Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[Kolby Jack]

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

What's your thoughts on the maximum children a couple should be allowed to have?

It may sound a bit horrible but I believe that a couple should be limited to 2 or less children. Maximum.
People are outgrowing the planet and our ability to support the population.
2 children would take the place of the mother & father.
Families that have less or unable to give birth/adopt should hopefully counter families that have triplets or such.
I believe this is a fair and just way to 'control' the overpopulation problem.

The main issue is 'control' as stated.
I'm not a horrible person, in fact I'm jolly nice haha.
I'm not advocating any living 3rd + child be shot, nor that if a family has a 3rd child that it be aborted.
This is obviously a thing that can't be controlled. For instance, in third world countries it would be seemingly impossible to do, although even in first world countries this is likely impossible to do.

I guess the main thing would be awareness and self control.
Although I like to 'never trust humans as a species' to have self control.

Obviously this is a complicated subject; Areas i haven't spoke about:
- divorce & re-marriage children.
- More humans require more food, more jobs etc...
- Likely more areas...

What are your thoughts on the matter?
- Your personal opinion?
- Control thoughts? (Is it a governments right? Sounds too much like socialism (Right one?))

Coming from a family with three kids, I think that's stupid. Population isn't really a concern right now. Maybe in China, or India, or Japan (for lack of room), but in the west we still have a pretty large amount of space. By the time we need more, we'll just go to space and get a new planet. These kind of bullshit issues piss me off. How about we DON'T worry about something that won't become an issue until MUCH later in the future and can EASILY be reversed, and instead focus on things that are actually going to happen, and most likely very soon, like the imminent fresh water shortage that will occur within the next few decades? Or the ever increasing threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

 

[mrdude2010]

I think regulating people's private lives is wrong.

 

[Texas Joker 52]

Personally, I don't think there should be any rules against an abundance of children. I see no reason for it, when it would go against public rights, while at the same time, there is something to be said for common sense.

Then again, I'm also all for culling the gene pool of idiocy, so I suppose I'm not one to really talk...

 

[renegade7]

I don't even understand why anyone would WANT a kid. Seriously, kids are little assholes.

 

[Icehearted]

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.

As much as I hate to say this, considering my own life, that's an incredibly short-sighted way of approaching the matter. Those children they were able to provide for, what if they cannot provide for themselves as adults? Would saturating an already over-crowded job market or further taxing resources like Medicaid and Social Security for people that cannot provide for themselves (such as the disabled) be considered okay as long as they were provided for as kids?

I think the common problem a lot of minds have is exactly this; diminished foresight. I don't mean to seem as though I'm attacking your opinion, I'm not, I just think there's a lot more to the equation than childhood security.

 

[NightHawk21]

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.

That's what I was about to write as well.

Also I may be wrong, I haven't eaten much today and its after 2am so god knows what my brain is like right now, but aren't the population of almost all European countries, Canada and the US pretty much stable or deviating really slightly? I could be off, but I thought that the majority of current growth is coming from places where poverty is rampant (see parts of China, Africa, some lower Asia).

Still regardless I still think that a couple should only be allowed to have as many children as they can support. If bill gates wants to have 100 kids, he would be allowed to, because he has the money and resources to raise them. On the flip side, if you're living pay check to pay check you shouldn't be allowed to bring in children to that environment.

 

[NightHawk21]

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.

As much as I hate to say this, considering my own life, that's an incredibly short-sighted way of approaching the matter. Those children they were able to provide for, what if they cannot provide for themselves as adults? Would saturating an already over-crowded job market or further taxing resources like Medicaid and Social Security for people that cannot provide for themselves (such as the disabled) be considered okay as long as they were provided for as kids?

I think the common problem a lot of minds have is exactly this; diminished foresight. I don't mean to seem as though I'm attacking your opinion, I'm not, I just think there's a lot more to the equation than childhood security.

I don't understand your point. Why would the children not be able to provide for themselves as adults. I thought part of your job in raising a child was to send them to school and get them an education so they can be productive members of society.

I agree with the quote, but the way I would break it down would be that the parents have to be able to show that they can support say $15,000 a year for children for their first 2 children, and $20,000 or $25,000 per child after that.

 

[Steeveeo]

I have always had the impression that they need a "pregnancy license," much like a driver's license or a pilot's license. Essentially to prove that you are of sound mind, body, and finance to support that new life you're deciding to bring into the world and will not end up ruining said life.

 

[BoBEllingson]

I think its fine to limit the number children a person has as long as you can disposes of the defected ones.

 

[Icehearted]

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.

As much as I hate to say this, considering my own life, that's an incredibly short-sighted way of approaching the matter. Those children they were able to provide for, what if they cannot provide for themselves as adults? Would saturating an already over-crowded job market or further taxing resources like Medicaid and Social Security for people that cannot provide for themselves (such as the disabled) be considered okay as long as they were provided for as kids?

