| 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 | ||||||
I was just making an example. Of course we couldn't all just have 1 kid each. And kids are great, but this doesn't have anything to do with whether you think they are horrible or wonderfull, it's about slowing down or stopping population growth.De_Jappe wrote:
The OP assume that every two people in this world will get one baby. Don't forget that a lot of people die without having children, so if you limit it to 1, it will decrease too hard and too fast.
I say: as much as you want, as long as you take care of them. Kids are great.
Civilized countries don't limit the number of kids its citizens can have. And no, we all don't agree that there are too many humans on this planet.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
You make a good point, it could possibly spiral out of control. Although your examples are typicall for a communist state. And just because China isn't doing a good job in controlling their population doesn't mean more developed and "civilized" countries will fail too.
But whether I am right or wrong about restricting ourselves, I think we can all agree upon the fact that there are allready to many of us humans on this planet. And that we certainly don't need more of us. So something has to be done, and why wait until it's too late? If we can start right now, bit by bit.
Idiot, those 12 will eventually grow up to burden the inviroment just as much as 12 of me would.. so stop beeing stupid k ?clogar wrote:
oh and you don't burden our planet, only kids do?FloppY_ wrote:
It burdens our planet tbhclogar wrote:
there are financial consequences for families that have 3 kids. also i know a family that has 12 kids and they are some amazingly happy people, they're not rich but they aren't burdening our country (america) so why does it matter how many kids one has.
edit: take twelve of you guys on here, you probably burden our world as much as that family; though probably more.
OK, well please tell me then why you think there are not too many of us?SenorToenails wrote:
Civilized countries don't limit the number of kids its citizens can have. And no, we all don't agree that there are too many humans on this planet.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
You make a good point, it could possibly spiral out of control. Although your examples are typicall for a communist state. And just because China isn't doing a good job in controlling their population doesn't mean more developed and "civilized" countries will fail too.
But whether I am right or wrong about restricting ourselves, I think we can all agree upon the fact that there are allready to many of us humans on this planet. And that we certainly don't need more of us. So something has to be done, and why wait until it's too late? If we can start right now, bit by bit.
True, I don't blame kids at all. There is no such thing as a stupid kid, however there are parents that are complete morons.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Every parent will argue that they can raise their kids porperly, and every parent will argue that their kids are not idiots.rhinoh2o74 wrote:
more than 3----on two conditions
1. They have the means to raise them properly
2. They are not raised to be idiots
these things may have been posted and if so sorry, i just didn't take the time to read it.
Unfortunatley yes, and isn't it funny how it is these parents that a lot of the time go on and have 10 kids?rhinoh2o74 wrote:
True, I don't blame kids at all. There is no such thing as a stupid kid, however there are parents that are complete morons.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Every parent will argue that they can raise their kids porperly, and every parent will argue that their kids are not idiots.rhinoh2o74 wrote:
more than 3----on two conditions
1. They have the means to raise them properly
2. They are not raised to be idiots
these things may have been posted and if so sorry, i just didn't take the time to read it.
Im kinda jumping into this thread late, but I totally agree with this.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Why do we need to maintain a steady growth in population? We dont need growth in population anymore, anywhere on this planet. And of course not in Asia and Africa.NantanCochise wrote:
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.
And I know it is not democratic, it's not something a free society should have to do. But when it comes down to the question of our species survival then one must oversee these freedoms and we must all understand that we can't have as many children as we are having today. Call it unfair, unjust, but that doesn't take away the fact that it is necessary.
Colonizing Mars is definatley something that is possible. But moving big chunks of our population there is very unlikely to happen within this century, maybe not even the next. Makin mars a livable planet can take hundreds of years. And by that point our population would have reached double digits a long time ago. Plus, you can't just rely on technology to solve all your problems. You can't just assume that scientists are gonna invent some magic fuel so we never have to use oil again within the next few years, you can't assume that 1 billion people are gonna be living on Mars in 50 years, you can't assume that we're gonna find some pill that will feed a Somalian family for a week. You just need grab the fucking bull by its horns and deal with the problems hands on.
Yes! That's a very good point. +1Ataronchronon wrote:
Im kinda jumping into this thread late, but I totally agree with this.
The other countries of the world should look at the situation in China and see it as a warning to watch their own populations. We ought to seek to avoid the extreme measures the Chinese government has had to resort to by taking our own steps now. China's situation provides us with a lesson to learn rather than an opportunity to scoff.
jord wrote:
Shouldn't be anyone's decision other than the parents.
However more than one, being an only child is lonely and boring...
Tell me why you think there are? I don't like answering a question with a question, but there really is no reason to think that there are too many people on the planet right now.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
OK, well please tell me then why you think there are not too many of us?
Like what kind of steps? Limiting the number of kids a family can have? Isn't that what China does?Ataronchronon wrote:
Im kinda jumping into this thread late, but I totally agree with this.
