Should the US adopt a policy of only allowing a family to have one child?

[LiekOMG]

So by 2012 we'll have a population of over a billion? I'm sorry, but your math just doesn't add up. What was the latest census numbers, a population of 300 million? That leaves us with 150 million women. So, at any given time, more than half of our women are pregnant? And no one dies? Besides, the birthrate is not skyrocketing. A quick google search found this.

It reads that every year we get 90 million new people across the world, not in the US.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DOACleric

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1. There's no need for that yet. The US is far from overpopulated and can easily support more people.

2. You won't be able to enforce it. They have problems enforcing it in China and the government there as A LOT more power than the US government. In order to make it work in the US, you'd have to give the government a lot of power and we know people will not agree to that unless absolutely necessary.

No need for that YET. Sure, but do we really want to wait? I don't remember the exact number, but my biology professor said that something like every 10 years the population here in the US doubles. In about 30 years without some kind of limitation, our population would be out of control.
And its easy to say that we wouldn't be able to enforce it. But unless we do SOMETHING, we are going to have HUGE problems in the future.

maybe the dog population doubles....

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population.

So by 2012 we'll have a population of over a billion? I'm sorry, but your math just doesn't add up. What was the latest census numbers, a population of 300 million? That leaves us with 150 million women. So, at any given time, more than half of our women are pregnant? And no one dies? Besides, the birthrate is not skyrocketing. A quick google search found this.

Yes, the US birthrate has just edged up over the necessary replacement level of 2.1, this being due primarily to immigration.

Link

Hardly the population explosion you describe. Besides, it would never work in a free society, it goes against the constitution in so many ways. Good luck getting the ruling Republicans to mandate birth control and/or abortions. Many of them are uncomfortable with sex ed. There are just so many things wrong with this.

I'm sure he is referring to world population, not the US. I read it the same as you the first time.

 

[LiekOMG]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
A situation down here (and I assume in most places) is that welfare folks get more money based on how many kids they have.

It's not even worth it for me to build/buy houses that are only 2 bedroom, they gov doesn't pay enough money for small family houses. But you have a house that can support 4+ kids and you get way more.

2 bedroom house (2 kids+1 parent)=$300
3 bedroom house (3 kids+1 parent)=$600
4 bedroom house (4 kids+1 parent)=$800

Those are just roughly off the top of my head

So what incentive do these black single women on welfare have? None. The more babies they pump out the bigger house they get, the more money they get. And the setup is skewed so it's not affordable to rent out a 2 bedroom house. So you have a shortage of 2 bedroom houses. The solution? Instead of increasing the amount landlord's get paid, they just have another baby. Instant boost to another income and living bracket.

It needs serious reform. These people have to quit having so many kids. I hate to allude to poverty breeds poverty, but there is no way these women will ever be able to raise these kids to be successful most of the time. Hell from the ones I've met, many seem to not even care. They're just paying the evil white man rent and it's his fault for keeping them down.

Yep, your 100% right. I have neighbors that just keep pumping out kids just to remain on welfare. Its wrong and its runing everyone future. I would agree that this is a good first step to take to fight against overpopulation and unwanted children.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population.

since everything else you state is specific to the US everyone thinks that by "we" you mean the US, which would say that the US is growing by 90 million. its not. the US population barely moves.

 

[jackwhitter]

this is where i got my information. US census bureau.

according to the us census, there are only 75, 570 total family units (including married, divorced, single, etc.). out of this 75, 570 families, only 37, 355 families have children. nearly half the family units DON'T have children. Only 7326 families have more than 2 related children. that means that only ~9.7% of the all the families in the US have more then 2 children in their family, only ~19.6% of all families with children have more than 2 children. also, the us census shows that the trend is towards less and less children, so there is no need to adopt a policy of limiting children.

forcing a limit to children by law opposes democracy and personal freedom. both these ideals are cornerstones for the US (or at least they once were.)

most the western world is trending towards less and less children. that is why few countries need to enact a policy of limiting children.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population.

since everything else you state is specific to the US everyone thinks that by "we" you mean the US, which would say that the US is growing by 90 million. its not. the US population barely moves.