I think the common problem a lot of minds have is exactly this; diminished foresight. I don't mean to seem as though I'm attacking your opinion, I'm not, I just think there's a lot more to the equation than childhood security.

I don't understand your point. Why would the children not be able to provide for themselves as adults. I thought part of your job in raising a child was to send them to school and get them an education so they can be productive members of society.

I agree with the quote, but the way I would break it down would be that the parents have to be able to show that they can support say $15,000 a year for children for their first 2 children, and $20,000 or $25,000 per child after that.

That assumes that each child will have no obstacles and will each have the opportunity to live and function as adults. Not everyone has a great life as an adult, not everyone live problem free, not everyone avoids disability (let's say mental, which can develop at childhood) or welfare. Not ever child will have the capacity to be well educated, and not every job they apply for will employ them.

If I wore wealthy, and could have 20 children that I could provide for until 18 years of age, who's to say that as adults they would still not burden society? Who's to say that there would be jobs enough to support that kind of population boom? I used to know a few welfare parents, they provided for their kids just fine, but at the expense of the taxpayer, and as adults a lot of those kids didn't have a great deal of opportunities and grew to become thugs, minimum wage workers, convicted criminals, welfare parents themselves, and very few would even make it through high school.

And that's my point. If all you're looking at is the childhood years and not the consequential adult years then you are not seeing the long term consequences of having an irresponsibly large number of children.

 

[Olas]

I think its fine to limit the number children a person has as long as you can disposes of the defected ones.

Sounds very Spartan, both me and my sister probably would have been disposed. Somehow I don't see this system becoming too popular, being cruel and inhuman and all.
However, it would be pretty terrible to only be allowed 2 kids and then for both to have severe mental or physical disabilities. Talk about a raw deal for the couple.

 

[NightHawk21]

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.

As much as I hate to say this, considering my own life, that's an incredibly short-sighted way of approaching the matter. Those children they were able to provide for, what if they cannot provide for themselves as adults? Would saturating an already over-crowded job market or further taxing resources like Medicaid and Social Security for people that cannot provide for themselves (such as the disabled) be considered okay as long as they were provided for as kids?

I think the common problem a lot of minds have is exactly this; diminished foresight. I don't mean to seem as though I'm attacking your opinion, I'm not, I just think there's a lot more to the equation than childhood security.

I don't understand your point. Why would the children not be able to provide for themselves as adults. I thought part of your job in raising a child was to send them to school and get them an education so they can be productive members of society.

I agree with the quote, but the way I would break it down would be that the parents have to be able to show that they can support say $15,000 a year for children for their first 2 children, and $20,000 or $25,000 per child after that.

That assumes that each child will have no obstacles and will each have the opportunity to live and function as adults. Not everyone has a great life as an adult, not everyone live problem free, not everyone avoids disability (let's say mental, which can develop at childhood) or welfare. Not ever child will have the capacity to be well educated, and not every job they apply for will employ them.

If I wore wealthy, and could have 20 children that I could provide for until 18 years of age, who's to say that as adults they would still not burden society? Who's to say that there would be jobs enough to support that kind of population boom? I used to know a few welfare parents, they provided for their kids just fine, but at the expense of the taxpayer, and as adults a lot of those kids didn't have a great deal of opportunities and grew to become thugs, minimum wage workers, convicted criminals, welfare parents themselves, and very few would even make it through high school.

And that's my point. If all you're looking at is the childhood years and not the consequential adult years then you are not seeing the long term consequences of having an irresponsibly large number of children.

I think you're over estimating how many children are born with a disability that will put them on aid for the rest of their lives. In my high school of about 2000 there were about 10-25 kids who were in special ed (taking into account the 4 years I spent there). Every other child (and even these I suppose if the job is properly tailored) can do some sort of work. Yes some will turn into drug addicts, or convicts, but that's a very small percentage.

As for the welfare parents, they by definition would not be able to have children. You receive welfare when you aren't able to support yourself. The reason I chose such high (relatively speaking of course) numbers was to limit the amount of children that could be born into households with abysmal incomes. The way I see the program I mentioned above implemented would be you essentially have to get permission to have a child, and the entire process taking 1 year. Upon application your finances are looked at, you are provided with counselors to insure you actually want the child, and of course you are given 1 year to really consider the decision and back out. At that time, your standard of living will be examined and if it is deemed safe for a child, you will live one year where $20,000 of your money (after taxes) will automatically be put aside for expenses as if you had a child. Upon the conclusion if your standard of living is still deemed acceptable you have permission to bring in a child and all your money (the $20,000 is reimbursed).

Now the plan is sound, the only problem with it is that it doesn't account for unexpected pregnancies.

 

[Icehearted]

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.

