Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[Bara_no_Hime]

Hi everyone,
I was thinking... (Bad idea I know)

I've gotta go with Bujold's "Beta Colony" solution.

Everyone gets contraception implants at 15. These eliminate the ability to reproduce.

When an individual (or a couple) decides that they would like to reproduce, they then attend classes and take a certification test. It is no more difficult than getting a Drivers License.

Upon getting said license, the implants are deactivated until the individual or couple produces a child. The implants are then reactivated.

To get a second child, the individual (or couple) must perform a standard amount of community service. This could be in the form of donating old clothes worth a certain value to Good Will, volunteering at a soup kitchen, buying gifts of the yearly Toys for Tots, etc - basically any community service activity you can claim on your taxes.

When the individual/couple has saved up some points, then can cash them in for a Second Child - their implants are deactivated again and they can go ahead. When second child is born, implants reactivate again.

And that's it. Perhaps certain special accommodations could be made for a third child (like, if one of the others dies, or if one member of the couple has had no children while the other has already had the allotted two due to relationship status changes) but generally, two is it. And it is impossible for "accidents" to occur because everyone uses the same government-issue implants.

There are other issues of course - last time I posted this idea (from a Utopia society sci-fi novel, mind, that also had devices that allowed couples to let an electric Uterus take care of the actual pregnancy without inconveniencing the mother - or fathers, since it was just as easy for this method to be used by gay couples as straight, but that's another thread) a lot of people protested about personal rights and freedoms and stuff.

... which is a bit silly, considering the first thing that came to my mind was device malfunction, but whatever...

Anyway, since this thread already is asking if personal freedoms should be restricted to prevent overpopulation....

YES. Hell yes. For pregnancy safe sex, enforced classes and testing for parents, and population control, I am willing to give up some personal freedoms that are entirely biology based. The personal freedoms GAINED by not having to worry about accidental pregnancy would far outweigh what was being given up.

 

[Da Orky Man]

This thread makes me sick. Procreation is a fundamental human right that should NEVER be limited.

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/07/china-forced-abortion.html

And where are you going to keep all these extra people? If we want to keep current population rates, we should have started terraforming Mars a good century ago or so.

 

[BeeGeenie]

I think you should only be allowed to have children if you can afford them. Rich people can have as many as they want, because they won't be mooching off the gov't any time soon and their wealth will slowly be redistributed. As poor people slowly die off, there'll be more job openings available. It's a shame that Subsaharan Africa and SE Asia would pretty much go extinct except for a handful of despots, but that's the price of progress, and it's not like anyone born there has any opportunities in life anyway.

This would mean that I'd probably never have children either, which is a shame, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. actually, I'll probably never have children anyway.

 

[MetalMagpie]

China has tried (and continues to try) this idea. It doesn't work very well.

There are far too many "what ifs". Say we only allow two children. A couple has twins who both die of a serious birth defect before they reach six months old. Are the couple allowed to have more children? What if the children die at 8 years old instead? 18? 28? What age do your children need to reach before they make up a permanent part of your "quota"?

I think they should be allowed to have as many children as they want to have.

And, where is the spare planet you're going to need to house, feed and supply them?

The birth rate in the UK is already at about 1.7 children per woman, so it seems to be working out just fine without any totalitarian regulation. Some people have loads of kids whilst others have none.

The trend seems to be that as countries become "richer", the birth rate drops. So maybe we should be addressing global poverty rather than fixating on the number of children a couple should be allowed to have.

 

[Bloodstain]

You know, here in Germany we actually need MORE children. Germany is becoming older and older because people keep having less children.
Yes, the earth is overpopulated. However, you need to think regionally. Some regions need fewer children, some need even more.

Edit:

The trend seems to be that as countries become "richer", the birth rate drops. So maybe we should be addressing global poverty rather than fixating on the number of children a couple should be allowed to have.

This is the solution. Listen to him.
In poor countries: "Oh, the state won't help me, so I need children who support me financially when I can't work anymore." Children are old-age assurance, you need them to survive.
In richer countries: "Oh, children need so much time, effort and especially money! They are hindrances in my way to economic and academic success! Children are luxury, I will focus on my own goals."
We need to find a middle-way. We need to assure that children won't be hindrances in someone's way to happiness and success, but also assure that no one needs lots and lots of children to survive.

 

[the December King]

I think positive reinforcement is probably the easiest way to implement a desired policy of this type, with incentives and tax rebates for up to 2 kids, and less incentives, reduced incentives, or none even, for families with more. That way, people can have as many kids as they want, but are rewarded for up to 2.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[pejhmon]

I remember hearing somewhere that to have sustainable growth the mean number of children per couple is actually 2.1 rather than 2. This takes into account premature deaths, accidents, disease etc. and that, apparently, it is slightly more likely to have a boy than a girl (not sure on the truth of that).

I grew up in a family of 6 (4 kids) but I'd be inclined to say 2. If anything, the more kids you have the more of a pain they can be

 

[game-lover]

Meh... I can't say I really care.

As long as I don't have to have any, whatever.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Imposing a limit on how many children a couple can have is a really, really bad idea from a PR standpoint. I personally hate children to be honest and think people whose children outnumber the fingers on their hands are completely irresponsible but I would hate to think what kind of death threats I'd get from those same people when I came over telling them to stop with the fuck-making. To be honest though, I think a good counter to this would be to have kids in a spaced-out time frame. If you want a family of six fine but maybe limit yourself to one pup every 5 years. It makes sense to me...

