Setting a limit on # of kids

[Ephemeral]

Months ago, I was having a conversation with my sister about overpopulation. I mentioned the limit China put on the number of kids a family could have. My sister was totally against the idea. The convo went like this:

Sister: That's not fair. The government can't control how many kids you have.
Me: But the world is overpopulated as it is. We're straining our resources.
Sister: We still should be able to have as many kids as we want.
Me: Everyone keeps thinking about themselves, individually. If 5,000 people think this way, we're going to have a problem. People wanna have more and more kids. It's either some of us or all of us.
Sister: If people can support their children, they should have as many as they want. I would have a 3rd child no matter what the government said.

I ended the convo because I felt it was a lost cost. There're so many people with my sister's mentality that they can't or don't care to see the bigger picture.

I honestly think setting a limit on the # of kids would benefit everyone. We're rapidly decreasing resources and space while increasing demand buy the truckloads.

This may come off as elitist or classist, but the poorer you are, the less amount of children you should be able to have. It makes no sense for someone on welfare or who's living paycheck to paycheck to have the number of kids rivaling a daycare. This would put less of a strain on government assistance and probably encourage those struggling to succeed.

I'd rather for this not to happen since it seems wrong, mega-drastic, and it puts WAY too much power into the government's hands, but when the people can't control themselves, who will?

 

[TickTockMan]

I agree with you to a point. My brother has four kids now, can't pay for them, but wants more when his oldest is grown. It makes no sense, but since they want a large family it's probably going to happen.

This may come off as elitist or classist, but the poorer you are, the less amount of children you should be able to have. It makes no sense for someone on welfare or who's living paycheck to paycheck to have the number of kids rivaling a daycare. This would put less of a strain on government assistance and probably encourage those struggling to succeed.

Once again I agree to a point but the fact of the matter is we need more poor people than we do rich people. The world can't run without the unskilled, low paid workers. If we cut down too big of a percent of poor people we will just make moderate wage earns poor and then it will never end.

 

[Ephemeral]

I agree with you to a point. My brother has four kids now, can't pay for them, but wants more when his oldest is grown. It makes no sense, but since they want a large family it's probably going to happen.

Does he at least have a job, skills, or a degree where he can advance and make more money?

Once again I agree to a point but the fact of the matter is we need more poor people than we do rich people. The world can't run without the unskilled, low paid workers. If we cut down too big of a percent of poor people we will just make moderate wage earns poor and then it will never end.

You know, I never thought of it that way. It's a sad reality that there has to be poor people in order to do the undesirable job. Unless we hire robots, but that's a whole nother can of worms and Wall-E.

 

[jizzeater]

Before the government starts making laws about this, they should take the incentives away for having kids. No tax deductions for married couples and children. If that doesn't make a dent, then impose a tax for every child.

I believe this is going to be a growing problem that will have to be addressed within the next 50 years, especially with former poor nations now approaching our level of affluence and competing with us for resources.

 

[hotb0d]

I agree. People should only have 1-2 kids. 3 max and make them pay taxes for the 3rd one.

 

[ronnie_h]

More important would be to set a limit to reproduce on people who are not able to raise children, for the one or other reason. At the end it's the children who are suffering.

Also I think it's one of the biggest errors in human reproduction that we are still able to breed even when we are almost starving to death. At some point in human history our genes must have run havoc and went the other way than with most other species, who just stop reproducing if there are not enough resources to either feed more individuals or if there is no chance to raise their offspring.

Another point that's leading to a civilization overkill of the human race is, that in most parts of the world children are still seen, and desperately needed, as an investment in the future. Which means that you need to breed as many kids as you can, so someone is there to take care of you when you get older and also as help for the whole family to survive.

 

[TickTockMan]

Does he at least have a job, skills, or a degree where he can advance and make more money?

She did, but lost her job. He was a stay at home dad. Even when she did work though they couldn't afford them.

You know, I never thought of it that way. It's a sad reality that there has to be poor people in order to do the undesirable job. Unless we hire robots, but that's a whole nother can of worms and Wall-E.

It would be smarter in the long run to tax per child rather than tell people they can't have more. It would also make it for fair for those without kids if parents help pay for their schooling more. It will probably never happen here within my lifetime though.

 

[freefall]

Depends on the economic status of the family, actually. People who are not too wealthy should plan their family carefully so as to not starve the children or having them in home with no education or anything decent.

And also the population of the country. Countries with less youngsters usually encourage the married couples to have more children and the contrary too.

 

[gsdx]

Some people need limits and many, many more shouldn't even have the kids they have now let alone making more of them.

