Jump to content

Home

How many kids would you like?


Keyan Farlander

How many kids would you like?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. How many kids would you like?

    • 0 (I don't really like kids)
      6
    • 0 (I like kids, but I just don't want to be a parent)
      2
    • 1
      1
    • 2
      5
    • 3
      7
    • 4
      2
    • 5 - 10
      2
    • More than 10
      3


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

 

There is more than enough room and plenty of resources for all, especially with technological advancements, such as irradiation of food. Don't be fooled into thinking we're getting too big for our world by people who manipulate statistics in order to further their own agendas. It's not nearly as bad as people seem to think. In fact, I think there's a real possibility of a major drop in population if that myth isn't exposed for what it is combined with the fact that people are less interested than ever in having children (in developed countries, mind you).

 

Hmmm... But the quality of life is already shockingly poor for most of the planet as is. I can't see how adding more people could possibly improve matters much. The planet is a closed system. Only so many resources to go around. The more ways you divide it up, the less it will be for everyone.

Sure, we may find places to put them and ways to feed them, but if that means bulldozing all of the world's forests to make room for them and the crops needed to sustain them... is that really an alternative?

Then there's the problems of waste. Right now it seems to me we are having a hard enough time keeping up with the waste we currently produce. In a few years when nano-technology is sufficently advanced that we can sic a truckload of nanobots on a landfill in order to reclaim all the raw materials therein, we might be able to not have to worry about pollution. But for right now... double our numbers and forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by GUNNER

Actually my "kids" are great. My son is a wonderful kid and great to play with. He loves to watch clifford with me in the mornings and I enjoy watching him sleep. He is the epitome of love.

 

Plus you'll get to make him and his sister do all the housework when they get older. That was certainly my parents' favorite thing about having children ;) Seriously, my dad had me mowing our lawn at age 10, and his favorite summer activity was making me mow the lawn as often as possible and pointing out every single blade I missed.

 

ME: I'm going out to play baseball with some of the kids in the neighborhood.

 

DAD: Mow the lawn first.

 

ME: I mowed it yesterday.

 

DAD: Then it's about due for it again, wouldn't you say?

 

ME: No.

 

DAD: Too bad.

 

He also enjoyed making me bag it even though we had a mulching mower.

 

And some of the lawns we had were huge. I remember in one house we rented for 3 years, we had ACRES of grass, and it took me literally a whole day to mow it, even with the tractor that the owners of the house had. During those summers I literally spent 1/7 of my waking hours mowing the lawn. Not to mention that the tractor sucked and only made left turns after the second year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by edlib

 

Hmmm... But the quality of life is already shockingly poor for most of the planet as is. I can't see how adding more people could possibly improve matters much. The planet is a closed system. Only so many resources to go around. The more ways you divide it up, the less it will be for everyone.

Sure, we may find places to put them and ways to feed them, but if that means bulldozing all of the world's forests to make room for them and the crops needed to sustain them... is that really an alternative?

Then there's the problems of waste. Right now it seems to me we are having a hard enough time keeping up with the waste we currently produce. In a few years when nano-technology is sufficently advanced that we can sic a truckload of nanobots on a landfill in order to reclaim all the raw materials therein, we might be able to not have to worry about pollution. But for right now... double our numbers and forget it.

 

We have the resources, but the means to spread them around is what we don't have. We will, though, assuming we can get everyone to accept them. Food irradiation alone would make an insane difference. It would give us back all the food we lose due to time and infestation, not to mention helping the problem of food-related illnesses tremendously. And that's a big deal in developing countries. We will rise to meet the needs of the world's population. It won't ever be a problem as bad as the media makes it out to be, and you can absolutely quote me on that. And we won't have to destroy all of the world's forests to do it. I think we underestimate the earth in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rogue Nine

But don't group us all together because we're not all like that.

Yeah, neither was I. But it's not the exceptions to the rule who get up all in my face.

 

Remember, I work at a college, so I get to see a lot of these kids immediately after HS. Freshmen are always the worst. On thier own for the first time in thier lives...

Some of the kids I work with are really cool, but most of them arrive with such attitudes that they have to be "broken-down" a bit before I even can tolerate working with them.

However,.. I'm real good at letting know-it-all, cocky kids make very public and humilating mistakes on the job. :D That usually brings them down a couple of notches to the point where I can say, "Ok, Forget what you THINK you know... this is the way WE do things around here."

After that, we can usually get along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

 

We have the resources, but the means to spread them around is what we don't have. We will, though, assuming we can get everyone to accept them. Food irradiation alone would make an insane difference. It would give us back all the food we lose due to time and infestation, not to mention helping the problem of food-related illnesses tremendously. And that's a big deal in developing countries. We will rise to meet the needs of the world's population. It won't ever be a problem as bad as the media makes it out to be, and you can absolutely quote me on that. And we won't have to destroy all of the world's forests to do it. I think we underestimate the earth in general.

OK,.. but I still think spreading out all of those resources between 6 billion people will lead to a better life for all than stretching it out between 10, 12, or 15 billion or more. Why would we need or want more people than we have now, anyway?

If we can keep the world birth-rate in sync with the world's death-rate, we should be able to hover around any number we choose, give or take a few hundred-million here or there.

I feel that's a safer plan than just trying to deal with the consequenses of more humanity on our planet as they arrive.

