i would say two as a maximum, call me a harsh person but i just don't see the point in having more than that. Btw why is contraception such a bi g no-no in so many religions?
I Friggin Love The Nhs
Poll
How many kids should a couple be allowed to have?
| Not more than 3 | 28% | 28% - 46 | ||||
| Not more than 2 | 35% | 35% - 57 | ||||
| Only 1 | 8% | 8% - 14 | ||||
| Other number (specify) | 26% | 26% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 159 | ||||||
Go forth and multiply.jay_courage wrote:
i would say two as a maximum, call me a harsh person but i just don't see the point in having more than that. Btw why is contraception such a bi g no-no in so many religions?
You can't grow the population indefinitely. If we don't control it at some point, war, disease, famine, or something else is going to do it for us, and it won't be pretty when it happens.
Well, it would be nice if that really worked. but it doesnt. And people that are incapable of taking care of many children still go on and have too many. And not only is it bad for the parents, but it's also bad for the kids since they too get stuck in poverty.
And even if everybody just had as many kids as they can afford. It still isn't good enough. Because we need to decrease the size of the population or atleast stop the increase. And everytime a new person is born, thats one mor mouth for earth to feed. And sooner or later, there will be no food left for any of us. Rich or Poor
And even if everybody just had as many kids as they can afford. It still isn't good enough. Because we need to decrease the size of the population or atleast stop the increase. And everytime a new person is born, thats one mor mouth for earth to feed. And sooner or later, there will be no food left for any of us. Rich or Poor
Last edited by Snorkelfarsan (2008-01-21 15:03:44)
Exactly!Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You can't grow the population indefinitely. If we don't control it at some point, war, disease, famine, or something else is going to do it for us, and it won't be pretty when it happens.
That's exactly my point. They figure the next big resource fight will be over potable water.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Well, it would be nice if that really worked thought. but it doesnt. But people that are incapable of taking care of many children still have too many. And not only is it bad for the parents, but it's also bad for the kids since they too get stuck in poverty.
And even if everybody just had as many kids as they can afford. It still isn't good enough. Because we need to decrease the size of the population or atleast stop the increase. And everytime a new person is born, thats one mor mouth for earth to feed. And sooner or later, there will be no food left for any of us. Rich or Poor
Intrusive? Possibly.SenorToenails wrote:
As many as they want. As long as they can afford it.
I don't think that the number of kids should be restricted. That is absurdly intrusive.
But we (as a species) have a terrible track record for not thinking ahead. You'd think eventually we would start looking at the possible consequences of our actions instead of always just letting thing play out and deal with issues as they come up.
There is no need to have 7 billion people on this planet. We aren't going to die out... we have medicine, no predators (except ourselves I guess).
Overpopulation will become an issue. This earth doesn't have the resources for billions upon billions of people. I think that 2 kids is a good number. The population will slowly decline but stay pretty constant... and I think that's best.
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-01-21 15:01:36)
Probably...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
That's exactly my point. They figure the next big resource fight will be over potable water.
two or three, depending on income level...
yes, it's intrusive, but the human race is already massively overpopulated, and will continue to become more overpopulated thanks to certain groups (you know who you are) who have far more kids than they need or are able to support.
I voted for two, since it will gradually decrease the population, but not in a dramatic one generation halving like the one child limit would.
yes, it's intrusive, but the human race is already massively overpopulated, and will continue to become more overpopulated thanks to certain groups (you know who you are) who have far more kids than they need or are able to support.
I voted for two, since it will gradually decrease the population, but not in a dramatic one generation halving like the one child limit would.
Coming from a family with 4 children, as in me and 3 sisters.
I'd say 2 at most
I'd say 2 at most
actually im 1 and its alright...ups and downs....when it comes to Video Games...mostly upsjord wrote:
Shouldn't be anyone's decision other than the parents.
However more than one, being an only child is lonely and boring...
depends though
sometimes u need ppl to do stuff with...thats why i play online
I r SUPER Geek!!!
Then why don't you do your part and not have any kids. You don't have the 'responsibility' to tell others how many kids they can and can't have because you think there are too many people on this planet.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Intrusive? Possibly.SenorToenails wrote:
As many as they want. As long as they can afford it.
I don't think that the number of kids should be restricted. That is absurdly intrusive.
But we (as a species) have a terrible track record for not thinking ahead. You'd think eventually we would start looking at the possible consequences of our actions instead of always just letting thing play out and deal with issues as they come up.
There is no need to have 7 billion people on this planet. We aren't going to die out... we have medicine, no predators (except ourselves I guess).
Overpopulation will become an issue. This earth doesn't have the resources for billions upon billions of people. I think that 2 kids is a good number. The population will slowly decline but stay pretty constant... and I think that's best.