 

[Hot White Trash]

This is one of those intellectually lazy arguments, simply connecting the number of children (usually poor ones) to overconsumption. The fact is the wealthy consume more than the poor because they have more purchasing power. Again, if you use just a little brains and maybe google you will see that the US consumes more than all of China even though China has about 5x as many people. US probably consumes 8 to 10x what India consumes.

So if you are really concerned about overconsumption of resources you would propose limiting the number of kids the rich can have and raise the estate tax.

 

[gsdx]

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but here in Canada, the government somewhat imposes a limit on the number of children it will support. In days gone by, single mothers could keep adding children and the government would keep upping her allowance. Now they give allowances for only 3 (I believe). Anything above that is the mother's responsibility. They don't get more money for the extra kids.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I believe that we are experiencing the end results of Roe vs. Wade; we have been killing off the work forces, and the median age in the USA is getting older, and it is costing more $ to keep the older ones employed. The Youths are the biggest economic factors,they are able to maintain the Factory Quotas up, where the older ones are not able to keep up with the quotas. I agree with your sister, and I am Pro-life.

read ya post what is a sure like lot post lot stuff missin cause (( this porn site )) ans folk got things ta do but me makes da comment

Roe v wade complet diffeernt whole thing etc so on

interstin words >Pro life< along side economics ans stuff ans keepin up with da quotas

---- on other note fa world at large

wish cultures put alls da empires past 20000 year tagether ans do bit thinkin

ans united nations go suck shit every day so know what it taste like ans not da luxurys what alls has of da cultures thinks theys manage anythin but how pull toielts a chain< ooh they no even can do that!

it a clear as any solar exclipses what (cultures)<think about it- around world doin ta life of humans ans planet eons ago

ans world start 2000 ans ta 2010 not givein a shit about da ( Children )

( worlds cultures what luxuruy ta sit arounds talk wanna do soemthin with da talk cause another 50000 year go by real fast

right now

may brazil ans rest south america appericate da jewel they destoryin soooooo fast ans yesssss you other countrys too!

 

[fetaby]

Humans don't learn. When massive die offs occur, I'll still be eating my


And to the Roe v. Wade idjet:

Those jobs aren't vacated by aborted fetuses. They were exported to China, India, Mexico, etc.

Also, if our population is shrinking due to abortion, why has it grown?

 

[fetaby]

immigration.

(not that our population is shrinking due to abortion, but people overall are having fewer kids... look to Japan if you want to see what happens when you combine that trend with tight immigration controls)

In 1970 the population was 203,392,031.

In 2009? 307,006,550.

That's an awful lot of immigrants.

 

[MercuryJones]

worrying about overpopulation is silly. it's a self-fixing problem, like being wet.

Many human problems are "self-correcting" - but in a very painful way.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Humans don't learn. When massive die offs occur, I'll still be eating my


And to the Roe v. Wade idjet:

Those jobs aren't vacated by aborted fetuses. They were exported to China, India, Mexico, etc.

Also, if our population is shrinking due to abortion, why has it grown?

yeah lot cultures sureeeee forget world just come out mass plagues just few mins ago ans da little buggys no gone ons holiday or pee fa commerical breaks

human "cultures" < you may not be included > racin full speed down mountain no brakes ans think pop out sound bites all thing be OKAY


how da robot technolgy goins? Bet lot countrys racin their little scientist pants off ta get it off a goins ans keep ( THEM) in comforts theys acustoms toos ans no drown in theirs own mistakes what stills a creates a makes

 

[HeyHeyYouYou]

I'll never understand the fascination and/or obsession some have with having more than, let's say, two kids, particularly if you don't have the means to support them.

Case in point: I recently came across a high school friend on Facebook. Turns out, she is unemployed, married to a guy 20 years her senior who is also unemployed, has seven kids, one which she just had about a month ago, and posted on her Facebook status that she wants at least TWO more. Seriously??

I agree with whoever said take incentives away for having kids.

 

[MrEleven]

Ok, so if you're for setting limits on the number of children someone can have, what kind of punishment, penalty, and/or retribution would you impose on someone who doesn't comply with such a mandate?

• Forced sterilization
• A fine of some kind
• Forced abortions
• Imposing a tax on the number of children beyond a certain number

How is such a plan going to be administered? Is it going to be racially biased (It could be depending on who's administering it)?


Anyway, I agree with your sister! I think the best approach in this regard is education, not forced reproductive standards IMHO.

I agree completely.
And if we were to cap the number of children as they do in countries such as China, we would see the continued rise of sex-selective abortions.

 

[Tadaa]

I'm having a hard time believing that this is being discussed.

 

[Under-taken]

Only for those whose economic constraints dont enable them.