Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[EeveeElectro]

I just wish there was a way to stop those absolutely disgusting and scummy people who talk to their children like shite and smack them about from breeding.
I see them all the time and can't imagine why they'd even want children when it looks like they hate them so much.
I understand kids are stressful and parents can get cranky, but there's no need to talk to them like I've seen them do, especially when the child appears to be doing nothing wrong.

I suppose as long as you can afford it and actually know how to raise a child right, 2 children is a sensible amount IMO.

 

[darlarosa]

I think they should be allowed to have as many children as they want to have.

And, where is the spare planet you're going to need to house, feed and supply them?

It's called 'Earth'. There's a LOT of space on Earth that isn't currently being used to house, feed and supply the population. Considering that humanity, even though we number in the billions, currently occupies less than 1/3 the surface area of our planet, there's still plenty of space left.

But we need open land I would think...I mean animals need it, certain forms of fauna and flora...we share the planet with other things.

It's a valid concern, and not entirely unreasonable if it was possible to regulate on a large scale. The population is massive world wide, I think that has had negative impacts and has lead to more communal break own in its own way.

2-3 children makes sense to me. Make couples pay higher taxes for any more kids. Lower he cost of birth control, make adoption easier for people to approach, or some such.

If something dramatic were to happen to the worlds resources it would be something we would have to consider. To us it seems cold, but really its rather reasonable and logical once you remove the sentiment.

 

[General Vengeance]

I thought the United Nations was taking care of this whole population problem with Agenda 21?

 

[Brutal Peanut]

If you can house, feed, groom, and clothe ten to twenty children to the age of adulthood without any of my money - then please carry on.

Though, I do like the option of two for myself. You know, if I ever stop disliking children and my body can actually carry any life after one to two months.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

*snip*

This is a similar argument I use in discussions with people who have chosen to have no children; our society in the West is utterly dependent on there being a slightly growing population to pay into the various medical and social programs which the elderly tend to draw on more than younger people. (not their fault that aging tends to make people dependent on others, just the way it is.) So when people choose to have 0 children, they're affecting everyone around them by forcing us to have more children to keep the tax revenue high enough to pay for the services that are needed, or that we will need to take a more risky solution (financially more than anything else) of bringing in enough immigrants to make up for the lack of native-born growth. (the financial risk is that most immigrants cost the country money to bring here; aid for assimilating, learning the language, if relatives like spouses and children come with them they will need aid as well, etc.)

*snip*[/quote]

I never thought of it like that. However, the fact our system requires a growing population shows a major flaw in the system. The fact is all these new people need a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, and jobs. Not to mention the strain they create on our existing infrastructure. Eventually our planet won't be able to sustain all these people, or, more likely, something will happen to our food source and millions of people will starve to death.

Maybe we'll terraform Mars or we'll all live in city sized arcologies.

 

[Total LOLige]

As many as they damn well want, as long as they can provide for them.

 

[Guybythestreet]

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

see: China

Just because you can afford to support 20 kids doesn't mean you should have 20 kids. There is a limit to the space and resources on earth. It is funny that so many people here condemn the idea of population regulation when it is already done in china because they get it: too many people leads to problems down the road. To compare, there are more people in the top 1% in China(financially and academically speaking) than there are people in the US.

Its just dandy to say that philosophically we should be entitled to do whatever we are capable of (barring crimes, I am not saying that anyone here thinks crime is acceptable) but by that logic no one should have to pay taxes. Saying that someone can have 20 children and all their children can have 20 children implies that they don't need to be mindful of the rest of world.

That was a horribly unorganized rant but point is: Allowing people to have 4+ kids per family (barring all those cases used to balance out for people having no children) is not practical nor mindful of anyone else.

 

[deserteagleeye]

Poor people should not have babies! Seriously, if you can barely take care of yourself financially then you're just gonna put your kids through a lot of shit. Especially if your country is overpopulated like India or China. Adoption is always an option. (lol rhyme)
I could go on about this, but I don't want to. Parents should just stop being selfish and think of their child's future than the idea of having one.

 

[freddi91]

^ reply to above: why do you think "poor" people have lots of kids? usually because of high child mortality rates (poor government) and because children make money for you later.

Contrary to popular belief in this thread. Space is not running out. However, the developed world is going to have to give in and have a less luxurious lifestyle if we go on like this. (nitpicking I know)

 

[Tono Makt]

This is a similar argument I use in discussions with people who have chosen to have no children; our society in the West is utterly dependent on there being a slightly growing population to pay into the various medical and social programs which the elderly tend to draw on more than younger people. (not their fault that aging tends to make people dependent on others, just the way it is.) So when people choose to have 0 children, they're affecting everyone around them by forcing us to have more children to keep the tax revenue high enough to pay for the services that are needed, or that we will need to take a more risky solution (financially more than anything else) of bringing in enough immigrants to make up for the lack of native-born growth. (the financial risk is that most immigrants cost the country money to bring here; aid for assimilating, learning the language, if relatives like spouses and children come with them they will need aid as well, etc.)

I never thought of it like that. However, the fact our system requires a growing population shows a major flaw in the system. The fact is all these new people need a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, and jobs. Not to mention the strain they create on our existing infrastructure. Eventually our planet won't be able to sustain all these people, or, more likely, something will happen to our food source and millions of people will starve to death.

Maybe we'll terraform Mars or we'll all live in city sized arcologies.

It is a huge flaw in our system, agreed - and we most certainly do need to change it. It's a system set up to fail, and we're just hoping it's not going to fail in our lifetimes. If we continue to employ it then yes, the strain on our food supply, energy resources, infrastructure and living space will reach a breaking point...

...but not for a very, very long time for those of us in the West; we'll be the last to be hit by this. The Third World will reach this within 100 years (quite likely sooner, but I'm an optimist). China and India could hit it at any time; China could be one failed dam away from a horrific and cascading "natural" disaster. (Power station goes, other power plants overload and shut down, critical infrastructure is unusable due to lack of power, millions of people affected by starvation, heatstroke and other sorts of exposure due to lack of power - imagine being stuck on floor 100 in a high rise apartment building with no BBQ and no way to cook the meat that's going rotten in your freezer. Etc.) Places like South America and central Europe will reach this in 200 or 300 years.

(This all assumes of course, that what happens in one place has little effect in other places. Once China goes down, the world's in a shittake-load of trouble.)