Should there be limits set on the amount of children parents can have?

[MadamePapillon]

Maybe so, but we are also years away from flooding our planet with overpopulation. Besides, that's why we should concentrate more so we can speed up the process.

We're not as far as you might think. As it is the human population is already consuming more than the Earth can replenish, this with our 6 billion population. In the next 50 years, if all goes as is, we are estimated to reach 9 billion....an extra 3 billion people consuming already taxed resources. I don't think in the next 50 years the space program will have advanced to the point where we can colonize a new planet and ship a couple billion people out.

More of an opinion than anything else. It would take a combination of man learning to better take care of his planet and improving space exploration to move on to other planets. It's just a difference in opinion: you believe man should favor "quality over quantity" and never leave Earth, whereas I believe man should take better care of the Earth and branch out.

Other planets are billions of miles away. Scientists aren't even sure if the 'earth-like' planets they have discovered are capable of sustaining human life. But even if we somehow managed to colonize a new planet where do you think the resources to sustain the colony will come from?
The raw materials to build the colony will come from earth, the water the air, the soil to farm with, the trees to provide oxygen, the animals...all will have to come from Earth.
Why bother creating an artificial Earth when we already have the real thing? If we just took the effort to reduce our populations, clean up the environment and curb our consumption we wouldn't even have to think of trying to survive outside of our home planet.
Besides, something tells me that it wouldn't be so simple to just up and leave Earth. I'd be willing to bet there would be severe psychological consequences in the long run...but that's getting off topic.

Certainly not, and I never made any mention of this in my post. I certainly don't think man should become a "virus" stripping every planet of its usable resources and then moving on to its next victim. I simply think you should not tell a person that he cannot have a certain amount of children. You should rather concentrate on "fixing" Earth, making it cleaner, and branching out into other worlds when the planet cannot physically hold anymore human beings.

That last part was just my own observations, not anything that you said. But I do think it is going to come down to limits on the number of children a person can have, we just can't support a couple billion more people taking up space and eating food...everyone knows something has to be done but nobody is willing to tip the scales and actually do anything about it.

 

[Haruspex]

Thats a very good point I think, haven't even thought about that.
EMS mail costs a fortune, and thats only terrestrial, imagine the cost and manpower required to shoot up heavy constructions.

 

[Pseudo]

I think there should be a limit.

I believe 2 per couple, unless there happens to be quadruplets, quintuplets, etc..

Its not to be mean or anything, but the world is slowly growing over-populated and if people keep having more and more and more children and medical science gets better, peopel will live longer and eventually, there will not be enough resources on this planet for everyone to continue going on normally.

So unless we, put a restriction on how many children couples have, or find a new planet that can sustain the 'extra's', we're kinda S.O.L =(

 

[lilyofthevalley]

No, of course not. Most scientists agree that overpopulation is a problem. However, I think state enforced restrictions are illegitimate and ineffective (see China which is growing despite the enforcement). An effective and intelligent way to solve overpopulation would be to examine the reasons as to why people are having so many kids. In most developed nations, the trend is ZPG or only a slight increase. It's mainly in poorer, unindustrialized nations that women have many children. I believe if women in poorer nations had a higher social status, more access to roles besides motherhood then skyrocketing population wouldn't be such a problem. Industrialization always leads to immense social changes...so if the barriers that keep poor nations from developing further are taken away (topic for another discussion) then population rates would decrease.

 

[Haruspex]

An effective and intelligent way to solve overpopulation would be to examine the reasons as to why people are having so many kids.

The reason is clear, solutions are not... or rather they're not really accepted by Moral Crusaders.

 

[Kinsao]

No I don't think government should set a limit.
Think about it, who will decide which couples are 'fit to breed' and which are 'unfit to breed'? At the moment we can say someone is unfit to breed more kids if their income is under a certain amount, if they don't have a job, if they live in certain conditions, whatever. Yeah it's all very worthy, we don't want kids to be brought up in a negative situation, we don't want to have a negative impact on society and on the environment. But how long before the oh-so-worthy people at the top start imposing other criteria, which we can all agree with because we are safe, because we are 'responsible' and good citizens? At the moment, maybe it's a case of 'she shouldn't be allowed more than 6 kids because she is unemployed single mother'. Following, couldn't it later be 'she shouldn't be allowed more than 2 kids because that couple earn only ﾂ｣16,000 per year between them'? - why not? If it's ethically legitimate to make the first rule, why not the second? I don't want to be alive in that kind of world and if I ever have my maybe-only-one-permitted kid, maybe I wouldn't want them to live in that kind of world either!