 

Is it just me, or are there two threads going on here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by edlib

 

Hmmm... But the quality of life is already shockingly poor for most of the planet as is. I can't see how adding more people could possibly improve matters much. The planet is a closed system. Only so many resources to go around. The more ways you divide it up, the less it will be for everyone.

Sure, we may find places to put them and ways to feed them, but if that means bulldozing all of the world's forests to make room for them and the crops needed to sustain them... is that really an alternative?

Then there's the problems of waste. Right now it seems to me we are having a hard enough time keeping up with the waste we currently produce. In a few years when nano-technology is sufficently advanced that we can sic a truckload of nanobots on a landfill in order to reclaim all the raw materials therein, we might be able to not have to worry about pollution. But for right now... double our numbers and forget it.

 

edlib, you're comparing the quality of life in other countries to the quality of life in the US, where everything is abundant and even excessive. not every country can or SHOULD have everything as plentiful as we have.

 

 

besides, who are you to say that i shouldn't have children or vice versa? who is anyone to say they have control over my natural reproductive abilities? you're talking communism, ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ikhnaton

 

edlib, you're comparing the quality of life in other countries to the quality of life in the US, where everything is abundant and even excessive. not every country can or SHOULD have everything as plentiful as we have.

 

besides, who are you to say that i shouldn't have children or vice versa? who is anyone to say they have control over my natural reproductive abilities? you're talking communism, ed.

I'll assume this is a joke. Otherwise you are blind, blind, blind. The abundance you refer to is a pipe dream of the 50s. Well, to be fair, the US population (5%) of the world consumes over 70% of the resources, but how long can this last?

 

China has enacted restricive policies on the number of children a couple can have and it wont be long before the United States will be forced to enact the same restrictions, for the good of the world.

 

The truth is, the 6 billion population that the world sustains will double within 10 years. We simply can't go on like this. Attitudes change fairly quickly when survival of the species is at stake. The birthing of children MUST be curbed, and it wont take long before families of more than 3 will become outlaws in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

You have been fairly warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by raVen_image

I'll assume this is a joke. Otherwise you are blind, blind, blind. The abundance you refer to is a pipe dream of the 50s. Well, to be fair, the US population (5%) of the world consumes over 70% of the resources, but how long can this last?

 

China has enacted restricive policies on the number of children a couple can have and it wont be long before the United States will be forced to enact the same restrictions, for the good of the world.

 

The truth is, the 6 billion population that the world sustains will double within 10 years. We simply can't go on like this. Attitudes change fairly quickly when survival of the species is at stake. The birthing of children MUST be curbed, and it wont take long before families of more than 3 will become outlaws in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

You have been fairly warned.

 

He's right - The U.S., Canada, and Europe might actually have to stop paying farmers not to produce so much food. We're doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ikhnaton

edlib, you're comparing the quality of life in other countries to the quality of life in the US, where everything is abundant and even excessive. not every country can or SHOULD have everything as plentiful as we have.

No, but the problems occur when the people who don't have wish to have. Civil unrest, terrorism, and crime are all symptoms of that that WILL get worse in the coming years if our numbers grow.

 

Originally posted by Ikhnaton

besides, who are you to say that i shouldn't have children or vice versa? who is anyone to say they have control over my natural reproductive abilities? you're talking communism, ed.

I'm not saying we have to FORCE the people of the world not to have lots of children. We need to educate them against the potential problems of massive overpopulation.

But WHERE do we draw the line if we don't take some kind of action? 15 billion? 20 billion? 30? Higher? I don't know. I cretainly don't want to take personal freedom away from anybody, but if we ignore the situation eventually somebody will be forced to come along and do it.

Even if we could just slow the steady rise towards problem numbers we would be in better shape than we are now. That would gives us time to properly assess the problems and find solutions.

It is not a problem that will go away if we ignore it however.

I'm just afraid that people will only see the looming disaster when is already way to late to do anything about it. Humans will continue to breed and fill up every available space and consume every available resource if there's no reason to stop.

Education is the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thread folks. I didnt think it would be this interesting from the title, yet the responses range from educated and thoughtful, to highly ignorant (no we shouldnt just get rid of all the asians). I agree with the above in that all we can do is educate. Nothing is 100% efficient and all life comes to an end at some point. This much we accept as fact. We can however (talking as a part of the western world) curb our consumerism. Whilst this is great in that we want for little, we also create a huge amount of completely unessesary resource waste. George W Bush is obviously not gonna stop at creating new power stations and pipelines through protected wildlife areas, because as he says the people need more power! (how on earth did this man come to power?)Its all going to come back and haunt us in a big way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Raven_image should actually look up facts before posting.

 

The US will not have to enforce population control because it isn't growing. It is just slightly above replacement rate (realistically hovering at equilibrium) and it is the only first world country to do so. The rest are below replacement.

 

China's policies are also sickening, either forcibly aborting babies (even hunting the mother down to do it) or forcing parents to give the babies they don't want to (often) lethal orphanages and the river. These babies are mostly girls, as parents will traditionaly want a son if they can only have one child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Nitro

My dad's gonna be 58 when I grad...

I was born when both my parents were 40, so that's how old they were when I graduated.

They are both in thier 70's now.

I never gave it any thought when I was growing up until my friends pionted out that my parents were so much older than theirs.

I'm 31 now, so by the time I get around to having kids (if ever...) it will be the same situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...