Should people be allowed to have large families?

Discussion in 'Human Rights' started by greatdanechick, Jan 31, 2016.

  1. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With a planetary population of more than 7 billion, and an estimated population of 9-10 billion by 2050, should people be allowed to have several children? For the purpose of this discussion let's call several more than two children, and stick to the westernized world.
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not end capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty, and then discuss, Infringing on Individual Liberty.

    Even China has empty cities, just laying around now.
     
  3. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Cities? Or villages? The US has plenty of empty towns too but they are mostly rural, as people have congregated in big cities. So you think people should have as many children as they want then?
     
  4. lynnlynn

    lynnlynn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it should be limited to 2 kids and for those that can't afford them, none.
     
  5. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The rate of child birth has been reduced tremendously. To the point that world economy slows down to the crawl.
    There is no need to do anything right now.
     
  6. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In many countries obsessed with an irrational fear of what they see is socialised medicine, the poor cannot afford contraception. Totally shortsighted considering the costs to the state from raising children in deprived circumstances, often when they're not wanted. Given the costs involved in running jails in such countries you'd think they'd realise their policy has come back to bite them on the bum. But no, ideology blinds as usual.
     
  7. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not sure more translates to better. Does just replacing ourselves and nothing more mean an economic collapse?
     
  8. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. We need more genetic variation to drive evolution of our species. So far, it kind of sucks under the current gene pool. I want me some scissorhands, damn it.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why can we afford a War on Drugs and that form of Prohibition (without a psychological evaluation)?

    I believe this would promote the general welfare more:

    [video=youtube;V3XfpYxHKCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3XfpYxHKCo[/video]

    Why not use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree to "blame the Right" for also complaining about a the cost of an ounce of prevention, not just a pound of cure.
     
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While it would probably be a good thing if people had a more consistent number of children, the idea of “not allowing” people to have children seems to be a non-starter on all sorts of practical, moral and social reasons. The one-child policy in China is the obvious example of all the problems and suffering that kind of thing can cause. Ideas, policies and resources encouraging people to keep to consistent family sizes is probably more realistic though still difficult to put in to practice for all sorts of reasons.

    I also don’t think it makes sense to limit our viewpoint to the developed world given that birth-rates here are generally low (in some cases arguably too low) and world population increase is very much driven by developing nations (going though many of the same difficulties we did in our own development). Helping those nations best manage their birth-rates in response to social and economic development is likely to have much more positive impact overall than anything done in the West.
     
  12. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Empty cities may also require empty agricultural support.
     
  13. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I completely agree with you. Although one point is that even though our growth rate is lower than a lot of countries, westernized counties use far more resources per person. According to the Sustainable Europe Research Institute people in rich countries consume up to 10 times more natural sources than those in the poorest countries. The World Bank (2005) says that the world's richest people make up 20% of the population yet consume 76.6% of the resources. The middle and poorest countries make up 80% of the population and consume 23.4% of the resources. So I do think that even though our growth rate is a smaller number, we have to factor in our use and recognize that even just one percent growth rate still has a huge impact on resource use.

    Public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm

    HTTPS://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/overconsumption.pdf
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't worry; automation can have some positive effect.
     
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s true though I see that as a reason to reduce our consumption (and waste!) rather than further reduce our population. Given that developing counties will naturally move towards similar levels of consumption to our own, creating a lower “target” with establish efficiencies would be beneficial in the long run too. The other complication is that if we reduce population growth too far, it can create other problems with age-imbalance and workforce. As with so many things, the best answer is a little bit of everything.
     
  16. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting that you want to stick to the Westernized world. They are, sans immigration, in population decline. Population is well under replacement level for many Western countries, so why in the world have a post about overpopulation and confine to the area of the world that doesn't have that problem?
     
  17. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Because as my last post said, even though our growth rate is a lower number than third world countries we use FAR more resources per person. I know some countries are really low or negative, but the US still grows and we consume far more than people of third world countries, so even with a smaller number we have a huge impact.
     
  18. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good point! I think reducing consumption is definitely a good strategy, but I'm not sure we're willing. Would people in the United States be willing to give up our luxuries like that? I don't think so.
     
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reducing a declining birthrate even further seems like an inefficient way to do that. Let's say you sterilize every industrialized Western country. Well in 80 years, everyone who is there is dead, but unless you are preventing anyone else continuing that industrialized civilization, you have the same problems.

    It sounds as if your real problem isn't population at all, it's science, technology, and industry. Why not just prevent any electrical power generation in the West? That would do more for what you now say you want to do then trying to stop large families from people who barely have two kids if that.
     
  20. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not saying sterilize people and hault the birth rate. I'm just saying maybe 6 and 7 kids is unnecessary. If families had one child for even a decade, then two for a while, then one you could strategize and stagger the population so we're always replacing ourselves, just not really growing in numbers. I feel like we have plenty of people and no need to increase. Do you think we need more humans?
     
  21. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not arguing that we need more humans, but in your original post you said that you wanted to keep the conversation on population control confined to the Western world; the very part of the world that is in population decline. Your given reasoning is that the West uses far more resources...but it's not using those resources because of overpopulation in the Western world. It's using them to keep the few people in the West living lifestyles that are far higher than most of the rest of the world. So...then the problem isn't Western population growth at all.

    Basically, your solution to fix what you think of as the problem has nothing to do with that problem. There are very few people in the West having 6 or 7 kids. I mean, so few that even with the tiny handfuls of big families, we are still in population decline. Maybe you just hate kids, I don't know, but what you see as the solution seems to have nothing to do with the problem.
     
  22. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I see what you're saying. I definitely don't hate kids, but I do worry about what the maximum carrying capacity of this planet is. The only reason I wanted this discussion to focus on westernized countries is because I think it is too easy to put the blame on countries with higher growths rates. That is obviously a huge issue that needs to be addressed, but western countries are still part of the problem. You're correct that it's not in our population growth number necessarily, but in our rate of consumption. And yet population is part of the discussion still I think. I live in Denver, and have noticed a dramatic increase over time. When I was in school the population of Colorado was around 3.5 million, now it's over 5 million, the bulk living in the Denver-Metro area. I'm only 32 so we aren't talking about a huge amount of time. What used to take 20 minutes to drive now takes 45, so I feel like there are more people. We still have a positive growth rate, and each of those additional people consume a lot, so even if it's a relatively small number of people, it's felt widely I guess.
     
  23. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The population of the United States has increased almost solely because of immigration. Subtract that and we're either at ZPG or in decline, depending on how you count it. I admit, I'm confused by your whole thrust of argument. "The only reason I wanted this discussion to focus on westernized countries is because I think it is too easy to put the blame on countries with higher growths rates."

    Exactly. Those countries with higher growth rates are THE problem when it comes to population. It's easy to blame those countries because they are the problem. If you don't want to talk about those countries, then you probably don't want to talk about overpopulation at all because the non Western world is where that conversation begins and ends. I think I know the real reason you don't want to discuss it, but it reveals the limitations of discussing an issue like like this when you don't want to discuss root causes.
     
  24. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,262
    Likes Received:
    25,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given the demographic cliff many nations are looking over large families would ideally be mandatory. But then I am not an idealist. ;-)
     
  25. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    physically attractive people yes, ugly no

    imo
     

Share This Page