People are so f**king scared of raised human population, it gets exaggerated out of all proportion. Some cities are too crowded for the comfort of the people, you are sitting on a hot sweaty metro in the rat race, if you were in the middle of a vast unoccupied plain in Africa, maybe you wouldn't feel so claustrophobic. Most especially some African countries would actually benefit from more people to help them set up effective systems and to work the land in order to benefit from the huge natural resources that exist there; young people to get an education and bring much advantage to their country; young engineers and doctors and farmers. But I guess we don't want to see that happen because then we wouldn't be able to keep them in their place and sell them medicines and condoms. (Please note that I am NOT saying that 'the world in overall' would benefit from more people!!)

Also, one or two child policy is very stupid. For a population to be at replacement level, every couple needs two children, right? But some people aren't in a couple for whatever reason - either they are single, or they choose not to have children because they have other priorities, or perhaps they are unable to have children for a medical reason. So to 'make up' for those instances, it would be a good idea for child-bearing couples to have three children, yes? To keep the population stable... To avoid the over-balance of elderly people like we have now in England. We are relying on migrants to provide our labour-force, not that in-migration is a bad thing, but it can't be sustained forever.

I can't believe I actually live in a time when people discuss such government control of our reproductive rights as though it was a GOOD thing. I'm sure you all feel perfectly safe from such intervention, as responsible citizens. Good on you. I wish I could feel as safe. I wish I could be so secure that I'm not going to end up pregnant and homeless, but I can't bank on any such thing. I don't want to be told I'm f**king irresponsible because I'm f**king unlucky. The people who talk about responsibility usually have no idea how uncertain life is. I'm 'socially responsible' and have a degree and read the f**king Guardian and know how to use contraception. But I could still end up homeless and single parent with kids. I'm ready and willing to work for an honest living and don't want to be criminalised and forced into a corner and myself and kids made to suffer for the sake of some half-imagined social 'good'.

 

[Absynthia]

There should be limits only to those that cannot afford raising them and offer them a decent life.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

No I don't think government should set a limit.
Think about it, who will decide which couples are 'fit to breed' and which are 'unfit to breed'?

Anyone will be allowed to have children (as long as they can look after them to a reasonable degree), simply that everybody will also have a limit as to the amount of children they can have- the limit will not vary from person to person. I think that would be fair enough.

At the moment we can say someone is unfit to breed more kids if their income is under a certain amount, if they don't have a job, if they live in certain conditions, whatever. Yeah it's all very worthy, we don't want kids to be brought up in a negative situation, we don't want to have a negative impact on society and on the environment.

The fact of the matter is that right now in my country you can have as many kids as you want even if you don't work because the government give people benefits (its the governments way of preventing families turning homeless).
To be honest though i think someone has a moral obligation to work/pay for the children they bring into the world.
People are so selfish in society, even after they have kids, all they can think of is themselves- IMHO, once you have a child you are no longer the top priority in your world, your child is, and thats the way it should be.

How would putting into place a child limit policy have a negative impact on societies wellbeing or the environments? The environment would certainly be sure to benefit if the humane population wasn't increasing so much, and societies would benefit too on the whole (child population control can help offer a way to help get people out of poverty etc). Apart from the selfish desires and assumed rights of individual people, where's the negative impact?

But how long before the oh-so-worthy people at the top start imposing other criteria, which we can all agree with because we are safe, because we are 'responsible' and good citizens? At the moment, maybe it's a case of 'she shouldn't be allowed more than 6 kids because she is unemployed single mother'. Following, couldn't it later be 'she shouldn't be allowed more than 2 kids because that couple earn only ﾂ｣16,000 per year between them'? - why not? If it's ethically legitimate to make the first rule, why not the second? I don't want to be alive in that kind of world and if I ever have my maybe-only-one-permitted kid, maybe I wouldn't want them to live in that kind of world either!

