Population Limiting

[TD_Project]

Okay, this topic may be weird sounding, but I believe it is the answer to most of Earth's problems, if executed properly. However executing the plan in the first place is probably next to impossible.

Anyways, I think population limiting would control all the Earth's problems. Like having one or two children per generation. Therefore renewing the population and not expanding it.

Quite like what was said on the Matrix, (weird place to get a reference from) Humans are like a disease of the planet, they multiply until all resources are consumed then they move to a new area and do the same. I look at the world as if that is true, to an extent.

However, population limiting to two kids per generation would solve it all in my opinion. Maybe even just one kid per generation for a few generations, therefore you reduce the population a little bit before evening it out. Less resources used, less global warming (obviously TONS of variables will affect that, not just population growth), less threat of food shortage, less pollution..

Obviously in a perfect world, the answer would be to get third world countries up to pace with technology and ways of life, but that probably can't happen. I don't know where I am going with this so...

Thoughts on population limiting? Yes? No?
Discuss

[rzr]

Re: Population Limiting

If it were possible, logically I agree. Morally... No.

[TD_Project]

Re: Population Limiting

Well morally it's a different story. Logically though it's just a solution I came up with (and probably many people thought about) when I woke up one day lol.

[Sh4d0wD3v1L]

Re: Population Limiting

Although this may limit the amount of bad things that happen in the world, it also has the potential to limit the good things.

For instance, say that you have three kids. Two of them are above-average students, but one of them is a genius by all means, and makes a breakthrough discovery. Who is to say that if this child had not lived that this discovery would have been made? What if life is improved by this discovery, and without it, the world as we know it would crumble?

Additionally, they have been trying to do this in China for years now, and as far as I know, their populations i still growing. I don't think that this could even happen.

All in all, I don't think that this is necessarily a good idea. I think what we should do is instead of making less people, we should just do what we have been doing, and reform education so that the things that you mentioned (global warming, pollution, the food problem) could be eliminated.

[rzr]

Re: Population Limiting

You beat me to the mentioning of China's strategy. But, I agree. If showing this... catastrophe of an environment's current structure were implemented further in the educational system it would help. I mean, my parents could care less about the environment. They weren't taught the dangers of pollution when they were in school. I do care, because I am.

[Tokzic]

Re: Population Limiting

For instance, say that you have three kids. Two of them are above-average students, but one of them is a genius by all means, and makes a breakthrough discovery. Who is to say that if this child had not lived that this discovery would have been made? What if life is improved by this discovery, and without it, the world as we know it would crumble?

What.

Okay, so what if the 1000th child I have will figure out how to cure AIDS? Are you saying I should have a thousand children just because there's the possibility that she/he might do great things?

You can't bank on what-ifs, especially not ridiculous ones like those. Second-guessing the butterfly effect is not worth anyone's time.

[dore]

Re: Population Limiting

China limits couples to having one child only, but it's not (/can't be) enforced very well in the countryside, which is the majority of the country, so the policy does not stop population growth. However, in the next few generations the population growth will most likely level off because there will be such an unprecedented number of single men. Chinese families for the most part want a son rather than a daughter and will do whatever it takes to get a son. This is a good read on the unexpected implications that this policy will cause down the road.

As for population limiting, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to limit our population, but not by forced birth control, especially not in developed nations. The birth rate naturally drops in developed nations so it's unnecessary. What would be more beneficial is decreasing the population in areas that rely on developed nations for handouts to survive and force them to be more self-sufficient. Why should we help a family that keeps having children when they have no way to support their family and are selfishly dooming their posterity to poverty? Children from backwards areas are not going to cure cancer or AIDs or do anything worthwhile if they are not self-sufficient, because by relying on others to survive they are perpetuating their own misfortune.

[MystictheHedgehog]

Re: Population Limiting

The idea sounds like it would be plausible, but, in my opinion, limiting a couple to having 1-2 kids is breaching on your rights as a human. Limiting a greater amount is one thing, but saying a family is unable to have 3 kids? What about when a family DOES have 3 kids, because it will be unavoidable that many families will. What would you do with that 'extra' child? What about when a woman divorces, takes both kids, and remarries another man. Are you really going to restrict that man from being able to continue his family tree? I think there are basic human rights involved in this, and you shouldn't be able to limit it. Minus those families that are huge (that family from a show on TLC with 17 kids and one more comes to mind, 17 Kids and Growing I believe is the name of it)

