What are your opinions on this? Really , whats the point of having a noisy shitmachine (also known as a baby)? We already have 7 Billion of us sucking Earths resources why do we need more?

It might be a good idea, but there are dangerous implications regarding the incentive it might give to governments to even more closely intrude into people's lives. But everybody always downplays this until its too late, so fuck you... Was that an armed drone going past your window?

it's a terrible idea, considering that different parts of the world need different solutions to kerb their population troubles
Japan, for example, needs /more/ babies, because their population is freakin' old.

Only in territories where they're overflowing.

Honestly the minute and body of people who calls themselves a government tells you that you can't make as many babies as you want
There is something terribly wrong

At 1/26/13 01:36 PM, 372 wrote: Honestly the minute and body of people who calls themselves a government tells you that you can't make as many babies as you want
There is something terribly wrong

Responsibility of Population vs Power of Government

Is it not the government's duty to take control if it becomes apparent that some part of the population can't take care of itself? Like a parent taking care of the child? Or would it be better for it to respect everybody's rights, all the way to the collapse of society?

At 1/26/13 01:36 PM, 372 wrote: Honestly the minute and body of people who calls themselves a government tells you that you can't make as many babies as you want
There is something terribly wrong

How is it wrong? Maybe when the worlds resources finally run out people will realize they should have kept their dick in their pants ( or at least used a contraceptive.)

At 1/26/13 01:40 PM, LionzNTiggerz wrote:

At 1/26/13 01:36 PM, 372 wrote: Honestly the minute and body of people who calls themselves a government tells you that you can't make as many babies as you want
There is something terribly wrong

Responsibility of Population vs Power of Government

Is it not the government's duty to take control if it becomes apparent that some part of the population can't take care of itself? Like a parent taking care of the child? Or would it be better for it to respect everybody's rights, all the way to the collapse of society?

Lets get this straight, in the united states the people are supposed to be the government. It is a means for us to protect ourselves. If the population is that big of an issue, that it might cause the "collapse of society" then a more humane solution should be found. If the government considers enforcing a law to limit how many children people are aloud to have, then In my opinion this government is no longer is no longer acting in the interests of their own people. An empire will never hold a greater importance then that of the people which are apart of it.

this si wrong because im genetically superior and i WILL have 800000 children.

Let me reword that
If a government founded on enlightenment era philosophy no longer considers "baring as many children as you wish" a part of the natural born rights it swears to protect, then I want out.

It would be a great way to ruin the world economy.

At 1/26/13 02:04 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: No.
You end up with millions of senior citizens with nobody to take care of them because there aren't enough younger people working in care.
See: China.

Dont forget Japan too.

Also one child per 2 people means that its nowhere near the replacement rate and the population will plummet.

At 1/26/13 01:26 PM, WirelessBrain wrote: What are your opinions on this? Really , whats the point of having a noisy shitmachine (also known as a baby)? We already have 7 Billion of us sucking Earths resources why do we need more?

babies are god's gift to the earth.......except chinese ones......BAA-ZING!!!!

"Hello, we heard there was more than one baby on this premises, may we exterminate it?"

Does this sound right? And it'd just cause a shit storm with conservatives.

The government should not do that, but I wish people would stop kids when they are not prepared for it.

Too many people have kids before they even know how to take care of themselves.

You know the term Be fruitful and Multiply? It should be Be Fruitful THEN Multiply.

Because you would most likely decrease the world's population. I know that might not seem that bad, but it's going to be harder for a person to find girlfriends. The reason most people have two children is because there are two parents. It reminds me of a George Carlin routine where he said a mother should have one kid and not even bother replacing the husband.

The government has no business into the family planning of a married couple. If they want to have 4 or 5 kids and have the ability to raise them sufficiently they have every right to do so. We're a species known for ingenuity so we will find ways to better use our resources and to circumnavigate the lack of resources we may come across in the future regardless of the Earth's population.

At 1/26/13 01:51 PM, 372 wrote: Let me reword that
If a government founded on enlightenment era philosophy no longer considers "baring as many children as you wish" a part of the natural born rights it swears to protect, then I want out.

So you think the whole thing goes against the American constitution, and kind of makes America into a hypocrite country?

There is definitely something important about Men get to be treated as Men. And the image of a man not being able to lead his life as he likes and hold his head up high (because he's being led by the hand, by the government his whole life) is really shocking. It strips away his right to autonomy. And there's something like, if a man leading a life where he is pursuing what he thinks is best, if that isn't respected, then the society is crushing one of the most important things about the human spirit, which is what it's all about, really.

But then contrast that with the image of a horrendously obese young mother on state support, who spends all her money on greasy food, cigarettes, and booze and keeps pumping out kids for the sake of the extra income it will earn her. If a country finds itself burdened with a large portion of the population who aren't taking responsibility for their own lives, who is going to take responsibility for them?

2 parents = 1 child.

Exponential decrease in population.

End of humanity

We should just encourage abortion.

I like that idea. It would be better to just sterilize one whole generation of children.

Idiot.

Many countries are actually losing people as we speak.

It is developing countries like India who produce the most people.

I think the limit should be having 1 of each sex. Obviously a couple might find they have 3 boys before getting a girl which is fine. But once they get that second sex then they stop. Then if you want more adopt.

It's totally fine! Don't worry about the population it isn't growing too large at all! Continue breeding as you like everything will be fine!

Que 100 years time, the world suffering from food and fuel shortages and everyone complaining nothing was done before.

Nobody would ever go for that.

At 1/26/13 02:04 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: No.
You end up with millions of senior citizens with nobody to take care of them because there aren't enough younger people working in care.
See: China.

Also, this. Dependency ratio is a thing. Not to mention the countries with the highest crude birth rates are less developed countries where it would be difficult to enforce, just getting them to wear condoms is a huge issue.

At 1/26/13 01:26 PM, WirelessBrain wrote: What are your opinions on this? Really , whats the point of having a noisy shitmachine (also known as a baby)? We already have 7 Billion of us sucking Earths resources why do we need more?

How many siblings do you have? How many cousins? If the world had only one child per family, you theoretically would have no uncles or aunts, because both of your grand parents would have only had one child each, your mother and father. No cousins, nor siblings. Now, I ask how many siblings you have, because in the case of two or more, how would it be decided who lived ? The oldest born lives and the rest never get a chance?

The only problem I have is the intrusion we would be giving the government on our lives, but I really do hate having so many people...

Some scientists have actually predicted a soon-to-be decline in the world population. There's an article about it here, but one of the main points is that the time it took to add to the 7th billion is for the first time lower than the previous billion.

At 1/26/13 10:16 PM, Cootie wrote: The world population is going to start going back down in the next few years anyways. The birthrate in wealthy nations isn't that high and as more countries become wealthy their birthrates will go down as well. I don't think overpopulation is going to be a real problem especially as we get more advanced and conserve more energy.

I was gonna say that too

its only the poorer countries that have to worry about this

heres a idea just wipeout populations in developing countries with higher birth rates (Africa, India, the Middle east etc).

be alot simpler and cost effective.