Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple
- Thread starter Black-Toof
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Any limit on population is going to restrict people's rights. Even mere fiscal disincentives to procreation restrict people's rights and discriminate in favour of the rich who can afford to take them. Heaven forbid a government ever restrict someone's "rights", it's not like every government in the world already denies what are intuitively inalienable rights to people. For instance, marriage equality. At least there'd actually be a decent reason to restrict the "right" to fart out babies.okyVdtCP said:
The situation that Kim Stanley Robinson's idea is meant for is a desperate one, where the longevity of developed nations has risen so far that even the decline in our desire to pop out 5 children per family cannot counteract catastrophic population growth. Overpopulation in developed countries relative to developed ones is a problem that will more than likely go away as those developing nations improve their standards of living. The somewhat obvious problem of what we'd do if population continued to grow to critical levels world wide is a far more sticky problem, as it deals with certain absolutes like how many people our planet can reasonably sustain.
Barring some kind of cure for age related death (the scenario in Kim Stanley Robinson's books), you and I will not be alive by the time this scenario plays out. As sustainability measures will delay our civilisation from reaching the maximum number of humans. To claim with confidence that this solution will "never be implemented" is impossible.
No limit. It generally doesn't work. Don't you eventually end up with an enlarging population of elderly that you can't support?
The real problem with overpopulation is that we have too many old people and not enough young people.
So really the answer is 'have more children and euthanise the old.'
But that would be wrong.
So really the answer is 'have more children and euthanise the old.'
But that would be wrong.
If you want to stop the growin' population help the poor countries.
Reduce poverty, empower women in these lands, give them jobs/houses etc. and their birth/deathrate will both drop significantly.
If the world had 2.13 children per mother (thats how its counted) we'd stagnate. In Europe some countries are even under that, just because people are to busy doing other things.
Specially the part of women in society makes a huge diffrence. Basically if they're able to make a career etc. it's less likely that they get children and they'll definitly get less children.
Help the poor. It would solve probably all of our biggest worldwide problems. Except for global warming, that would probably become way worse.
But in the last decade India and China became much stronger countires economic-wise, go figure what happens if those 2 billion guys start to drive a car, use the same amount of electronics etc. as we.
But thats another topic.
Reduce poverty, empower women in these lands, give them jobs/houses etc. and their birth/deathrate will both drop significantly.
If the world had 2.13 children per mother (thats how its counted) we'd stagnate. In Europe some countries are even under that, just because people are to busy doing other things.
Specially the part of women in society makes a huge diffrence. Basically if they're able to make a career etc. it's less likely that they get children and they'll definitly get less children.
Help the poor. It would solve probably all of our biggest worldwide problems. Except for global warming, that would probably become way worse.
But in the last decade India and China became much stronger countires economic-wise, go figure what happens if those 2 billion guys start to drive a car, use the same amount of electronics etc. as we.
But thats another topic.
I only want to have two children myself. Having been raised as the older of two children, it's what I'm comfortable with. I wouldn't really be happy having just one child either, partly due to the perception that only children grow up spoilt, partly because it's good to have a sibling. That said a third child is acceptable.
As long as the parents can financially and emotionally support the children there shouldn't be a limit on how many kids a family can have (it's personal choice), personally though I do think any more than 4 is going a bit far, I think 1 or 2 kids is fine.
Our population is already increasing at a large rate, especially since the life expectancy of humans has increased in the last two decades along with a declining death rate in the developed worlds, it's not sustainable in the long run.
Our population is already increasing at a large rate, especially since the life expectancy of humans has increased in the last two decades along with a declining death rate in the developed worlds, it's not sustainable in the long run.
People should be allowed to have as many children as they want, so long as the children are well taken care of, they are given a lot of love and attention to, and are provided with the bare essentials to living a good, healthy life.
If the government tried to tell me what I can and can't do with my own fucking womb I would leave the country.
CAPTCA: be nice. NO.
CAPTCA: be nice. NO.
Shudder....Lucem712 said:
I DONT EVER WANA LIVE IN THAT WORLD....
OT: I think as many as people can handle and afford.
What's horrible is that stupid people think it's their "right" to have 7 children simply because they are selfish, socially violent idiots.
Finite space, finite resources, FINITE PEOPLE. Either we read a book and learn to curb our spawning habits or starvation, poverty and war will do it for us.
People should aim for a max of 2 children. If you happen to have twins/triplets or adopt then that's fine, it will be countered by the people who don't have children or who only have one.
Finite space, finite resources, FINITE PEOPLE. Either we read a book and learn to curb our spawning habits or starvation, poverty and war will do it for us.
People should aim for a max of 2 children. If you happen to have twins/triplets or adopt then that's fine, it will be countered by the people who don't have children or who only have one.
