Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the OP has posed a question worthy of consideration, whether a joke or not.
The world only has so much hospitable land mass to support the population.
The worlds land mass can only support so much agriculture. Some support none. (i.e. Antarctica & desert regions) The larger the population, the more food needs to be produced. Therefore you need land.
Sooner or later, the space needed for housing will bump into the space needed for agriculture. Who gets it? The developers to build houses or the farmers to grow food?
The worlds water sources are already strained in some areas. Some western states are already concerned about this. There is only so much potable water to go around. The higher the population, the greater the demand for water.
They are clearing forests at an alrming rate to provide lumber to build. It takes many years for a tree to mature and we are stripping our natural resources faster than it can replaced.
With all that said, many folks don't think of the big picture when they decide to have kids. They are too caught up in the warm and fuzzy feelings of carrying on the family name. Folks may worry about their kids future but not enough to make the hard decision to simply Not have them.
As someone said earlier, the only way to get folks on board with contributing to the population control will be bribery. Tax breaks for not having kids. I also think in my lifetime I will see the gov't impose laws regarding the number of children we can have in the US and other countries besides China. It will be the only way to slow down the population growth.
That's ridiculous, and the comparison isn't even within the realm of being the same ballpark.
Population control has everything to do with Eugenics.
It displays the limited reasoning of the "slippery slope" excuse. Just because sometimes gov'ts do horrible things in the name of the well-being of its population, does not mean all paternalistic gov't programs are bad.
Population control only has to do with Eugenics if it is applied in a discriminatory manner based on what is perceived to be a biologically deficient sub-population.
Encouraging a population to limit its growth does not automatically entail that some have more of a right to population that others.
With all that said, many folks don't think of the big picture when they decide to have kids. They are too caught up in the warm and fuzzy feelings of carrying on the family name. Folks may worry about their kids future but not enough to make the hard decision to simply Not have them.
Yes, which is sad. I've gotten my share of snide comments about not 'carrying on the family name.' Luckily, I am great at ignoring people when I want to. The way I see it, there are already however many billion families spreading names (in an exponential fashion), for whatever purpose that's supposed to serve. There is no point of me compounding the problem. I have brains enough to understand that we live on a finite world with finite resources. I also have brains enough to see what happens in nature when a population of organisms grows beyond its means of support.
It displays the limited reasoning of the "slippery slope" excuse. Just because sometimes gov'ts do horrible things in the name of the well-being of its population, does not mean all paternalistic gov't programs are bad.
Population control only has to do with Eugenics if it is applied in a discriminatory manner based on what is perceived to be a biologically deficient sub-population. Encouraging a population to limit its growth does not automatically entail that some have more of a right to population that others.
Right. But encouraging a population to limit its growth is NOT "population control" - which is the title of this thread.
Right. But encouraging a population to limit its growth is NOT "population control" - which is the title of this thread.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Population control can be encouraged, coerced, and/or forced.
Even when it is forced, such as in China, it does not neccesarily follow eugenics. In fact, in order to dismiss these fears, many minority ethnic groups can have more than one child, and some in the countryside can have a 2nd child. Those who work within the government itself are the most severely punished.
The previously stated reform of the tax and economic structure, education, contraceptive and abortion availability, etc... are forms of population control, which are limited to encouragement and limited financial coercion, but do not include any eugenics or forced family planning, are appropriate for the US.
I'm kind of torn on this issue. I mean, you've got to pass a test to get a drivers license. Hell, if you adopt a pet now, the pound will ask for proof of income. However, you need nothing more than two consenting people to have a child.
Then again, I am a strong libertarian, and I don't like government intervention on our daily lives.
I'm kind of on the fence on this one, should everyone have children, I don't think so. However, who am I to tell them no?
China exercised population control, without which its population might be a billion or so more than it is now. It is difficult to imagine China having its present economic success with that much more of a population to feed in its finite space. It looks like population control, in that case, was a good idea, at least from today's vantage point.
Long as you werent one of the thousands of unwanted baby girls tossed away like yesterdays trash in the hopes of concieving a son.
I have pissed off a few people with my views on population control.
I wish to comment first, that I think the USA would have considerably less of a population threat if we had secure borders! But we don't, most likely never will, and as long as "anchor baby" laws are in place, the illegal invasion will continue to burden everything (healthcare, government freebies. . .).
It does not matter to me whether or not a couple can afford to take care of a brood of kids. It's still a syphoning of our resources. And I wish to Hell that religions would take more responsibility in this area (but I shall spare details here).
But like Memphis1919, I am a bit on the fence on this one when it comes to government "intervention". They had their chance in the last 25 years to help by securing the borders. And as long as they refuse to do so, then I don't want them issuing limitations on how many children American citizens should breed.
Yep'who wants to go fisrsat because we have too many people' Step right up folks.Remeinds me of lookign for scape gosts and victims like something from hitler's theories.Many beleieve that Abortion is the slites way of gwetting rid of the getto class now.
Yep'who wants to go fisrsat because we have too many people' Step right up folks.Remeinds me of lookign for scape gosts and victims like something from hitler's theories.Many beleieve that Abortion is the slites way of gwetting rid of the getto class now.
Its a statistical fact that crime rates dropped, in corolation with the generations after abortion was decriminalized came of age.
Less unwanted babies, less crime, its that simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
