Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[Grathius22]

People can have as many kids as they want, in my opinion. As long as they are willing to accept the consequences of having too many. This includes going to jail for making the kids suffer, should they not have been able to take care of them.

Meanwhile, overpopulation is a joke. I went on a recent trip which took me across three states. All I saw for ten hours were fields of food and empty space. Mind you, these are just three states. Not only that, but it's been proven that less than 2% of the Earth's surface is inhabited by Humans, which as stated above I've seen enough of.

 

[Tippy]

I don't foresee myself having kids, but if by some freak chance I DO have kids I'll definitely aim for two. It can really suck to grow up as a single child, atleast that's what I've experienced. A brother/sister to lean on makes for excellent times and a lasting relationship. Sure it's twice the work and twice the trouble raising two kids, but it's totally worth it!

Three kids...meh, too many. Three's a crowd as they say

 

[gunny1993]

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.


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.

That's true but this is like... the big one, other than things we actually need to survive this is probably top of the list ... speaking metaphorically ofc. Also, ever tried talking reason and logic to someone who wants a child really really bad, they can do some really, really stupid stuff. But most things are beatable with enough will power.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Just one thing: how would classes be assigned and how would they be "enforced"?

People would choose to sign up for approved classes. Again, just like a driver's class - you have to take a driving class first and bring in documents saying that you passed the class. There would likely be government run classes, but there'd also be private classes certified to teach the same thing. If it goes like driving classes, then the private ones would be faster and (often) better than the government ones, but also more expensive.

On enforcement - well, an individual can't turn off their implant. They'd have to get it deactivated. If an individual doesn't have the proper documentation, then the professionals won't deactivate it.

 

[Grant Stackhouse]

It stands to reason that the population should continue to expand. There is a lot of space in the universe left to fill. Thus far, we haven't even managed to fill up our own planet after millenia of trying. Utterly shameful.

Right now, somewhere in space, there is an empire of evil aliens whose population numbers in the quintillions. How can we ever hope to kick their asses with our dinky population as it stands right now?

My vote: A minimum birthrate of 13 children per couple. (And more funding for our space program.)

 

[The Rookie Gamer]

Well aren't we all feeling cheery and lovely today.

Welcome to the escapist! Where lovely members advocate forced population control! Whoo!

Welcome to the escapist, where we hate the government for criminalizing piracy of video games and movies, but would love it for them to forcibly sterilize a significant portion of the population.

What are you, crazy? Video games matter so much more than children. Seriously, they have such an expensive subscription and time dedication if you want to level them up with proper stat growth.

OT; Limiting children reminds me of what I thought as an angsty 13 year old. Heck, do you think most first world countries will stand for it without some implementation of martial law?

 

[Rule Britannia]

I am the third youngest of four :S Guess I didn't make the cut.

I think it's weird to have more than 5 children, my parents thought 3 was enough :S...My younger sister is not a particular household favourite...

 

[Henkie36]

The world is becoming too full, and all couples should only be allowed one child and for the other nob-ins, there are still those things called condoms...

 

[Virus0015]

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.

Vast areas of Russia, Canada, Australia etc. are "under utilized" for a reason.

 

[DAPLR]

This is stupid...wheres the 'To each their own' poll? I picked 4+ because I'm not, nor does anyone, have the right to say how many babies can be born.

 

[DAPLR]

What the fucks up with that map!?

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.

Vast areas of Russia, Canada, Australia etc. are "under utilized" for a reason.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I think people that wish to have more than two children should be legally obligated to adopt, and failure to do so would be met with fines that go toward programs centered around the adoption of children, since that family couldn't be bothered.

Pro-choice, violation of rights, squawk whatever objection you want; there are too many people knocking each other up like it's a fucking production line, and way too many kids that are going to die alone and unloved because of that selfishness and/or carelessness. It's not the kids' fault, and they shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[ElPatron]

Except that is a complete and utter lie. What the western world has a problem with is the exact opposite; too few children, leading to a crisis of too few young people to pay for too many pensioners. To say that we have a problem with overpopulation isn't just stretching the truth, it's a downright lie.

Ok Ok... so because there are tooo many old people we need more young people? (...) I wont respond to anything past this you are clearly dumb.

Says the person with no clue on how population works. You can just admit you had a silly idea instead of insulting people.

The world is becoming too full

No it's not. Some areas have very wide populational density, but the world is not full at all.

 

[scw55]

2 biological children, and if you want more adopt/foster. That's what I am going to do if I marry a woman.

 

[BNguyen]

For the sake of argument I'll say zero, at least for a decade or so. Let a decent chunk of our population die off before we insist on filling the gap to exceed the number of deaths.



As far as enforcement, obviously you can't. not without turning your government into a kind of totalitarian "big brother" state. So you just discourage breeding by increasing the incentive to the alternative. For example tax credits for households with no children. Decreasing returns for every child until the number of children in the household equals or exceeds the number of adults in the home.

So why should a family that has fewer children keep more of their paycheck than one that has let's say two more children? A family that has to pay higher taxes would eventually become homeless and/or living off of the government. either that or the stress rate would cause mental breakdowns and increase the amount of violence. Either way, a family that has more mouths to feed needs a bigger amount of money in order to survive even if the amount of people living in the same family was formed under less than reasonable means

By the same argument why should a person who has engaged in the relatively unimpressive act of procreating get to keep more of theirs? Why should we reward those who lack the foresight to make sure that they can take care of their families without additional assistance?

a person who has the bigger family needs more money than someone who lives alone. I'm willing to bet that if you had someone you wanted to take care of but lacked the resources because "hey, let's give more money to the lonely guy instead of mister/mrs.family over there simply because they have kids". People who have more mouths to feed, at least halfway decent ones, will work harder to bring home that much more, so we can't discriminate against them because they have one more kid than the next person.

 

[Ravinoff]

To me, it's not a matter of overpopulation, it's a matter of resource distribution. Quite frankly, there are too many useless people on earth. The 87 year old needing constant ICU care with no hope of recovery. The drug-dealing idiot with 12 kids collecting welfare. If you want to control population growth and at the same time stop the current trend of importing labor and the issue of the exponentially-increasing elderly population.

 

[Hairetos]

Id say do 1 per couple for the next 25 years, then bump it up to 2! We need lower the population a little and let the current old generation (the ones that are all suffering from FAS) die a bit so we can straighten out the world. It will be easy to solve the worlds problems when all the elderly people born with brain damage gtfo.

Except that is a complete and utter lie. What the western world has a problem with is the exact opposite; too few children, leading to a crisis of too few young people to pay for too many pensioners. To say that we have a problem with overpopulation isn't just stretching the truth, it's a downright lie.

I'm not picking your post personally, but you mentioned an idea I wanted to springboard off of.

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.

Or we flee to space.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Well if my plan of bringing about World Domination via my 50+ offspring all with stupid names (Miguel, Fargus, Clyde, Johnpaulgeorgeandringo, President, X etc.) but excel in their arranged professions (e.g. worlds best: footballer, bio-chemist, politician, hot-dog vendor etc.) is to have any chance of happening then I would demand to I be allowed as many offspring as I want!

 

[Diddy_Mao]

For the sake of argument I'll say zero, at least for a decade or so. Let a decent chunk of our population die off before we insist on filling the gap to exceed the number of deaths.



As far as enforcement, obviously you can't. not without turning your government into a kind of totalitarian "big brother" state. So you just discourage breeding by increasing the incentive to the alternative. For example tax credits for households with no children. Decreasing returns for every child until the number of children in the household equals or exceeds the number of adults in the home.

So why should a family that has fewer children keep more of their paycheck than one that has let's say two more children? A family that has to pay higher taxes would eventually become homeless and/or living off of the government. either that or the stress rate would cause mental breakdowns and increase the amount of violence. Either way, a family that has more mouths to feed needs a bigger amount of money in order to survive even if the amount of people living in the same family was formed under less than reasonable means

By the same argument why should a person who has engaged in the relatively unimpressive act of procreating get to keep more of theirs? Why should we reward those who lack the foresight to make sure that they can take care of their families without additional assistance?

a person who has the bigger family needs more money than someone who lives alone. I'm willing to bet that if you had someone you wanted to take care of but lacked the resources because "hey, let's give more money to the lonely guy instead of mister/mrs.family over there simply because they have kids". People who have more mouths to feed, at least halfway decent ones, will work harder to bring home that much more, so we can't discriminate against them because they have one more kid than the next person.

Don't for a minute think I don't understand how hard it can be to be financially strapped and have a family who depends on you. I won't bore anyone with my own past tales of woe but suffice it to say that yes...I'm well aware of these hardships and I'm thankful on a daily basis that I was able to improve our situation.

Despite what you might think I'm a big believer in social programs. I firmly believe that those of us who can should willingly sacrifice for those of us who can't but therein lies my issue with the topic at hand. We should be assisting those who can't not those who won't.

Between contraception, emergency contraception, abortion and adoption there is no reason at all beyond petty sentimentality for a person to raise a kid they aren't fiscally prepared for. Ultimately the increased burden is a choice that the parent has made and I see no reason whatsoever to reward them for making poor financial decisions.


However, the point of the discussion is essentially the hypothetical ethical control of the population size and to me the simplest solution is to increase the incentive to the desired goal. Hence no kids get the cookie, 2 or more kids get no cookie at all.

Now obviously this isn't something you could just roll out overnight and tell everyone who presently has kids to suck it. You roll it out gradually, you provide amnesty for existing families, you increase awareness, You provide a post roll out grace period ( 9 months seems appropriate.)

Lastly, and on a more personal note...you tell every fundamentalist wing nut to start home schooling their kids because like it or not we're teaching the biological realities of the human reproduction cycle in our schools.