Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple
- Thread starter Black-Toof
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would say two or less since not everyone wants kids and if we let the stupid people have as many kids as they want than we may end up with way to many people that do not understand just how bad it would be without the limit.
Earth has space and food for a few billions more. It's making sure everybody gets food that is the problem. It's a problem with socioeconomic and such and such.
And as far as reducing birth rates goes, poverty and poor/no education go hand in hand with high birth rates.
Better to treat the disease than use some draconian methods to treat the symptomes.
And as far as reducing birth rates goes, poverty and poor/no education go hand in hand with high birth rates.
Better to treat the disease than use some draconian methods to treat the symptomes.
I think you can't really force people to stop at one or two children, given that we're way over the sustainable, eco-friendly population level.
I do wish people would just realise it on their own and not have 12 kids though.
It's primarily religion's fault though. Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam (as well as several others, I'm sure) all teach people to have multiple kids, because more kids= more followers= more money for the religious leaders.
Also, I hate children, so can I sell my child quota to someone else for money?
EDIT: Actually, we should have the good grace to go extinct. Stupid, annoying people should stop copulating first.
I do wish people would just realise it on their own and not have 12 kids though.
It's primarily religion's fault though. Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam (as well as several others, I'm sure) all teach people to have multiple kids, because more kids= more followers= more money for the religious leaders.
Also, I hate children, so can I sell my child quota to someone else for money?
EDIT: Actually, we should have the good grace to go extinct. Stupid, annoying people should stop copulating first.
Well, considering I'm a twin and the youngest of six. I'm going to say no. Just no.
In the united states if it weren't for the massive amount of immigrants we take in our death rate would actually be higher than our birth rate. So at this point it would just be shooting ourselves in the foot. Speaking as a foster parent I can say there are a lot of people who really need to stop having kids but those are precisely the kinds of people that no amount of government control/programs would stop them.
In the united states if it weren't for the massive amount of immigrants we take in our death rate would actually be higher than our birth rate. So at this point it would just be shooting ourselves in the foot. Speaking as a foster parent I can say there are a lot of people who really need to stop having kids but those are precisely the kinds of people that no amount of government control/programs would stop them.
Coming from a rather large family, 1 of many, i would say that you should only be granted the number of children you want as long as you have the means to support such a family, i.e, can't have 6 children if you only have enough to buy / rent a 3 bedroomed house, etc, it's just not fair.
As much as i love to bash religion, thats a very fallacious argument.kickassfrog said:
The bulk of the rampant population growth comes from cultures where it is merely the norm to have many kids; usually due to high infant morality rates in the nation's recent history, often there is social status attached to having a large family (In much the same way some American families own two humvees as a status symbol even though they KNOW it's bad for the planet).
Very few religions outright state large families are a must or contraception is bad. And I don't believe it's for convoluted reasons such as power either
As many children as you're able to afford.
I think some people forget there are a lot of people in the world who have no children or stick to one. Just because someone has 3 doesn't mean you have to have 1 because of them.
Plus, with the ageing population and people living longer than ever, we need children and the next generation so they can look after them.
I think some people forget there are a lot of people in the world who have no children or stick to one. Just because someone has 3 doesn't mean you have to have 1 because of them.
Plus, with the ageing population and people living longer than ever, we need children and the next generation so they can look after them.
You're probably right.RyuujinZERO said:
I know in some countries having a dozen kids is the norm because that increases the chances of some surviving to adulthood, but should we not focus on helping them rather than expanding our own populations.
That's also why I hate people who hate GM crops. Don't defend them, because I won't listen. We need GM to support our too high population.
For the sake of argument I'll say zero, at least for a decade or so. Let a decent chunk of our population die off before we insist on filling the gap to exceed the number of deaths.
As far as enforcement, obviously you can't. not without turning your government into a kind of totalitarian "big brother" state. So you just discourage breeding by increasing the incentive to the alternative. For example tax credits for households with no children. Decreasing returns for every child until the number of children in the household equals or exceeds the number of adults in the home.
As far as enforcement, obviously you can't. not without turning your government into a kind of totalitarian "big brother" state. So you just discourage breeding by increasing the incentive to the alternative. For example tax credits for households with no children. Decreasing returns for every child until the number of children in the household equals or exceeds the number of adults in the home.
