Having more than two children will destroy the planet...

[Astor]

Story Here

 

Okay, so it's not quite that severe, but it's a compelling discussion nonetheless.

 

So, with that as inspiration, guys - How many children is enough for a family? Should there be compulsory limits on how many you can have?

 

And, would you consider the environment before copulating?

 

AK.

[adamqd]

when Copulating... I'm thinking of copulating tbh , But I think that we should plan families within our means, If you are in debt, unemployed, In trouble with the law etc a contraceptive (or timing, depending on your religious beliefs) would better suit the taxpayer and the environment imo

[Arcesious]

Once we invent star trek replicator technology, there will be no need to worry about feeding a massive population... For the mean time I think that we should genetically engineer some specialized plants to grow in the seas and oceans, plants which would be very delicious and full of valuable nutrients, vitamins, minerals, low calories, and also grow fast.

 

For now, making genetically altered superplants to suplement our population sounds better than Roddenberry's very imaginative replicator idea.

[Jae Onasi]

Arcesious, dear, you need to beam back down to us here on 21st century Earth.

 

I think each couple should determine for themselves how many children they can responsibly raise. For us, that's 2 kids, maybe 3 at most. My husband came from a family of 9 kids and loved being in a huge family. Everyone is different.

[Arcesious]

Arcesious, dear, you need to beam back down to us here on 21st century Earth.

 

Ive been watching a lot of Star Trek Lately. In fact, I'm currently waiting for my father to get home so my family and I can watch some more Deep Space Nine. As you can tell I'm excited.

 

Still, genetically engineered superplants aren't that far-fetched. After all, we already have done genetic engineering of tons of other plants, animals, and most notably, bacteria.

[adamqd]

My husband came from a family of 9 kids and loved being in a huge family. Everyone is different.

 

hehe, My grandfather is one of 13 lol, so our family is huge, most of my generation dont have kids, well I'm the oldest at 28 so still time but I've never been interested in starting a family up to now.

[EnderWiggin]

Will I think of the environment? Yes.

Should there be compulsory limits? Absolutely not. We're not China over here.

 

_EW_

[jrrtoken]

So, with that as inspiration, guys - How many children is enough for a family? Should there be compulsory limits on how many you can have?

I think there shouldn't be, to be honest. I do think that there should be some sort of exam as a requirement for a marriage license, that evaluates both mental and physical aspects, in order to ensure that future children don't end up in an awful situation.

And, would you consider the environment before copulating?

Maybe you should ask the rabbits that question.

[Web Rider]

Technically, having any children is increasing the population. If the average Western person lives to 80 And has children on average at 20, then in the remaining 60 years of your life, 6 new people would come into existance. Increasing the population. Granted this would eventually balance out, but if length of live contrinues with this ratio, say, in 20 years the average person lives to 100, well now there's 8 new people, and that 4th generation may live to 160, that's 14 new people. And so on.

 

Will I think of how I effect the world? Of course I will. Does that mean I think having 2 children is the answer? Not at all. I think there is a point where having children becomes excessive, but I count that in number of pregnancies, not number of children really, and sometimes regularity of kids.

 

If you have 9 kids from 9 different pregnancies, that's excessive. if you have 9 kids from 3 sets of triplets, which odd as that is, is possible, then that's different. If you're having a kid every year, that's a bit much, if you have several kids over a larger span of time, that's a different story.

[Darth_Yuthura]

It's destructive for humans to multiply like they have in developing countries indefinitely, but there is just as significant a threat to economies such as Japan and Italy, who have an inversed population pyramid... where there are many more elderly than children. It is best to keep a slight increase in population growth, such as 2.1-2.2 children per couple in order to ensure developed countries won't suffer the same fate such as what these states are facing.

 

It would be most important to establish and maintain the highest population/dependency ratio. This is a measure of the total number of a population compared to the number not working, such as children and elderly. If people are expected to live longer, then the age for retirement should change accordingly if they are going to be healthy enough to work another 10-15 years.

