Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The 'right' to have children and overpopulation

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Do you support a 2 child policy for everyone?
Yes, as long as its voluntary 16%  16%  [ 6 ]
Yes, and it should be strictly enforced to prevent environmental catastrophy 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
No, people should be free to make their own reproductive choices 32%  32%  [ 12 ]
No, people who are responsible and can afford it should be free to have as many kids as they wish. Irresponsible people should not be allowed to have children (with 'rights' come responsibilities) 24%  24%  [ 9 ]
Two children is too many - a one child policy should be imposed, and more rewards for the childless 16%  16%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 38

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

20 Apr 2009, 10:49 am

ZEGH8578 wrote:
not only should people not even be allowed to get ONE kid anymore, but...

just VOTE FOR ME for global president, thats all im saying.

hah

muhah...

MOHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! !!

Sounds convincing enough. You've got my vote! :wink:


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Concenik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

20 Apr 2009, 10:53 am

Voted - NO people have the right to make their own decision.

Malthusian thinking stinks imsho.

There is enough fro all it's a matter of distribution and not stifling infrastructural development in poor countries - invariably one would find that the birth rate would decrease as the standard of living increased as has been shown time and time again.

@Sand you're belief in 'genetic engineering maybe coming to the rescue' sounds frighteningly like some Huxleyan eugenics.

@ AnnaBanana - 'rich people should have kids' - bleurgh!



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Apr 2009, 11:15 am

Concenik wrote:
Voted - NO people have the right to make their own decision.

Malthusian thinking stinks imsho.

There is enough fro all it's a matter of distribution and not stifling infrastructural development in poor countries - invariably one would find that the birth rate would decrease as the standard of living increased as has been shown time and time again.

@Sand you're belief in 'genetic engineering maybe coming to the rescue' sounds frighteningly like some Huxleyan eugenics.

@ AnnaBanana - 'rich people should have kids' - bleurgh!


Good lord! Are you scared of airborne photosynthetic bacteria? That's like being frightened of a cabbage.



Concenik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

20 Apr 2009, 11:57 am

Sand wrote:
Concenik wrote:
Voted - NO people have the right to make their own decision.

Malthusian thinking stinks imsho.

There is enough fro all it's a matter of distribution and not stifling infrastructural development in poor countries - invariably one would find that the birth rate would decrease as the standard of living increased as has been shown time and time again.

@Sand you're belief in 'genetic engineering maybe coming to the rescue' sounds frighteningly like some Huxleyan eugenics.

@ AnnaBanana - 'rich people should have kids' - bleurgh!


Good lord! Are you scared of airborne photosynthetic bacteria? That's like being frightened of a cabbage.


I misinterpreted you.. but some cabbages are quite dangerous nevertheless..especially ones in jackboots.

but in those terms perhaps we should pay at least some concern for bacterium being displaced from their usual environs by contrails in supersaturated air.



Shadowgirl
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 458

25 Apr 2009, 5:34 pm

Sounds like a kind of communism.


_________________
How to Know God Personally through Jesus Christ
http://www.ccci.org/

Does God Exist? Here is proof he does.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/is ... 2godMANp2w


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

25 Apr 2009, 9:42 pm

ThisisjusthowItalk wrote:
Education, literacy, social prosperity, and overt hedonism seem to be very effective at keeping the population under control.
Ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, and extreme conservatism seems to bank a population toward overgrowth.
Prosprous countries that enjoy widespread liberalism and a very high rate of male and female literacy seem to have very well-contained populations. They often need to take initiatives just to keep their population growth from being in decline. I point you to Scandanavia.
thats very intresting. i always knew that somehow scandanavian countrys were like that, (ive seen politicians make jokes about "well if its so bad here go live in sweden") like if it was some horrible thing, i'll have to visit those northern european countrys but i must admit it cant be that bad there. is it?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

25 Apr 2009, 10:02 pm

Shadowgirl wrote:
Sounds like a kind of communism.

Which is doubleplus ungoodthinkful.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

26 Apr 2009, 1:01 am

I think people should have the right to have as many kids as they can afford. The mass reproduction problem also isn't with rich, western countries. It's all the poor countries that keep having tons and tons of kids. Seriously, here's the top 10 countries for #of children per woman (from the CIA World Factbook):
1 Niger 7.75
2 Mali 7.29
3 Uganda 6.77
4 Afghanistan 6.53
5 Somalia 6.52
6 Burundi 6.33
7 Yemen 6.32
8 Burkina Faso 6.28
9 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.20
10 Angola 6.12

These are some of the poorest countries in the world! These are the countries that should stop having so many kids, because they can't even feed themselves as it is.

A lot of the west is actually having a problem with not having enough kids to keep up with the replacement rate (which is about 2). If anything, western countries should be encouraging their citizens to have *more* children. If population implodes, then there'll be a ton of old people with not enough young people to subsidize them.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Apr 2009, 1:09 am

Cyanide wrote:
I think people should have the right to have as many kids as they can afford. The mass reproduction problem also isn't with rich, western countries. It's all the poor countries that keep having tons and tons of kids. Seriously, here's the top 10 countries for #of children per woman (from the CIA World Factbook):
1 Niger 7.75
2 Mali 7.29
3 Uganda 6.77
4 Afghanistan 6.53
5 Somalia 6.52
6 Burundi 6.33
7 Yemen 6.32
8 Burkina Faso 6.28
9 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.20
10 Angola 6.12

These are some of the poorest countries in the world! These are the countries that should stop having so many kids, because they can't even feed themselves as it is.

