Restriction of children
 

Alright this will sound really radical, but I think the USA should limit the amount of children parents can have to two. Once you have two, the female should get the procedure that won't allow her to have kids anymore. I was reading something on the internet about the planet having a population of 20 billion in the next 50 years. That personally freaks the shit out of me. If anything, we should be shrinking.

Re: Restriction of children
 

Heh,
Most developed countries have negative population growth. In the region of 0.5 to 5% if I remeber rightly.
People can afford & do use birth control in large numbers.
The population explotion is happening in countries such as India & to some extend China etc. (even now) just because of their sheer numbers. 1 billion+ pop. each.
It would help to lower the population to instigate a war between these two nations (not).
Disease could possibly have a drastic effect at some stage - the effectiveness of anti-biotics & their creation/discovery are both on the wane.
What is bitter for our generation is that projections of future growth of wealth from previous decades for the 1st world economies were always based on the short-sighted notion that population would continue to grow from the years after WWII. However now it is receding there are going to be more old than young replacing them. This has a very real effect on the amount of money to pay for services & healthcare etc. The old are becoming an increasing burden on a dwindling active work force economy.
Kill all the oldies (not)!
No do. (not)
Do what you like - its your funeral - eventually.

Re: Restriction of children
 

Re: Restriction of children
 

I personaly don't care. I believe God will provide, besides, I also beleive the end of the world is soon. I have nor worry what so ever on the subject.

Re: Restriction of children
 

Re: Restriction of children
 

Here in Australia less people are giving birth than after ww2, but i agree with cort

Re: Restriction of children
 

Absolutely not. There is no reason for anyone to not be able to give birth to a child as long as they can support it. Natural Selection has it's own bearings to go about, and yes you can point me towards India, and I can point you towards the morgue as well.

Re: Restriction of children
 

I think you can give birth, but if you can look after a child then you should not

Re: Restriction of children
 

?
It's the last statement that really threw me. Tired.
You may be orientated towards India at this very moment, as in you are facing in the direction of its bearing from where you are.
How is this significant?

Re: Restriction of children
 

I think he mean all the indians births plus all the deaths in the world balance out

Re: Restriction of children
 

Exactly, Scorpy.

Over-population in poor, rural areas does not mean all of those live births are going to live to se adulthood.

Re: Restriction of children
 

The problem is that lots of parents cant afford to support it because THEY ARE ON BENIFITS, I don't believe that if you are on benefits you should have the right to have children, as they will be a burden on societies financial resources and not yours.
In any case I don't believe that any couple should be allowed more than 2 children.

Re: Restriction of children
 

Right I don't know how old you are Bobo but you call yourself wise so I
presume (& I exepct) you will get the following:
Since only up to really the present day it takes two members of the current
population to produce another (instigate the inception of a child) then if on average all parents have 2 children then - ignoring mortality & esp. infant mortality that could often also make a casualty of the mother - their children will replace their numbers. Population numbers should be constant.
You can see how this is so. If you remove 2 people you need 2 to take their place.
Now you probably have already seen the results if:
successful average birth rate - (premature mortality rate) is greater than 2 = population increase.
if:
successful average birth rate - (premature mortality rate) is lower than 2 = population decrease.
Now thanks to medicine & advances in healthcare, knowledge, accessibility etc. the infant mortality rate is negligible even in non '1st world' countries.
Infant mortality rate is probably what helped keep the population low in the years before industrialisation. It was probably also the reason why there was more of a celebration & emphasis on creating the next generation; it seemed all too possible that a 'bad year' could leave the population level looking meagre.
For the same reasons the general mortality rate is also very very low.
For years the net rate of births have been greater than 2 on average & so we have more people alive today than have ever lived or died before in the history of the planet. Counter intuitive isn't it?
Its all a simple case of seeing that if people have 3 children on average then there will always be (on average) 1 more per couple of people than there were before & so there have to be more people now than there ever were before. Simple arithmetical rule leads to quite a surprising realisation (or not).
So no there are more births than deaths - on average- hence population increase.

Re: Restriction of children
 

and yet actual statistics for first world countries prove you wrong. weird eh?