Setting a limit on # of kids

[MercuryJones]

Those are either basic needs or basic luxuries. We need those to survive and maintain a healthy life.

People do not need to have 4, 5, 6+ children. They can substain and live a well-balanced life without an army-sized family.

Well so much for overusing resources.

A family of 3 can use far, far more resources than a family of 8. If you're really concerned with people using too much resource you ought to address that.

US garbage bins are full of food and barely used crap. How bizarre that you can't make people stop wasting "basic luxuries" but you can interfere in how many children people have.

 

[Ephemeral]

loki81, the average may be 1.8, but how many families have more than 2 kids? I'd say (I'm not providing any facts, just estimating) that there're enough families with more than 2 kids to make a significant impact on demand.

MercuryJones, a family of 3 could demand more than a family of 8. However, more people usually= higher demand and more use of resources. A family of 8 would probably need more groceries and more trips to the gas station.

 

[MercuryJones]

a family of 3 could demand more than a family of 8. However, more people usually= higher demand and more use of resources. A family of 8 would probably need more groceries and more trips to the gas station.

Again, you're measuring by count of people rather than actual use of resources.

The US uses (and wastes) far more resources than more populous nations where people lead less extravagant lives. If you were really worried about use of resources that's where you would focus.

But it's starting to seem this is really just a personal distaste about how many children people should have, while using "resources" to support a personal bias.

 

[Ephemeral]

More populous countries who use less resources also deal with staggering numbers of starvation, unsanitary living conditions, disease, and cramped living spaces. Along with simply being poorer, I think it's just too many people stuffed in one area and not enough resources to go around.

If resources and space was unlimited, you could have a legion of kids for all I care. LOL But since they aren't, I'm concerned about the # of children having an imapct on the world.

That family of 6 would still have to have more diapers, more groceries or go out to eat more, get more gas to drive the kids to school/sports/extraccurricular activities/friends' houses, and take more showers and flush the toliet more. They could all go to Wal-Mart or Goodwill and buy some cheap clothes. They don't have to be hand-me-downs. And if they're middle- or upper-class, they could buy brand new stuff for each of their 6 kids.

When they grow up, those 6 may want to have kids. Even if all 6 of them only had 1 child, that'd be double the amount the family of 3 would have with 1 child each.

 

[MercuryJones]

More populous countries who use less resources also deal with staggering numbers of starvation, unsanitary living conditions, disease, and cramped living spaces. Along with simply being poorer, I think it's just too many people stuffed in one area and not enough resources to go around.

Some do, many do not. Many people live with adequate resources, but not at the wasteful level the US does.

If resources and space was unlimited, you could have a legion of kids for all I care. LOL But since they aren't, I'm concerned about the # of children having an imapct on the world.

You again pretend it's about resources, while the US uses and wastes more resources than other nations.

You want to ration the number of children people have, but not the amount of food, electricity, gas or even space they waste. But it's not the number of children that devours resources - it's the way you live.

 

[MercuryJones]

I am a bi-product of a failed Birth control method, and my Mother still loved me and kept me, and I wished that she was still alive today so that I can thank her for keeping me.

Not relevant.

If you think abortions are depriving the US of an adequate work force, what do you think birth control is doing to it?

 

[BearBoi]

As long as people fully support their own children, and that includes financially, emotionally and physically, than I don’t care how many they pop out.

However, if they expect the tax-payers to pick up the slack then can fuck off.

And if they popping out more than they can care for because of religious beliefs, than their religions should be taxed to supplement the dependency they put on society.

 

[Ephemeral]

You again pretend it's about resources, while the US uses and wastes more resources than other nations.

You want to ration the number of children people have, but not the amount of food, electricity, gas or even space they waste. But it's not the number of children that devours resources - it's the way you live.

Because that'd be too many things to severely limit at once. There'd be a public uprising. There'd be public outcry for the limitations of kids, but I think it'd be accepted a lot better than limiting basic necessities and luxuries.

Maybe graudually or through time, limits and rations could be established.

 

[fetaby]

Urgh, can't the ladies push them babies out any faster? I'm getting tired of waiting...

 

[MercuryJones]

same as abortions, because birth control is a form of abortion, and my own Mother has admitted to this.

I see. So are you opposed to legal birth control as well?

 

[sixthson]

When it comes to gay rights, we protest that the government should stay out of our bedrooms. Then some turn around and invite the government back into them to legislate how many children a couple can have?? Let's be consistent.