And you cannot claim that any law which dictates how to live your life is not intrusive. Limiting the number of children a couple can have is not only intrusive, it's overbearing and unnecessary.
Personally I think its selfish to have hordes of kids. In this day and age we don't need to have 10 kids a couple to maintain the population. If we keep multiplying exponentially, all of this ignorant breeding will result in a global crisis. There is no question about it. This earth will not maintain a population of 20 or 30 billion people. And it's not too many generations away..SenorToenails wrote:
Then why don't you do your part and not have any kids. You don't have the 'responsibility' to tell others how many kids they can and can't have because you think there are too many people on this planet.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Intrusive? Possibly.SenorToenails wrote:
As many as they want. As long as they can afford it.
I don't think that the number of kids should be restricted. That is absurdly intrusive.
But we (as a species) have a terrible track record for not thinking ahead. You'd think eventually we would start looking at the possible consequences of our actions instead of always just letting thing play out and deal with issues as they come up.
There is no need to have 7 billion people on this planet. We aren't going to die out... we have medicine, no predators (except ourselves I guess).
Overpopulation will become an issue. This earth doesn't have the resources for billions upon billions of people. I think that 2 kids is a good number. The population will slowly decline but stay pretty constant... and I think that's best.
And you cannot claim that any law which dictates how to live your life is not intrusive. Limiting the number of children a couple can have is not only intrusive, it's overbearing and unnecessary.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … tions.html
If it wasn't impossible to implement I'd like to see the amount of kids someone is allowed to have directly linked to their income; thus ability to care for them without needed my tax money.
I had a friend once and she was ddament that she didn't want kids, fair enough. She used to et annoyed that someone who chose not to burden the country with yet more expense (another life) had to pay for the ones that do and she has a point. It annoys me when I see a poor family with lots of kids, I'm not against child benefit persay, it's just some people do take the piss.
Also, as richer (and more likely intelligent) people breed more it's a very sneaky way of helping natural selection along...
I had a friend once and she was ddament that she didn't want kids, fair enough. She used to et annoyed that someone who chose not to burden the country with yet more expense (another life) had to pay for the ones that do and she has a point. It annoys me when I see a poor family with lots of kids, I'm not against child benefit persay, it's just some people do take the piss.
Also, as richer (and more likely intelligent) people breed more it's a very sneaky way of helping natural selection along...
How many people do you know who have 10 kids? Not many, right? Most of the projected population growth in the next 100 years is in Asia, and China is already working on its population problem. India will have to face that reality soon enough. Western nations are at very little risk of overpopulating themselves any time soon.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Personally I think its selfish to have hordes of kids. In this day and age we don't need to have 10 kids a couple to maintain the population.
Sure, overpopulation is going to be a reality someday. But not today and not here.
10 was an exaggeration. But I know plenty of families here in America who have 5+ kids. Most of my friends come from families with more than two kids.SenorToenails wrote:
How many people do you know who have 10 kids? Not many, right? Most of the projected population growth in the next 100 years is in Asia, and China is already working on its population problem. India will have to face that reality soon enough. Western nations are at very little risk of overpopulating themselves any time soon.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Personally I think its selfish to have hordes of kids. In this day and age we don't need to have 10 kids a couple to maintain the population.
Sure, overpopulation is going to be a reality someday. But not today and not here.
And sure, we can put it off and wait until it becomes a problem.... but what's the point in that?
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-01-21 16:37:37)
And what is wrong with 5+ kids? I know plenty with 1 kid. Or even zero kids. Why should America or Europe decrease its population or institute population controls when there is zero need?CommieChipmunk wrote:
10 was an exaggeration. But I know plenty of families here in America who have 5+ kids. Most of my friends come from families with more than two kids.
And sure, we can put it off and wait until it becomes a problem.... but what's the point in that?
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd30 … owncar.jpg
By the way, the family in that picture looks like it can afford to clothe its kids respectably and feed them enough. If they can do that, why limit the number of kids?
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I just see no need for having a football team sized family..
Agree to disagree? You didn't address most of my points.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I just see no need for having a football team sized family..
If you see no need to have a large family, then you don't need to do it. Why would you want to make someone else live by your beliefs? You certainly would not want someone else to force theirs onto you.
You are joking right? Please tell me that you are because otherwise, that it the least intelligent question/statement I've heard in a while. How do you expect to move forward in technology, and pure human limits if you are moving backwards. Also, you are suggesting that you are 100% all for abortion, not at all welcome to the possibility of human cloning or space colonization. Also, what happens if a couple is only allowed to have one kid and they accidentally have another? You are saying that the said couple would be forced to get an abortion/kill he kid once born/give it to another couple and go to jail.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
if every couple in the world only had 1 child each, than the world population should get cut in half after a few generations right?