Regardless if I agree with someone's lifestyle, I don't think you should ever put a "max allowed children" law or regulation into place. Because that's where people start to become statistics, and we get incidents similar to those happening in China at the moment.
Edit: That said, I do think it's not sensible to have more children than you're capable of feeding. Personally I'd say that more than 4 kids is probably too much for most parents to handle.
Edit: That said, I do think it's not sensible to have more children than you're capable of feeding. Personally I'd say that more than 4 kids is probably too much for most parents to handle.
I agree with Khada.
It's not a matter of whether it should be capped or not, run by the government or not.
It's that PEOPLE should show restraint.
I've said before, having triplets is fine, adopting extra is fine.
As for the argument of as many as they can take care of:
Because a man & woman have large incomes doesn't mean that we suddenly have more room or food, it just means that they can buy that room or food more easily.
Which is great for their children but is essentially puts more demand out from others.
An extreme would be; the scarcity of food is more apparent and therefore richer families are able to buy it whilst poorer families cant.
This is basic laws of 'the Market', as something becomes harder to obtain the price goes up.
And although the above example is an extreme one.
Things can only escalate unless the PEOPLE show restraint.
I'm hearing people saying I came from a large family (I imagine 5 kids) and I want to have the same.
Well that there's the problem, if each child has 5 then Bam! that's 25 new kids.
Each one of those has 5 then that's 125 in 3 generations.
Unlikely sure, but clearly avoidable.
My mother came from a 8 child family, So, YES, my ancestors are responsible too, but I'm a brother of 1 (2 kids family) and plan to only have 2 children. If each of my aunts had 2 children, then that's 14 kids. That's still a 'large family' you just need to socialise with your cousins.
(Although admittedly we don't)
It pretty simple I'd have thought.
It's not a matter of whether it should be capped or not, run by the government or not.
It's that PEOPLE should show restraint.
I've said before, having triplets is fine, adopting extra is fine.
As for the argument of as many as they can take care of:
Because a man & woman have large incomes doesn't mean that we suddenly have more room or food, it just means that they can buy that room or food more easily.
Which is great for their children but is essentially puts more demand out from others.
An extreme would be; the scarcity of food is more apparent and therefore richer families are able to buy it whilst poorer families cant.
This is basic laws of 'the Market', as something becomes harder to obtain the price goes up.
And although the above example is an extreme one.
Things can only escalate unless the PEOPLE show restraint.
I'm hearing people saying I came from a large family (I imagine 5 kids) and I want to have the same.
Well that there's the problem, if each child has 5 then Bam! that's 25 new kids.
Each one of those has 5 then that's 125 in 3 generations.
Unlikely sure, but clearly avoidable.
My mother came from a 8 child family, So, YES, my ancestors are responsible too, but I'm a brother of 1 (2 kids family) and plan to only have 2 children. If each of my aunts had 2 children, then that's 14 kids. That's still a 'large family' you just need to socialise with your cousins.
(Although admittedly we don't)
It pretty simple I'd have thought.
You cannot tell someone what they can and cannot do in this sort of case, If I want 10 babies that should be for me to want and you to only care about the noise and smell.
The real question on growth is to look at where the biggest population growth is and I will tell you it is not the developed countries. Problems arise when too many people are in one place and they cannot leave it.
The real question on growth is to look at where the biggest population growth is and I will tell you it is not the developed countries. Problems arise when too many people are in one place and they cannot leave it.
4. Maybe 5 could be a maximum. Then again, I'm a 3rd child, so that may weigh my opinion there.
This is a similar argument I use in discussions with people who have chosen to have no children; our society in the West is utterly dependent on there being a slightly growing population to pay into the various medical and social programs which the elderly tend to draw on more than younger people. (not their fault that aging tends to make people dependent on others, just the way it is.) So when people choose to have 0 children, they're affecting everyone around them by forcing us to have more children to keep the tax revenue high enough to pay for the services that are needed, or that we will need to take a more risky solution (financially more than anything else) of bringing in enough immigrants to make up for the lack of native-born growth. (the financial risk is that most immigrants cost the country money to bring here; aid for assimilating, learning the language, if relatives like spouses and children come with them they will need aid as well, etc.)R3dF41c0n said:
re: OT
As many children as the family want to raise, and can afford to raise. In no way, shape or form do I want any government deciding how many children Mrs. Makt and I can have, or Little Baby Makt(s) can have in the future. Also going to toss my agreement with the posters talking about how countries that have more access to family planning don't need to have any limit set as they limit themselves quite severely (see the preceding paragraph), and there's no real way to control the population of the countries that need population controls except by mass murder, forced abortions/sterilizations, and a damn near totalitarian government.