Poll: Would you agree to this new law - saving humanity from certain disaster

Recommended Videos

ltbigjohn

New member
Jul 28, 2010
49
0
0
I personally believe that having siblings (at lest one) give people a better perspective on dealing with social situations that one would encounter in the future, as well as being extremely helpful in establishing a self that is not entirely centered on you and understands being relative to other people and their needs.
 

DRSH1989

New member
Aug 20, 2010
168
0
0
The solution is simple: we need more wars. I voted "no"... because we should have lots & lots of children so we can send them to war & kill them all... I hope you guyz appreciate my gruesome sarcasm... I know I do.
 

MoNKeyYy

Evidence or GTFO
Jun 29, 2010
513
0
0
googleback said:
I have no idea, why is it happening so quickly now? why the sudden explosion?
Believe it or not, it actually has to do with energy. The population explosion happened very recently after the rise of cheap, incredibly abundant energy that comes from fossil fuels, which was first fully exploited at the turn of the twentieth century. The ability of humans to exploit millions of years of accumulated energy (From the sun, heat and compression) in a matter of minutes allowed for an explosion in technology which has been the key factor in the population explosion.
 

Kryzantine

New member
Feb 18, 2010
827
0
0
There are numerous issues with using legal means to cap out a population, not the least of which is the little emperor syndrome, the prevalance of males that results within the population, and probably the worst issue, the age imbalance.

I agree that major crises will occur as a result of population overgrowth, but those issues are solvable by changing industrial standards. Probably the biggest issue I can think of is the impending water crisis, an issue that isn't caused directly by population growth, but rather by increased industrial usage of water. After that is the unemployment crisis, which may just be a result of modern medicine and long-term peace. The fact of the matter is, the youth unemployment is more significant than the overall unemployment - areas with high youth unemployment see a lot of violence and crime spikes, and traditionally, it has been kept in check by military activity. Egypt, I believe, had a youth unemployment rate of 30% during their revolution. What is this action of restricting birth going to do about that? Those 20 year olds will still be out of jobs when they grow up, thanks to the retirement age rising.

As someone suggested much earlier, womens rights are a better solution. The fact of the matter is, once a woman reaches her 2nd kid, she is considered done in the corporate world. She can keep her job and work normal hours, sure, but she will lose out on a lot of opportunities for promotion. The women who do have 2 or more kids and keep rising in the corporate world? Their kids know their nannies better than they know their mother. As a result, women simply have either no kids or one kid - the social dynamic of having one kid as opposed to two or more is complex, but suffice to say, having one is a lot more manageable than having two. America has culled its population very naturally in this manner since the 1970s. Contrast this to places where women are stay-at-home-mothers, and you can understand why opening prospects for women and merely giving them the chance to reach the top is a very effective way of controlling population.

At the very least, it's better than restricting our right to maintain large families.
 

DRSH1989

New member
Aug 20, 2010
168
0
0
I got interested in this subject and checked some specs out:
World Population Growth

Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2012 7 billion
2027 8 billion
2044 9 billion
2050 9.2 billion
damn... so... many... people... then again my country's population is mostly in decline... the sudden rise must be from the East (indians, japanesse, chinesse). Africa is mostly dying of famine so I don't think the population growth is coming from there. Westerners, west europeans, north americans... I dunno... I don't think America's population has changed too much & most westerners have moderate families with 1-2 maybe 3 children... the other cases are rare, but then again if every child grows up & had 2 children and those children grow up to have 2 children each (that's 4 in total)... I can see how the population is growing, of course I haven't checked the mortality rates & we got tons of those... guess people are more busy fakin' than killin' each other...I would say this is good news, wouldn't you?
 

ryai458

New member
Oct 20, 2008
1,494
0
0
Probalby already been said but china does limit the amount of children you can have.
 

YoungPeaches

New member
Nov 15, 2010
27
0
0
Long story short: yes.
Long story long: it depends. It is possible that having this law in place wouldn't save humanity. There would be no real way of knowing if it would save humanity until it was far to late. At least, that is what I think.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
deshorty said:
Seriphina said:
I can't believe the number of people voting yes to this. there has to be another way. IMO some individuals should not be ALLOWED to have children whereas some don't even want kids and others want many. Why should everyone have to change. People like junkies and teenage girls should be forced to have the coil put in or something to prevent teen pregnancies and future corrupt or homeless kids. That sounds harsh but I hate to think some people have worked hard and built a life for themselves so they can have the family they want only to be told they cant have anymore kids.
My bet is that the majority of people voting on your poll don't want kids anyway or are guys and cant have an understanding of the maternal desire to have another child. <3
Look, I understand what you are saying. I am 17 (and a guy) and I know I would like 2 kids in my (far) future. But, practically, the planet cannot support anymore than just one child per couple. Look at China. One of the principles of the old regime was Mass Line; essentially just throwing people at the problem - their greatest asset was the population. But they knew they couldn't sustain the amount of people in the country if it had continued to grow at the rate that it was. If more countries would adopt policies like the one child policy, then the earth would undoubtably be far better off. It would be much more humane than culling and would give humanity time to adjust to a slowly shrinking population.
that's poisonous thinking actually. If EVERY couple only had 1 kid, that would be horrible and if you're even a retard at math, you'd realize why that's the case.