A lot of the west is actually having a problem with not having enough kids to keep up with the replacement rate (which is about 2). If anything, western countries should be encouraging their citizens to have *more* children. If population implodes, then there'll be a ton of old people with not enough young people to subsidize them.


The sensible solution is, of course, to take all those extra kids from the countries that support them and distribute them to the countries that have dropping populations. But humans are outrageously unsensible so this seems a rather unlikely solution.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

26 Apr 2009, 1:36 am

Overpopulation in third world countries is largely driven by the fact that infant(and adult) mortality rates are dropping faster than social norms are adjusting. But they are changing. I think is just a waiting game.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

26 Apr 2009, 2:19 am

i would think opening two fronts in a w-war would be a temp-solution. that or a couple of natural disasters.


Cyanide wrote:
I think people should have the right to have as many kids as they can afford. The mass reproduction problem also isn't with rich, western countries. It's all the poor countries that keep having tons and tons of kids. Seriously, here's the top 10 countries for #of children per woman (from the CIA World Factbook):
1 Niger 7.75
2 Mali 7.29
3 Uganda 6.77
4 Afghanistan 6.53
5 Somalia 6.52
6 Burundi 6.33
7 Yemen 6.32
8 Burkina Faso 6.28
9 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.20
10 Angola 6.12

These are some of the poorest countries in the world! These are the countries that should stop having so many kids, because they can't even feed themselves as it is.

A lot of the west is actually having a problem with not having enough kids to keep up with the replacement rate (which is about 2). If anything, western countries should be encouraging their citizens to have *more* children. If population implodes, then there'll be a ton of old people with not enough young people to subsidize them.


whats the birth/death(infants) ratio of those countries?


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

26 Apr 2009, 4:26 am

Cyanide wrote:
I think people should have the right to have as many kids as they can afford. The mass reproduction problem also isn't with rich, western countries. It's all the poor countries that keep having tons and tons of kids. Seriously, here's the top 10 countries for #of children per woman (from the CIA World Factbook):
1 Niger 7.75
2 Mali 7.29
3 Uganda 6.77
4 Afghanistan 6.53
5 Somalia 6.52
6 Burundi 6.33
7 Yemen 6.32
8 Burkina Faso 6.28
9 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.20
10 Angola 6.12

These are some of the poorest countries in the world! These are the countries that should stop having so many kids, because they can't even feed themselves as it is.

A lot of the west is actually having a problem with not having enough kids to keep up with the replacement rate (which is about 2). If anything, western countries should be encouraging their citizens to have *more* children. If population implodes, then there'll be a ton of old people with not enough young people to subsidize them.


A population implosion is very unlikely. With a birthrate of zero and an average north american age of 30 it will take nearly 50 years to halve the population. With a single child per couple in 50 years you will only lost 25%.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

26 Apr 2009, 5:00 am

Losing 25% of the population in 50 years is pretty extreme. If that was in the United States, the population would go down from about 300 million now, to 225 million. A loss of 75 million people is pretty huge.

The problem is in Europe and Japan, though. Some of these countries, if you look at the data, have a higher percentage of people 65+ than 0-14. If that 14 and under crowd keeps up the low birthrate, then that percentage disparity will only grow. It'll keep growing until most of the people in the country are old. That creates a LOT of problems besides the population decrease.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Apr 2009, 5:21 am

Cyanide wrote:
Losing 25% of the population in 50 years is pretty extreme. If that was in the United States, the population would go down from about 300 million now, to 225 million. A loss of 75 million people is pretty huge.

The problem is in Europe and Japan, though. Some of these countries, if you look at the data, have a higher percentage of people 65+ than 0-14. If that 14 and under crowd keeps up the low birthrate, then that percentage disparity will only grow. It'll keep growing until most of the people in the country are old. That creates a LOT of problems besides the population decrease.


I remember when the population in the USA was 120 million and we got along fine. There is going to have to be a major revision in the way people are compensated for labor when the revolution in robotry really gets going which will be in the next decade or so. Robots are still a long way from doing what humans can do but that is changing very quickly. When a robot that can pretty much work 24 hours a day except for downtime for repair the consequences to working will make the industrial revolution look like no problems whatsoever. Although humanoid robots are very difficult there are many invisible robots right now invading everything from house maintenance to scientific exploration and original thought. There may be violence.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

26 Apr 2009, 5:31 am

Cyanide wrote:
Losing 25% of the population in 50 years is pretty extreme. If that was in the United States, the population would go down from about 300 million now, to 225 million. A loss of 75 million people is pretty huge.

The problem is in Europe and Japan, though. Some of these countries, if you look at the data, have a higher percentage of people 65+ than 0-14. If that 14 and under crowd keeps up the low birthrate, then that percentage disparity will only grow. It'll keep growing until most of the people in the country are old. That creates a LOT of problems besides the population decrease.

So we have children to compensate for the care of our inactivity when we grow old?

OK, so we keep breeding, business as usual. What happens when we are at the point where the population can no longer grow? Take care of the growing geriatric problem at that point?


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

26 Apr 2009, 6:03 am

Cyanide wrote:
Losing 25% of the population in 50 years is pretty extreme. If that was in the United States, the population would go down from about 300 million now, to 225 million. A loss of 75 million people is pretty huge.


Right. I'm saying its pretty darn unlikely. It would take an event in the scale of the black plague to do it.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.