As said before, everybody would have the child limit policy imposed on them regardless of how potentially good a parent they are etc. Everybody will be unemployed at some point in their life for some certain period of time, its not reason enough to take someone's kids away simply because they are unemployed. But if that single mother could not feed her kids properly or look after their hygiene etc and this amounted to child neglect, then its only in the kids best interests that they are given the support they need (even if in worst case scenario they have to be taken away etc).

Anyways, we live in a democracy, whatever happens it will be the majority getting their way, whether this is a good or bad thing thats another cup of tea altogether.

People are so f**king scared of raised human population, it gets exaggerated out of all proportion. Some cities are too crowded for the comfort of the people, you are sitting on a hot sweaty metro in the rat race, if you were in the middle of a vast unoccupied plain in Africa, maybe you wouldn't feel so claustrophobic.

Do you have proof of the human population being exaggerated at all or is that just your personal feeling?
You simply have to look at the environment to see the devastating impacts we're having on it as we increasingly encroach on it with our cities, farms and factories etc. Take a look at how quickly how population has increased over the hundreds of years;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/livingthingsenvironment/3impactofhumansrev3.shtml

The better and more available stuff like medicine gets, the less people will be dieing of diseases and parasites and things, and so the more our population will continue to increase. About the only things which are preventing Africa's population from absolutely booming are diseases/viruses which keep a check on their populations- if their populations increased anymore their poverty will only worsen since they are financially/economically and physically not capable of feeding their current populations as they are.

Most especially some African countries would actually benefit from more people to help them set up effective systems and to work the land in order to benefit from the huge natural resources that exist there; young people to get an education and bring much advantage to their country; young engineers and doctors and farmers. But I guess we don't want to see that happen because then we wouldn't be able to keep them in their place and sell them medicines and condoms. (Please note that I am NOT saying that 'the world in overall' would benefit from more people!!)

I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. Africa's poverty is rooted in the fact that it cannot control its population. I wrote before;

"if people have a lot of kids, then they practically resign themselves to a life of poverty/not having much money (unless they have well paid careers before they have kids which they can continue working at after having kids), which they will have no hope of getting out of until their kids leave home.

In countries like Africa, a major part of their poverty issues are a vicious cycle started by people not having enough access to good birth control, which leads to people having too many children, which leads to the parents not having enough money to lead a good life, which leads to the children being raised in the same poverty their parents live in, which leads to children who grow up having no better prospects in life than their parents. These kids then have too many kids of their own, and so the cycle repeats itself.

The fact of the matter is that if Africa was able to control its population/birth rates better, then its poverty problems would not be so bad.".

We give them medicines and condoms for FREE with our charities. Africa's problems are not caused by the fact that they don't have enough people (they have to many, they can barely afford to feed their people as it as), but rather by the fact that they have too many people and because their governments are corrupt.

Increasing population will not solve Africa's government problems- you talk of the continent as like it is a place where there is tons of farmland just waiting to be worked, schools just waiting for pupils, and jobs just waiting to be worked etc, and that all that Africa needs is more people to do these things. That is ridiculous.
Africa's poverty has nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't have enough people, its poverty is down to its corrupt governments. Take Zimbabwe- it used to be known as the Bread Basket of Africa, it was a thriving economy until president Mugabe came along and f*cked the entire country up and now Zimbabwe is the feature of starving charity programs and scene's of tribal violence rather than the thriving well-fed place it used to be.
And are these problems caused by a lack of people? No, Zimbabwe is an impoverished country because of its corrupt government and violence problems, and to be honest the well being of people will never start to improve until it starts to control its population and improve its government better. If you encouraged its population to increase, its poverty would only get even worse.

Also, one or two child policy is very stupid. For a population to be at replacement level, every couple needs two children, right? But some people aren't in a couple for whatever reason - either they are single, or they choose not to have children because they have other priorities, or perhaps they are unable to have children for a medical reason. So to 'make up' for those instances, it would be a good idea for child-bearing couples to have three children, yes? To keep the population stable... To avoid the over-balance of elderly people like we have now in England.

A 2 child policy would be something to reduce population, but not everyone here is calling for that. I for example called for a 6 child policy or some such thing.

