First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Should a law limiting birth be required?...
1359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 4/3/08
yes
Posted 4/3/08

MidnightZorya wrote:

Being smart doesn't necessarily mean that you are more qualified for life than others. Even "stupid" people have their qualities. For example, people who are smart/intelligent have mostly a weak body or immunity system, and dumb people (not referring to retards or some other mentally challenged peeps), are mostly quite unaffected by allergies and other diseases.


I agree with the unquoted stuff but where did you get this bit from? This is completely false. That's only some-what true in places is extremely mixed cultures and ethnic groups. Older countries that used to have selective marriage are usually clearly divided. People who are intelligent also have a naturally powerful body and immune system. Like me and some other European families with a strong genetic lineage, have naturally superior intelligence, naturally stronger body, and naturally stronger organs and a longer life expectancy. I'm not trying to sound narcissist, I'm just saying that there are a lot of people like that when blood lines are kept in certain populations and not cross-bred with other highly varied genetic pools. This isn't interbreeding either nor does in it in anyway increase the chance of retardation. It actually lowers that chance by not allowing a corrupt gene to enter the pool at all. After all, retardation are caused a minuscule contradictions in highly varied gene pools that became magnifiedand intensified through incest or other interfamily breeding.

46374 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 4/3/08
No matter if theres a law or not.
People are still going to sleep around and have unplanned children.

Nothing more tempting than dirty unprotected sex. Heck yes.
144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / Planet Earth
Offline
Posted 4/3/08
I am beginning to think we have no choice but to limit birth rate; competition for resources, famine and starvation are the inevitable result of uncontrolled population growth. It is also the best way of controlling the growing pollution problems in the medium to long term; more people = more polluters = more pollution. One would hope that people would be aware of the dangers and make that choice themselves, but its a forlorn hope. However if one pursued such a policy it would have to be fair and applied across the board; favouring the intelligent, the strong or the blonde smacks of 'the master race' and we definitely don't want that.

I just had to include this extract from 'The Selfish Gene';

"The present population of Latin America is around 300 million...if the population continued to grow at the present rate, it would take less than 500 years to reach the point where the people, packed in a standing position, formed a solid human carpet over the whole area of the continent...In 1000 years from now they would be standing on each other shoulders more than a million deep. By 2000 years, the mountain of people, travelling outwards at the speed of light, would have reached the edge of the known universe.
It will not have escaped you that this is a hypothetical calculation! It will not really happen like that for some very good practical reasons...famine, plague and war; or if we are lucky, birth control"

Something to think about eh? he concludes

"Increases in food production may temporarily alleviate the problem, but it is mathematically certain that they cannot be a long term solution..."







8211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 4/3/08
Haha. Sounds like a movie I was trying to make up a while ago. The movie idea was that since the world was getting so populated, the government (from all over the world) agreed to control the situation with this solution - Every time a child is born, the child would be sent to a special doctor for 'screening'. Though what happens in that screening is that the doctor would test the child's genes and stuff like that. And if the child doesnt have good genes, they get sterilized. That way, the worlds population would be under control.

Weird idea huh?
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 4/4/08
Considering that the world's agriculture may collapse in 30 years (with four degrees more worldwide) we may want to give the breeders a slack. If there is so little grain to go around anyway, people will die like flies. My own country only takes care of 50% of its food consumption, so I am hoping the other western countries will help us out if push comes to shove.

I am reminded of a movie I never got to see, if someone would help me with the title it would be fantastic. Its about a mass emigration of Africans lead by someone. Fleeing for obvious reasons I guess. They just trample on the old rules about borders, which they can since they are in great numbers. They end up in Gibraltar I think, where the united forces of Europe suddenly meet them in form of a gigantic army (at the time I am not sure that WEU was even thought of). It's like the white man's response to the white man's ultimate nightmare. I'd like to see it. Maybe when the agriculture collapses, to get in spirit, just in case. Well, actually, they would die before getting that far. Also, I am not sure if so many africans can swim. Maybe they had boats. Mmm. I really want to see that movie.

Enough about the movie. Anyways, one thing I can't understand. The male/female ratio objection about China. If they really want the numbers down, and there is a more numerous gender, doesn't that work rather well? I just don't see the reason for objecting here. Also, isn't this a thing of the past? I seem to remmeber ultrasounding to check gender is banned, there was couples that decided upon abortion if it was a girl. Nowadays, they can't check. I know some people have said that the Chinese dump the girls in the river and stuff after birth, but I'm having a hard time believing this is a major problem, that a whole people consists of so many couples that would just dump their child. Also, the police would get involved. I do not know the current status of the policy. Isn't it just about privilegies now? I think the policy is out in rural areas.

