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

[WanderingFool]

Im still banking on a major event that causes a large amount of earths population to parish. Sort of like the Black Death in Medieval times.

But, I guess I would if it was put forth, I really dont want to marry and have two dozen kids, so a two child limit would be fine to me.

 

[Corkydog]

Hmm...nope. I still plan on three kids, just like my two brothers and me. It has a good family dynamic, and each of us has such a beautifully different personality that it would have been a crime not to have concieved us all. Not to mention I am the third child, so all you bastards would have sooner seen me a killed fetus.

But my best reason for wanting three kids is that we need smart people. Dumb people have way too many kids (source: Idiocracy (film)), and someone needs to make sure the next generation is smart enough to deal with these kinds of global issues. I am not saying my children will be geniouses, but if my genes have anything to do with it, they will be intelligent enough to come up with a better solution than "kill the children."

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Breeding is a traditionally unrecognized human rights violation. Seriously, the world is fucked up and getting worse, bringing more people into this crap isn't doing anyone a favor.

It's more of a human rights violation to control people and tell them what they can and can't do. If people want to have a big families, that is their business, no matter what other evidence there is.

 

[cgaWolf]

But, practically, the planet cannot support anymore than just one child per couple

Actually, you'd need 2 children per couple just so that population stays stable (and that's incorrectly insinuating a 0% child mortality rate).
To reflect this and combat the 4-2-1 problem (one child having to support 2 parents & 4 grandparents), couples where both partners are only children are allowed to have 2 children - ie: there are limits to the effectiveness of a 1 child policy, eventually you'd have an economic breakdown due to demographic stress. China's policymakers aren't complete idiots, hence the shift in policy.
That said, i'm still not convinced the one-child policy is as responsible for the lowering of birthrate as much as chinese officials claim: the introduction of the policy lowered birthrate from ~3 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2008; compared to the drop from 5 (in 1970) to 3 in a decade, caused by policy (essentially education & advertising, not legal cohercion), and increased standard of living.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the policy (while harsh & inhumane) is uneven at best (hard to control in remote rural areas, especially since officials often look the other way), and don't forget that multiple births (twins and such) don't count: while you can't exactly decide to have twins, fertility treatment is known to increase the chance by a lot. Turns out the proportion of multiple births doubles since the introduction fo the policy...

We just need a good old fashioned war in which millions die...Sure it's not the most humane option but hey, I can't be bothered thinking a real solution at the mo'

Let's say a nuclear WW3 with 700 million dead - not quite a nuclear holocaust, but a limited nuclear conflict, certainly a decently sized mass slaying of tons of people (who'd much rather have lived their life in peace). Great, we're back to 6.0 billion people on earth instead of 6.7 billion, except now a ton of countries have been thrown back in their standard of living & medecine, so that having lots of kids again becomes a decent option for investing in your retirement.

Btw, this postulated WW3 has roughly 10 times as many dead as WW2, so it's not like i'm being skimpy. I'm liberally doling our fictious deaths here.

All that does, is throw us back to a late 1990ies population figure, while simultaneously kicking us back into a 1900s standard of living, and subsequently higher birthrates. The problem of overpopulation just became worse, especially since we can usually observe an additional bump in birth rates after massive death events.

Tax extra children is the easy solution

The nations that have population problems are generally poor. Taxing poor people does nothing. As a counterpoint, if us rich nations want to have more children coming out of well-to-do homes (and we do), we should consider lowering taxes past 3 children, and do it in a way that affects middle-upper class households (say lowering income tax, or basis of calculation of income tax in households with 3+ children; or make child expenditures (especially medial & educational) allowable against income tax)).
Savings in low-income households would be negligable, while they could be substantial in middle-upper class households, and tip the balance towards a 3rd or 4th child - and world-overpopulation issues aside, us western nations generally want MORE children out of our middle & upper classes.

Actually I can't understand why so many people are saying no.

