Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[Black-Toof]

Hi everyone,
I was thinking... (Bad idea I know)

What's your thoughts on the maximum children a couple should be allowed to have?

It may sound a bit horrible but I believe that a couple should be limited to 2 or less children. Maximum.
People are outgrowing the planet and our ability to support the population.
2 children would take the place of the mother & father.
Families that have less or unable to give birth/adopt should hopefully counter families that have triplets or such.
I believe this is a fair and just way to 'control' the overpopulation problem.

The main issue is 'control' as stated.
I'm not a horrible person, in fact I'm jolly nice haha.
I'm not advocating any living 3rd + child be shot, nor that if a family has a 3rd child that it be aborted.
This is obviously a thing that can't be controlled. For instance, in third world countries it would be seemingly impossible to do, although even in first world countries this is likely impossible to do.

I guess the main thing would be awareness and self control.
Although I like to 'never trust humans as a species' to have self control.

Obviously this is a complicated subject; Areas i haven't spoke about:
- divorce & re-marriage children.
- More humans require more food, more jobs etc...
- Likely more areas...

What are your thoughts on the matter?
- Your personal opinion?
- Control thoughts? (Is it a governments right? Sounds too much like socialism (Right one?))

 

[Psykoma]

As many as they can afford to provide for and keep safe.

Basically along the same lines of what adopting parents have to go through.

 

[Lucem712]

I'd imagine the only way for perfect population control would be structured like the society in 'The Giver', with births being controlled and deaths being controlled as well.

I think people should have as many as they are capable of caring for. Though, I don't advocate that type of family such as the american family 'The Duggers' (That's probably not how you spell it.) who have 19 kids? Maybe?

I think you should have a reasonable amount, 2-4, give or take. I'm the 4th, so maybe that's my bias showing.

 

[yeti585]

I'd imagine the only way for perfect population control would be structured like the society in 'The Giver', with births being controlled and deaths being controlled as well.

Massive amounts of hormone-suppressing drugs were used to keep that population under control. I never actually figured out how they controlled deaths. Was it against the rules for you to die? They can't release someone who is already dead. Births weren't the couple's business in that book either, they had designated mothers.

I'm rambling.

OT: Normally I'd give the response to kill everyone. Something with a colorful explosion should do. But, I am feeling good tonight so I am going to say two children per couple. One for people in dirt poor parts of the world. Why? because the only way to decrease the number of people starving in these parts of the world is to lower the number of people in these parts of the world (and stop wasting food. But as long as we are producing corn based fuels don't harp on this point). Once the population is stable in the area and there is advancement in technologies in the area we can let the population grow (2-3 kids per couple) because the area could sustain the population.

 

[madwarper]

@OP; Just to play Devil's Advocate... Who do you think should enforce this limit and how?

Would you have the government to control the reproductive abilities of its populace with forced abortions/sterilizations?
Dark times this would lead to... If you think Jerrymandering is bad now, imagine population-mandering.

Would you have the populace self regulate their own reproductive habits with an intellectual/fiscal proposal?
Assuming that would even work, then those who are intellectually and/or fiscally responsible would regulate their own birth rates. However, your argument will most likely be lost on the stupid and irresponsible, leading their descendants to become the majority of the population.

 

[Lucem712]

I'd imagine the only way for perfect population control would be structured like the society in 'The Giver', with births being controlled and deaths being controlled as well.

Massive amounts of hormone-suppressing drugs were used to keep that population under control. I never actually figured out how they controlled deaths. Was it against the rules for you to die? They can't release someone who is already dead. Births weren't the couple's business in that book either, they had designated mothers.

Ooh, well, they couldn't control all deaths of course. But they were minimized as much as possible, after all they didn't have cars or anything (I think they rode bikes.)

I just wrote a quick post since most people have read the book. (At least if you are from the US, in 6 grade or something like that.)

 

[yeti585]

Ooh, well, they couldn't control all deaths of course. But they were minimized as much as possible, after all they didn't have cars or anything (I think they rode bikes.)

I just wrote a quick post since most people have read the book. (At least if you are from the US, in 6 grade or something like that.)

I'm pretty sure they rode bikes. I read the book in 6 grade, I hated it and never finished it. Everyone I know says it is an amazing book but I couldn't get into it (or at least not at that age).