[Darth Avlectus]

Having more than 2 children will destroy the planet? Maybe, maybe not. I'd think the earth will deal with the overpopulation problem, naturally, if governments cannot handle it and people can't be bothered to keep it in their pants. I know it is cold, but even if we try, I have my doubts about everything related, here. The earth only has so much.

 

Frankly it is a problem bigger than any of us. Even if we conserve on having kids, I am doubtful that enough others will do it, too.

 

Will I think of the environment? Yes.

Should there be compulsory limits? Absolutely not. We're not China over here.

 

_EW_

 

Just when I thought you couldn't make me crack up again, you say something like this. Yet totally relevant. How does he DO that?

 

I think there shouldn't be, to be honest.

Agreed.

I do think that there should be some sort of exam as a requirement for a marriage license, that evaluates both mental and physical aspects, in order to ensure that future children don't end up in an awful situation.

 

I would agree there. Unfortunately, having seen what I have about eugenics and neo-eugenics, be it either on societal engineering or genetic testing scales... I cannot decide which would be worse... potential overpopulation chaos or paving the way for elites to be doing sick experiments on their fellow humans.

 

However, I do know there used to be a health test called a Wasserman test--

Checked for STDs at the very least. Pre marital and the potential spouse was informed. Both participated. Had to. You could not bow into privacy protection of results to hide them from your soon to be significant other. 'Course back then, there was not the privacy act either.

 

Probably this was done because the US was more religious back in those days. Just guessing though.

 

Maybe you should ask the rabbits that question.

Fresh critters to eat for the wolves. Problem solved.

[Tommycat]

Strange how the people who generally mention the overpopulstion problem are also opposed to war. That tends to be the world's answer to overpopulation. Famine/desease/natural disaster/war tend to trim down our population. If we become too overpopulated, someone comes along and says, "Hey, we need some room." the other country says, "You can't have it." The first country responds with "These destructive devices say I can." Then we get war. Lots of people die for their countries, and the population comes back down.

 

I honestly do not see us having an overpopulation problem. If anything it is an innovation problem. Too many people complaining about the wrong problem, and not working to fix the right problem. Rather than complaining about the "too many people" problem, shouldn't we be working on the "not enough food" problem, or the "not enough room" problem. Seems to me a better approach than "You can't have more chillunz" which is rather difficult to enforce.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Yeah, war is good because it restores the balance that was lost when death rates declined in developing states. You can't sustain a population of our size with our demands at the same time. Technology can only go so far, but our habits and way of life are just as important to change.

 

The Earth's carrying capacity is only so great and although we can push it with technology. What population we have at the moment is beyond the Earth's carrying capacity, but we're sacrificing future needs for the present. We are going to have to realize that more people will only push demand for resources higher while supplies dwindle even faster.

 

Choice: what would you prefer? A cheaper way of life and more children, or living well with fewer people and more abundant supply of food and energy?

[Arcesious]

War is an unethical way to lower the population. Starvation won't do the job either. No, we're just going to have to learn how to reuse all of our resources, probably the hard way. That, and eventually we'll have to expand into space. As is the nature of organisms such as we. Struggle for existence and all.

 

Fortunately and unfortunately, nature figured out that the more variation in a species the more likely it is to survive. The bigger a species is, the easier it is for it to variate. This helps against diseases, but it also creates population support problems, especially when a species gets as populous as ours.

 

We need modern medicine to get a good deal more advanced, so that eventually the need to populate to variate to survive will seem less urgent to the genes of the following generations of humanity.

 

Although, it may take too lng for our genes to slow down fertility rates, and thus, though it is a somewhat controversial idea, future generations might end up having a need to tweak the genes behind fertility a bit.

[Tommycat]

Yeah, war is good because it restores the balance that was lost when death rates declined in developing states. You can't sustain a population of our size with our demands at the same time. Technology can only go so far, but our habits and way of life are just as important to change.

Strange, I was under the impression that innovation was done more out of necessity. It may take a redesign of buildings to accomodate a changed world. It may take learning techniques to reclaim uninhabitable land... say teraforming deserts.

