Population Control - A necessary Evil?

The current world population is around 6.8 Billion and climbing at a concerning rate. According to http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html . The world could only support 2 Billion people if we all lived at the current quality of life found in North America. If we all lived at Africa’s average quality of life the world could potentially support around 40 Billion people. This says as the world population grows, quality of life is naturally going to go down. By 2035, I’ll be 48 years old and the population is projected to be at 10 Billion.

Assuming the government hasn’t been creating bird flue, SARS, or hiding the cure for AIDS already, do you think it should be mandatory for global leaders to initiate some form of population control such as limiting child births per family? My favorite idea is a mandatory IQ test to determine if you are ever eligible to reproduce. Might as well make the population smarter while we’re at it. ???

 

If you want to limit the population, you limit the amount of food. We constantly over-produce how much food we have. If there's an abundance in resources, the population goes up- you see this in all of those ecosystem diagrams, you know, hunter/predator relations. Well, what happens when we have no hunter, and have a seemingly limitless amount of resources to grow off of? Our population keeps climbing higher, higher and higher. We're eventually going to hit that population cap, crash, and a whole shit load of people are going to start dying from malnutrition. Check out the movie Soylent Green, I think they had the idea of what that cap would look like...

 

Yeah I saw soylent green lol.

 

It made me kinda sad that the "twist" at the end has been spoiled by just about everything. I was thinking there was going to be some kind of giant realization at the end, but, not, just "You... gotta tell them... you gotta tell them... Soylent green... soylent green! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!"

But god damn, acting was top notch in that film. They don't make them like they used to.

 

I think there will be a limit to how many kids you can have.

 

the thing is no one has the balls to make those decisions.

to many people in the western world are used to all their human rights and will be outraged if they are told some of those rights are forfeited and no one has the balls to deal with that against them.

population should be controlled and death rate should also be controlled more people need to die, i know that sounds bad but with modern medicine people that should otherwise die keeping the population steady stay alive. this is also the principle in places like Africa its not the dept that's killing them its that their population is growing far beyond its means and we make it worse by sending aid as it keeps everyone alive a little longer.
i won't go in to it any further as that's another debate but the point is sustainable living for the population.

i do think people should be limited to the amount of children maybe not as harsh as china but a small amount to stop people have child after child and living of the state and not putting anything back.

i agree with this statement apart from the IQ part (as iq mean dick all in raising children)
but i do think people should have to pass a parenting test before being able to have children almost like a license to have children just like a car license getting points on it if you are a bad parent and losing it if you do something monumentally wrong.
people under 18 can't acquire a license and children born to a parent without a license are taken away and given to license holders that can't have children themselves not only is the child taken away but that person is fined.

harsh i know but i guarantee if this happened it would solve population overgrowth, economy, many behavioral issues in children and many more issues that come along with any scum bag having children when ever they want so they get a free house and free money.

 

actually smacking is one of the worst things you can do and is nothing to do with discipline, if you have to smack you have lost the battle to begin with because it shows your child neither listens to you or respects you. if you parent your children properly you should never need to raise your hand ever.

smacking in regards to correcting behavior is terrible, with smacking you are teaching a child to be aggressive to get your own way and that is all they learn from it. it is about the worst thing you can do to them developmentally oh also shouting for no damn reason and holding a grudge.
if you ever have to get to the point of smacking your own child you should not have children and are a rubbish parent.

this is the one thing i won't be argued with as it is my area of study and i know how it affects children development.
if a child is parented properly they will know their boundaries and be happy within them and there should be little need ever to even tell them off.

I've never smacked my child and never will.
to just palm it off as "tried and tested method" is retarded and thinking that its to do with the child abuse craze is retarded and means you have no idea of child development and the way they learn at all.
the reason children were never as bad as they are today has nothing to do with physical violence, children were better behaved because morals and right and wrong were taught, respect was taught, women stayed at home and spent time with their children and many other things that made children good people.
unlike now when a child gets told off at school instead of the parent then again telling them off at home they come in saying "you can't do shit to my child fuck off" and we wonder why children are bad, treat their children like shit, palm them off on anyone but spend time with them.

i could go on for ever with this but the problem is not to do with not being able to smack a child its to do with that there are allot of people having children that don't know how to be a parent and its getting worse that we have children having children.

