POLL: Do you support population control ?

[Ciber]

<<<thinks he should stop posting at 6 am......

i think the sleep deprivation is getting to me

 

[sheselectric]

overpopulation is not the problem. the problem is overconsumption by First World countries, namely the US. The US alone uses 40% of the world's resources, while the world's poorest 2 billion people or so use about 10%. not only that, the rate of world population growth has been decreasing since the 1960s, and today demographers estimate it will reach about 12 billion within the next hundred years, then start to decline. again -- overpopulation is not the cause of our planet's environmental problems...overconsumption of resources by developed countries and a lack of resource distribution are.

 

[Russ]

I can't believe better then 2/3's of you people actually support this ridiculous notion. Beyond the fact that it would be the grossest violation of human rights, it is completely unnecessary. You could fit the entire current world population in the state of Alaska, giving each about ten square feet of land. There is no density problem on this planet.

Geez, I thought this garbage when out with Jeremy Rifkin 30 years ago.

Russ, NCNE

 

[sandorski]

Ciber: LOL, me thinks so too.

Anyway, it needs to be emphasized that population growth in Industrialized nations is from Immigration, the birth rates are too low to maintain current population levels. This makes a good case for wealth re-distribution, for the poorer people are, the more they reproduce. The reason this is probably is because of the distractions wealthier people have, such as TV, movies, vacations, etc.

Just to clarify my "Wealth Re-distribution" phrase: I don't mean the classic Socialist definition, though that would likely work to some extent, rather I mean the economic developement of the Third World. This has worked fairly well in Asia(S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc) and is happening to various extents in Mexico, Brazil, and other Central/South American countries.

China and India, so far, are the only nations that really need to control population growth. China's method will probably lower the population, but what kind of social problems will they end up with when all those males seek out an elusive female? China may be forced to either allow them to emigrate or worse, they may be forced to use up the male surplus on the battle field!

Though I hate the term(overused), population control is a very slippery slope. Laws and restrictions will weaken societies that value freedom and liberty and will undoubtedly only increase the Timothy McVeighs and Abortion Clinic bombers. Only non-direct forms of control in the way of distractions/entertainment can be successfull. This is because the persons being controlled welcome the control without realizing that they are being controlled.

 

[dakata24]

i said no...


but people like that guy in utah that was practicing bigamy with, what was it, 1/2 dozen wives? i was watching something yesterday and they were talking to him from prison.. i wonder how much of our money (tax dollars) goes to them..

edit: then again, when i get married and have kids (er.. my wife has kids), i only want 2-3.. more like 2. i come from a pretty big family, 6 kids total.. wouldnt want to put my wife thru that... or myself for that matter.. alot of financial responsibility with kids.. now if i were rich, id probably have a different perspective.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I don't support it at all. I think the only form of population control should be in the parents hands on whether they want more children or not. Anyone ever seen the movie ZPG?

I hope people realize that if if everyone were given one square foot to stand in, everyone could fit in an area not much bigger than the state of Rhode Island. Also, if given two acres to live on, every family in the world could fit into Texas...

nik (or so I'm told)

 

[Imdmn04]

I definitely support population control.
I think 2 kids/couple is more practical.
But in China's case, 1 child/couple is probably a better choice because they want to dimminish the rate of growth very quickly, possibly into negative growth because there are just way too many people there to start out with. 2kids/couple will probably only maintain the current population but not reduce it, and that will hinders the economic growth in the future.

but then comes the problems with 1 child/couple rule, since you can only have one child, the perfered sex of the child will be male in China for the following reasons:
1. To carry on the family name
2. The chinese culture have always valued that boys are more important than girls throughout its history, although a lot of chinese dont care about this fact anymore, but there are also a lot of them who still do.
2. 75 percent of the chinese population lives in rural backward areas, where physical strength is more useful. so they rather have a boy work in the field than a girl because more producitivity means more $$$

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<< I can't believe better then 2/3's of you people actually support this ridiculous notion. Beyond the fact that it would be the grossest violation of human rights, it is completely unnecessary. You could fit the entire current world population in the state of Alaska, giving each about ten square feet of land. There is no density problem on this planet.

Geez, I thought this garbage when out with Jeremy Rifkin 30 years ago.