Exactly. Reducing the freedoms of Americans will do nothing to stop the half dozen kids pumped out by some women in a poor African or Indian village. Besides, what happens in 60 years when all the parents leave the workforce and are replaced by only one kid? It might be a huge problem in countries such as China, which have too many people and too few jobs already, but in a country like the US, it would seriously come back to haunt us if our workforce started declining.

 

[kt]

I don't think the policy will fly well with the general population. But if people use some common sense and start thinking with their head upstair instead of the one downstair, we wouldn't be facing this problem. And other issues come into play as well. What if you get married and have a child. Then get divorced and re-married another woman? No kids for your new wife?

 

[Electric Amish]

Good luck pitching that idea in Utah....

amish

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population. Soon there won't be enough food to support us, and there won't be enough places to live. As the population increases, pollution increases. We have already run out of places to dump all our garbage, and soon we might end up living in it, which will add to disease. We cannot keep reproducing like bunnies because we will only end up killing ourselves and our enviornment.

China has already adopted such a policy because of the huge overpopulation there. Do we really want to wait until the last minute, until its too late? Should the US government adopt a similar policy now, so that a couple is only allowed to have one child? I am curious what your opinions might be. Please, keep this mature.

the greatest population growth is projected for developing countries, not the US. it makes no sense in a cost/benefit analysis (not to mention morally) to implement such a policy.

 

[hungrypete]

Did I wake up in a communist country?

*piches self*

Now only allowing welfare for say, 2 children max, that's not unreasonable.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Good luck pitching that idea in Utah....

amish

lol

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
I don't know about how correct the information about our resources running out is, but I agree with the one child (maybe two) limit.

It bothers me to see these HERDS, not families, HERDS at the grocery store or out at a restaurant. I mean, do you really need a family that big? It's like, they have an infant in a stroller, a toddler, a four year old, a five year old, and eight year old AND she's got another one in the oven....cripes, haven't you ever heard of birth control?

Michael I am very surprised and somewhat disappointed that you believe this. I don't consider me, my wife and my four young kids a herd and would never ever tell you that you had to limit your child rearing.

 

[jackwhitter]

Originally posted by: hungrypete
Did I wake up in a communist country?

*piches self*

Now only allowing welfare for say, 2 children max, that's not unreasonable.

welfare is a bad idea period. paying someone for doing nothing is ludicrious. "Free government money is more dangerous than slavery." (can't remember who said this...). FDR had the right idea when he EMPLOYED people via the government to keep them payed. when people think the government owes them something without doing anything, then a serious problem exists.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DOACleric

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1. There's no need for that yet. The US is far from overpopulated and can easily support more people.

2. You won't be able to enforce it. They have problems enforcing it in China and the government there as A LOT more power than the US government. In order to make it work in the US, you'd have to give the government a lot of power and we know people will not agree to that unless absolutely necessary.

No need for that YET. Sure, but do we really want to wait? I don't remember the exact number, but my biology professor said that something like every 10 years the population here in the US doubles. In about 30 years without some kind of limitation, our population would be out of control.
And its easy to say that we wouldn't be able to enforce it. But unless we do SOMETHING, we are going to have HUGE problems in the future.

Your professor is still living in the baby boom era. Most population estimates have the US losing "American" made population in the next fifty years. Why do you think SS is in so much trouble - because there won't be enough young people to support the older generation.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. .

that is a load of horse crap

you must live in an urban area

go drive through western south dakota/western nebraska and you will see how much horse poop you spout

 

[johnjohn320]

I'd put a limit of two except for maybe farm families or something. But yeah, it'll never pass.

I don't mean this as racist, nor do I intend to make a sweeping generalization, but does anyone else notice that Mexican families living in the US are often HUGE?