 

[Agow95]

I think people should be able to have as many children as they can handle and support, and I think the last thing we want is a law telling us what that number is.

 

[lacktheknack]

I think it works just fine as is. The more advanced a country gets, the more land it takes to support each person and interestingly enough, the fewer children they seem to have.

Really, a decent sized farmstead can support twelve people. We could probably support DOZENS of billions of people. It's when we all insist on consuming oil, natural gas, coltan, difficult-to-grow foods, etc. that we start having problems.

 

[lacktheknack]

Meh... I can't say I really care.

As long as I don't have to have any, whatever.

This is exactly why we don't need a maximum.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

One or two, depending on the location and how overpopulated it is. We don't need more humans.

so no limits on first world countries and heavy limits on 3rd world then?

Nah, stricter. Have you *been* to New York City? Good grief, we don't need any more density. The American population would be just fine were we to cut it in half.

 

[Aprilgold]

As many as they can afford to provide for and keep safe.

Basically along the same lines of what adopting parents have to go through.

Yeah this, putting a arbitrary limit is dumb as hell. Other then impossible to enforce people would have it revoked as soon as possible.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[WanderingFool]

Ill go with the obvious choice, and say 2 kids per couple. Of course, this is a recommendation, not a rule.

I also think the people that are saying we need to limit the number of kids born to people should take a step back and look at the world... its only a matter of time until we have pleanty of space for all those new kids...

 

[Darkmantle]

One or two, depending on the location and how overpopulated it is. We don't need more humans.

so no limits on first world countries and heavy limits on 3rd world then?

Nah, stricter. Have you *been* to New York City? Good grief, we don't need any more density. The American population would be just fine were we to cut it in half.

Not really. The states is at replacement birthrate. Putting anything in place to lower the birthrate will just doom the country to slow death for no reason.

I don't get the crusade here, why not complain about India, which is a smaller country with way more people than the states.

you're just going to have to accept that, for once, 1st world countries are not the problem in this issue.

 

[DJjaffacake]

I think you should only be allowed to have children if you can afford them. Rich people can have as many as they want, because they won't be mooching off the gov't any time soon and their wealth will slowly be redistributed. As poor people slowly die off, there'll be more job openings available. It's a shame that Subsaharan Africa and SE Asia would pretty much go extinct except for a handful of despots, but that's the price of progress, and it's not like anyone born there has any opportunities in life anyway.

This would mean that I'd probably never have children either, which is a shame, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. actually, I'll probably never have children anyway.

You should really make it clear when you're being ironic. Use italics, a different font, a disclaimer in teeny tiny letters, or whatever. Otherwise, you''l probably face...

THE WRATH OF THOSE WHO MISUNDERSTOOD BECAUSE SARCASM IS HARD TO SEE IN WRITING

[sub]Dun dun duuuuun[/sub]

 

[DrOswald]

Or we could use our land better.

Spoiler: World Map

[http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/04/15/cartograms/]

You might think 'uhh... what about Russia?'
Well, that map warps countries based on the population compared to land. Russia and Canada are squished up because they have a lot of unused land.

And anyway, you can't dictate how many children someone is allowed to have without some infanticide. Because what if someone has triplets? Are you just going to kill one of them? If so, you're a sick sonofabitch. If not, you're inconsistent with your beliefs.

I think you miss the point, or at least it seems like it. The belief is not that people should have only 2 kids, it is that over population is a problem. The purposed solution is the limit on children. It is not inconsistent with the belief to let the third triplet live, and there is no call at all for infanticide. In fact, a 2 child limit would not result in a sustained population as many born will never have children or will only have 1. Some third's would be absolutely necessary.

In addition absolute limits are not the only possible way to discourage child birth. Tax incentives for people who adopt rather than conceive, loss of benefits for having more children, education on the benefits of small family sizes and the dangers of over population, and simple social pressure are all excellent options.

In any case, I don't see how it is so horribly immoral to put a limit on children for a family, so long as the laws reflect the spirit of the idea and the situation warrants such action. I don't think we are to the point we need to do this, but I do think it is foolish to have overly large families though how many children qualifies as an overly large family is difficult to determine. My parents had 4 children and were amazing parents to all of us. I know some people who can't handle the 1 child that they have.

 

[In Search of Username]

1, but an unlimited number of adopted children. Seriously I don't get why more people don't adopt. All the, er, fun, of raising a child without the horror of childbirth.

But yeah, as others have pointed out, actually implementing any measures like these generally leads to a lack of human rights - even if you implemented it purely through something like financial incentives it'd still have a greater effect on the poor than the rich, so that'd just be another problem. Much as this policy seems necessary, it just isn't feasible.

I'm all for getting rid of this perception we seem to have that babies are the best thing in the world and your life is incomplete if you haven't had one though. Changing people's perceptions is the only real way to do it.

Of course, this will never happen because we're a bunch of idiots, and eventually it'll just be necessary to have the kind of population control they have in China, or die. Bye bye human rights!

Man, we're screwed.

Changing people perceptions of that will be hard as we have all been hardwired to want to have children to spread our DNA into the next generation. Overcoming our natures is a rather hard thing to do.

Yeah, but all kinds of things are hardwired into our DNA that we still manage to overcome. That's evolution for you. Not denying it'd be a difficult thing to get over though.