As much as I hate to say this, considering my own life, that's an incredibly short-sighted way of approaching the matter. Those children they were able to provide for, what if they cannot provide for themselves as adults? Would saturating an already over-crowded job market or further taxing resources like Medicaid and Social Security for people that cannot provide for themselves (such as the disabled) be considered okay as long as they were provided for as kids?

I think the common problem a lot of minds have is exactly this; diminished foresight. I don't mean to seem as though I'm attacking your opinion, I'm not, I just think there's a lot more to the equation than childhood security.

I don't understand your point. Why would the children not be able to provide for themselves as adults. I thought part of your job in raising a child was to send them to school and get them an education so they can be productive members of society.

I agree with the quote, but the way I would break it down would be that the parents have to be able to show that they can support say $15,000 a year for children for their first 2 children, and $20,000 or $25,000 per child after that.

That assumes that each child will have no obstacles and will each have the opportunity to live and function as adults. Not everyone has a great life as an adult, not everyone live problem free, not everyone avoids disability (let's say mental, which can develop at childhood) or welfare. Not ever child will have the capacity to be well educated, and not every job they apply for will employ them.

If I wore wealthy, and could have 20 children that I could provide for until 18 years of age, who's to say that as adults they would still not burden society? Who's to say that there would be jobs enough to support that kind of population boom? I used to know a few welfare parents, they provided for their kids just fine, but at the expense of the taxpayer, and as adults a lot of those kids didn't have a great deal of opportunities and grew to become thugs, minimum wage workers, convicted criminals, welfare parents themselves, and very few would even make it through high school.

And that's my point. If all you're looking at is the childhood years and not the consequential adult years then you are not seeing the long term consequences of having an irresponsibly large number of children.

I think you're over estimating how many children are born with a disability that will put them on aid for the rest of their lives. In my high school of about 2000 there were about 10-25 kids who were in special ed (taking into account the 4 years I spent there). Every other child (and even these I suppose if the job is properly tailored) can do some sort of work. Yes some will turn into drug addicts, or convicts, but that's a very small percentage.

As for the welfare parents, they by definition would not be able to have children. You receive welfare when you aren't able to support yourself. The reason I chose such high (relatively speaking of course) numbers was to limit the amount of children that could be born into households with abysmal incomes. The way I see the program I mentioned above implemented would be you essentially have to get permission to have a child, and the entire process taking 1 year. Upon application your finances are looked at, you are provided with counselors to insure you actually want the child, and of course you are given 1 year to really consider the decision and back out. At that time, your standard of living will be examined and if it is deemed safe for a child, you will live one year where $20,000 of your money (after taxes) will automatically be put aside for expenses as if you had a child. Upon the conclusion if your standard of living is still deemed acceptable you have permission to bring in a child and all your money (the $20,000 is reimbursed).

Now the plan is sound, the only problem with it is that it doesn't account for unexpected pregnancies.

Okay, I don't know that I'm making my side very clear here. I'm saying that we are, as adults, not preordained to be employed or even have the opportunity to be employed. In America you do not have the right to employment, a job is a privilege, and many people out there are not very privileged. I know people that have been trained in areas of computer programming, medicine, and education that ha to settle for work that required no training or education and was not in their fields of expertise because the job marked is overtaxed in this country. As adults some (perhaps many) of these children are not guaranteed anything and will have to fight tooth and nail for what little they will accomplish. With an expanding population the competition will be uglier; like a game of musical chairs except while there are more people joining the game there aren't many chairs being added if at all.

I'm pretty good at not getting my point across, all I'm thinking about is what happens after that child is no longer the responsibility of the adult. If we were all having children that fit within our financial means, we would still be faces with diminished resources against an insurmountable influx of people in need of said resources, whether it's employment or housing or health care. We're already rats clawing over one another what exists right now, that number could triple very soon, which means more rats clawing for the same thing.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

I think only 1 or 2 children is ideal if you want children but 3 isn't so bad really, no, it's not until you get to 4 children that you're passing the boarder into Crazy-ville...

(If there is anyone here with 4 children I apologise)

 

[Hairetos]

So as the population expands the number of elderly per generation increases. Thus, the population must continue to expand to provide youth to pay for the elderly unless we have absolutely no population growth or decay (equal elderly/youth for every generation, which won't probably happen). So is the population under this idea supposed to grow continually?

If that's the case, then what happens maybe centuries from now when the population continues to grow on finite space? Also, what happens when, inevitably, the population booms at a certain time? Won't the next generation have to be larger in order to accommodate them, as we're seeing with the post-war baby boomers in the United States right now? This sounds to me like a formula for ever-continuing and often rapid population growth.

Furthermore, people keep saying that we have plenty of space on this Earth for more people. My question is, how many people would want to live in the frozen wastes of northern Asia or the barren Sahara desert? Realistically, the Earth itself is only, what, 30% land? And how much of that is habitable? Furthermore, how much is comfortably habitable?

