First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Should we create and enforce restrictions on re-production?
3430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/11/12
Overpopulation is a problem in the world today.
Even in countries that aren't concidered as overpopulated per se, still often struggle with being able to meet the demands of all its citizens.

Should we, to reverse this problem, create restrictions when it comes to re-production?
One way could be like they have in China, namely set a restriction for how many children each family can get.
OR, we could just potentially stop it altogether for a certain period of time.
For instance by collecting semen from all males, freezing it for potential future use, and then castrate them to make sure they don't reproduce without concent.

These are just two options that comes to mind on the fly.
Is this concept a good idea? Should we enforce harsh restrictions of re-production? And if not, then why?
32052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/11/12
there are too many people in the world so it wouldn't hurt. i think they should make it so that one must have a certain level of intelligence to breed.
3430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/11/12

bobsamurai wrote:

there are too many people in the world so it wouldn't hurt. i think they should make it so that one must have a certain level of intelligence to breed.



I definetly agree.
ispy12 
33579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/11/12
no, the earth will kill humanity one day, enjoy your time, make babies.
19530 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Germany
Offline
Posted 10/12/12
While it sounds like a good idea in theory, it's very dystopic and imposes upon the freedoms of the people. Unless it's legitimately a threat then I doubt it'd work out well.
3430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/12/12 , edited 10/12/12

ispy12 wrote:

no, the earth will kill humanity one day, enjoy your time, make babies.


So what you're saying is we should basicly just give up, curl up and wait to die...


kris07 wrote:

While it sounds like a good idea in theory, it's very dystopic and imposes upon the freedoms of the people. Unless it's legitimately a threat then I doubt it'd work out well.


While I do agree that freedom is important, it is not important to the degree that it jeopardizes the future of mankind.
And I believe in this case, it does.

What people tend to forget is that complete freedom is a bad thing. We need laws and restrictions to keep us in line.
Otherwise, society would collapse into anarchy and mankind would plunge back to the age of "eat or be eaten".

If seemingly dystopic measures are needed to secure a good future for mankind, then I believe it's worth it.
But that's just me...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12
No. Because Overpopulation creates a larger pool of potential workers, forcing stiffer competition amongst the worker, and so, driving wages down, and thus, prices, generating greater profit for the capitalists, who can use this money to invest in the nation, which would improve lives, resulting in better standards of living, etc. Secondly, economic development tends to lead countries through several periods, the most advance stages of which usually results in a country having minimal to zero population growth, or a negative population growth. In addition, rather than forcing limits, which is impractical, it is much wiser to follow Malthus, who predicted the calamity of over population, by sponsoring education, and offering free higher education.
ispy12 
33579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/14/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


ispy12 wrote:

no, the earth will kill humanity one day, enjoy your time, make babies.


So what you're saying is we should basicly just give up, curl up and wait to die...


kris07 wrote:

While it sounds like a good idea in theory, it's very dystopic and imposes upon the freedoms of the people. Unless it's legitimately a threat then I doubt it'd work out well.


While I do agree that freedom is important, it is not important to the degree that it jeopardizes the future of mankind.
And I believe in this case, it does.

What people tend to forget is that complete freedom is a bad thing. We need laws and restrictions to keep us in line.
Otherwise, society would collapse into anarchy and mankind would plunge back to the age of "eat or be eaten".

If seemingly dystopic measures are needed to secure a good future for mankind, then I believe it's worth it.
But that's just me...


you wouldn't have been born to think that if they wanted to enforce restrictions before it was too late.
Posted 10/15/12 , edited 10/15/12
i dont think there is such thing as over population its not right to think this kill off ppl just cause there is supposedly to many alive what i think we should do is make are human race more technology advanced and really highly intelligent what id like to see is we make trillions and trillions of humans and we move out across the entire universe and live on every single planet just having fun living for as long as we choose to do so but then again this will most likely never happen till every1 is able to live peacefully then still maybe not cause of greedy selfish ppl that think they should control how every1 lives and acts
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/15/12
Firstly I don't think that the number of children people decide to have is the root of the overpopulation problems in the world. Thanks to modern technology life expectancy has increased dramatically meaning people who would have been dead thirty/forty years ago are able to be alive today due to these advances. I also believe that unplanned pregnancy, especially in impoverished populations is something that a "child limit" policy wouldn't effect directly because it doesn't address the issue of having unprotected sex directly. Besides being conscious as an individual I'm not sure of the correct approach to the population issue, however I feel that it is something that can only be solved by approaching it from multiple angles and coming up with multiple solutions.
19111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/15/12
We should, however there is no way to impose a limit that people would call "humane". After all people love freedom, even if it hurts themselves and everyone around them.
46430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 10/15/12
A better solution to this problem I've thought about, that would not require any restrictions on reproduction is to consolidate the population into huge efficient towering complexes interspersed around the planet.

These would be enormous, tower shaped cities each with a capacity of several million people.

They would probably require technology we don't currently have to do all the waste processing and energy production, but its not really technology that's all that complex to develop.

So basically with all the land area that is recovered and unused by the human population, let nature reclaim all that area over several hundred years.
3430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12

WildTyger wrote:

We should, however there is no way to impose a limit that people would call "humane". After all people love freedom, even if it hurts themselves and everyone around them.


Yeah well people are stupid.
Society needs someone to take control and guide them, which is why we have leaders.



longfenglim wrote:

No. Because Overpopulation creates a larger pool of potential workers, forcing stiffer competition amongst the worker, and so, driving wages down, and thus, prices, generating greater profit for the capitalists, who can use this money to invest in the nation, which would improve lives, resulting in better standards of living, etc. Secondly, economic development tends to lead countries through several periods, the most advance stages of which usually results in a country having minimal to zero population growth, or a negative population growth. In addition, rather than forcing limits, which is impractical, it is much wiser to follow Malthus, who predicted the calamity of over population, by sponsoring education, and offering free higher education.


On the other hand, overpopulation creates crowded cities, lousy living conditions, stress, and a higher service demand than society can provide...
I do like the idea of the Malthus concept, though. Definetly think we should work towards that.
But then again... what are the odds of that actually happening?
9127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 10/17/12
Well.. Honestly I'm not sure where I stand on this. I understand the people want their own kids and their own family, but I also understand that there are plenty of kids which need help. I think myself if I ever have kids, I'm going to try to look at adoption, but to stop the world from enjoying the experience of bringing their own children into the world, I'm not sure if I can agree with it.
27607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Toledo
Offline
Posted 10/24/12
Once you restrict reproduction things will change to where only the wealthy or people in power will be allowed to reproduce and things will start to get manipulated even more. Matching only good looking or smart people up with each other. Then before you know it everyone else will be slaves to the "superior" humans and only be allowed to reproduce enough to keep the slave supply strong.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.