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

[klakkat]

As I don't actually want kids, sure, I wouldn't oppose a law that limited how many children we could have. I don't see it being significantly useful in the 'States, so I don't think I'd throw any support behind it either, but whatever.

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

Basically, the simplest way is to cut child tax credits. Not necessarily a bad thing. However, I don't believe people will actually change their habits as significantly as you think; sure, SOME will, but most will choose to suffer instead. Personally I'd rather throw them to the wolves and let those suffer who cannot support themselves, but that viewpoint isn't very popular.

 

[cgaWolf]

Why we've decided in the last 50 years that the idea of a border is outdated is beyond me, but hey, anything for the multicultural society, right?

The nationstate concept is as artifical as anything humanity's come up with. That doesn't necessarily meanit was a bad idea at the time, but that shouldn't mean that it should be impossible to review & ammeliorate the concept. In a converging world, figuring out how to better deal with your neighbours is a good idea - it's why we share culture, laws & economy.
The alternative is war.

As to multiculturalism, that concept seems to not have worked out quite as well as hoped. Turns out when you allow cultural ghettos, and fail to deliver the promise of affluent states to them (education, wealth, security), all you do is create communities that live side by side, but don't really like each other.

I'm thinking we'd need to look at integration of those communities instead - then again that's uncomfortable, as that would mean us rich white people would have to meet the others halfway. Much easier to segregate racially, economically and socially, and just ***** about it aftwerwards...

I'm not saying we need or should accept everyone who wants to come here. There's a limit as to how many people an economy can absorb, without losing it's wealth or identity; or rather there's a limit to the speed of absorption - however we need to figure out a better way to deal & support those people in becoming "one of us", and give them the opportunity & possibilities to become rich white (or brown, yellow, red, black, purple) men.
If we want that to work long-term, and not have to bear the weight of that for generations, that support has very little to do in funneling money towards people (welfare), and a lot more to do with giving people decent educations, including teaching them the local language.

 

[OhSnap]

Yes. I do believe people should be restricted in the number of children they can have. People do it for animals when we believe their populations have gotten too large, and humans -are- animals, no matter what we tell ourselves to the contrary. Why shouldn't the same logic be applied to everything? I mean, if humans believe that animal A is consuming all it's food, destroying it's habitat or leaving the ecosystem uninhabitable for other species, then whatever management organization the government has hired culls the population back to an acceptable level. No, I'm not saying we cull the population, before I get the politically correct yelling at me. I think we just need to drastically slow or stop human population growth.

We're quickly reaching numbers (if we haven't already) that exceed our available resources. For the past several years there have been articles published on our dwindling fresh water. There are so many organizations around trying to help the starving in some third world country. You know what? That happens. It's called survival of the fittest. People just like to think ourselves above the laws of nature. When there's not enough food to go around, the weakest die. When populations become too large, disease cuts it back to a more sustainable level. Maybe one day people will learn not to have more kids than they can feed.

There's also that whole we're quickly running out of room dilemma.

Human numbers have gotten so large we're causing what could be irreparable damage to our environment. Well, I'm sure a few thousand years after civilization has crashed and burned the Earth will return to some semblance of what it was prior to us.

Running out of room, resources, destroying our own environment and getting way overcrowded. As my friend said, the world is going to hell in a hand basket and we're just skipping along as if that's fine and dandy.


Personally, I'm choosing not to have kids. Could just be I dislike them and everyone I know laughs at the thought of me being a mother.


By the way, I did really just write this as I thought it, so apologies if I jump from point to point rather abruptly.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Western nations are stagnating or even declining in population.

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:FINEU]

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

The CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

 

[Scipio1770]

This is just terrible science.

There is no max capacity because productivity increases at a proportional rate to growth. Malthus thought we would be dead 200 years ago, that didn't happen, and it wont so long as countries are smart enough to invest in agricultural technology as they grow.