The other countries of the world should look at the situation in China and see it as a warning to watch their own populations. We ought to seek to avoid the extreme measures the Chinese government has had to resort to by taking our own steps now. China's situation provides us with a lesson to learn rather than an opportunity to scoff.
Many problems we face to day are obviously caused or have something to do with the fact that there are so many of us! There is food to support all of us and there are enough resources, but if we were to give every human an equal share than we in the western world won't have as much as we do today. There is no way we would have the same standard of living.SenorToenails wrote:
Tell me why you think there are? I don't like answering a question with a question, but there really is no reason to think that there are too many people on the planet right now.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
OK, well please tell me then why you think there are not too many of us?
It really seems like you have fixated on population as being the source of all evil. Many of the problems we face today can be solved by efficiency.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Many problems we face to day are obviously caused or have something to do with the fact that there are so many of us! There is food to support all of us and there are enough resources, but if we were to give every human an equal share than we in the western world won't have as much as we do today. There is no way we would have the same standard of living.
So maybe we're "ok" now, but what about tomorrow?
Yes they can, but overpopulation still remains an issue to me. And as I said before, maybe not so much today, but there is a risk we could have doubled our population by 2050. And then it's definatley gonna be a bigger problem. I think it's better take precautions while we can, than try to deal with a giant population in the future.SenorToenails wrote:
It really seems like you have fixated on population as being the source of all evil. Many of the problems we face today can be solved by efficiency.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Many problems we face to day are obviously caused or have something to do with the fact that there are so many of us! There is food to support all of us and there are enough resources, but if we were to give every human an equal share than we in the western world won't have as much as we do today. There is no way we would have the same standard of living.
So maybe we're "ok" now, but what about tomorrow?
Perhaps. But do you really want to give the government power over life? I sure as hell don't. But the reality is that I probably never will need to deal with that. And you probably won't either.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Yes they can, but overpopulation still remains an issue to me. And as I said before, maybe not so much today, but there is a risk we could have doubled our population by 2050. And then it's definatley gonna be a bigger problem. I think it's better take precautions while we can, than try to deal with a giant population in the future.
That would be a very large assumption. From the responses here, I would say an incorrect one.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
But whether I am right or wrong about restricting ourselves, I think we can all agree upon the fact that there are allready to many of us humans on this planet. And that we certainly don't need more of us. So something has to be done, and why wait until it's too late? If we can start right now, bit by bit.
Well, there is a nice dillema...Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Many problems we face to day are obviously caused or have something to do with the fact that there are so many of us! There is food to support all of us and there are enough resources,
Looking at the poll I would say most poeple who visited this thread agree with the fact that something has to be done, since most of them voted for a limit of either 2 or 3 kids.RAIMIU wrote:
That would be a very large assumption. From the responses here, I would say an incorrect one.
The earth can support our population (rather easily I may add). We, humans, just do not distribute resources well enough to support ourselves. Limiting the population really does not address resource allocation.
I don't see how that is a dillemma.. Especially not if you take the whole post in to consideration.RAIMIUS wrote:
Well, there is a nice dillema...Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Many problems we face to day are obviously caused or have something to do with the fact that there are so many of us! There is food to support all of us and there are enough resources,
Have you seen Idiocracy. It is in my opion the stupidest movie, but the opening kinda explains it.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Unfortunatley yes, and isn't it funny how it is these parents that a lot of the time go on and have 10 kids?rhinoh2o74 wrote:
True, I don't blame kids at all. There is no such thing as a stupid kid, however there are parents that are complete morons.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Every parent will argue that they can raise their kids porperly, and every parent will argue that their kids are not idiots.
We wont have to resort to extreme measures such as a one child policy like China has if we act soon. Anything from economic incentives to limits of 3 or 4 for the time being would probably be sufficient. Yes, unless science sees incredible advances within the next 100 years, in the future we will probably have to limit the number of children a couple has, but a long term plan will be less of a shock to society and will help us to avoid the route China has taken.SenorToenails wrote:
Like what kind of steps? Limiting the number of kids a family can have? Isn't that what China does?Ataronchronon wrote:
Im kinda jumping into this thread late, but I totally agree with this.
The other countries of the world should look at the situation in China and see it as a warning to watch their own populations. We ought to seek to avoid the extreme measures the Chinese government has had to resort to by taking our own steps now. China's situation provides us with a lesson to learn rather than an opportunity to scoff.
I took the test and I got a 5. Which is less than avarage. But if everybody lived like me, we would still need the equivalent of 2.8 earths to support everyone.Ataronchronon wrote:
At the moment, by living the way we are, consuming more than our share of resources, we are forcing others to live without the things we over-consume (mainly food and water). If we, living in the first world, dont want to sacrifice the luxuries we enjoy everyday, we ought to reduce our population so that the third world people dont have to live in poverty.
agreed...im an only child...it sucks sometimesjord wrote:
Shouldn't be anyone's decision other than the parents.
However more than one, being an only child is lonely and boring...