do because you believe its for the good of the planet.

like I said earlier

THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM AND THE DESCRIPTION I OUTLINED WAS THAT OF A B-GRADE SCIFI NOVEL. STOP TAKING THIS SHIT SO SERIOUSLY. HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M NOT A TROLL?

I realise it isn't your idea, you said so in your first post. However, your posts clearly show that you share that view. Even if you are a troll, and for your sake I hope you are, there are many others who do support it.

Realistically, there is little to no chance of this scenario happening. So you don't need to worry.

I see why people don't like this, but I don't see why it's a fascist idea. If it was going to be required, there would be a vote. And if the majority thought that it was needed then it would be required. Not until then. Just because I said it doesn't make it real. It's not like there is a clause that requires you to skin and eat your children. A more realistic solution would be to simply provide tax breaks to smaller families.

There are too many people in the world. You can't deny that. Our planet was never designed to sustain 7 billion of the same species.

 

[Cerebreus]

How about planting more trees and flowers? They turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen, so they may be able to counter some, if not all, of this.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Save the world, make less stupid people, you know, the type that grow up to scream about socialism in town halls and think global warming is a lie created by liberals.

 

[Blackhol]

use a condom, save the world.

 

[Terramax]

I think it's a perfect idea. If not only for the environment but because most families simply can't handle looking after more than one sibling.

 

[twistedshadows]

I fail to see how having fewer children is "barbaric." It doesn't seem like a bad idea.
As I'm not planning on having kids anyway, it doesn't really affect me personally.

Its genetics. Ugly people generally have ugly babies. Who grow up & repeat the process.

If guys were more selective (as a guy im allowed[/I] to say this) with who they seed, not just wherever they cant get it.

Are you suggesting that only females are "ugly"?
There are unattractive guys out there as well, so I'm not sure how your idea solves anything, or how it has anything to do with the topic.