First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Should People Have Less Children?
28205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/13/14 , edited 11/13/14
This will have to be addressed for us to continue on because we are limited on our resources and we are running out faster than expected just like we are warming the planet and running out of drinking water faster than we predicted meanwhile around the planet we still have people saying the study is fake... sad because the rich will be left while the rest of us die. I just hope i'm dead before these children everyone have struggle to even have food and water.

Another thing that makes me worry is how fast we are developing technology that could take away the need for us ( the none rich people ) to even be in the workplace. They can automate your banking experience already and run banks without even having a single branch. They can run factories with very few workers compared to before... I'm all for technology but what happens when the rich phase us out.
234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / seattle
Offline
Posted 11/18/14
No because this infringes on a person's freedom... and yes because our world will not be able to support our population. So the answer is... sending people to other planets for colonization. No joke, this is actually a plan by NASA to send a group of selected winners to Mars in 25 years. It was a headline on CNN just a couple months ago. You can read more about type in mars colonization nasa google or something i dunno..lol. that's what they came up with not me
11738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 11/18/14
Smaller population=less brains, at least until super AI comes about. The fear of overpopulation has existed for several generations yet the predicted major problems have been solved faster than they can appear. To put this into some perspective, if you threw all 7 billion people into the Grand Canyon, we wouldn't fill it up. Not even close. I would say resources is more of a problem.Natural oils are predicted to be depleted by 208x but then again, super AI is predicted to come a couple decades before that and we're already developing new types of fuels in the near future.

I would say no.
30535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/18/14 , edited 11/18/14
If you can afford it by all means, go ahead and have crazy baby,lovemakin sex.
Posted 11/18/14
To be honest, I think it's not the number of children we should control but the standard of who can and cannot have children.
4504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 11/18/14

xDeadlyDollx wrote:

To be honest, I think it's not the number of children we should control but the standard of who can and cannot have children.


The problem with that is who's going to do the judging? Remember there used to be forced sterilisation for some groups of people in some countries around the world years ago including Europe and the US.

Posted 11/18/14

tkayt wrote:

The problem with that is who's going to do the judging? Remember there used to be forced sterilisation for some groups of people in some countries around the world years ago including Europe and the US.



A simple qualification test should be introduced so people can get licensed to reproduce. All unlicensed children should be taken and raised by the state to take up lower positions in society like waiting tables, cleaning bathrooms, etc.
Posted 11/18/14
Who the hell would want 20 kids?
4504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 11/18/14

xDeadlyDollx wrote:


tkayt wrote:

The problem with that is who's going to do the judging? Remember there used to be forced sterilisation for some groups of people in some countries around the world years ago including Europe and the US.



A simple qualification test should be introduced so people can get licensed to reproduce. All unlicensed children should be taken and raised by the state to take up lower positions in society like waiting tables, cleaning bathrooms, etc.


You know that is partly how they populated Australia. They gathered up some poor children from disapproved families (single parents, poverty, dsyfunctional families) and shipped the lot out to Australia where they were put straight to work. This was also done in a part of mainland Europe, poor and disapproved families had people come to confiscate the children who were sent for slave labour on farms. They'd had a problem getting cheap labour then and this was their solution. They considered it dealing with two problems at the same time. In some cases the authorities were so bold to send bills to the parents' of the children they'd taken to pay for the children's upkeep. Welfare systems are already struggling and failing to raise children in their care as it is and slave labour is illegal.

Posted 11/18/14

RedExodus wrote:

Smaller population=less brains, at least until super AI comes about. The fear of overpopulation has existed for several generations yet the predicted major problems have been solved faster than they can appear. To put this into some perspective, if you threw all 7 billion people into the Grand Canyon, we wouldn't fill it up. Not even close. I would say resources is more of a problem.Natural oils are predicted to be depleted by 208x but then again, super AI is predicted to come a couple decades before that and we're already developing new types of fuels in the near future.

I would say no.


For a funfact, Vsauce says if we stood shoulder to shoulder, we wouldn't even fill up California. Though you have to take in account living spaces, as we surely cannot live shoulder to shoulder. Though I think eventually we need to slow down at some point.
Posted 11/18/14

tkayt wrote:

You know that is partly how they populated Australia. They gathered up some poor children from disapproved families (single parents, poverty, dsyfunctional families) and shipped the lot out to Australia where they were put straight to work. This was also done in a part of mainland Europe, poor and disapproved families had people come to confiscate the children who were sent for slave labour on farms. They'd had a problem getting cheap labour then and this was their solution. They considered it dealing with two problems at the same time. In some cases the authorities were so bold to send bills to the parents' of the children they'd taken to pay for the children's upkeep. Welfare systems are already struggling and failing to raise children in their care as it is and slave labour is illegal.



It's kind of annoying when I need to explain in detail to people whom I assume should get it.

First of all, the state should prepare for such a system to be implemented. Obviously, it'll be rough as the transition to the new system occurs; hence, the old system should be phased out gradually. The state will monitor population growth and start having families submit to testing. Once all the kinks have been ironed out, then it can commence full implementation of the licensing system. Now, since only qualified citizens / families can reproduce or have children, my assumption is that dependency on the state's welfare system will drop down considerably. This gives the state more funds for raising the unlicensed children. And no, I do not mean child labor. I mean raise them, put them through public school, and train them to become good working class citizens. Children who go through this program and show great promise can then be adopted to families who are qualified but cannot have children or wish for another child.

Obviously, this isn't perfect. Heck, I just came up with this stuff when I wrote my first response to you. But that's pretty much the whole idea. Not saying it'll work, but idealistically it would result in a better functioning and highly advanced society.

12011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 11/18/14
For the original question, I think that enforcing a limit like that wouldn't be very efficient at what the primary objective is. As said, the goal of the limit would be to help control the rate of depletion of the earth's resources and the rate of pollution (greenhouse gases and stuff). In theory, this would be a solution for the problem, however, in actuality, the area of the earth where the most pollution is being created, and the most resources allocated are places with low birth to death rates. The areas with high birthing rates (e.g. African countries and other poor countries) are not actually producing much harm. The average birth to death ratio in America is around 2.2 (approx) kids per adult, meaning that on a whole, the birth limit wouldn't effect the general population. So the limit, in practice, would not effect the countries that were doing the most harm at a general level. So I think that the better solution would be to create better limits on polluting technologies (or something to that effect). At least that's what I think.
10060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Across the Narrow...
Offline
Posted 11/18/14
I personally their should be some sort of limitation on child birth. The amount of homo-sapiens that plague this earth is staggering, and only continues to steadily climb. This is really just a moral issue bordering on logical reasoning. I remember seeing a psychology PowerPoint were a question asked was about a infertile mother who previously had eight kids all with birth defects or dead and if we should allow her to have another. After answering they revealed that it was apparently Beethoven who the ninth child would have been. Then again, back in those days there were not as nearly as many people, nor were there as many cretins sucking blood from a festering wound. I'm going to shut up now.
Posted 11/18/14
it's funny that in a way, controlling births is similar to cryopreserving people who might as well be dead for good.
24962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/18/14
It's extremely oppressive to limit reproduction, one of our most basic and natural biological functions, so no... childbirth should not be regulated in any way. We wouldn't want another door opened for corrupt policies, either.

Besides, there are many humans who make a positive impact on the world's environment. We can certainly make a lot of headway in limiting our pollution and waste while putting our labor toward fostering a healthy environment for humans and animals to live in, so why not just focus on that?

The pressure of overpopulation is a nice incentive for sending the extra people off to other planets eventually, too. I mean, it would be kind of boring to just stay on Earth with a stable population till the universe implodes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.