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

[BiscuitTrouser]

While I do agree some form of population control is necessary It would also be nigh on impossible to implement.

if you tied it in with some form of government reward system, first 2 children get free education etc but for any after that do not, it might help to dissuade from any more children and if any more are born they either pay for after normal school education or we get more labourer's to work the fields making more food.

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

Some people WANT to stab people and steal their money. In the same way some people want more than 2 kids regardless of the fact its leading to humanities certain doom. We dont get what we want if its harmfull to society

I wouldn't make laws regarding how many children a state's citizens can have. One, ideologically speaking it's wrong- the state should only make laws to prevent harm. Secondly, practically it's needless.

When a country reaches a certain level of development comparable to Western countries, population growth rates slow and things become more or less sustainable. Countries like Germany and Japan have very little or even negative population growth, and the only reason why the population of the UK and France is increasing is due to immigration.

So really, the answer is to encourage development in the 3rd world and population growth will level out.

Trust me people are always going to have a lot of kids. As long as this persists, the population WILL CRASH. It is 100% inevitable. Unless suddenly by their own violation people stop having as many kids. Which is what this law is enforcing. It might lead to the death of us all (look at worst case scenario) and make our species EXTINCT. I think that is a pretty good need.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Ok, read carefully.
Before the Tzunami, earthquakes and nuclear near meltdown, statistics in Japan showed that the death rate (and other factors) are larger than the birth rate. Which means that their population would naturally decline throughout the years. the government even issud incentives for young couples to get married and have children, but the tred didn't change. This resulted from the unique culture japan has and the way of life there.
On the other hand, there are countries that have a an average birth rate much higher than the rest, for example in Africa you have the democratic republic congo, Guinea-Bissau,Liberia and Nigeria, followed by a 'middle eastern' country, Afghanistan. These are the top 5 countries with the highest birth rate in them, compiled by the UN. One can recognize the pattern behind them and see the similarities between them all.
One cannot try and suppress the population growth by imposing a law, because population growth depends on the life quality, culture and society of different countries, and that changes drastically between different countries.
this is unnecessary cruel to prevent families from having more than 2 children while you do nothing to prevent the tribal people in the democratic republic of congo to only have 2.
You can do nothing to prevent the impending doom.
Brace yourself for the inevitable doom .

 

[silasbufu]

You must understand that most people are hypocrites. They say they would do anything to save the planet and all humanity, but when you announce a law like the one you propose, that denies them something, then the riots start.

I believe the majority of the population would not be willing to make any compromises if it gets in the way of their dreams an desires, because it would not be "the human thing to do". It's too bad that "the other human thing to do" right now appears to be "fucking up the planet".

I agree with you that something needs to be done, I'm not sure how your proposed law would work though.

Also, I voted yes because it's not the first time I discuss this issue and everytime I hear something like "no, there must be another way", but I don't get any concrete alternatives.

P.S. : I just remembered something related to this. In my country and probably many others, lots of poor people have children just so they can send them to beg for money and for the social allowances. And by that I mean, ALOT of children.

 

[Jadak]

What really need is some alien species concerned with our growth to discreetly introduce a genophage of sorts, problem solved, for a while

 

[Socks and Shoes]

I declare human hunting season open.

More food and population control.

 

[IzisviAziria]

If nature and biology cull us, that's one thing. I just don't think people should do it. If a war arises and kills a lot of people, bringing us down to a reasonable number (I doubt the population will plummet that far and if it does, ehh, we had a good run), then we'll start the cycle over again. I just hate the idea of one person looking at another person and saying "You need to die for the good of me." Or even worse, one person looking at millions of people and saying that. If we overpopulate ourselves into starvation, that will probably happen, but it would be a natural event, and humanity would perceviere.

He's not suggesting that we start killing people to solve a population crisis, he's suggesting implementing laws to keep us from overpopulating before it becomes a crisis. And humanities starvation is not a natural event. In nature, a population that grows to the point of starvation is natural. We have literally removed ourselves from natures process, if we overpopulate, it's because we fucked up. We have A) the technology to keep from having so many children, B) the knowledge that having as many kids as possible is destructive, and C) the means to feed a sustained population.

 

[Altorin]

While I do agree some form of population control is necessary It would also be nigh on impossible to implement.

if you tied it in with some form of government reward system, first 2 children get free education etc but for any after that do not, it might help to dissuade from any more children and if any more are born they either pay for after normal school education or we get more labourer's to work the fields making more food.

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

Some people WANT to stab people and steal their money. In the same way some people want more than 2 kids regardless of the fact its leading to humanities certain doom. We dont get what we want if its harmfull to society

I wouldn't make laws regarding how many children a state's citizens can have. One, ideologically speaking it's wrong- the state should only make laws to prevent harm. Secondly, practically it's needless.

When a country reaches a certain level of development comparable to Western countries, population growth rates slow and things become more or less sustainable. Countries like Germany and Japan have very little or even negative population growth, and the only reason why the population of the UK and France is increasing is due to immigration.

So really, the answer is to encourage development in the 3rd world and population growth will level out.

Trust me people are always going to have a lot of kids. As long as this persists, the population WILL CRASH. It is 100% inevitable. Unless suddenly by their own violation people stop having as many kids. Which is what this law is enforcing. It might lead to the death of us all (look at worst case scenario) and make our species EXTINCT. I think that is a pretty good need.

having lots of kids is a cultural thing. It's based on the truth that in the past, having many children ensured that at least a couple would become adults. In the western world, that's been largely removed. Healthcare advances means that children don't die as easily, so people have fewer kids. Also, better means of birth control mean fewer kids. It doesn't help that missionaries for the longest time told their stewards that condoms were evil devices that killed people.