2 people make 1 kid, which pairs with another kid and makes 1 kid. You have exponential growth in the other direction. Of course, people will be fruitful and multiply as that's part of life, but it's dangerous thinking to think that china's 1 child per couple law is suitable for other areas. We already have an aging population in the west. In 20 years, our population will probably shrink signficantly over here because people are having less children and old people who fill a huge majority of our population don't live forever.
 

MASTACHIEFPWN

Will fight you and lose
Mar 27, 2010
2,279
0
0
"Death solves all problems. No man- no problem."
I say we just have a draft in china and slaughter the loosers... Not really though.

But think, Humanity is the only race of things that doesn't have to worry about being hunted down by anything... anything except itself.

In the past, there were desieses that trimbled and ripped the population to almost nothing. Odds are, that is bound to happen again, or massive war, THEN EVERYONE WOULD DIE. Well, not everyone, but really the problem doesn't exist in the U.S, yet. We've got about 25% more of the country to fill up before I get worried...

Hell, maybe their will be a zombie outbreak...
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
EllEzDee said:
People shouldn't be allowed more than 2 kids anyways.
Errmmm... What!? Like, seriously, what!? Why exactly should parents not be allowed to torture themselves with multiple offspring?
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
ravensheart18 said:
BiscuitTrouser said:
ravensheart18 said:
SNIP

Your solution is oppressive, classist, possibly racist, and down right ignorant.
Im sorry but in WHAT way is it racist?! Its a thought experiment. I took you seriously until you said racist. You just wanted every ist you could think of. Its too bizare to really look at. In what way is it classist? The wealthiest dont tend to have as many kids, this targets those that do. Thats like saying a scheme to help poor people is classist because it targets the poor. Thats the WHOLE POINT. In what way is it ignorant. But racist?! Seriously?! What possessed you to type that XD
I used the words knowingly.

It's arguably racist (and you will notice I put a conditional word in my original comment) because the population growth you are complaining about is occuring almost exclusively among the non-white population.

It's classist because you are going to restrict by government funding, meaning the poor are restricted because they require that funding, the rich are not because they can look after their kids needs.


So what your saying is because a problem is mainly in ethnic minorities attempting to fix the problem is racist. Thats stupid. If crime is up in an area, and that area HAPPENS to be full of ethnic minorities, sending more cops there isnt racist. Its not racist at all. Its racist if i did this BECAUSE they are an ethnic minority. But im not. Some people are causing a problem and the majority of them HAPPEN to be an ethnic minority. They can be freakin purple for the amount of fucks i give. They cause a problem we attempt to remedy it.

Again it isnt classist. The wealthiest have the LEAST children. Thats like saying because crime rates are higher in poorer areas sending more cops to poorer areas is classist. We have to send them everywhere apparently.

Anyway your entire arguement is moot because: This law applies to everyone. Theres an amount of fucks the law gives about skin colour and amount of money owned REGARDLESS of what they are. HINT: Its less than or equal to zero :3
 

Actual

New member
Jun 24, 2008
1,220
0
0
Hagenzz said:
Western nations are stagnating or even declining in population.
Nuke_em_05 said:
Actually, most developed nations have birthrate less than the replacement rate of 2.1. The rest are just barely above it.
I'm interested in sources for this as it's something I've heard often but I can't find any information to back up this idea that developed countries have declining populations. In fact the only stats I can find show that our populations are rising quite healthily.

Google graph of World Bank Population figures [http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+trends#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR:USA:AUS:AUT:BEL:BRA:CAN:EGY:FIN:DEU]

Gets very interesting if you click on India, Russia and China to add them in, but skews the scale so I left them out.
 

cgaWolf

New member
Apr 16, 2009
125
0
0
the sudden rise must be from the East (indians, japanesse, chinesse). Africa is mostly dying of famine so I don't think the population growth is coming from there.
I'm thinking you need to get away from these 80ies opinions based on 60ies textbooks, and look at actual data concerning the world, its population, and its wealth. I can link relevant stuff, if you care about it, or you could listen to some of Roslings talk about the topic ( http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html ). Your worldview is half a century behind what's actually happening on the world, i suggest getting more up to date facts & data.
 

MasterOfWorlds

New member
Oct 1, 2010
1,890
0
0
I think it'd be fairly simple to take care of. Just don't support the families that have more than two kids. The problem isn't actually that there are more babies being born. The problem is that they're not dying like they used to because we support them. If you had a family that worked and earned average income, they wouldn't really be able to support more than three kids without tightening some things.

I wouldn't agree to a codified law, but I think that if you could somehow manage to incorporate an informal social control, we could sort of "peer pressure" them into not having so many kids.

Stop paying for people to have kids, stop feeding the kids if they can't afford it, and eventually they'll get the message that if they can't support their own damn kids, they won't have more.

<-- sociology major and staunch capitalist XD