 

[MercuryJones]

Because that'd be too many things to severely limit at once. There'd be a public uprising. There'd be public outcry for the limitations of kids, but I think it'd be accepted a lot better than limiting basic necessities and luxuries.

A. There's be a huge uprising about the interference in such a personal matter;
B. The average number of kids per household is already 1.8, so there's not that many kids being born in the US anyway;
C. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the number of kids isn't the problem with resources - excessive use and waste is. And having fewer kids does nothing to change that.

I don't know where you live, but if it's the US, you are part of the nation is accounts for 5% of the world population, but 23% of its energy, 15% of its meat and 28% of its paper. Until you bring those things more in line with average world use for adequate levels, you really have nothing to say about population control.

When you drive somewhere that you could get to by bus, throw food away or eat until you feel really full, think about that.

 

[Ephemeral]

Two men getting married doesn't have nearly an impact on resources and demand as a child from birth to death does. It's not even related.

 

[MercuryJones]

Two men getting married doesn't have nearly an impact on resources and demand as a child from birth to death does. It's not even related.

Dude, you've already made clear you don't really give a shit about resources.

 

[Ephemeral]

A. There's be a huge uprising about the interference in such a personal matter;
B. The average number of kids per household is already 1.8, so there's not that many kids being born in the US anyway;
C. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the number of kids isn't the problem with resources - excessive use and waste is. And having fewer kids does nothing to change that.

I don't know where you live, but if it's the US, you are part of the nation is accounts for 5% of the world population, but 23% of its energy, 15% of its meat and 28% of its paper. Until you bring those things more in line with average world use for adequate levels, you really have nothing to say about population control.

When you drive somewhere that you could get to by bus, throw food away or eat until you feel really full, think about that.

A. Yeah, but I think it'd be for the best of the country
B. But how many households have more than 2 or 3 kids? Either the average, we still have A LOT of households in the U.S.
C. I still think it could. The more people there are, the more mouths you need to feed, the bodies you need to wash, land needed to house them, etc.

I live in the U.S. and we do use up wat too many resources unfortunately. I unplug the power cord in my room (I live with my parents since I just graduated HS), take shorter showers, don't run the water while I brush my teeth, flush the toilet after 3 uses (unless I boo-boo), and my city has a citywide recycling program.

 

[Semirhage666]

How would you feel about rationing gas, electricity and food for high-utilization nations like the US?

Fuck that. I don't need to be giving up my unlimited use of those things so that every goddamn couple out there can have a 4th fucking kid.

 

[Semirhage666]

Again, you're measuring by count of people rather than actual use of resources.

The US uses (and wastes) far more resources than more populous nations where people lead less extravagant lives. If you were really worried about use of resources that's where you would focus.

But it's starting to seem this is really just a personal distaste about how many children people should have, while using "resources" to support a personal bias.

Why are you making this international? Any hypothetical law would be applicable to 1 country only, and therefore, other countries' usage is irrelevant. Take any country, and the fact remains that 3 children in a family in that country WILL NOT use as much resources and 8 children in that family in that country. In fact, by your argument, it would make SENSE to put this into effect for the entirety of the US.

 

[Ephemeral]

And if we did nothing to control the birth rate and only gave out rations, the exploding amount of people would put a strain on rations.

Less people=Bigger rations
More people=Smaller rations

Try to split a whole pizza for 5 people. Try to split it for 10 people. Try to split it for 20 people. Try to split it for 30 people. You see, the slices get smaller and smaller.

 

[MercuryJones]

A. Yeah, but I think it'd be for the best of the country

But you haven't shown that it's best for the country. The US doesn't use more resources because people have more kids but because we lead wasteful lifestyles. You included. Limited the number of children doesn't change that.

B. But how many households have more than 2 or 3 kids? Either the average, we still have A LOT of households in the U.S.

Which again has little to do with utilization.

C. I still think it could. The more people there are, the more mouths you need to feed, the bodies you need to wash, land needed to house them, etc.

If you really thought it was abut use of resources you'd get a lot more impact by rationing resources than children, which don't make much difference. There's even reason to think having only one child results in more waste.

When you're serious about resources let us know.

 

[Semirhage666]

same as abortions, because birth control is a form of abortion, and my own Mother has admitted to this.

Please take your Catholic Kid-fucker Bullshit out of here, as Kathy Griffin would say.

I think you need to rethink your basic sense of ethics if you have a problem with birth control.