It is quite possible to ignore human rights in a democratic society. My own country does it (rules for improsenment), USA does it, just to name 2. Is there anyone that doesn't do it at all?

On the gene thing: I believe we now can simulate the genetic matches and results. We can do it scientifically, not rely on "theories". Don't know much about it, but people talk about "genetic good matches", so there is no need to assume people talk about Hitler's frantic babbling just because they mention the best sort of offspring. Genetics is not racism. If racism is involved, it is not truly genetics. If it is genetics, it's science. If you mix the two you get racism, because science will always cease to be science if you apply unscientific factors. One line of my family should have no males, because the males have no lower spines or something, making their lives very miserable. Making sure of that would be a good thing. The living male of that line moves around in a trolley, because it hurts to walk and sit. Let that gene die out I say. Eugenics failed, beacuse it was not a science. It was just theories. Now we (well, somebody) know a lot more, besides genetics is a science.

The population explosion gets more heat than it deserve. What is it? More people then we can sustain? Then it's been going on for quite some time. Simply that there are more and more people? Then that means that we can sustain more and more people. The reason that the Earth is dying? That's how our society is built. The technology. We could have a pollution-free envrionment. We don't, but that has to do with our infrastructure and inventions, not how many people it is. 1 person can recycle, 5 people, 500 people. And if they can't, it's because noone has taken care of it. Not because of their numbers. The main reason it is bad, why China has tried countering, is because it is not economical. You need housing, jobs, etc. Then it's a regional problem. Also it is not necessarily determined by that factor. Just look at corrupt states. The problem is the corruption, no matter how many or few the people are, the economy is in trouble. If this is the objection, you could object to the world economy.
4208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / David's bed, snif...
Offline
Posted 4/4/08
I am not sure if we should have a law limiting birth. I mean, thinking about the U.S... after these baby boomers pass away, the population of the U.S should drop. In addition to this, people who are born in this generation are the first generation to be expected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents. My proffessor also says that in some places, infant mortality is still extremely high, so many of their babies don't even make it to adult age.

I think it depends on where you live and how many people live in your country. If your country has enough land that will provide the people with whatever they need, such as food and shelter, then I don't think a law limiting birth will be required.

But too many people will lead to environmental degradation, which could destroy the land which gives the people food.
Posted 4/4/08
i honestly dont think that should be nessary. in china you can only have two children. when you have a boy, you have someone to take care of you when you cant take care of yourself. but if you have a girl, that girl will get married to another and will ditch you witch will leave you hopeless. so when you have a girl as a first child, you have one more chance to get a boy to take care of you. if you get two girls, then your supposed to get screwed when you get older. the pouplation of old people went down. and then the child rate went down too, when the chineese passed the law since there "baby boom"

i honestly think that law is bullshit.
655 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / uk
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
Define smart.
There are different kinds of smart.
104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 4/24/08
yeah.. those families with 10, 15 children are gonne kill us all.
1706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/30/08
No. That reminds me of Ender's Game, where only two children are allowed and the third child is stripped of rights and labelled as, unsurprisingly, a "Third." If this were real, than my littlest sister would be heckled and teased and without rights, and that's not cool at all.

Have as many babies as you possibly can people! But only if you have the money and support to raise them. We don't need to further increase the percentage of the world living in poverty.
4344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / auckland
Offline
Posted 4/30/08
yes. absolutely. it would raise the life quality for all of us. we would be more wealthy. that's on the practical side.

on the moral side though. I don't get why people are so upset about birth limitation. my family only got 2 kids. me and my sister. and we're okay.

it's not like they will be robbing you of any happiness if they do decide to enforce these law.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/30/08 , edited 4/30/08
It would be nice, but it'll never work out worldwide.



ViralMarketing wrote:
Have as many babies as you possibly can people!


I don't think many women want to ruin their vaginas by giving birth to a child every year starting when they get their period. And I know that very few men will want to have sex with a woman who has 20 kids.
Posted 5/1/08
No, not yet. But the time will come that this world will be extremely overpopulated. Overpopulation means lack of jobs, lack of food, increase in health diseases.

But, I do think that extensive family planning promotions should be imposed.Especially on third world countries.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.