Poll: Are Child Limit Laws moral, and should we use them?
Child limit laws are immoral.
Child limit laws are immoral, but need to be enforced.
Child limit laws are not immoral, and need to be enforced.
The earth is not overpopulated, continue with status quo.
[Show Results]
 
Child Limit Laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2012, 03:25 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
(28-03-2012 03:19 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-03-2012 03:04 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Off the top of my head I don't have a viable alternative or solution to the problem. But mandated sterilization is so unbelievable I can't imagine why it would even be brought up as a solution worth discussing. If it was something as minor as removal of the child tax credit I could explore that option but this is lucradis.
We are all talking off the top of our heads here Wink It's not like any of us have studied this stuff in detail, although the OP said something about ecology which makes me think he might have something more to add.

Let's agree that
(a) Unchecked, world population will grow until we run out of resources.
(b) We are running out of resources already, although possibly with better management we could extend our lifeline a bit longer.

Also let's agree that any action taken is going to have to result in at least maintaining the stability of current world population, ideally result in a gradual lowering of world population to more manageable levels? Although if we max out on everything and get some very good management in place we could support sustainably a higher population than now (I read this somewhere, but I'll accept it as true), it seems prudent to leave some give in the system, so let's say an ideal world population of 5 billion, maybe achieved by 2050.

To keep things stable, that means an average of 2 kids per couple max - even this will grow world population because couples don't die as soon as they produce kids, so 2 kids = 4 people around for at least the next 20 years or so.

To drive population down it needs to be limited even further.

Whatever solution is chosen must be implemented on a global scale, otherwise it will be ineffective. Maybe different countries could pursue different strategies but in the end results are what count.

This is a very difficult problem. Politics, freedom.. a lot of very hard to navigate areas. Forced sterilization is the easy option that jumps out but it has a very high barrier to implement it.

Frankly my feeling is like every other problem we have (pollution etc) whatever solution we implement will be half assed and too late.


I'd be more receptive to ideas about renewable energy/products and living space that didn't destroy natrual habitats. There is more than enough space on Earth for 12 billion people. Even the oceans can be utilized with man made islands. Dubai seems to be doing a great job of this. If only we had 100% renewable and sustainable resources we could support how ever many people we have. And far fetched or not we will eventually begin populating space, moons, or other planets with permanent residents. It's going to take some heavy environmental and technological thinking to solve this problem.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 03:54 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2012 03:58 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Child Limit Laws
(28-03-2012 03:19 PM)morondog Wrote:  To keep things stable, that means an average of 2 kids per couple max - even this will grow world population because couples don't die as soon as they produce kids, so 2 kids = 4 people around for at least the next 20 years or so.

To drive population down it needs to be limited even further.
2 People having 2 kids would cause the population to remain relatively stagnant. Increases in life expectancy would cause it to increase though, but after you factor in the people who won't have any children or only one, then it sort of balances itself out again.

However, since we are dealing with an overpopulation we would have to lower the # of kids allowed to 1 per couple for a set time frame. The thing is, even if this doesn't sound like a lot, it would actually drastically decrease the overall population VERY quickly.

Say there is 8 billion people.
2 billion too young to have kids 0-20
2 billion having kids 20-40
2 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 8 billion

+20 Years after 1 child per couple initiated
1 billion too young to have kids 0-20
2 billion having kids 20-40
2 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
TOTAL: 7 Billion

+20 years
0.5 billion too young to have kids 0-20
1 billion having kids 20-40
2 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 5.5 Billion

+20 years.
0.25billion too young to have kids 0-20
0.5billion having kids 20-40
1 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 3.75 Billion

+20 years.
0.125 billion too young to have kids 0-20
0.25 billion having kids 20-40
0.5 billion middle aged 40-60
1 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 1.875 Billion


This is VERY rough math, but the outcome is pretty clear, within a short time frame, 80 years, the population can drop by a significant margin, ~1/4 initial size.

This is a very viable solution,
Even if everyone doesn't follow the rule, there will be people without kids to sort of offset that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mysticjbyrd's post
28-03-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
I think I foresee the inevitable situation... Baby tax!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
(28-03-2012 04:10 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think I foresee the inevitable situation... Baby tax!
This is an idea that I could entertain but imagine the backlash from conservatives and lots of moderates/independants the first time a president tries to push a 'tax our way to lower population' bill.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 04:18 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
(28-03-2012 04:10 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think I foresee the inevitable situation... Baby tax!
That might work, but it would really screw over the poor pretty hardcore. They can barely afford to keep themselves and their kids above water while writing them off as dependents. To charge them money...might be a bit much, unless we fix the disparity between the rich and poor first.

We could maybe set a child limit for people on welfare. There are quite a few people who actually have kids to get govt money. If we could stop condoning this sort of behavior, it could help out greatly. This would be the perfect place to cut out some of the excess population too.