 

The Earth's carrying capacity is only so great and although we can push it with technology. What population we have at the moment is beyond the Earth's carrying capacity, but we're sacrificing future needs for the present. We are going to have to realize that more people will only push demand for resources higher while supplies dwindle even faster.

What resource defines the earth's carrying capacity? Food? water? Land? Energy? Perhaps reaching that upper limit will drive us to look seriously at teraforming other planets. I honestly do not believe that we'll ever get to that point. I think we'll just find more efficient ways of producing what we need. Perhaps we'll begin by colonizing the floors of the oceans. Having served on a Nuclear Sub, I can tell you the only thing we couldn't produce ourselves was food. Given enough starting resources, it would be possible create our own food underwater as well.

Choice: what would you prefer? A cheaper way of life and more children, or living well with fewer people and more abundant supply of food and energy?

Neither. Your choice assumes those are the only two options. Another option is simply that we find a way to adapt to a hyper populated planet. The other option is to branch out and learn how to adapt other planets to our needs.

 

I mean we could use global warming to create a livable world elsewhere... or more likely make more of earth habitable by humans, and by the same token learn new farming techniques to more efficiently produce the required foods.

 

War is an unethical way to lower the population. Starvation won't do the job either. No, we're just going to have to learn how to reuse all of our resources, probably the hard way. That, and eventually we'll have to expand into space. As is the nature of organisms such as we. Struggle for existence and all.

Sorry, I just don't see war as any less ethical than forced sterilization, or forced abortions. As to the expansion, see my previous answer in this post.

 

Although, it may take too lng for our genes to slow down fertility rates, and thus, though it is a somewhat controversial idea, future generations might end up having a need to tweak the genes behind fertility a bit.

[sarcasm]Oh yes, that is much more ethical than allowing war/disease and famine kill people off. [/sarcasm]

Adjusting genes WILL have other unintended side effects. If you tweak the gene, and that gene mutates, we could have a situation where the entire population becomes infertile. Doesn't that seem a bit harsher than a few little wars here and there?

[Darth Avlectus]

Wow, how blunt. Still a tough choice to call considering all things even without any other meaning attatched to the choices.

 

Well, I value life and do not romance war, personally. However I recognize inevitability of war and quite sadly a necessity for more than that of population control. I'm not saying doomsday, but all the time I am reminded of signs that $#*@ is about to hit the fan.

 

True it is a choice.

 

Innovation problem...yes and I think in general that of apathy and laziness (not to scathe or mock any recent postings elsewhere ) causing a general obliviousness--the very condition needed for disasters to start happening.

 

As far as the real problems...I find it odd that government and unions pay farmers not to grow...yet we must pay and extend services when the less fortunate are in need. I have an innovation for you courtesy of Native American chiefs who have a clue for the farmers and the less fortunate: have these farmers (still paid, but now) produce food that shall go to these less fortunate. It would save $$$ and feed the hungry needy. I think that might even help the environment.

 

Any objections here?

 

How about all that spare food in restaurants that is either given away for free or thrown away because it has to go? Why not have that go to local homeless shelters?

[Tommycat]

Wow, how blunt. Still a tough choice to call considering all things even without any other meaning attatched to the choices.

 

Well, I value life and do not romance war, personally. However I recognize inevitability of war and quite sadly a necessity for more than that of population control. I'm not saying doomsday, but all the time I am reminded of signs that $#*@ is about to hit the fan.

 

True it is a choice.

 

Innovation problem...yes and I think in general that of apathy and laziness (not to scathe or mock any recent postings elsewhere ) causing a general obliviousness--the very condition needed for disasters to start happening.

 

As far as the real problems...I find it odd that government and unions pay farmers not to grow...yet we must pay and extend services when the less fortunate are in need. I have an innovation for you courtesy of Native American chiefs who have a clue for the farmers and the less fortunate: have these farmers (still paid, but now) produce food that shall go to these less fortunate. It would save $$$ and feed the hungry needy. I think that might even help the environment.

 

Any objections here?