Why just the Women though? Why not teach the Men in 3rd world countries not to rape, because rape by Men in 3rd world countries is really high. Also selling Women as sex slaves, these countries don't have access to condoms or other means of birth control we're lucky to have.ForgottenPr0digy said:
We have to remember the reason they have 12 kids is because half of them won't make it past the age of 20 or something, which would mean when the parents are old and frail they'd have no one to look after them or get food and water. Things we're lucky enough to pay random people to do here.
As long as you can take care of them go for it. I cant stand watching people continue to have kids even though they've been living on the government for their entire adult lives.
1, but an unlimited number of adopted children. Seriously I don't get why more people don't adopt. All the, er, fun, of raising a child without the horror of childbirth. 
But yeah, as others have pointed out, actually implementing any measures like these generally leads to a lack of human rights - even if you implemented it purely through something like financial incentives it'd still have a greater effect on the poor than the rich, so that'd just be another problem. Much as this policy seems necessary, it just isn't feasible.
I'm all for getting rid of this perception we seem to have that babies are the best thing in the world and your life is incomplete if you haven't had one though. Changing people's perceptions is the only real way to do it.
Of course, this will never happen because we're a bunch of idiots, and eventually it'll just be necessary to have the kind of population control they have in China, or die. Bye bye human rights!
Man, we're screwed.
But yeah, as others have pointed out, actually implementing any measures like these generally leads to a lack of human rights - even if you implemented it purely through something like financial incentives it'd still have a greater effect on the poor than the rich, so that'd just be another problem. Much as this policy seems necessary, it just isn't feasible.
I'm all for getting rid of this perception we seem to have that babies are the best thing in the world and your life is incomplete if you haven't had one though. Changing people's perceptions is the only real way to do it.
Of course, this will never happen because we're a bunch of idiots, and eventually it'll just be necessary to have the kind of population control they have in China, or die. Bye bye human rights!
Man, we're screwed.
if we kept the maximum number of children per couple to 2 and disregarded all others who couldn't produce children or who don't want to, then the population would decrease rather rapidly not only because of the death rate but because of a decreased deepness of the gene pool which would basically allow any sort of virus or disease to kill us off. With a smaller population the chances for defects to turn up would increase as well with fewer potential and willing mates existing.
While a smaller population would be easier to maintain the ramifications for having it would not outweigh that of having a larger, more diverse population - but really in places that have ultra high population densities should incite laws for limiting the number of children, such places like India and China, but also places like in Africa where STDs are rampant as well as starvation.
While a smaller population would be easier to maintain the ramifications for having it would not outweigh that of having a larger, more diverse population - but really in places that have ultra high population densities should incite laws for limiting the number of children, such places like India and China, but also places like in Africa where STDs are rampant as well as starvation.
Why is everybody consistently wrong about this subject on the Internet? Developed countries simply do not have a birth rate high enough to sustain population size. Is the birth rate currently too high in certain developing nations? Yes, but that is a direct result of the economic status of those countries, and birth rates fall as economic growth grows. There is a reason that countries are desperately trying to craft policies that lead people to have more children; the birth rate is far too low. Populations are aging like mad because there are fewer younger people being born in each generation, and only mass immigration is saving these countries from ruin as the elderly retire. As world incomes become more equitable and borders tighten, this will no longer be a sustainable solution for many countries, especially as anti-immigrant reactions will rise as people feel like foreigners in their own countries. Please, let's actually look at the facts and stop this nonsense over unfounded worries. The world birth rate does not reflect the trends in the developed world, and as the world develops, decreasing family sizes will bring the rest of the world in line with these trends.
Also, even if this were a problem, this solution is morally disgusting, but other people can handle that here.
Also, even if this were a problem, this solution is morally disgusting, but other people can handle that here.
'I'm not advocating any living 3rd + child be shot, nor that if a family has a 3rd child that it be aborted.' - Guessing you missed that part. And no, nobody thinks it's a nice thing to do, just that it's necessary.Suki_ said:
Or we could use our land better.
[http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/04/15/cartograms/]
You might think 'uhh... what about Russia?'
Well, that map warps countries based on the population compared to land. Russia and Canada are squished up because they have a lot of unused land.
And anyway, you can't dictate how many children someone is allowed to have without some infanticide. Because what if someone has triplets? Are you just going to kill one of them? If so, you're a sick sonofabitch. If not, you're inconsistent with your beliefs.
Well, that map warps countries based on the population compared to land. Russia and Canada are squished up because they have a lot of unused land.
And anyway, you can't dictate how many children someone is allowed to have without some infanticide. Because what if someone has triplets? Are you just going to kill one of them? If so, you're a sick sonofabitch. If not, you're inconsistent with your beliefs.