It will make no difference when the poorer countries just keep breeding . And many of them are already starving to begin with.
promote quality human rather then quantities
Monogamy was actually a population control measure, which went out of control over time, when couples started giving birth to as many. Monogamy also resulted in population explosion, as it gave the security and a room to a couple who had nothing else to do but populate.
But if we really think deep, the numbers are not the worry, but the spacing. What needs to be regulated is that births have to be made seasonal and not continual. We can see that a huge %age of population is constantly engaged in pregnancy & child birth and paediatric. But now that the world has wide-spread education, and there is no dire need of population, and availability of birth control means, we can consider Year of Birth, like that of Olympics, where all time their births during that period, where pregnant women too can get full attention and be in the city of birth, until delivery.
and on what planet will this actually work ?
In all planetariums of the universe.
The only way to accomplish this would be to murder. Are you okay with murdering newborns? Or... mothers carrying their one too many child?
I think limiting the amount of kids you have is smar. If I remember correctly, one guy was recently told by the court that he's not allowed to have anymore children. Whether you can afford them or not, it shouldn't be ok to keep popping out babies.
Absolutely not. We have fought too long in this country for bodily autonomy. We do NOT need more rules surrounding my uterus. I've had quite enough of this silliness. It's bad enough we get harassed by these hollering sign-holders when we go into PPH for our freakin pap smears. It's bad enough that we have to deal with being called murderers and having abortion equated with shooting someone in the head. It's bad enough that people want to make it so we can't receive medical treatment, including abortions. Now we can't even decide whether we should have another child? No way, no how.
as long as there are catholics forget about it , those suckers breed like roaches
yea, if we did two kids for each family you know to replace the mom and the dad.
I think they should limit it to 2 kids
China is doing this.
It may not seem right, people disagree with China for doing it but what's the alternative. The populations are growing pretty much everywhere with all the technology and medicine we have today and eventually, there will simply not be enough resources to support all of us and there will be poverty and starvation. Just look at India as a example.
If the limit was ba
No we should encourage population control by not letting idiots breed.
I don't think it's the worst idea in the world.
No. Limiting family size is not the answer. First, the best way to stop the population growth is to do two things. Stop supporting people who have children they can't support. Have a child you can't support? It is taken from you, and you go to work for the state to support the child. in fact, you can be put in prison for awhile also. Stop this BS like that "ambitious black guy" who had over 2 dozen kids with multiple women.
2nd, and this will be the more effective...pay people to be "fixed." However, the pay is not always the same. The younger the person, the more money they get. The woman should get more because she is actually the easiest to use for population control. Also, if you have already had kids, the amount goes down. The idea is to pay you not to have kids...but if you've already had them, then what's the point?
Some might say, well what is to stop the woman with 5 kids from popping out 5 more? Well, that's why you have the first part...the enforcement. Having kids is not a right, it's a responsibility.
Also, by doing this, it improves the gene pool. People who are successful will be producing a higher percentage of the population. Those who are not successful, won't be able to afford to have kids, and in fact, will likely be selling their reproductive rights.
Overtime, this should either stabilize the population, or decrease it. Frankly, I'm all for decreasing the population to make the world a better place. This seems a humane way of doing it. I fail to see a downside. Less people use less resources. Fossil fuel is not endless. There is a finite amount of it. So far, "green energy," has not proven to be up to the job. It has a negative return and is propped up by the use of fossil fuel.
With a population of 7 billion people, we eat trillions of animals and fish each year. We have trouble feeding the population as it is. How will we do so when the population is 9 billion...10 billion, 14 billion? Think about that. Population growth is exponential. It takes less and less time to get to the next billion. Within our children's lifetime we could be at 14 billion people. Many scientists believe the Earth can't sustain more than 11 billion. At 11 billion it is a tipping point.
We can't keep our heads buried in the sand forever.