 

[Heronblade]

Wouldn't help. Areas most likely to comply with any such limits are those that don't actually need it. In addition, I'd be more inclined to somewhat concentrate birth rates in a positive manner rather than spread them out. (IE. encourage the unfortunately rare individuals who are actually qualified, capable AND willing to raise a child to have more than others, while encouraging those who simply are not to avoid it.)

 

[Lucem712]

I'm pretty sure they rode bikes. I read the book in 6 grade, I hated it and never finished it. Everyone I know says it is an amazing book but I couldn't get into it (or at least not at that age).

It's actually quite good, though I don't think I had the life experience to understand much of it when we first read it. I did re-read it recently (between a year to 6 months ago) and it's pretty short, so it's a good read if you are feeling a bit nostalgic.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

I'd say 2 is a decent number. Most would be content with 1, while 2 is fine for those who would like a small family. Anything above, say, 3 at most is going overboard though I think. Then you have people such as myself with no interest in having children, so having the ability to have 2 or even 3 kids could make up for that.

 

[aba1]

I have seen statistics which actually show that the better off a country is the slower the population grows (generalization). Which is why you will find poor African countries that are way over populated. The population in North America and Europe is for the most part either standing still or shrinking while poor nations are growing very fast. So realistically I think we should be more concerned about bettering the rest of the world so that they can better themselves and things just might start to fix themselves to a degree. When I say bettering the rest of the world I don't mean marching over there and telling them how to live but helping poor family's find options other than starve to death and try to pump out as many kids as possible before it happens. This obviously is easier said than done but something needs to be done what may not be clear but something. We are all people and we need to start playing as a team or we will fuck shit up so bad we won't be able to recover.

 

[Dags90]

When I say bettering the rest of the world I don't mean marching over there and telling them how to live but helping poor family's find options other than starve to death and try to pump out as many kids as possible before it happens. This obviously is easier said than done but something needs to be done what may not be clear but something. We are all people and we need to start playing as a team or we will fuck shit up so bad we won't be able to recover.

Generally speaking, when people have better access to family planning services, they use them. Also, in some countries children are the only form of retirement planning. I have a feeling if we fix these problems, we'd probably see birth rates drop.

I think three is a good number, but I'd never institute some silly maximum limit.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

That depends on where you live, really and how your land can support you
For example, where i live there is a pretty bad lack of apartments, too many people

 

[senordesol]

I am always interested in knowing how someone would propose to enforce a limit on children.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I'm in favor of a two child limit however there isn't a way enforce it without infringing on basic human rights.

It would have to be a choice made by the couple. Sadly most people think they live in a vacuum and their actions have no effect on their community, neighbors, and fellow human beings.

 

[The Funslinger]

As many as they can afford to provide for and keep safe.

Basically along the same lines of what adopting parents have to go through.

That was what I was thinking.

If there had to be some limitation in place, it should be defined by the amount of income the family possesses.

 

[The Funslinger]

I am always interested in knowing how someone would propose to enforce a limit on children.

I think the best bet would be some kind of reversible sterilization (in case a kid died, or something). Unfortunately, "tube tying" is a dangerous procedure, and having the clips out would be even more risky, and it's my understanding that the reversal of a vasectomy is only viable for a short time.

Hm...

This calls for nanobots...

 

[thiosk]

Its not the people in western societies that are outgrowing the planet. We consume more of the resources per capita, but most western societies are actually declining because the family size has dropped below two children per couple. Spain is fucked. Italy is basically fucked. Japan is going to be all robots by the 22nd century.

America is still kicking mostly because of hispanic immigration. Come on in, folks! We need your babies.

The problem is the middle east, pakistan, india, africa, and southeast asia.
Those places are population boom disasters in progress, with all the social problems that go along with it. To make matters worse, the social preference for male children in those societies has imbalanced the male population. When that happens, and all those sexually frustrated boys turn to their 20s, you tend to get a lot of wars and revolutions.

China has actually let their 1 child policy go on too long. Now there is a male imbalance, and their country will get old like japan before it gets rich like japan. China will most likely do a course correction and either outright eliminate or modify the 1 child policy in the next few years.