 

[kickyourass]

I have to say both yes, and no on this one, while yes I agree that something needs to be done in terms of controlling population growth, I don't think think that laws directly saying "you can have this many kids but THAT'S IT" are the best way to go. But when it comes to a topic like this there really aren't any good answers at the moment so I really don't know how to even start solving a problem like over population.

 

[Sebenko]

I say we hold two fingers up to mother nature, and don't do that.

There's Mars just over there, and plenty more planets further away. Let's go get those. Humanity has been tied to this beautiful rock for far too long, it's time we expanded.

Are you actually serious. You genuinely believe that the only reason we haven't colonised other planets is becuase we dont feel like it. or are you trollin.

Are you actually serious? The question mark key is just over there.

It's this sort of pessimistic attitude that makes humanity suck. Fuck feasibility, let's do it!

 

[deshorty]

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.

The One Child law doesn't outlaw people having more than one baby, it simply discourages it. There is nothing stoping people from multiplying to their hearts content aside from losing free health care and education for the second and onward child. In addition, if the problem looks like it is about to get too serious, the laws can be lifted. But if you think that eventual famine and war are far more sensible way to go, then go for it.

 

[Flames66]

On another note... there are people who WANT MORE THAN 2 KIDS?

My cousin is now on to her fourth. She couldn't really handle one.

 

[madster11]

You know what we need?

A good war.
Drop the population down, and promote a growth in terms of technology again.

Next, drop the health care budget for people over 70 in half.


Yes, it's very mean and unethical.
But it will also ensure that we as a species can f**king survive long enough until we can terraform other planets.

 

[cgaWolf]

A good war.Drop the population down, and promote a growth in terms of technology again.

Won't solve the problem. As mentioned earlier, a war with 700 million dead would drop us from 6.7/6.8 billion to 6 billion people (late 90ies levels), while at the same time reducing economies to a state where having more children is a sensible investment into your future (mid-1900s level at best) . All you'd do with such an event is drop those nations that have few children (or are on the path there) to go back to a stage where they have lots of them; and you usually get a nice bump in children born right after massive death events anyway.

700m casualties is 10 times as many casualties as WW2. We're not talking smallscale limited conflict here, a 700m casualties war would have to include (limited) deployment of nuclear weapons, probably chemical weapons, organized mass murder, etc..

A war like this drops population back to what it was 10 years ago, but drops the reasons people have few kids back 50+ years. That's a losing battle, as far as population caps are concerned.

At least we'd have a new war to base new Medal of Honor games on

Next, drop the health care budget for people over 70 in half.p

The nations that are behind the rise in world population don't have health care as you think of it. That said, better health care is at the basis of demographic transitions, longer life expectancy being an indicator that people are doing better (you live longer if you don't get shot, have a doctor, and food).
As mentioned earlier people who are better off tend to have fewer children - so as paradox as it sounds, if you want to curb population growth, you want to make sure people live a long and prosperous life.

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.

That's because your stat is total population, which grows as New Birth + Immigratration - Deaths.
We allow for immigration because we'd rather not have falling populations.

 

[BlackStar42]

Start shipping contraceptives into developing countries by the shitload. Problem solved.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I'd prefer we just, as a species, get the fuck off this rock and out into the wild black yonder.

And fuck your inefficient biofuel crops, America. fuck them. Plant food for eating, not burning.

 

[Loop Stricken]

You know what we need?

A good war.
Drop the population down, and promote a growth in terms of technology again.

Next, drop the health care budget for people over 70 in half.


Yes, it's very mean and unethical.
But it will also ensure that we as a species can f**king survive long enough until we can terraform other planets.

1) is there really such a thing as a good war?

2) Nuclear. That'll help a lot.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Naw man.

Naw.

I don't mind the government being oppressive, but imposing laws against large families is a bad idea in any non-Chinese country.

How do you police such a thing?

Kill children? Good PR move right there.

Fine the parents? Poorer people have more kids, guaranteed. They aren't going to pay.

Kill parents? Execute the voters. Nice one.