Okay then, here's where I stand.
The earth has a limited amount of resources and if we deplete them at a rate faster than they can be produced or new alternatives can be made then we're in for a rough road ahead. (Oil, fresh water could become an issue, we've deforested vast expanses in the passed hundred years, land, pollution, food supplies...)
Unless you make ungodly amounts of money, you cannot put 5 kids through a decent college (not to say that state schools aren't bad but...) without leaving them with a ton of student loans, which is fine but with a questionable economy I wouldn't want to have to provide for a large family on a shrinking salary.
I mean if you want a really big family, I'm not going to stop you but if your right to have a huge family impeds on my children's, or their children's rights down the road to live a decent life with enough food and water to go around how is that fair?
From a purely biological/ecological standpoint, each organism has a carrying capacity (the limit that the earth can provide for) and we have beat the odds for a while with modern medicine and technological advances, that at some point it could come back and bit us in the ass. With how interconnected we are (airlines, ships, cars, rapid transit) a avian flu-like pandemic is a real threat and would be helped by a massive population.
The earth has a limited amount of resources and if we deplete them at a rate faster than they can be produced or new alternatives can be made then we're in for a rough road ahead. (Oil, fresh water could become an issue, we've deforested vast expanses in the passed hundred years, land, pollution, food supplies...)
Unless you make ungodly amounts of money, you cannot put 5 kids through a decent college (not to say that state schools aren't bad but...) without leaving them with a ton of student loans, which is fine but with a questionable economy I wouldn't want to have to provide for a large family on a shrinking salary.
I mean if you want a really big family, I'm not going to stop you but if your right to have a huge family impeds on my children's, or their children's rights down the road to live a decent life with enough food and water to go around how is that fair?
From a purely biological/ecological standpoint, each organism has a carrying capacity (the limit that the earth can provide for) and we have beat the odds for a while with modern medicine and technological advances, that at some point it could come back and bit us in the ass. With how interconnected we are (airlines, ships, cars, rapid transit) a avian flu-like pandemic is a real threat and would be helped by a massive population.
Then I guess you better start figuring out how to colonize mars... And replace the things that are exhaustible.. Like Oil and hell, I am sure there is some sort of something in the works that would allow even food to be replaced... Might not be yummy, but could be a cheap substitute..CommieChipmunk wrote:
The earth has a limited amount of resources and if we deplete them at a rate faster than they can be produced or new alternatives can be made then we're in for a rough road ahead.
Unless you make ungodly amounts of money, you cannot put 5 kids through a decent college (not to say that state schools aren't bad but...) without leaving them with a ton of student loans, which is fine but with a questionable economy I wouldn't want to have to provide for a large family on a shrinking salary.
And my parents only had 2 kids and couldn't afford to put either of us through college... By your rules I shouldn't exist... But I worked my ass off and got scholarships and put myself through a very expensive private college... And then got a 2nd degree from a state college... And needed only about $2,000 in loans for 5 years of school...
1) They already have started to and, for the most part, have figured out how to colonize mars within the next decade or two.HITNRUNXX wrote:
1) Then I guess you better start figuring out how to colonize mars...
2) And replace the things that are exhaustible..
3) And my parents only had 2 kids and couldn't afford to put either of us through college... By your rules I shouldn't exist... But I worked my ass off and got scholarships and put myself through a very expensive private college... And then got a 2nd degree from a state college... And needed only about $2,000 in loans for 5 years of school...
2) They already have, are, and will be replacing exhaustible resources
3) Thats very true. Nothing says the amount of kids you have limits their potential.
Yup, that's my point, thanks.xBlackPantherx wrote:
1) They already have started to and, for the most part, have figured out how to colonize mars within the next decade or two.HITNRUNXX wrote:
1) Then I guess you better start figuring out how to colonize mars...
2) And replace the things that are exhaustible..
3) And my parents only had 2 kids and couldn't afford to put either of us through college... By your rules I shouldn't exist... But I worked my ass off and got scholarships and put myself through a very expensive private college... And then got a 2nd degree from a state college... And needed only about $2,000 in loans for 5 years of school...
2) They already have, are, and will be replacing exhaustible resources
3) Thats very true. Nothing says the amount of kids you have limits their potential.
In actual fact many countries in the west need more couples to have more children in order to maintain a steady growth in the population. For anyone to suggest we follow China's example is just plain rediculous. Yes, something must be done to curb high birth rates in China, India and most of Africa because of those countires inabillities to deal with such high populations (through education that is...). But to suggeat that anywhere else puts a legal limit to the amount of children a couple can have is unfair and in the case of a free society, highly undemocratic and an infingement of civil liberties.