Isn't a more likely scenario that, under this plan, the population will continue to expand in places where the population density is already high rather than in places where we see room for expansion since cities already have many people to procreate? Are any of those desiring 3+ kids willing to move to the more "open" spaces? I personally doubt it.

From where I see it, the circumstance is bipolar: either we infinitely grow in places with already high population density or we cut population growth, accept the economic contraction for the pensioners, and then focus on having healthy, sustainable population growth with period contractions, which will be much more manageable if we limit growth speed, and have better management of our finite resources.

You misunderstand on a number of important points.

First, this isn't some kind of political agenda I'm pushing, this is what is definitely happening. I don't really care what anyone's angle is, the fact of the matter is that this ageing effect takes place all over the world.

Second, this isn't some minor issue that we can just "take" and move on. If this trend continues, we are fucked. It's impossible for us to just "accept the economic contraction" and the just move on, that will absolutely not work at all. We can't keep going until we end up with a population where the majority is above 65 years of age, at that point we'll all be shagged.

Third, this isn't just some temporary hurdle, this isn't something that we need to just get over and move on from, it's something that'll continue forever unless we stop it, and in the future we WILL be completely screwed by it if we don't.

I'm confused by your usage of pronouns. By "this" you mean the elderly generation being larger than the current youth because of declined birth rates?

I'm not advocating that we permanently have a declining birth rate. I want us to continue to grow, but at a slow, reasonable pace so that we can support previous generations. What I'm trying to avoid is large bursts in population growth such as the baby boomers and then requiring that every generation from then on be larger than that. That seems like a population disaster to me.

Plus, something I forgot to mention is that population growth isn't the only way to ensure economic growth. All it does is increase production capability (which does increase economic growth) but economies can grow independent of that depending on aspects such as technological development, fortuitous circumstances regarding resources (say positive farming climates or discovery of an abundance of fuel) etc. that can allow an economy to grow as well.

A declining birth rate might hurt now, but if we can maintain a slower, steadier population growth in the future, I think we'll have a much healthier model for resource consumption. It's kind of like monetarist fiscal policy: inflation isn't bad, but it should stick to only 2-3% a year.

In short, maybe now wouldn't be the time to limit population growth, but maybe 1955-1960 or 1910 would've been. Population expansion creates rapid economic expansion, but also places the burden of becoming "bigger and better" on all future generations to support them (edit) and I'm concerned with what that means for us environmentally.

 

[Imthatguy]

What fucks with my head the most is that parents that have lots of kids usually treat them worse and neglect them more than parents with small families. I guess its a Quantity vs Quality thing.

 

[okyVdtCP]

Christ, what the hell is wrong with you people?
You really want to limit how many children a couple is allowed to have? How do you want to enforce this?
There shouldn't be a limit. No government should be telling its people how many children they are allowed to have. If you think they should, then you're an idiot.

Come back in a century and say that with a straight face, crisis-level overpopulation is probably one of the more plausible near-future global disaster scenarios.

Anyway in my opinion the ideal limit per couple would be 1.5 children per couple or 3/4 of a child per person. "But Alexnader! You can't give birth to half a child!" I hear you say. Exactly. "Birth" credits are given to each person and are treated as property. You can sell and buy birth credits on a partially regulated market still subject to free market forces.

The 1.5 limit is ideal for a near future world where the average life span has increased, population levels are too high and there's still significant differences between the poor and the rich. However the countries it would be applied to must be developed to the point where the poor do not rely on subsistence agriculture (such families would want a bunch of kids to work the farm) and the government has rigorous social wellfare infrastructure (for enforcement). It would allow couples who can afford to support more than one child to have larger families if they so wished while also giving a highly valuable asset to the poor all the while exacting an overall population decline.

Credit goes to Kim Stanly Robinson for the idea.

As an addendum I'd say that adoption would not cost credits, providing an incentive for families to adopt.

Did you read your post? Like, out-loud? The entire idea of that is never going to be implemented and restricts peoples rights.
It's not even 1st world countries that are the issue with overpopulation. It's thirdworld countries.

 

[XMark]

Population growth rate has been dropping for decades, and is expected to level out by around 2050 (somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-10 billion) and then maybe even start falling after that.

 

[Alexnader]

Christ, what the hell is wrong with you people?
You really want to limit how many children a couple is allowed to have? How do you want to enforce this?
There shouldn't be a limit. No government should be telling its people how many children they are allowed to have. If you think they should, then you're an idiot.

snip

Did you read your post? Like, out-loud? The entire idea of that is never going to be implemented and restricts peoples rights.
It's not even 1st world countries that are the issue with overpopulation. It's thirdworld countries.

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.

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.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

No limit. It generally doesn't work. Don't you eventually end up with an enlarging population of elderly that you can't support?