We are relying on migrants to provide our labour-force, not that in-migration is a bad thing, but it can't be sustained forever.

The only reason why we rely (so to speak) on immigrant labor is simply because they are prepared to do the jobs that many of us cannot be bothered to do. Immigrants are not being called in because we don't have enough people to work, on the contrary, we have a massive population of both native and non-native people in my country.

I can't believe I actually live in a time when people discuss such government control of our reproductive rights as though it was a GOOD thing. I'm sure you all feel perfectly safe from such intervention, as responsible citizens. Good on you. I wish I could feel as safe. I wish I could be so secure that I'm not going to end up pregnant and homeless, but I can't bank on any such thing. I don't want to be told I'm f**king irresponsible because I'm f**king unlucky. The people who talk about responsibility usually have no idea how uncertain life is. I'm 'socially responsible' and have a degree and read the f**king Guardian and know how to use contraception. But I could still end up homeless and single parent with kids. I'm ready and willing to work for an honest living and don't want to be criminalised and forced into a corner and myself and kids made to suffer for the sake of some half-imagined social 'good'.

Um if you are pregnant and end up homeless you will not actually end up homeless because the government will give you a council house, so your child will not be taken away, so stop complaining. You pregnant gals and gals with kids are the top priority in such council house lists.
But anyways, if you can't look after your kids despite the governments help, then your kids shouldn't be made to suffer just because you got "unlucky". If you have any good family or friends, then you call for their help to prevent your kids sleeping homeless with you because of your ill luck. Are you trying to argue that homeless parents should not have their kids taken off them because its not nice to the parent or something??

 

[Kinsao]

A brief response because I don't have much time right now.

I understand your point about call for a same limit for everyone (e.g. 6 children). It sounds like a fair system, but if it's due to concern about children not being taken care of properly, why should it then be the same for everyone, and not vary depending upon the parent(s) capability to look after the children? Someone could be incapable and cruel parent to one child, or excellent parent to 7.

I agree that people (with children or without) should definitely work rather than living off benefits! Benefit should be the minimum amount necessary to live on (so as not to 'punish' those who genuinely need it, i.e. cannot find a job or cannot work for whatever reason); it has to be possible to survive on it but maybe it is too much! I think there should be more attention (not money) given to people who are out of work for other than health reasons - it's useless to try and force people to work (if they don't have the moral sense they can't be 'made' to have it) but the root causes should be tackled - but of course that would mean more money to be spent by the government on training people to work with unemployed people so they won't go down that road even if a longer-term result would be better to have more people in the economy than inactive.

Regarding the wellbeing of society - you are right, a limit of 6 children would not have a negative impact on economic wellbeing as I was thinking of a limit of 1 or 2, which would be below replacement level and therefore ultimately bad for the economy. Although I do think that such level of government interference in people's personal and reproductive choices would have a negative impact socially in the long-term, but that is a different and vaguer argument...

Regarding the wellbeing of the environment, it is also humans who care for and conserve the environment and various species of plant and animal. With fewer human bodies on the planet, both positive and negative impacts would be reduced. I think we should kill off everyone who has a big carbon footprint and leave behind those people who don't pollute or use so many resources, and then we will do much better. ;-) Damage to the environment is of course a very serious problem, but the solution is not going to be simple. Damages caused by, for example, long-haul flights, industry and business isn't necessarily directly linked to population - they can do as much, or nearly as much, damage even if catering for a smaller number of people. It's more about the processes, the ways things are done. As humans we are actually capable of doing things in ways that don't harm the environment; we have to convince industries and governments to invest in these ways and leave old ways behind! We don't pollute by our very presence; we pollute and damage by the ways in which we do things, which can and should be changed.

I fully agree with you about corrupt governments and ruling regimes in Africa being the source of that continent's problems. That is absolutely true! African countries will not get out of poverty while there are corrupt rulers in power! I did not at all want to imply that having more kids would somehow 'solve' those problems, because if there is not money in the country, or not distributed fairly, the people will always be poor and more people just makes it worse! The governmental problem HAS to be solved before progress can take place. Children are mouths to feed and therefore cost money. BUT in a few years' time those older 'children'/young people THEN become 'breadwinners' and they can go earn a wage and the tables are turned; where once it was (say) two parents earning, then they get elderly but the family has (say) six wage earners. BUT that situation can only happen in a non-corrupt government because the money has to be there to earn, and the jobs to do!