No easy answers, but "having lots of kids" is pretty much tied to a lack of healthcare, both in terms of contraception and child deathrates.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Whoa no ones KILLING anyone! Its a law against more kids. Kids outside this law get NO state funding, and the majority of population growth is from poor areas anyway, meaning this will solve the problem.

 

[direkiller]

id say find another inhabitable planet, make friends with the natives and ask them if we can have some land for the overcrowding....and also DO THIS CONSTANTLY... DONT DO IT ONCE THEN JUST KEEP ASKING FOR MORE LAND THAT HOW A WAR WILL BREAK OUT...WHEN WE HAVE UN OUT OF ROOM ON THE PLANET GO FIND ANOTHER ONE

... joke post, right?

no im serious wait till our space program become more advanced and then have the people we cant support on earth go to the nearest inhabitable planet

habitable planets(and there are no more in our solasystem so it would take an impractical amount of time to get out of the solarsystem

inhabitble is easy just go to outer space and dump and call it a day
(in=not so inhabitable=not habitable and going off your first post if people alredy live there its habitable)

 

[googleback]

I have no idea, why is it happening so quickly now? why the sudden explosion?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Look at general popluation trend. As healthcare and contraception came about it STILL increases, even faster than before. Explain that.

 

[Hunter15]

id say find another inhabitable planet, make friends with the natives and ask them if we can have some land for the overcrowding....and also DO THIS CONSTANTLY... DONT DO IT ONCE THEN JUST KEEP ASKING FOR MORE LAND THAT HOW A WAR WILL BREAK OUT...WHEN WE HAVE UN OUT OF ROOM ON THE PLANET GO FIND ANOTHER ONE

... joke post, right?

no im serious wait till our space program become more advanced and then have the people we cant support on earth go to the nearest inhabitable planet

You either A) don't quite realize how far away the nearest "inhabitable" planet is or B) Have seriously overestimated our space technology growth. At any rate, I can promise you that the planet will achieve maximum capacity long before we achieve light speed. Or the apocalypse will happen before either, in which case, neither matters.

yeah your im pretty sure ill start working on the 1/3rd of earths population to meet its demise with my friends before well reach light speed

 

[Seriphina]

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

 

[Jonluw]

I really wouldn't have any problems with the government putting a cap on the number of children we can have.

Two is plenty, and one is fine.

 

[Hunter15]

id say find another inhabitable planet, make friends with the natives and ask them if we can have some land for the overcrowding....and also DO THIS CONSTANTLY... DONT DO IT ONCE THEN JUST KEEP ASKING FOR MORE LAND THAT HOW A WAR WILL BREAK OUT...WHEN WE HAVE UN OUT OF ROOM ON THE PLANET GO FIND ANOTHER ONE

... joke post, right?

no im serious wait till our space program become more advanced and then have the people we cant support on earth go to the nearest inhabitable planet

habitable planets(and there are no more in our solasystem so it would take an impractical amount of time to get out of the solarsystem

inhabitble is easy just go to outer space and dump and call it a day
(in=not so inhabitable=not habitable and going off your first post if people alredy live there its habitable)

opps used wrong word sorry i meant habitable

 

[Altorin]

If nature and biology cull us, that's one thing. I just don't think people should do it. If a war arises and kills a lot of people, bringing us down to a reasonable number (I doubt the population will plummet that far and if it does, ehh, we had a good run), then we'll start the cycle over again. I just hate the idea of one person looking at another person and saying "You need to die for the good of me." Or even worse, one person looking at millions of people and saying that. If we overpopulate ourselves into starvation, that will probably happen, but it would be a natural event, and humanity would perceviere.

He's not suggesting that we start killing people to solve a population crisis, he's suggesting implementing laws to keep us from overpopulating before it becomes a crisis. And humanities starvation is not a natural event. In nature, a population that grows to the point of starvation is natural. We have literally removed ourselves from natures process, if we overpopulate, it's because we fucked up. We have A) the technology to keep from having so many children, B) the knowledge that having as many kids as possible is destructive, and C) the means to feed a sustained population.

I disagree. You can't circumvent nature's laws forever. Eventually, you'll find laws that you can't break. If we breed ourselves into starvation, sure, we fucked up, but the fact that our brains evolved, means that our ability to judge our own fuckedupedness is a natural thing, and our inability to stop ourselves from careening off the cliff is certainly natural. It's horrible perhaps, but nature's a *****.

You can disagree though, I just think the idea of something being "Unnatural" is ludicrous in the real world. I have a very broad view of nature. If Humans think that they've somehow fully escaped the laws of nature, that is hubris of the highest degree.

 

[Pistachio101]

I wouldn't make laws regarding how many children a state's citizens can have. One, ideologically speaking it's wrong- the state should only make laws to prevent harm. Secondly, practically it's needless.

When a country reaches a certain level of development comparable to Western countries, population growth rates slow and things become more or less sustainable. Countries like Germany and Japan have very little or even negative population growth, and the only reason why the population of the UK and France is increasing is due to immigration.

So really, the answer is to encourage development in the 3rd world and population growth will level out.

But surely the reason for them being able to sustain their high density of population is through the importation of food. (I don't know this for sure but I assume that places like Japan don't have enough land to produce food for 120,000,000 people). If growth was encouraged in the Third World then I would assume it would be encouraged to move from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing/services economy. If everyone did this then where would the imports of food come from?

 

[Purple Shrimp]

it's a good idea but it'd only really be effective at controlling birth in first-world countries, which unfortunately are almost always the countries with the lowest rates of population growth

 

[Craig Cameron]

if a law like this was passed it would likely that it would limit you to a single child until the population drops to a comfortably manageable level then alternate between 1 and 2 children to keep the population at a stable level.

While some would view it as a law that reduces our freedom, I'd rather be able to enjoy the freedoms I still have rather than be completely free and starve to death.