 

How about all that spare food in restaurants that is either given away for free or thrown away because it has to go? Why not have that go to local homeless shelters?

 

Hmmm finding what to cut was difficult, so I figured I would simply leave it in tact.

 

I will say that most restaurants especially higher end ones tend to give their food to homeless shelters. The ones that do not, choose it more for liability purposes than anything. If someone gets sick from a food item from a major restaurant, they could be held liable(to an extent, obviously).

 

The oblivious: Sadly that seems to make up more and more of the population of the planet.

 

War: I just feel it is more ethical of a choice to other means of population control. Generally because it tends to exist without being FOR population control in itself. We start other means of population control and war breaks out, we end up with an underpopulation problem.

 

Farm Subsidies: Never been a big fan of them, but I understand why we have them. That would probably be best debated in another thread though. But still your point is valid, that if we need the food, we can always call upon those that are getting paid NOT to grow.

[Q]

when Copulating... I'm thinking of copulating tbh

You shouldn't do that. Think of something else. You'll last longer.

 

No, I don't believe that there should be limits imposed on the number of children you can have. The Catholics would have a fit.

[adamqd]

You shouldn't do that. Think of something else. You'll last longer.

 

You shouldn't wink at me while talking of copulation, I may punch you in the eye

[Q]

Oh. Bad emoticon choice. Sorry.

 

Better?

[Jae Onasi]

OK my loves, I know boys have to talk about sex, but keep it in the vicinity of 'clean'.

[Darth_Yuthura]

If food becomes an issue, it should be noted that the majority of America's corn crops are fed to cows and other livestock. In doing this, much of the potential nutritional value that can be produced is reduced to almost a tenth of what could have been achieved had those fields been used to grow food for human consumption.

 

This is an example of how much waste is produced by our lifestyles alone. The problem we will eventually face is that we are depending upon imported fertilizers and contaminating sources of water through our agricultural activities. If we restricted the use of fertilizers and certain irrigation methods in arid locations, we would have lower crop yields, but that might be sustainable. If we skipped feeding most of it to livestock and instead grew crops for human consumption, we could sustain a larger population than we already have in the US.

 

The issue we currently face is that we in America have been leading our economy by the idea of spend, spend, spend... but that's what lead to the housing crisis we face. If we don't have a sustainable supply of food, water, and energy; then a larger population would only serve to destabilize any future projections we can make about the future.

[mur'phon]

Darth_Yuthura

It's destructive for humans to multiply like they have in developing countries indefinitely, but there is just as significant a threat to economies such as Japan and Italy, who have an inversed population pyramid... where there are many more elderly than children. It is best to keep a slight increase in population growth, such as 2.1-2.2 children per couple in order to ensure developed countries won't suffer the same fate such as what these states are facing.

 

It's not such a huge problem really, developing countries see their growth rate decline as they get richer, while developed countries can always absorb surpluss population from poor countries, at least for the forseable future.

 

The problem we will eventually face is that we are depending upon imported fertilizers and contaminating sources of water through our agricultural activities. If we restricted the use of fertilizers and certain irrigation methods in arid locations, we would have lower crop yields, but that might be sustainable. If we skipped feeding most of it to livestock and instead grew crops for human consumption, we could sustain a larger population than we already have in the US.

 

While I'm all for improving eficency, not using fertilizer seems like a waste, since it is available, why not use it?

[Ray Jones]

I think the question is not necessarily about 'how many children a family has' but rather 'who has children'.

[Vaelastraz]

I honestly do not see us having an overpopulation problem. If anything it is an innovation problem. Too many people complaining about the wrong problem, and not working to fix the right problem. Rather than complaining about the "too many people" problem, shouldn't we be working on the "not enough food" problem, or the "not enough room" problem. Seems to me a better approach than "You can't have more chillunz" which is rather difficult to enforce.

 

I agree with this. Didn't the economist Robert Malthus predict humanity's demise due to starvation, given that production of food is subject to diminishing returns? He was right about diminishing returns but failed to anticipate technological change.