Russ, NCNE >>



I'm with Russ on this one. I understand the whole bad parenting thing everyone is saying and I agree with that, but population control is basically the easy and really not effective way out. The real problem is there are tooooo many bitchers(you guys and me) and not enough problem solvers.

peace
sean

 

[erub]

you guys are out of your minds. You blame all the rebellious kids on bad parenting, and therefore we need population control. Even good parents can cause kids to rebel or do stupid sh!t. I remember one guy complaining on here about some kid throwing a bucket of chicken at him. I'm sure his parents told him not to do that, but does that mean people always listen? No.

There is plenty of space left in this world, we will all be fine. Besides, if there was population control, how do you think that would help us geeks find women who want to take us? There'd be fewer of them for us to choose from.

 

[Jeff7]

<< Face it people, we have limited resources and growing pollution problems. >>



Exactly. We're wiping out ecosystems which support the planet and help reduce pollution, while at the same time our increasing numbers generate more and more pollution. Then the problem of feeding everyone - growing food takes up space.




<< It'd be a new form of evolution. Since medical advances allow the weak and disesed to live and create children, human evolution has stagnated. A Thousand years of "selective breeding", and we'd all be smarter, healthier, better people. >>


Wow, cool. I'm not the only person who thinks this.

Oh, and it's been said here, yes, parenting is critical. There's so many divorces now in the US; I had no idea it was this bad. Seems like kids with both parents together are getting rarer and rarer. So many people know only a few ways to 'resolve' conflict - yell a lot, use violence, refuse to listen, or just leave. Kind of sad that so many adults have the conflict resolution skills of toddlers.:disgust:

 

[gopunk]

you guys are out of your minds. You blame all the rebellious kids on bad parenting, and therefore we need population control. Even good parents can cause kids to rebel or do stupid sh!t.

no, good parents don't cause their kids to do dumb stuff. if kids raised by good parents do dumb stuff, it's because the kid is really dumb.

I remember one guy complaining on here about some kid throwing a bucket of chicken at him. I'm sure his parents told him not to do that, but does that mean people always listen? No.

how do you know his parents were good?

if there was population control, how do you think that would help us geeks find women who want to take us? There'd be fewer of them for us to choose from.

i'm sure i don't speak for everyone, but i would gladly spend my whole life in abstinence if it meant only good parents would have children. then again... i wouldn't be losing much

 

[AaronP]

I do support it. I think the world should adopt the policy of one child per couple

in the United States? that is incredibly stupid. Imagine in like 30 years, half the buildings would be abandoned, the economy would be shattered by having no workforce, old people wouldn't have nearly as much care since they only have one child. And frankly, we have plenty of room. The US could double in population and if the growth was properly distributed, could easily handle the people.

Now, on a continent like Africa, or in India its a different story.

I saw Waterworld last night (no one told me it was a four hour movie!!). Thats what really made me think about this

hehe its obvious that you didn't spend much time thinking about it.

 

[GermyBoy]

<< Although against Catholic teachings, I do support it. I think the world should adopt the policy of one child per couple. Face it people, we have limited resources and growing pollution problems.

I saw Waterworld last night (no one told me it was a four hour movie!!). Thats what really made me think about this. >>





Since when is one child per couple a Catholic teaching? Catholics use natural birth control. The woman (don't remember her name) that killed her five kids had them all because her "supporting" husband was a Catholic and against birth control of any form. She finally controlled him by traumatizing him for life. He'll probably never ever get a hard-on again! :Q

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Although against Catholic teachings, I do support it. I think the world should adopt the policy of one child per couple. Face it people, we have limited resources and growing pollution problems.

I saw Waterworld last night (no one told me it was a four hour movie!!). Thats what really made me think about this. >>





Since when is one child per couple a Catholic teaching? Catholics use natural birth control. The woman (don't remember her name) that killed her five kids had them all because her "supporting" husband was a Catholic and against birth control of any form. She finally controlled him by traumatizing him for life. He'll probably never ever get a hard-on again! :Q >>



Um, reread his post. He says population control goes against catholic training.

 

[Geekbabe]

I'm in favor of a policy that says you worry about the goings on in your bedroom and I'll worry about what goes on in mine.I can't imagine sitting there deciding on such things for other people.

 

[Amused]

<< I can't believe better then 2/3's of you people actually support this ridiculous notion. Beyond the fact that it would be the grossest violation of human rights, it is completely unnecessary. You could fit the entire current world population in the state of Alaska, giving each about ten square feet of land. There is no density problem on this planet.

Geez, I thought this garbage when out with Jeremy Rifkin 30 years ago.