Because it's a massive government interference in my human rights; and the better solution is to figure out how everyone can have a decent standard of living. Not only does it cause comparable birthrates (Europe/US vs. China) without forced abortion, gender biased abandonment / infanticie, etc.. it has the sideeffect of creating a decent standard of living all over the place.
I don't see why you'd want a law like this at all, especially since it's a very narrow stopgap measure that adresses birthrates only, while causing a whole bunch of other problems, and doesn't adress education, wealth, safety, etc...

Humanity is not going to end because there are too many humans. Does that even need to be said?

No, but it's a neat way of saying it

 

[Abengoshis]

How about, you do it once, you keep however many children you had on your first time (unless that is 0). After this any time your partner becomes pregnant, she must have an abortion. It'd get people thinking about when they're truly ready to have children and more people would have safe sex.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Sigh...

Totally this. George Carlin was the best, he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Snooder]

Sigh.

Guys, if you pay attention to the actual population statistics, you'll understand that the problem is nowhere as grave as the OP post makes it out to be. While there is a huge population increase in the third world due to lower rates of infant mortality, in Western world, population rates have been on the decline for a while now. It's pretty clear that once a society gets to a certain level of average prosperity, people stop wanting the time and expense of having so many damn kids and either decide to have less kids or opt out altogether.

 

[MorgulMan]

There's all sorts of problems here. First, just to take your question: riddled with errors. New law? China's had it for decades. How many people are scrambling to move to that paradise nation? Saving humanity? This, of course, assumes that your law will achieve its desired goal. I'd imagine the result would be closer to the U.S.'s disastrous flirtation with Prohibition. And my favorite: certain disaster. This, truly, is the dead horse here. For over 200 years, doomsayers have prophesied, rending their garments and dirtying their beards, "Repent and keep it in your pants, for the end is nigh!" Always, their pet prediction is both certain, damning, and immediate. And history proves them wrong. Absurdly, laughably, inevitably wrong.

But let's get down to the nitty-gritty. A just government, as has already been stated by several commentors whose souls are not yet blackened and shriveled by loathing and public education, has no business and no power to enact or support such a law. It is fundamentally intrusive and unjust, and any government that enacted such a law would be intrusive and unjust, I'd wager monstrously so. Any law that merely "encouraged" would not be enough to accomplish your goals. Any law that coerced, of course, should be easily recognized as the demonic and murderous thing that it was.

And yet I assert that even a merely encouraging or "mild" punishing law would still be steeped in blood. If you say the solution is to deny government benefits for the third plus children, you are firstly unjustly and immorally punishing those children, in their private persons, for a crime they did not commit or condone. I'm also willing to speculate that if you support a law of this sort, your ideal society involves the government taking care of all the business of raising children...public schooling, public healthcare, the works. You are therefore depriving these innocent children of vital care, in order to punish their parents. (The objection to this accusation, of course, is that they can seek private care and schooling. My response to that is twofold. First, that in your Cloudcuckooland that has the power to do these things, the government is running the schools and the hospitals. If the government thinks it is okay to coerce citizens into obeying its prudish commands, this same government would have no qualms about shutting down or taxing to death all competition to its program of indoctrination. Second, that even if private services were commonly available, they are best able to be paid for by the wealthy, who, historically, have the least number of children, and least able to be paid for by the destitute, who have the most number of children. You are punishing the poor for being poor.)

Furthermore, this law would undoubtedly cast parents of multiple children in a negative light, and they will ultimately also face social pressures, branded as traitors to the twin gods, Caesar and Gaia.

In conclusion, even the least coercive version of such a law is overreaching, intrusive, unjust, discriminatory, and ultimately bloodstained. So no, I would not agree to this new law. I think history shows that simple economic improvement and the expansion of social freedoms causes the birthrate in countries to fall naturally. No monstrously evil laws are necessary, desirable, or effective.

 

[LiudvikasT]

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.

So you are saying that only an uneducated, a stupid woman would want to have more than one or two kids?

I seen and read about plenty of educated, smart, and successful women that have had three or more kids.

It's just the trend. Usually educated, smart and successful people have less children. That doesn't mean it's always the case, but usually it is.

 

[Sansha]

Children are vending machines. You put in food, and you get noise and poop.

Why anyone would want to surrender their lives and put themselves through 20+ years of children is beyond anything I can comprehend.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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.