 

[CPA]

Some of you people need to get your head out of your ass on this subject. I know the US gets blamed for a lot of things, but we are far from the reason why there is 6B people on this earth. Yes, paying parents welfare money for having more babies is not a promising policy, but limiting birth rights is about as intrusive as a government can get. Think about it, what will they do next limit your right to the number of times you can have sex or how you can have sex in order to limit population growth? C'mon MichealD and Skoorb, think about it.

Man, this topic is starting to piss me off and it's 5 o'clock, I'm going home.

 

[LiekOMG]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. .

that is a load of horse crap

you must live in a urban area

go drive through western south dakota/western nebraska and you will see how much horse poop you spout

Are you saying that you'd wait until every rural part of our country is turned into a city?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: DOACleric

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1. There's no need for that yet. The US is far from overpopulated and can easily support more people.

2. You won't be able to enforce it. They have problems enforcing it in China and the government there as A LOT more power than the US government. In order to make it work in the US, you'd have to give the government a lot of power and we know people will not agree to that unless absolutely necessary.

No need for that YET. Sure, but do we really want to wait? I don't remember the exact number, but my biology professor said that something like every 10 years the population here in the US doubles. In about 30 years without some kind of limitation, our population would be out of control.
And its easy to say that we wouldn't be able to enforce it. But unless we do SOMETHING, we are going to have HUGE problems in the future.

Bullsh!t. According to the CIA, in 2002 the US population growth rate was 0.89%. At his rate, it will take approximately 78.65 years for the popuation to double.

So if population control is needed somtime in 2100, the US can just cut back on immigration. Problem solved. China has a problem because customary to have HUGE (like 10 kids) families. The culture in the US (and other western) nations is not like that.

 

[spaceman]

dumbest idea ever.

 

[Spoooon]

This may have been mentioned. What about tax breaks for people who choose to only have one or two children? Or penalties for people who have more? Like in Ender's Game. That way, only people with the means to support a large family will have one, or at the very least, only families that actually want to have big families will have one. I don't think people would support such an idea, but the time is coming that we're going to have to reign in our growing population before we outstrip our ability to provide for ourselves.

 

[desy]

Yes pretty stupid.
The US or pretty much any modern industiralized country does not have a problem.
The Third world yes.
As far as people who want big families, you have a problem with that why? Some people LIKE kids, spoken by people who either A haven't come from a large family or B don't have kids of their own yet.
Someday children, you'll clue in. .

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: DOACleric

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. .

that is a load of horse crap

you must live in a urban area

go drive through western south dakota/western nebraska and you will see how much horse poop you spout

Are you saying that you'd wait until every rural part of our country is turned into a city?

sure
the nature of our govt precludes such an invasion of privacy
plus it isn't necessary, other factors such as war, famine, natural disasters and diseases will kick in to limit before its needed

the united states is FREAKING HUGE!!!!! , for those of you that don't get out much/travel much , THERE IS A LOT OF OPEN SPACE in the United States. plenty of room
this is a worse red herring than global warming

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: DOACleric

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1. There's no need for that yet. The US is far from overpopulated and can easily support more people.

2. You won't be able to enforce it. They have problems enforcing it in China and the government there as A LOT more power than the US government. In order to make it work in the US, you'd have to give the government a lot of power and we know people will not agree to that unless absolutely necessary.

No need for that YET. Sure, but do we really want to wait? I don't remember the exact number, but my biology professor said that something like every 10 years the population here in the US doubles. In about 30 years without some kind of limitation, our population would be out of control.
And its easy to say that we wouldn't be able to enforce it. But unless we do SOMETHING, we are going to have HUGE problems in the future.

Bullsh!t. According to the CIA, in 2002 the US population growth rate was 0.89%. At his rate, it will take approximately 78.65 years for the popuation to double.

So if population control is needed somtime in 2100, the US can just cut back on immigration. Problem solved. China has a problem because customary to have HUGE (like 10 kids) families. The culture in the US (and other western) nations is not like that.

actually, it's not so much a culture issue as economics issue. developing countries with large rural populations dependent on agricultural development/farmland will tend to have large families b/c many offspring are required in order to work on the farms. the united states was like this 200 years ago.