Poll: Would you agree to this new law - saving humanity from certain disaster
- Thread starter BiscuitTrouser
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's sort of the problem with these policies, isn't it?LawlessSquirrel said:
In poor countries, which are the countries where the population is actually growing, children are an investment. Enforcing one/two-child policies in the western world isn't really necessary, since birth rates are already pretty low.
I think the best way to stop overpopulation would be to help developing nations reach western standards of living. Then the people would probably stop having so many children, because they are no longer an investment to them.
The problem with this, I guess, is that while all these people's expected lifespans will skyrocket, they will still procreate at the levels they did when they were poor, and the population will increase like all hell, since very few children are dying now.
The way to go would probably be to try to drag the developing nations out of the mud and enforce a one-child policy in the transitional period where the standard of living is increasing. Sadly, that's easier said than done.
we have more than enough food and space to support 7 billion people, if not more.
it's just us. yes us. the west.
we waste food which can be used all the time. why is this?
we buy more than we need, and we use more than necessary.
for example: 10 kilo's of grain will produce 1 kilo of cow meat.
this kilo of cow meat will be bought and half-consumed before being forgotten in the fridge to the point of rotting. that's 5 kilo's of grain and thus could have been 5 kilo's of bread which would have fed a lot of people.
my point is: if we don't change our ways and distribute food equally (and eat less meat (no, I don't get the hots for animals)) we could all live a long and social life without the threat of starvation.
it's just us. yes us. the west.
we waste food which can be used all the time. why is this?
we buy more than we need, and we use more than necessary.
for example: 10 kilo's of grain will produce 1 kilo of cow meat.
this kilo of cow meat will be bought and half-consumed before being forgotten in the fridge to the point of rotting. that's 5 kilo's of grain and thus could have been 5 kilo's of bread which would have fed a lot of people.
my point is: if we don't change our ways and distribute food equally (and eat less meat (no, I don't get the hots for animals)) we could all live a long and social life without the threat of starvation.
Except corporate greed has been hindering science for half a century now, any technological development that can't be turned into more profits gets snubbed. Even if we get the second coming of Einstein, s/he won't be allowed to get us too far.Jacques Dean said:
Yes, I would support this law.
The only major difference between me and Albert Wesker is that I don't have a super-virus and a jet to deliver it to the upper atmosphere.
This planet is over-populated and it is only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan.
...
...
Also the other major difference is that I don't posses super-human powers...obviously.
The only major difference between me and Albert Wesker is that I don't have a super-virus and a jet to deliver it to the upper atmosphere.
This planet is over-populated and it is only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan.
...
...
Also the other major difference is that I don't posses super-human powers...obviously.
Build gigantic raft cities and colonise the moon. 
Seriously: yeah I'd support that. I only want one or possibly 2 kids anyway, sooo... go for it. Would prefer limitation based on how useless the person in question is. Ignorant, lazy imbecile? You can have a kid. Fairly intelligent, law abiding citizen, doing actual work? Go for it, have a couple.
Of course, that system is flawed because it is impossible to tell somebody's potential or what their offspring could potentially do. So maybe just limit everyone to 2? That way population stops increasing.
Seriously: yeah I'd support that. I only want one or possibly 2 kids anyway, sooo... go for it. Would prefer limitation based on how useless the person in question is. Ignorant, lazy imbecile? You can have a kid. Fairly intelligent, law abiding citizen, doing actual work? Go for it, have a couple.
Of course, that system is flawed because it is impossible to tell somebody's potential or what their offspring could potentially do. So maybe just limit everyone to 2? That way population stops increasing.
I think stopping people from having so many children is a good idea. One, it will mean the population stop growing to an obscene amount and two, it will give children better childhoods with the parents not having to look after 4 or 5 children. Then it also means parents won't be using children for benifits or money. If they do, it will be substantially less.
Okay i totally over exageratted my point.joebear15 said:
Although on a totally serious note, the population explosion and overcrowding isnt just because of people having too many children or whatever, if you look at the other end of the spectrum our quality of living and care has increased dramaticly over the past years so now people live longer. So we are having more children who will live longer.
CAPTCHA: Row, Sholeff
Row, sholeff! Row goddammnit!
I have a radical and no-doubt hateworthy suggestion. Each child past the first has a pricetag attatched (paid as a tax) and the price increases substantially with every further child. Yes it does limit large families to the rich but also means if you have a child you can afford to support them.
personally I don't think we're in much of a problem right now, it's just fat cats holding back food/water/medical supplies for everyone in the poorer areas. x child policies just don't seem the way forward.
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.Seriphina said:
C'mon, have some imagination people. You cant just say "people wont stand for this!" Honestly, you're talking about the same complacent sheeple who sit on their fat asses and continue to pay absurd prices for gas?
I'd like you all to try an experiment. Go for 24 hours without eating. If you want to really go hard, drink coffee in the process. Now assume that you have no food and no money. Also assume that everyone else is in the same boat, so standing on the corner with a sign will do you no good. Now make a list of what you would and would not be willing to do to eat. Better yet, what you would or would not be willing to do to feed your children.
I'd like you all to try an experiment. Go for 24 hours without eating. If you want to really go hard, drink coffee in the process. Now assume that you have no food and no money. Also assume that everyone else is in the same boat, so standing on the corner with a sign will do you no good. Now make a list of what you would and would not be willing to do to eat. Better yet, what you would or would not be willing to do to feed your children.
The series you're thinking of is the Shadow Children series, starting with Among the Hidden. It's a good read, and deals with this exact topic. Remembering what happened in the series makes my answer a no. I don't want any bullshit law that allows the government to demonize or kill any third+ child as they see fit.Mcoffey said:
You are forgetting where the highest rates of population growth actually is. The United States and Europe have among the lowest rates of population growth in the world already. Enacting a law here is useless. If you want to make an impact, intercede in areas like Africa and India. Where I might add, that contraceptives are often about as common as antimatter.BiscuitTrouser said:
