Setting a limit on # of kids

[MercuryJones]

This is the only way I can think of without mass genocide or selecting people at random to be killed.

Why stop here? Genocide would be a small price to pay for the survivors to have greater access to limited resources. Right?

 

[Ephemeral]

You've been argued upside down, and you have no data to support your claims. You don't even know enough to know that.

But since the most you'll ever do about your idea is bitch about it on a porn message board, it's not worth a lot more response.

Case in point.

 

[MercuryJones]

Case in point.

You're right. I just assumed, instead of considering that you might be doing something about it.

So set me straight: What actions are you taking to combat the problem of overpopulation?

 

[Ephemeral]

I plan on not having children and discussing with whoever's interested in the dangers of overpopulations. That's all I can do.

I never stated or even suggested that I was in the position of power to enact this into law. I simply posted this on JUB to see others' opinions and to have an intelligent debate. You know that.

You went from politely opposing my opinion to being unreasonably combative and nasty.

 

[MercuryJones]

I plan on not having children and discussing with whoever's interested in the dangers of overpopulations. That's all I can do.

That's all you can do?

Not even letter writing campaigns? Starting up an advocacy group of like-minded people? Not visiting with your elected representatives?

Oh well.

 

[Ephemeral]

^Do you honestly think this idea would pass?

The most I could do is find people who share my ideas, but we'd be written off quickly.

 

[MercuryJones]

Well, we agree on that.

 

[zingerz]

i once had a strange conversation with a professor once (he is an EE major no relevence to sociology or anything). he claimed people should get a licence to have babies. i laughed mainly because i thought i would be too hard to police, and we'd probably waste more resources and time policing. I did however agree that we should cap welfare/childbenefits/foodstamps ect. lower. (which, would be easy : ))

 

[Semirhage666]

At the very least, I think we can all agree that there are people out there like the Octomom with so many goddamn kids that they are getting government money to assist them, and I think that we can all agree that once the # of kids you're getting assistance for has gone above a certain #, you should be cut off.

 

[MercuryJones]

At the very least, I think we can all agree that there are people out there like the Octomom with so many goddamn kids that they are getting government money to assist them, and I think that we can all agree that once the # of kids you're getting assistance for has gone above a certain #, you should be cut off.

I will gladly agree that there are people who have more children than they can reasonably care for.

 

[fetaby]

At the very least, I think we can all agree that there are people out there like the Octomom with so many goddamn kids that they are getting government money to assist them, and I think that we can all agree that once the # of kids you're getting assistance for has gone above a certain #, you should be cut off.

And that's the rub. Unless you can guarantee those families a different means of support, you are taking food out of the mouths of children who didn't ask to be born.

There is a dangerous subscription to a thought that if one goes to school and does well they will in turn be able to support their family/endeavors. But the reality is there are no guarantees. You are not assured a well paying job to support your family. And gods help you if you don't do well in school, the chances to do well after are severely handicapped.

Want to talk about limited resources? There is one job for every 5 unemployed persons in America.

 

[MercuryJones]

There is a dangerous subscription to a thought that if one goes to school and does well they will in turn be able to support their family/endeavors. But the reality is there are no guarantees. You are not assured a well paying job to support your family. And gods help you if you don't do well in school, the chances to do well after are severely handicapped.

And yet you don't improve your chances by having a bunch of kids before you have an education. I've seen enough people condemn themselves and their families to just getting by because they had a family they couldn't really afford.

I agree that you can't cut those kids off, because they didn't ask to be born. But I believe, perhaps naively, that if more young people could believe they have better options, they'd be more likely to hold out for them.

At the same time, there are people who earn a good living and only have one child who are in massive debt because they can't manage their budgets. Like over utilization of resources it's less about how many kids you have, and more about how you live.

 

[fetaby]

And yet you don't improve your chances by having a bunch of kids before you have an education. I've seen enough people condemn themselves and their families to just getting by because they had a family they couldn't really afford.

I agree that you can't cut those kids off, because they didn't ask to be born. But I believe, perhaps naively, that if more young people could believe they have better options, they'd be more likely to hold out for them.

At the same time, there are people who earn a good living and only have one child who are in massive debt because they can't manage their budgets. Like over utilization of resources it's less about how many kids you have, and more about how you live.

Sadly, finding yourself in a position of good standing and being in massive debt reads like a very finely written joke. But on to the kids.

Despite the fact that so much of America's jobs are no longer in America, there are still opportunities to be had. That would involve a massive change of thinking on the parts of every American, and also how we raise children.

Really, the whole point of this thread was not so much to question the number of kids any individual can have, but what are the values the human race should strive for, continuation being one of those.

Honestly, I have no hope. The future of mankind rests with mankind, I don't trust 'em.

 

[TickTockMan]

Ephemeral, check your comments.

 

[Ephemeral]

Ephemeral, check your comments.

What about them?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The point the OP is getting at is that it is going to be a lot easier to limit # of births to put a cap on the global population than it is going to be to find a way to produce enough food, etc to sustain a global population of a higher magnitude.

In what way would it be "easy" to tell people how many children they can have AND THEN enforce it? Increasing production of food would NOT be easier than THAT?

 

[Ephemeral]

In what way would it be "easy" to tell people how many children they can have AND THEN enforce it? Increasing production of food would NOT be easier than THAT?

Wasn't planning on this thread to be resurrected, but anywho.

How would you increase the production of foods?

You'd have to have more meat and crops and at a faster rate. We'd have to rely even more on chemicals and enhancements in order to meet the demand. Some of these chemicals have been found to cause cancer and heart disease or otherwise be unhealthy. Natural, chemical-free foods may become a luxury item or a thing of the past.

We'd have to exploit more land, cut down more trees to make room for more crops. Deforestation would be a problem, meaning the loss of many animals' habitats, meaning the loss of many animal species and possible medicines.

 

[MercuryJones]

I would like to offer a suggestion - a modest proposal, if you will - to resolve the issue:

It is commonly agreed that some people have more children than they can easily afford. It is also commonly agreed that resources are ultimately limited.

Since some are loathe to promote conservation of resources, and since it is logistically and legally unlikely to limit the number of children people produce.

Might we resolve the issue simply by requiring families to eat any children they produce beyond the one that is legally sanctioned?

I have been assured that a well nourished, healthy child at only one year makes for a tender, delicious roast. Of course a stew or ragout might stretch the meal a bit longer, and so should be encouraged.

Now a very worthy person - someone truly concerned with maintaining abundant resources without constraint - will wish to consider moving up the scale and consuming older children and even teenagers. The meat might be less tender, bu this would be a way to retain virtually unlimited use of resources without losing more to those already, unfortunately, born but not yet consumed at their prime.

A program might be developed, in the interest of maintaining full self indulgence, in which the impoverished elderly are made to dine on each other, as they are certainly beyond useful productivity. Of course this will require able bodied people to slaughter, prepare and serve the meals, but so it goes that we must be charitable and take care of this for the infirm who can no longer do it for themselves.

To summarize, my suggestion would reduce the number of unnecessary persons, thus giving those who remain greatly unconstrained use of resources, without the troubling thought of conservation or waste-prevention.

This proposal has the advantage of not simply limiting un-conceived persons, but also of eliminating the existing surplus, who compete for resources that we could otherwise indulge in with greater abandon.

This might a most swift solution.

 

[Ephemeral]

^

 

[sd1989]

Everyone has the right to have a kid, I dont agree that everyone should, but thats just my opinion.

And if capping ever happened, it would be very troubling.