 

so was i but i'm sure you were taught respect as well.
but i've seen what parents do to children and its horrible.
a child should respect you not fear you.

a small smack does no harm as a last resort and only ever used as a last resort to put that little bit of shock to show you mean business
(but i'd argue that if you ever need to do it at all your a shit parent to begin with because a if child knows the boundaries you will never get to that point)
its when it is used all the time as a behavior control method that's wrong.

 

I did a research about this back in college, used the Malthusian Law...

anyway, the more people, means more food consumption, which mean less resources. but its not true that the more population we have, means that we have more food. Thats why their is a word called " World Hunger ". There are places like Africa and Asia where there are millions of populations but only eating like 1-2 times a day, and sometimes none.

What we need is Family Planning and teaching those people having more than 4 children to stop creating more, especially if they can't support more than that. Also, they should have intervals between children like 2 or more years. But we all know that many people dont follow that, so the quickest way to control it is by limiting birth from 1-3 children.

kind of remember that woman who gave birth to octuplets, aside from the 8, she already had several children born and is still wanting more.

 

it's not a good idea. what will happen is that as the older generation becomes old and the current generation also heads the direction of the older genertion, there becomes a big gap where the new generation has to provide for the older and possibly the current generation. it puts more burden on the new generation on providing care for the older generation.

if there were a total of 2 million people [1 million men and 1 million women] and all have kids then there would be an outcome of 1 million children. the new generation will have to provide for 2 million people, so they have to provide twice as much. and if the new generation have children, then the outcome will become 500000. then the newer generation will have to provide the previous and the first generation [whatever is left of the first generation]. it makes sense ideally but it doesn't work.

 

yeah and violence being the consequence is retarded

the consequence my son gets is being told off, we rarely have to tell him off because he knows his boundaries in the first place!

you are smarter and more knowledgeable in many ways man but this is one thing i know and studied and practiced
can you say you know about child development and what affects behavior? i can i studied it and worked in areas where people are not very good at parenting and seen what bad parenting does.

i agree children need consequences but there are a million consequences far more affective and less damaging to a child's behavior as smacking makes it worse as they hit other children when someone is not doing what they like and do you know why? because you taught them to be that way by smacking them.

consequences need to mean something and that something should not be pain and it just doesn't solve anything as if for instance your trying to stop a temper tantrum the child is doing this because their communicating skills are poor and they can't effectively get through what they are trying to communicate, if you hit that child you have solved nothing apart from hurt them and make them cry for longer because you hit them. now if you where to get down to their level and talk to them the tantrum can be stopped and the child smiling and every one happy within a minute.

its very easy just to say give them a smack but your making your own life harder but if you are a good parent and put in the ground work to begin with you'd never need to smack them.

saying that i do think police should still be able to give teens a clip round the ear and be a bit more firm with people

 

Back to topic, hm, we should also think of those which does not covered by modern technology and electricity. While traveling in the province here in the philippines, i once saw and asked a family of a farmer which had like 15 children, and take note, there is no multiple birth, and its from 1 mother. I asked him, why do you have 15 children and you're yearly income doesn't even support that large family.
He answered me, because here, we have no electricity, and its always cold at nights, we dont have any recreation when the sun sets and we try and save money buy turning off gas lamps at 7-8 at night. Also, the hospitals here are very far away and does not have ligation or birth control items like condoms and pills. and it adds to the money problems we face.

He also mentioned something about being Catholic and pro-life but I'm not going to details because of issues here about religion.

What I'm saying, is if that farmer has family planning, electricity, recreations and medical facilty near him, he could have lessen his burden but still keeps a family which he can support.

 

war is the best solution

 

yeah, war is a good solution maybe in the dark or middle ages, with swords and spears, but war today consist of chemical and biological stuff which has effect after the war and many years after that.

 

but still its the best

 

i totally agree with equitypetey view. the moral degeneration of society is what needs to be sorted, child limiting is a naive idea, mainly because it might work in the developed areas, but you already know the that the worlds pop masses are not in those areas, so it isnt a solution at all, but a quickfix for those fortunate people. lol i would love to see you try convincing my countries people on child limits and licenses. so i would have to say that warefare and manmade viruses would be the best way right now. rebuilding after a war might take a while but its a helluva way to get people cooperating

 

So you want to turn the world into MGS.. I suppose the war economy would bring revenue to poorer parts of the world.

Don't china have a baby policy? Thats a pretty big indicator of why it's a daft idea...