china is already doing this, and i believe the rest of the world shoudl follow suit. it is irresponisible to have a large family with the size of the world population now.
if you want more children, adopt, or foster. there is no need for families with 8,9,15, children ( i know of a fiamily with 18 kids. this is rude, irresposnible, and not good for the kids).
we have limited food and land resources, the more people, the less resources for each person. starvation should not exist, but it does simply because there are too many people.
most of the worlds problems are caused by the fact that there are too many people on this planet. ************************************************ 06-23-03, 06:27 PM MkStfnz Definitely not!
While the world population shouldn't be at dangerously high levels, this will only promote parents treating their children as choices, not people. In China, there is so much killing of babies, abortion of unborn babies, etc. especially to female children because parents want male children to carry on the family name.
But I guess if this did happen and there were mostly male children, the population would have a sudden and substantial drop within a few generations and people might start thinking better of their actions... Wink
06-23-03, 06:43 PM mozart56 Right, China is already doing this( a little late), however in Countries like U.S.A or Canada it would be different .I don't think that the Immigration bureaus( in any of these country) would let this happen, they have a certain control based on a multitude of datas.If in a far future, if something had to be done ,I guess a more "social" approach would be more adequate.
Can you afford it ,would probably be the number one critaria.Followed by , can you provide a normal environment in pursue of happiness.So far, freedom provides that we are still making our own choices, no matter how good or bad they are.For the U.S that would also means to tamper the constitution.
As for the rest of the world , they are their own destiny.
[This message was edited by mozart56 on 06-23-03 at 06:56 PM.]
06-23-03, 08:08 PM honilov At the rate that the government is forcing laws on us, this may happen sooner than you think. What do you think would be the punishment if a person had more than one? Jail time? Kill the baby?
I'm not sure what would be right, but since the gov would do what they wanted to anyway, we wouldn't have any say in the matter.
06-23-03, 08:17 PM Yelena Actually, there is enough food to feed everyone inthe world twice over every day, it just isn't being distributed properly.Mad
Hmm what mozart said about having some sort of status quo to meet in the future that would determine the amount of children you should have makes me wonder if it will add to the arguement against homosexuals having or adopting children (assuming this isn't legalized by then).
That's interesting honilov, I once read a book that told a story through the eyes of a little boy that was the third child in his family in a day where only two children were allowed, and if the police (a.k.a. "Population Control") found more than two, they would arrest the family and kill the child.
06-23-03, 08:25 PM Yelena
quote:
Originally posted by MkStfnz:
But I guess if this did happen and there were mostly male children, the population would have a sudden and substantial drop within a few generations and people might start thinking better of their actions... Wink
LOL, then I guess we wouldn't need to control the population anymore.
Wait a second, if this were true, and they are killing all the female children (or those they don't want) then why is China so overpopulated> Confused
06-23-03, 08:25 PM Kendor No one's mentioned Soylent Green yet. Hmmm..
06-23-03, 08:35 PM honilov LOL Kendor, there's no telling what's all this ground, and canned meat, that we are eating. It might already be people. Did you see the movie...Fried Green Tomatoes? That was the best barbecue, in that movie, that they had ever eaten. Big Grin Big Grin
06-23-03, 08:43 PM stanbee in addition to Yelena's excellent comment.
There is enough food to feed the world today, but too many are too poor to buy it. About 65% of the world goes to bed hungry.
We must conquer our ancient group chauvinisms and begin to control populations very soon -to the dismay of the corporate community whose task master is growth.
06-23-03, 09:20 PM jusork Honi, your first post sounds like you think the government doesn't care at all about it's people.
quote:
Originally posted by Yelena: Kendor, who? Confused
Soylent Green is one of three types of processed food from an overpopulated world. See Honi's first sentance. In the end, Charlton Heston learns that "Soylent Green is people!". That last part's a really famous line. This is all comming from someone whoose never seen this movie. Wink
06-23-03, 09:57 PM honilov Jusork, I 'don't' think the government care much about it's people. Maybe I'm wrong to think like this, but we are slowly losing our voices. More and more, we are being told what to do, or not do. You know, it's sort of like...I don't give a hoot about the people, I'm in control, I'll tell them what to do, and if they don't like it, so be it.
