Population Control

FadedRose

FadedRose

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
665
Reaction score
1
Anyone for it? Against it? Why?
China has a law of 1 child per household and I would like to see more of this in the US and abroad.

My viewpoint is this-if you want more than 1 child adopt another.
There are many homeless kids out there that would welcome having a family, a home. I'm 29, do not have kids. I don't plan to add to the problem. Call me an odd duck but I'd rather adopt.

opinions welcome :) good or bad.
 
This law would not go over well with the Americans, and I don't see a need for it anyway. Americans aren't having as many children as they used to. The average couple reproduce two children or less these days. It's the immigrants that are driving up the population in the USA.

Besides, why don't you adopt children?
 
Jaspheth said:
Anyone for it? Against it? Why?
China has a law of 1 child per household and I would like to see more of this in the US and abroad.

My viewpoint is this-if you want more than 1 child adopt another.
There are many homeless kids out there that would welcome having a family, a home. I'm 29, do not have kids. I don't plan to add to the problem. Call me an odd duck but I'd rather adopt.

opinions welcome :) good or bad.
Click to expand...

Not needed. It's self limiting anyway. If it gets too overpopulated, we will have plague and famine. Any good sociology course will tell you as much. ;)
 
Heard that an asteriod is headed our way and will strike Earth in 2036. Might solve the problem of overpopulation.
 
I'm a big fan of zero population growth or population stabilization -- whatever you want to call it when families limit themselves to an average of 2-3 children, but I oppose laws or regulations or any form of coercion to enforce it. China is approaching zpg, but at what cost?

There are so many logical reasons and issues -- economic, environmental, depleted resources, sustainability, quality of life, etc. -- to support choosing to "stop at 2."
 
I support zero population growth or very little growth to keep our generations going...not at an alarming growth that would use our resources too fast. There are about 90 million people in hunger at the moment in 70 countries worldwide. Most of them can't afford food.
 
Here's a little known fact, without oil, we wouldn't be able to sustain a population of more than 500 million on Earth. We didn't hit the first billion until the beginning of the 18th century.
 
Banjo said:
Here's a little known fact, without oil, we wouldn't be able to sustain a population of more than 500 million on Earth.
Click to expand...

Oil makes our population grow? Hmmm let's see cars, plastics, soaps, etc. If it hit the first billion in the 18th century....that's 1700's. Oil wasn't discovered until around the 1800's.
 
sequoias said:
Oil makes our population grow? Hmmm let's see cars, plastics, soaps, etc. If it hit the first billion in the 18th century....that's 1700's. Oil wasn't discovered until around the 1800's.
Click to expand...

It's a fact, coal and oil are sustaining our population.
 
sequoias said:
I support zero population growth or very little growth to keep our generations going...not at an alarming growth that would use our resources too fast. There are about 90 million people in hunger at the moment in 70 countries worldwide. Most of them can't afford food.
Click to expand...

It's been proven that when a country descends into famine, the government collapses. They call that "the failing state". Somalia is one such example, Haiti another. Chad yet another.
 
DeafCaroline said:
It's been proven that when a country descends into famine, the government collapses. They call that "the failing state". Somalia is one such example, Haiti another. Chad yet another.
Click to expand...

That's not good.
 
sequoias said:
That's fine...we can stop using oil and coal and watch our population decline. :lol:
Click to expand...

That's the problem, it will happen. We are using more oil and coal than the world's ability to renew our resources fast enough. The cities with big population will probably be the first to go since they are unlikely to be surrounded by farms. The people even rely on oil for the food supply since they have to be transported.

So that's why I think the big cities would be the first to go.
 
Banjo said:
That's the problem, it will happen. We are using more oil and coal than the world's ability to renew our resources fast enough. The cities with big population will probably be the first to go since they are unlikely to be surrounded by farms. The people even rely on oil for the food supply since they have to be transported.

So that's why I think the big cities would be the first to go.
Click to expand...

It would be probably time to go back to riding horses and horse drawn carriages. Imagine horses everywhere in the cities going back to the early 1900's and before that. *neigh*

I think it would be too much demand for horses and stuff because there are too many car drivers. Maybe bicycles? Oh wait some parts need oil to keep going.
 
If it wasn't for the illegal immigrants or immigrants...Many states in the US won't be growing at an alarming rate like California, Arizona, etc.
 
sequoias said:
It would be probably time to go back to riding horses and horse drawn carriages. Imagine horses everywhere in the cities going back to the early 1900's and before that. *neigh*
Click to expand...

There would be a surge in job postings for poop scoopers.

I think it would be too much demand for horses and stuff because there are too many car drivers. Maybe bicycles? Oh wait some parts need oil to keep going.
Click to expand...

It's practically impossible to supply everyone with a horse. :lol: Especially when you have to feed them.
 
Banjo said:
There would be a surge in job postings for poop scoopers.



It's practically impossible to supply everyone with a horse. :lol: Especially when you have to feed them.
Click to expand...

:lol: That's very true. Nothing is ever substainable to the population we have today....7 billion people with resources that isn't sufficent and cheap enough for everyone.
 
sequoias said:
:lol: That's very true. Nothing is ever substainable to the population we have today....7 billion people with resources that isn't sufficent and cheap enough for everyone.
Click to expand...

Maybe if we had the technology seen in Star Trek, it wouldn't be a big problem like the one we are facing at the moment.
 
Banjo said:
That's the problem, it will happen. We are using more oil and coal than the world's ability to renew our resources fast enough. The cities with big population will probably be the first to go since they are unlikely to be surrounded by farms. The people even rely on oil for the food supply since they have to be transported.

So that's why I think the big cities would be the first to go.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Archaeologists have learned that some ancient civillizations in Africa and in South America collapsed when the agricultural lands surrounding the city were depleted and people could no longer grow crops to feed themselves. Then they had no choice but to move on to another place where they could eat again.
 
Back
Top