As for council houses in England, sure, homelessness shoots you to the top of the list, but I can't afford to be complacent, I do know people who have in their younger days been made homeless and put in a hostel. It won't kill you but it's not very pleasant. How the system *should* work and how it *does* work are not always the same.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Firstly, a apologize if my post was overly aggressive, i see that we appear to be on the same wave length on a lot of these issues in society .

With the benefits problem, i think the problem in the system lies not with too much money being given out, but rather because the system itself is currently very flawed in the sense of benefits been given out way to readily and the system not protecting itself effectively against benefit cheats. A recent news story only proves this;

"Two people have been sentenced after claiming thousands of pounds in benefits for 16 non-existent children.

After his arrest, Wilshaw, a gambling addict with 85 previous convictions for fraud, claimed he had done a public service by exposing the loophole.

He told officers: "It was incredibly easy. Nobody checked up on us until last week."";

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Somerset | Benefit couple faked 16 children


There are so many people cheating the system it is unbelievable and unacceptable.
The only ways to help improve the system in general would be to;

a. People should have to have more proof of situation. The couple who invented 16kids to receive benefits for them did not even have to show birth certificates for their supposed children.

b. When it comes to disability, a full examination needs to be given to really judge how disabled a person is and how much their disability will effect their work prospects.
I believe that there are many people, that while unfortunately disabled, are not completely incapable of doing any work whatsoever. Even if you are paralyzed from the waist down, you still have you arms and hands to work with, so you could still do a sit down job. For example, when i was living in Australia, i helped my aunt out with her video store business by doing jobs like putting thousands of customer news letters into envelopes and sealing them, ready to be sent off- such a job is very boring, but at the end of the day its still work, and work that could be done by almost anyone.

c. For both parents and disabled people claiming benefits, the government should offer work to such people which they are capable of doing. They are so many single mothers with like 2-3 kids which are given a free house and free money, yet they do not work at all. Yet there are enough single mothers in this country that have proven that it is possible to work and have kids (although i'm not denying that it isn't difficult)- kids need a lot of time to raise them, yet even a single parent with a lot of kids will still find time in the day with nothing important to do.
There are too many un-working parents who claim benefits for their kids, even when they are capable of working and have time to work- the government should provide such people with work or community service to help ensure that such people do not simply raise children while paying for their kids with hard working tax payers money, yet do nothing to really actually contribute to society.
For example of such people, the area where i live in is half council estate and half ex-council estate; across the road there is a neighbor of mine, she is a fat lady with 3 kids- she has never worked a day in her life, yet the government still gave her a free council house and child benefits. I see her enough watching tv all day in her sitting room to know that she actually has plenty of time to do some sort of proper work.
We have to many people in society who just breed and don't contribute to society, while they live of the money of hard working tax payers money.

But the question is, what do you do when you have someone who decides not to work and just have kids instead while they do this? Even if they are good enough parents, surely its wrong to simply allow people to abuse the system so they can produce unlimited amounts of children?


Regarding Africa's problems, corruption is so widespread and deep rooted in its societies, there isn't really any hope of things in government getting better unless more heavy handed and straightforward actions are taken.

But it is difficult to do this.
In the case of Zimbabwe, back in the days when it was a thriving and well-fed economy, the majority of the power was held in the hands of white people. It wasn't an unfair system though which made this the case, it was simply the case.
Mugabe convinced the black population of Zimbabwe that they should have everything the white people had, and so the white people were thrown off their farms and destroyed their businesses, the white people had no say in the matter whatsoever and were treated quite brutally.
I suspect the Zimbabwe people that are now moaning about Mugabe (the leader they put into power), were the first to cheer as the white people were removed. But the fact that the people of Zimbabwe are now starving and have the lowest life expectancy in the world now, shows that far from being their enemy, the white people were lynchpin that made their 4th world country the once prosperous land it was. The Nazis blamed the Jews, Mugabe blames the whites, no difference. Back in the '60s and 70s They had 90% employment, full shops, food and the largest black middle class in ALL Africa- once Mugabe and his people kicked all the whites out, Zimbabwe went downhill from there onwards.