 

[spartandude]

One word: Genophage

 

[IceStar100]

I wouldn't mind the ok 3 kd but only g govermnt support for 2. If you can afford 90 kid good on you.

 

[LiudvikasT]

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.

 

[alandavidson]

China's law dealing with that issue has had, in general, negative effects. It's a good idea, but not practical.

 

[cgaWolf]

The most humane way to do it is advance the education and opportunities of women. As this is done, both the birth rate and infant mortality plummet. Problem solved with no draconian laws.

Wow. I'm not a woman and I find that offensive.

So you are saying that only an uneducated, a stupid woman would want to have more than one or two kids?

I seen and read about plenty of educated, smart, and successful women that have had three or more kids.

(I'm not the guy you responded to, just an interested third party)

I don't think that's what he's saying - in fact i made the same argument myself quite often, but you're understanding it wrong.

There's plenty of women that are smart, educated, successful and have 3+ kids; however data shows that there's a very immediate correlation between the status of living of women (that being education, access to health care personel, personel wealth), and women giving birth to fewer children.

Note that i said correlation, not causation: Women being better educated doesn't cause them to have fewer kids, but the circumstances that usually surround female education (wealth, access to modern medecine, birth control, stronger legal status, higher degree of independance from their family & men, valid & supported choice of doing something other than being a mother, etc..) often compound to the "higher standard of living = less kids".

Short version: it's not saying that smart educated women have few kids, and women who have 3+ kids are dumb; it says that women who are better educated & wealthier tend to have fewer children, and that the correlation is statistically obvious - in fact it's so tightly linked you can often look at data of how female rights & education evolve, and draw a conclusion as to the economic & social development of a country.
Female education data is an incredibly powerful indicator as to how well a country is doing.

How about, you do it once, you keep however many children you had on your first time (unless that is 0). After this any time your partner becomes pregnant, she must have an abortion. It'd get people thinking about when they're truly ready to have children and more people would have safe sex.

No, it would just lead to lots of people conceiving & birthing outside the sphere of qualified medical personel. It helps no one & criminalizes very basic human instinct. Also, considering just how-much abortion is a flamebait issue, i'm pretty sure that won't go through in many places. Well, except maybe with Republicans - i hear they're huge fans of abortion & state interference in their personal rights

Family line is an absurd social construct. Your kid is not more important than any other kid.

It is to me. Ofc that's more a result of evolutionary pressures & socio-religious pressures, but it's also the reason why "go adopt one" doesn't make sense to people who want to procreate. The only ones that makes sense to are those who already agree with you - it's preaching to the choir.

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.

I'd certainly favor a limited study (say a few hundred families) pilot program to see how that turns out.

 

[Wolfram23]

You say "disaster" like it's a bad thing...

Anyway, it's rather well proven that birthrates in the most educated first world countries declines sharply, while it spins out of control in poverty stricken third world countries. Quite frankly, places like America can support themselves just fine but places like India and China would probably have to start some serious wars or else vast amounts of people will starve.

Overpopulation isn't global. It's restricted to a few places - places where it's the worst possible thing for them to overpopulate because the country just doesn't have the infrastructure to support it.

If anything we just need to get more education into third world countries (China isn't really 3rd world and this generation has high education standards, but Mao screwed up their parents. My info comes from my Shanghainees girlfriend)

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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

racist

Sigh...

Im not worried about it. It was a thought experiment under a real world application. i wanted to know if people thought procreation was a fundamental human right and under what condition it should be relinquished. People seem to assume the second you want to talk about something, you must be like that things mascot or something or if the things negative, some sort of doom sayer. Its a thought experiment. Chill.

 

[dagens24]

This is fucking disgusting and shameful. Procreation should be a fundamental human right. This is a step away from forced sterilization.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This is fucking disgusting and shameful. Procreation should be a fundamental human right. This is a step away from forced sterilization.

This is more of a thought experiement to see at what point it should not be a right. If humanity WAS over populating and people refused to stop breeding causing us to be on the brink of starvation would you let everyone die? I wanted to see what people thought.