These sorts of policies work in China because the population has thousands of years of experience at being drones and never questioning anyone ever for any reason. Western countries don't have this mindset, so its more or less impossible for any government to impose something on the population that they don't want.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

*Snip*

Just wondering, why do you cut out the tags that show who you are quoting? I wouldn't have known about your response to my comment if I hadn't come back to this thread because somebody else quoted me and I stumbled upon your response.

If you cut the tags, you remove the system that alerts the people that somebody has responded to their post.

Hmmm, unless it was some secret plot to win an argument by getting the last word in without the opponent knowing, wink, wink. =p

No, you have no right to barge in on my life and tell me how many kids I can have.
I want to continue my family name in my branch, so chances are when the time comes, I won't be satisfied until I have a son.

Of course they do. We live on the same planet, we use same resources. I cant simply leave, I'm bound to this piece of rock and as long as we live together your decisions affect me and everyone else. So why should I suffer for the decisions you make. Your DNA is not special, my DNA is not special, if you really want to raise a kid, go and adopt one, at least that way you contribute to society instead of putting burden on it.

Goody that you think you think your family line isn't special. But if I'm going to have children, it will be children I helped create.

Family line is an absurd social construct. Your kid is not more important than any other kid.
Personally I would prefer if no one raised their own biological children, that way being good parents would be purely for societal gain instead of stupid biological impulses.

It doesn't matter if it's an absurd social construct or not. It's generally an accepted theory of human rights that one has the right to procreate with a willing partner. Oh, and those biological impulses are what make children in the first place, so it's probably best we keep them around. There's a lot of sci-fi about people being wiped out by their own apathy. We don't need that.

What I really want to talk about is you saying other people have the right to barge in on a person's life and tell them how many kids they can have. You say people do have that right. My response is, "I have the right to tell people I don't care about them, their feelings, or their imagined stake of the world's resources. If someone wants something from me, they should be prepared to force me on threat of pain or death." In the end, that's all "rights" comes down to: what we let people do before we decide we should forcibly stop them. If you want me to stop having kids, lock and load and come get me. Just know that I intend to be prepared for you.

Just in case someone doesn't get this, none of this is intended to be a threat.

(Slow clapping) Awesome response.

I don't know where that guy got that I was trying to say that my future kids would be better than other kids or more important.

From my experience, kids that have parents that don't treat them special or praise them compared to other kids, turn out weird and messed up. The key is to treat them special and praise them, but not overly so.

 

[cgaWolf]

Just wondering, why do you cut out the tags that show who you are quoting? I wouldn't have known about your response to my comment if I hadn't come back to this thread because somebody else quoted me and I stumbled upon your response.

If you cut the tags, you remove the system that alerts the people that somebody has responded to their post.

Hmmm, unless it was some secret plot to win an argument by getting the last word in without the opponent knowing, wink, wink. =p

Mostly because i'm a longtime lurker / new poster here, and wasn't exactly familiar with the notification system & everything. My quotes were copy & paste, and manual quote tags around them - i was fairly surprised when i just got here, had a new message alert, and that refered me to me being quoted ^_^

I'll do better from now on, and won't rob people of the pointer to where i've quoted them, thanks for the heads up

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Just wondering, why do you cut out the tags that show who you are quoting? I wouldn't have known about your response to my comment if I hadn't come back to this thread because somebody else quoted me and I stumbled upon your response.

If you cut the tags, you remove the system that alerts the people that somebody has responded to their post.

Hmmm, unless it was some secret plot to win an argument by getting the last word in without the opponent knowing, wink, wink. =p

Mostly because i'm a longtime lurker / new poster here, and wasn't exactly familiar with the notification system & everything. My quotes were copy & paste, and manual quote tags around them - i was fairly surprised when i just got here, had a new message alert, and that refered me to me being quoted ^_^

I'll do better from now on, and won't rob people of the pointer to where i've quoted them, thanks for the heads up

Okay, understandable.

In the future, just click the big blue "quote" button at the bottom right of a comment. It automatically copies the post you are wanting to respond to and it puts in the tags for the name of the person who's comment it is, which allows the system to alert that person of a response.