There is actually a series of books somewhat relevant to this post. The series is called Among the Shadows I believe, and it goes into detail about something like this. It doesn't rain for a long time, and food becomes scarce, so they limit families to 2 kids. Well, you can get into serious trouble and possibly killed if your the family housing a 3rd child, and the child is always killed if discovered. The books go into the detail of a life of a 3rd child(and others in later books) and his struggle to regain individual freedom. It's about middle school reading level, pretty good series if anyone wants to read them

Edit: Didn't realize we were talking in terms of the entire human population. I don't really think there is a way to do that honestly, not on that huge of a scale. If they can barely keep it somewhat controlled in China, has mentioned earlier in the thread, how are we going to keep at it for the entire world? Not only that, but the only way to possibly control it is to hire more cops, FBI, etc. to just keep tabs on this sort of thing, and with the state of everything, that's just going to be a waste of money. I do think we need to solve some resource problems, but I think there have to be better methods out there than population limitation, especially to the extent mentioned earlier.

[x After Dawn x]

Re: Population Limiting

Although this may limit the amount of bad things that happen in the world, it also has the potential to limit the good things.

For instance, say that you have three kids. Two of them are above-average students, but one of them is a genius by all means, and makes a breakthrough discovery. Who is to say that if this child had not lived that this discovery would have been made? What if life is improved by this discovery, and without it, the world as we know it would crumble?

It's a risk that you have to take. You'll never know if a kid grows up to be homeless or successful, stupid or intelligent.

Overall, this wouldn't solve all of our problems, but we have to take baby steps in order to solve global issues. This is probably one of the first steps that we'd have to take, then we'd have to handle other issues such as finding new energy sources to replace oil (such as solar or wind energy).

[Vendetta21]

Re: Population Limiting

I am a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction MovemenT. I think this issue is best dealt with on a personal level, and then on an awareness campaign.

The idea is just to get people to voluntarily reduce reproduction, and then for those that wish to have children: adopt. The movement will never actually make humans extinct: it's just the idea that we could do with less of us, and for a lot of reasons.

I wouldn't say we were a disease to the planet though; that's making an assumption about the best state of the planet and the universe, and it's poor reasoning. I think what we are talking about is how population spreads faster than we can solve the problems of population-spread, and so not adding to the world's problems is a moral thing to do for those with an anthropomorphic worldview.

Why not adopt? It's definitely the better thing to do in terms of the world of humanity, even if it is harder to do and it doesn't play towards your intrinsic desires. Don't get me wrong: I don't think there's anything wrong with having children, I just think it is better to not have children.

[welsh_girl]

Re: Population Limiting

You know, it's actually a pretty good idea. But it's one that will never really work.

People will have children, and will have as many as they like weather it's 1 or 8

The poorer the country, the more children they will have, which makes even more poverty, thats what bugs me and over-populates the world.

The best way to keep birth rates low is to teach contraception, I think the population might go down then.

I
Why not adopt?

I can't see this working. People want there own children. Omny people who really will adopt is those who can't have children, don't have a partner etc. or just have that much love to give to another child.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: Population Limiting

It's a risk that you have to take. You'll never know if a kid grows up to be homeless or successful, stupid or intelligent.

Overall, this wouldn't solve all of our problems, but we have to take baby steps in order to solve global issues. This is probably one of the first steps that we'd have to take, then we'd have to handle other issues such as finding new energy sources to replace oil (such as solar or wind energy).

Agreed. What if you have a child that has a lot of potential to be knowledgeable? What if your child has a birth disorder? Reducing the population won't seem to do much in my opinion because of the chance of having someone intelligent or disabled in any way won't change. The best solution is to try educating everyone and remind to not be so wasteful of materials (like throwing paper in the trash instead of the recycling bin or just littering in general.)

For example, not everyone in the world cares about the Earth. Everyone vaules themselves in different ways. Those who find themselves more important than the environment itself usually just don't care and litter when they feel like it. Heck, in some places there are fines for littering, but then again, people still litter. We just have to solve the problem bit by bit.

[devonin]

Re: Population Limiting

The poorer the country, the more children they will have

The best way to keep birth rates low is to teach contraception, I think the population might go down then.

These two statements in conjunction are why the second statement has proven historically to just be not correct. When you are impoverished, multiple children are how you support yourself. The more people in your household able to work and earn food/income the less likely you are to starve to death. Kids==Food.

[dietsnapple135]

Re: Population Limiting

Kids==Food.

That's just immoral. I don't find cannibalism to be a proper solution. Well, maybe...

[devonin]

Re: Population Limiting

If you were cracking a joke, that isn't really CT appropriate. If you were bring serious, you clearly didn't actually read my post before you responded.