Well, to you, I'm probably just rambling, but I put deep thoughts into what's going on, and this is my take on it.
06-24-03, 11:50 AM dogspit MmmMmmMmm....especially that European Soylent...darn good !
Personally I cannot see population control working. As much as I favor less kids (personal aversions and all) you know that it would somehow be manipulated to where it became a way to promote racist and other personal agendas against those in the minority. I think that like any other population, when the species begins to overrun the planet, nature will take care of it in ways we have yet begun to imagine.
06-24-03, 02:48 PM Yelena Ooh I get it now, sounds interesting.
I agree with what dog said, about nature taking care of itself. I don't mean this in any offense to anyone, but someone I know said AIDS was nature/God's way to deal with overpopulation and homosexuality. I don't necessarily believe this at all, I just thought it was an interesting idea.
06-25-03, 12:22 AM samantha We could just give guns to all the people as one way to get rid of them.... Big Grin
06-25-03, 12:31 AM niccincoogol Like in Texas, where it's legal to walk the streets with a concealed weapon? No thanks.
06-25-03, 03:56 PM Pace~Ace I seen this on a news site today and thought it would be good to post it here...
U.S. Birth Rate at Record Low Reuters Jun 25 2003 3:38PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. birth rate fell to its lowest level since statistics have been kept, with teen birth rates down but the number of births to unmarried women at record-high levels, according to official statistics published on Wednesday. More low-birthweight babies were born in 2002, the statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show -- probably a reflection of the increasing numbers of multiple births with fertility treatment.
In 2002, 4.019 million babies were born in the United States, down slightly from 4.025 million in 2002, the CDC said in an annual report on births.
The birth rate was 13.9 per 1,000 people, down from 14.1 per 1,000 in 2001 and down 17 percent from a peak in 1990 of 16.7 per 1,000.
More than a third of all births were to unmarried women, which, the CDC said, reflected the growing number of unmarried women in the population.
The CDC said there are fewer women of childbearing age in the United States as a relative proportion of the population. People are living longer than they did before, skewing the statistics toward the old-age end.
But women of childbearing age are also having fewer babies.
"Birth rates for women in their 20s and early 30s were generally down while births to older mothers (35 to 44) were still on the rise. Rates were stable for women over 45," the CDC said in a statement.
"Birth rates among teenagers were down in 2002, continuing a decline that began in 1991," it added.
"The birth rate fell to 43 births per 1,000 females 15-19 years of age in 2002, a 5-percent decline from 2001 and a 28-percent decline from 1990," the report said.
"The decline in the birth rate for younger teens, 15-17 years of age, is even more substantial, dropping 38 percent from 1990 to 2002 compared to a drop of 18 percent for teens 18-19," the CDC said.
The percent of low birthweight babies, weighing less than a pound (2,500 grams) rose slightly to 7.8 percent, the highest level in more than 30 years.
"In addition, the percent of preterm births (infants born at less than 37 weeks of gestation) increased slightly over 2001, from 11.9 percent to 12 percent," the CDC said.
07-02-03, 07:09 AM Elexina Jusork, I think that limiting the number of children people should have is perfectly all right. It seems to me that most of the time, people who have the most children are the ones who can least afford them, and people who can afford many children only have one or two. The trouble is, this seriously infringes on personal freedoms and reproductive rights. While I women should not be forced to have a baby she does not want, she also should not be denied the ability to reproduce if she so desires. However, if it is weighed against massive poverty and starvation from overpopulation, then by all means, limit limit limit! I am a firm believer in parenting licenses anyway. "Oh, you want to have a baby but you're an alcoholic and your husband beats you? DENIED!" "Oh, you want to have a baby but you live in a cardboard box? DENIED!" "Oh, you want to have a baby but blood tests show you will likely transmit a horrible disfiguring incurable disease to your offspring? ADOPT! "Oh, you want another child but you already have two? Well, here's four thousand children in need of a home that you can choose from."
I must agree with MkStfnz on one aspect: the China regulations have done more harm than good, I think. Rather than limit the number of children they have, people are simply killing the female babies because males are preferred. This is wrong. If China wanted to implement a practice like this, better preparation should have been taken to close loopholes.
Of course, we could just do what Jonathan Swift suggests...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