We could even probably pass something like that.
Even germanyt would probably agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 04:25 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
(28-03-2012 04:18 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  That might work, but it would really screw over the poor pretty hardcore. They can barely afford to keep themselves and their kids above water while writing them off as dependents. To charge them money...might be a bit much, unless we fix the disparity between the rich and poor first.

We could maybe set a child limit for people on welfare. There are quite a few people who actually have kids to get govt money. If we could stop condoning this sort of behavior, it could help out greatly. This would be the perfect place to cut out some of the excess population too.

We could even probably pass something like that.
Even germanyt would probably agree.
I don't think welfare moms are as big a problem as some conservatives make it out to be but it def happens. I could see a tapered down child tax credit. 1000 for the first, 500 for the second, pay 500 for the third, pay 1000 for the 4th, etc. I'm not sure the socioeconomic impact though. And I'm also not sure it'd have any measurable impact on population. One thing I know is that you can't sterilize people. That's just absurd. But getting rid of incentives to have kids would be a good start I think. Education is paramount though. We have to teach our children the troubles that we face as a race and what they can do to help. If a small percentage listen then maybe the population would level.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like germanyt's post
28-03-2012, 04:40 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
(28-03-2012 03:54 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(28-03-2012 03:19 PM)morondog Wrote:  To keep things stable, that means an average of 2 kids per couple max - even this will grow world population because couples don't die as soon as they produce kids, so 2 kids = 4 people around for at least the next 20 years or so.

To drive population down it needs to be limited even further.
2 People having 2 kids would cause the population to remain relatively stagnant. Increases in life expectancy would cause it to increase though, but after you factor in the people who won't have any children or only one, then it sort of balances itself out again.

However, since we are dealing with an overpopulation we would have to lower the # of kids allowed to 1 per couple for a set time frame. The thing is, even if this doesn't sound like a lot, it would actually drastically decrease the overall population VERY quickly.

Say there is 8 billion people.
2 billion too young to have kids 0-20
2 billion having kids 20-40
2 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 8 billion

+20 Years after 1 child per couple initiated
1 billion too young to have kids 0-20
2 billion having kids 20-40
2 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
TOTAL: 7 Billion

+20 years
0.5 billion too young to have kids 0-20
1 billion having kids 20-40
2 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 5.5 Billion

+20 years.
0.25billion too young to have kids 0-20
0.5billion having kids 20-40
1 billion middle aged 40-60
2 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 3.75 Billion

+20 years.
0.125 billion too young to have kids 0-20
0.25 billion having kids 20-40
0.5 billion middle aged 40-60
1 billion elderly 60-80
Total: 1.875 Billion


This is VERY rough math, but the outcome is pretty clear, within a short time frame, 80 years, the population can drop by a significant margin, ~1/4 initial size.

This is a very viable solution,
Even if everyone doesn't follow the rule, there will be people without kids to sort of offset that.
The problem with this is, you're talking about a political solution that's gonna have to remain stable for 40-60 years globally Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 10:07 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
Nature is a cruel mistress and life is her instrument, parents should not have more than 1 kid. I know a lot of people on Food Stamp (lifers) who would not support this, it's time they got a job like the rest of us. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 10:34 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
Personally, I am not in favor of the idea of a law limiting the amount of children any one person may have. It would not only impede on an individual's rights....it just is not the goverment's place to force any given person to go through with an operation.
Resources, if we could recycle and consider the waste that is being put out...and well basically start caring more and demonstrating it, every little bit would count. If there really are 7 million of us and counting, imagine the difference each of us could make if we gave a little.
Think if anything laws should be passed requiring certain forms of enviromental clean up or care to be done so as to clean up the mess we have made.
Just my two cents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes AnotherSinner's post
30-03-2012, 12:26 PM
RE: Child Limit Laws
(29-03-2012 10:34 PM)AnotherSinner Wrote:  Personally, I am not in favor of the idea of a law limiting the amount of children any one person may have. It would not only impede on an individual's rights....it just is not the goverment's place to force any given person to go through with an operation.

Resources, if we could recycle and consider the waste that is being put out...and well basically start caring more and demonstrating it, every little bit would count. If there really are 7 million of us and counting, imagine the difference each of us could make if we gave a little.
Think if anything laws should be passed requiring certain forms of enviromental clean up or care to be done so as to clean up the mess we have made.
Just my two cents.
What about the rights of the single kids born to responsible parents? What about them? One day they are going to be born in a world near devoid of resources. These baby bombers are taking their very right to be alive away by wasting future resources. We are talking a potential end of humanity!

End of Humanity v/s Being a responsible adult.
I think killing untold billions and the potential end of humanity might just be an infinitely greater impedance on peoples rights.


It doesn't matter how much you recycle; eventually the resources are going to be completely depleted.
We are way beyond just being more environmentally friendly at this point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: