BF2S Forums Limiting kids per family a good idea?

Don't they already have that in effect in China?

What if one gets octuplets?

Go back to China.

Lots of people talking about such an idea breaching our freedom.  However we must remember that the more we breed the more we rape our planet and the more we do that natural resources will deplete and as the original poster stated disease would be rife.  The planet could turn into a spinning plague.  What kind of freedom is that for our children's, children's, children.  If we want to leave a worthy place to live for our descendants, we as a human race need to start taking responsibility for our actions and begin looking after our planet.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The population of the world was about 6.1 billion people in 2000 and increasing by 1.4 % per year.  Assuming that trend continues and each peron takes up 4 sq ft of space there will be "standing room only" by 2801, which is a long way off but by then all of the resources would be long gone, disease would kill billions. I say we should seriously consider solving the problem before it becomes one (something never seen in government). 

Some could argue "limits on freedom" but who needs 8 kids? Who can support and give the needed attention to 8 kids at the same time?  It seems selfish to me and i think that 2 kids is enough for me.  It keeps the population leveled off, you can provide well for them.. what are your thoughts?

Man, talk about preemption. What a Godless thought to think that we are responsible for the year 2801. If you use the same logic and arithmetic you won't have to worry about anyone actually making it to that year.

Two questions: Do you really think that level of control is good for any society to have? Do you have children of your own?

Currently in Aus, we have an aging population, so our govermet gives mothers $4000 for giving birth to a new born child, whats sad is people as young as 14 are having children now.  I think it is an idea that should be looked at carefully.  And at the rate were going this planet will be submerged in water by 2801 We need to deal with Green House Gas first then deal with the worlds birth rate.

BigmacK wrote:

Let the world grow and prosper as the people who inhabit it see fit.

If a problem arises, we will solve it. That's how its always been.\

As for my views on population control, "Limiting the number of kids per family a bad idea".

Go to war, reduce the overall population.  That solves everything 

There is tons of empty space, just look at Canada

The One Child Policy is more of a One Pregnancy Policy, meaning if you have twins or more, it's ok. If you have a second pregnancy, the State will urge you to have an abortion. If you're too late into the pregnancy to have an abortion, you will be fined but that's all, they don't kill your baby.

The One Child Policy has had a major detrimental effect on the social wellbeing of the Chinese population. The traditional family structure has been inverted like an upside down pyramid, where 3 generations all care for the one child. This has lead to an enormous expansion in snobbish, selfish kids, or "little emperors" because they receive all the attention possible. Sure, it may have helped the economy, but the social cost is great, and great lengths had to be taken to ensure this new generation of "little emperors" could work cooperatively in teams as well as individually.

There are better ways of population control then strict government controls, but one has to consider the fact that is freedom of choice worth the starvation of billions, and the poor sanitation standards in the future? Like all things, freedom of choice can't be taken to the extreme. We can't forgo our own responsibility for sustainable population growth just to be able to satisfy our salacious desire for procreation, and perhaps that idea needs to be taught by institutions.

I am not for strict controlling of the population, unless the problem becomes so large it warrants one, but I do believe we have a responsibility for the Earth's future, and we should do all we can, albeit with a little sacrifice, to achieve that outcome.

An epidemic is likely. Bird Flu. Don't forget it.
Don't touch dead/sick/hurt birds on the ground.

PRiMACORD wrote:

There is tons of empty space, just look at Canada

Yes and no. Canada holds 10% of the World's fresh water supply, which means with a population of 32 million (about), we have a shitload of water per person. The downside of this is that most of the land up here past a certain point would make for very difficult living conditions (for those not used to the weather), as well as being very costly. There's also few "good" roads that even go that far up North.