So the question is, how much should we actually try to help out countries like Zimbabwe's problems considering that they kicked us out (in a less than kind or fair manner) and replaced us with the leader that now torments them?
I don't really think that the generation of children that were brought up under Mugabe's regime and who have experienced some of the worst of it, will really turn the country back into the one that is was before when white people were welcome in it, because unfortunately despite how badly Mugabe has treated the country, many of the black population in Zimbabwe still believe Mugabe's propaganda that it was the whites that made their country so bad. I guess it is not dissimilar to how many of the north Koreans believe that it is people like the Americans that make their country so bad, even though its obvious to us that its their rulers that make the country the way it is.
But we can't really step in and properly help out a country like Zimbabwe because it was them who kicked us out, and despite the fact that we could really help them, we have no moral obligation too and our help wouldn't be entirely welcomed anyway.

Considering that with the way things look right now, we can't really effectively help the people of Zimbabwe out and nor can they for themselves, i don't think their population increasing is really going to help things either. But i do still think that population control would at least be a good step in the right direction to at least helping reduce the strain of their dire poverty that exists across so much of the country and which blights so many people in their population. Even if it doesn't solve their governments problems, once the people reduce their poverty problems they at least will be in more of a good position to help themselves .
Less people=less mouths to feed. The government in Zimbabwe can currently treat the people as bad as it wants because life is cheap in Zimbabwe (with an endless supply of people being born) and because the army will always remain well-fed and well-paid (so it is unlikely to rebel against the government and join the poor in their fight against the government). The system is almost medieval in its control over the people.
But reduce the population by imposing child polices (and thus reduce the poverty of couples), people from poor backgrounds will start to have more say and more power in what happens, the wealthier and the less expendable you are, the more your voice will be listened to. Even if government corruption is never sorted, at least people will have a better quality of life if they have more food and money to depend on (because its be shared around less people).

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Just another article to back up my points on reducing human population for the sake of food availability;

"The World Bank has announced emergency measures to tackle rising food prices around the world.

World Bank head Robert Zoellick warned that 100 million people in poor countries could be pushed deeper into poverty by spiralling prices";

BBC NEWS | Business | World Bank tackles food emergency


We are pushing the environment to its limits, the world simply cannot afford to feed our human population anymore, and people living in poverty are suffering greatly for this.

"The global agriculture system will have to change radically if the world is to avoid future environmental and social problems, a report has warned.

The study, commissioned by the UN and World Bank, concluded that while recent advances had increased food production, the benefits were spread unevenly.

It said that 850 million people were still not getting enough food to eat.

The authors added that food prices would remain volatile as a result of rising populations and biofuel growth.";

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Global food system 'must change'



IMHO, we need to take responsibility for our rising human populations. Screw those people who think "its my right to flood the world with my babies" etc- we are destroying the planet and harming our own kind. As intelligent and civilized race of animals, we should be able to control our population growth for the greater good- a smaller human population would lead to better quality of life, more food and less strain on the environment.

 

[Mavrek]

Nice Topic

In the China or other population country yes you have limit to set the amount of childrens. But its find with others country if you don't have enough money and make more babies. Because with this its hard to give them good food, health and education

 

[Haruspex]

It may be hard, but come on, I don't want to end up in a Madmax like world scavenging rotten food, but with even more people lol.
Of course, the example is stupid and extreme, but you get it right?

 

[Sensuikan San]

It seems to me axiomatic that, since most of the peril our world is in is due to consumption of resources, then one of the key solutions is to reduce consumption!

An obvious way to achieve this is by reducing, or at least stabilizing, population growth.

I have no personal problem (indeed - I feel it to be desirable) at all with a concept of limiting each person to one child (i.e. two children per couple) and stabilizing population growth almost immediately ... however ...

How you could 'enforce' this, in conflict with many differing cultural attitudes and needs, I'm damned if I know!

I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy who had to go into some countries and explain the rationale behind it ...

(Anyhoo ... my wife and I had just one child ... he's a great guy, but ... one is enough!)

And at this time, I'm not prepared to shoot the Pope!

Regards,

ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?