Russ, NCNE >>



It's amazing, isn't Russ? How the hell are people growing up today believing that nanny-state authoritarianism solves anything? Are they teaching this crap in school?

The most ridiculous notion in this entire thread is that the first world nations need poplulation control. We don't. Our population growth by birth is near or below zero. The areas with the high population growth from births are third world nations that wouldn't be effected by any first world nation's laws.

 

[Nefrodite]

Since when is one child per couple a Catholic teaching? Catholics use natural birth control. The woman (don't remember her name) that killed her five kids had them all because her "supporting" husband was a Catholic and against birth control of any form. She finally controlled him by traumatizing him for life. He'll probably never ever get a hard-on again! >>



err, from all indications and his little press conferance performance after the verdict he's one cold m/f bastard. an engineer that made his family live in a converted bus for #%@ sake. he'll find some other pathetic woman and pop out another pile of kids.

 

[Ultima]

<< It'd be a new form of evolution. Since medical advances allow the weak and disesed to live and create children, human evolution has stagnated. A Thousand years of "selective breeding", and we'd all be smarter, healthier, better people. >>



a thousand years? ever hear of genetic engineering? More like a few decades at MOST if development is not blocked.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< It'd be a new form of evolution. Since medical advances allow the weak and disesed to live and create children, human evolution has stagnated. A Thousand years of "selective breeding", and we'd all be smarter, healthier, better people. >>



a thousand years? ever hear of genetic engineering? More like a few decades at MOST if development is not blocked. >>



After seeing what we've done with dogs, I'm not at all excited with the prospect of selectively breeding humans. We simply do not know enough about what we're doing yet.

Besides, Eugenics is BAD juju. I'd stay away from it. It breeds racists and Hitler types.

 

[Ultima]

For those saying we have room for more and so there shouldn't be limits... well do you think we will always have room? What do you want to do, stuff us in like cans in a sardines? I don't want North America to be one giant suburb, that would suck There's already 4% of the world urbanized, that doesn't sound a lot but consider that the US contains 4% of the surface area of the Earth. Imagine that the US was one giant city, with endless highways, blocks, whatever. Just city everywhere... of course that should never happen but also consider that 51000 square miles are already urbanized, and this figure is growing by 1563 square miles every year.0

I say max THREE kids which is pretty reasonable, I don't know anyone who has more than that many kids in their family. This would also balance out those who decide to have one kid or none.

 

[Ultima]

<< I don't support it at all. I think the only form of population control should be in the parents hands on whether they want more children or not. Anyone ever seen the movie ZPG?

I hope people realize that if if everyone were given one square foot to stand in, everyone could fit in an area not much bigger than the state of Rhode Island. Also, if given two acres to live on, every family in the world could fit into Texas...

nik (or so I'm told) >>



6 billion/3 person per family * 2 acres = 4000000000 acres = 6250000 square miles. The area of the Earth is what, roughly 200 million square miles? And 75% of that is water, so we have 50 million square miles of land total. Maybe 15% of that is habitable while the rest is rock, desert, ice, mountain, swamp, etc... giving what 7.5 million? Yeah.. I guess you could squeeze two acres in the whole world, not texas without them having to live in the desert or other undesirable areas, but that'd leave a million square miles for wildlife and other use, not a lot

 

[Amused]

Ultima,

What you're failing to understand is that FORCE will not work. I'm all for education and urging combined with negative public opinion on large families. However, reproduction IS a basic human right. You cannot FORCE people to not have children. If you try, you'll end up with either Chinese style oppression or a bloody revolution or both.

Authoritarianism does not work, and is counter productive.

 

[Nefrodite]

um, the chinese don't have oppresion because of population control they have it because they don't want starvation. its a necessity big difference

 

[Amused]

<< um, the chinese don't have oppresion because of population control they have it because they don't want starvation. its a necessity big difference >>



Six of one, half dozen of another. Either way, they have lost a basic human right. Maybe if China had focused on educating and lifing it's people out of poverty with true capitalism instead of oppressing them they wouldn't be in this boat.

 

[Nefrodite]

eh still not really. they don't have as much farmable land as us, and several fold more people. rice isn't the most efficient crop, and as more and more chinese reach life style standards that require more meat, they lose more and more grain/rice to feeding livestock no amount of education would help that. pushing a land of 1 billion much of which is poor is a harder job then you make it to be