How to save the planet: have fewer children?

[Sigel]

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?

Anyway, I guess that means I'm savin' tha werld.

I am with you on this. I don't understand why you consider it to be barbaric to "gasp" have less children. The article did not say to kill the ones you already have or force anyone to eat them. It was once a necessity to have a lot of kids due to high child mortality rates. It is not necessary any more, and there is no reason to have a tons of kids anymore.

 

[dekkarax]

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.

I agree.

 

[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.

 

[quiet_samurai]

It's not the number of people living on this earth that are creating problems for it, it's the quality of people and how we run our civilization that's doing it. But seriously over-population is not really a problem. You could take every single person in the world and setelt them in the state of Texas and we wouldn't fill the whole state up.

 

[chiggerwood]

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?

 

[Souplex]

Basic math; Consumption x population = total consumption. A lower population means we will cut down less forests burn less fossil fuels and generally reduce our impact.

 

[quiet_samurai]

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.

What's the point of preserving the future if we have to sacrifice our humanity to do so? Fascism is not the answer to anything..... ever. Neither is chemically altering human beings reproductive capabilities on a grand scale.

 

[paragon1]

Seen the movie Idiocracy? Extremely depressing, because the premise is spookily possible. Sure, people with something to add the the gene pool will think twice about reproducing, but then there's teen pregnancies and, you know, people just not using their heads when they have sex. Not to be politically incorrect, but these things tend to happen in the "lower social classes". We learn in psychology class that it's hard to pull out of lower classes, so statistically, we are in a doomed death spiral.

Then there's Ender's Game. Restricting the population seemed to work fine for them... except for the Buggers, of course.

Well, they didn't outlaw it per se. They simply said that the government wouldn't pay a dime for a single thing for any child after their second. Oh, and people tended to ostracize anyone who had more than two.

 

[E-mantheseeker]

Yeah I don't see the barbaric nature in not having children either, I guess condoms are a step in the wrong direction and the pregnant teenagers in my state having children like crazy are ahead of the curve.

Seems we're both saving the world, we should create a league of some sort.

There already is one! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT]
But seriously, I wish OP would explain what he meant.

When I saw "LGBT" in the link I paused and tried to think what it could stand for...

"League of Getting Babies Thinned (out)" or "Let's Get Babies Tossed" came to mind, then I clicked the link and laughed... and laughed...

 

[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.

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?

No, under LARRY NIVEN's (not my) system, having any number of kids other than one was impossible. What I am not suggesting is killing people, just causing less to be born in the first place. Short of a nuclear holocaust, the system outlined by LARRY NIVEN, sounds like the best way to reduce the entire population of the world. No one would die or be killed. In fact, with less people we will have more resources to spend and devote to the elderly. People would live longer lives. What I am describing isn't a Nazified version of the Shadow Child Series.

What LARRY NIVEN is describing is entirely reversible. Just removed the device. It's not fascist either, not any more than any other regulation of the government. God you guys are acting like this is on the Congress table right now. Let me remind you all THAT THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM AND NOTHING SAID HERE MEANS OR WILL AMOUNT TO ANYTHING AT ALL. It was just an idea, and it wasn't even mine.

 

[kawligia]

I really hope that everyone who buys into this crap has no children. That actually might save the world.

 

[Aschenkatza]

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?

You give them to people who CAN'T have children.

I honestly am just gonna adopt, so I see no problem if someone has more than one child... but if you have 10 children you need a reality check.

 

[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.

 

[Puzzles]

More hungry bears.

Everyone knows that more hungry bears = less people. And, it's fun to watch.

 

[El Camarado]

Barbaric comrade? No, it would be barbaric to have children at the rate we are, the planet is crowded, the global population is rising at such a rate that reproducing at the rate we are will just be disastrous, for everyone, for everything.

There are an estimated 6.7 billion humans on this planet, and it is estimated that it will be 9 billion people by 2050. 6,700,000,000 people, that already seems like more than we can support.

From what I've heard, it requires about 2.3 children per couple to keep the population steady. So, I feel that people shouldn't be restricted to having one child, but instead, restricted to two. Sure, the population will take longer to reach a good amount, but, people won't feel as restricted.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Stop the OVER CONSERVATIVE (see, note that part) religious people and followers from having kids; problem solved.