The Duggars, The Gosselins, Nadya Suleman - Should People be Limited on the Number of Kids They Can
61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Daemon;35647514]You, me and everyone else is born so what you presume i think is irrelevent.
I'm sorry, but you wouldn't wish death upon your kids so why would you go ahead and do it anyway?
Please explain why which you haven't done... again. It is a social cost because we have things like maternity leave, free housing etc.
I didn't disagree on this but i will argue that my views accompany what you believe as the right thing to do.
Well whatever, i can't force people to not have kids so i will say if you are going to play frankenstien, do it with some understanding here. That we should have some respect for the life thats being created and have some propsect of creating a better world and a better life for those new life forms to live in. If we can't do that, if we can't guarantee a better future we have no business imposing it on anybody. So part of this argument is going to have to be done through conversation and just explain to people that yeah, there really is a life beyond pro creating. There's alot more to do in the world, there's alot more waste to entertain yourself in than raising families.[/QUOTE]
1. You need a hug
2. The world will keep on turning. If everyone stopped having kids on the claim that their lives [I]might[/I] include sorrow, it isn't pressing the timeout button- its creating a gap where a generation simply doesn't exist. It would make the coming topheaviness of aged people that we have coming as the baby boomers get old, (as does China and Japan) look light.
And to keep on with the original discussion, birth rate regulation would be disastrous on a national level (again, China). The examples cited in the OP are less "they had so many kids and its bad" and more "they had A lot of kids, so they made their family into a circus and its bad".
[QUOTE=Azaer;35676580]1. You need a hug
2. The world will keep on turning. If everyone stopped having kids on the claim that their lives [I]might[/I] include sorrow, it isn't pressing the timeout button- its creating a gap where a generation simply doesn't exist. It would make the coming topheaviness of aged people that we have coming as the baby boomers get old, (as does China and Japan) look light. [/QUOTE]
'The world will keep on turning'... good luck undoing liquidation on my part.
It would only be a gap in your circumstance of sudden adjustment, termination which causes that problem in your argument. Not like a gradual decline which it would realistically be. By doing that, there wouldn't be so much of a demand in babies to balance out for the next aged generation and so forth. I mean, i'm not even sure what that indicates to have a topheaviness of aged people, i don't know what implications it has but it doesn't give the justification to give birth. Clearly the fundamental part to blame is to do with people having babies and too many of them in the first place for such a problem to exist.
Yes, people should be restricted weather they can have children or not and/or how many. The Earth cannot support the exponentially increasing population and some form of restriction will be needed, possibly permanent but probably temporary until technology can raise the ceiling, or until the decreasing fertility rate gets to a level where it stabilizes the population.
Depends on how you look at it.
Many of those who are for birth-limits are speaking on the broadest terms, essentially saying that there aren't enough resources to sustain an ever-growing population of humans.
And, in a manner of speaking, I agree with them.
We can barely feed everyone in first-world countries, let alone every nation on the planet.
Not only that, but the higher demand for crops has caused a huge growth in the use of monocultures, which end up sucking the natural fertility out of soil and creating more demand for artificial fertilizers...
...Which then get into lakes, streams, and oceans via runoff, killing the fish population there by allowing a fuckton of algae to live on the surface waters and suck up the oxygen.
In addition, the global demand for fossil fuels (and the distinct lack of any major, government-funded alternative fuel programs in the large oil-guzzlers [particularly the United States]) is basically drying out a resource that's going to die off eventually, and is also contributing massively to the global warming crisis.
And on a final note, because we humans love to live in giant concrete structures, we've essentially destroyed countless numbers of animal habitats and driven several species to the brink of extinction.
So I think our population might have gotten a bit out of hand.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35719707]Yes, people should be restricted weather they can have children or not and/or how many. The Earth cannot support the exponentially increasing population and some form of restriction will be needed, possibly permanent but probably temporary until technology can raise the ceiling, or until the decreasing fertility rate gets to a level where it stabilizes the population.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if we sacrifice all the people like you we would be fine.
maybe if we made abortions mandatory for people who have dropped their babies you wouldnt exist
Quit bitchslapping each other. This is for debate, not whining.
I think Quiverfull movements should be monitored more carefully because of all the physical and emotional abuse that takes place in them, especially towards girls (who are treated like slaves and property).
The Duggars are big supporters of the quiverfull movement.
It's a "christian" movement that supports the idea of "patriarchy" (that the father is the owner of the daughters until she is married) and that children should be plentiful. It is based on one verse in the Bible about having a quiver full of children and how that is a blessing, and this movement says it is the only way to be really blessed by God.
It's a bit of a mockery of the rest of the Bible where widows were blessed, where the "barren" were blessed, even if only with one child.
So no, people shouldn't be limited, but movement like Quiverfull should be.
[QUOTE=kill3r;35578054]China tried this and it went kind of horribly wrong, so I don't really think it'd be a good choice.[/QUOTE]
Care to explain how it went horribly wrong? I think it a good move on China's part. Sure, this means too much focus on one kid per family making them spoiled as fuck but that happens in America even without child limit laws.
[QUOTE=joes33431;35720538]
[B]We can barely feed everyone in first-world countries,[/B] let alone every nation on the planet.
[/QUOTE]
Uhh, yeah we can, that's kind of why one of the biggest hallmarks of a 1st world nation are it's stocked supermarkets offering low-priced foods (ever see the cost of things we'd consider basic in other countries? It's ridiculous.)
Not to mention the vast majority of famines in 3rd world nations are artificial. In other words, due to government corruption or incompetency, Zimbabwe was considered the breadbasket of East Africa until they got it in their heads that they had a better idea how to farm then the farmers.
Well, the answer to the exponential growth of the human population is, obviously, reducing it. This can be done 2 ways; we can kill people, or tell people they can't have too many babies. So either we take lives, limit freedom, or those who can not afford the extremely sharp increase in price of food will slowly start to die. Either way people are going to cry about politics and morality, which will lead to nothing getting done.
Call me heartless, but seeing as it is low-income families that have the most amount of kids, this is cause and effect. I'm completely for limiting the number of kids one can have, but a very large amount of people will say it's unethical.
finally, someone who sees the light!
back on track, China seems to have done the 1 child thing in a very good way, ie that you can have 2 children but you won't receive any/much lessened child benefit, so you dont cost the government that much extra.
personally, I think that the human population will have to be kept in check until we have the next "large" technological breakthrough, such as off-world colonization, or even basic new habitats, or even production centers of essential stuff like water,food etc outside of general human residences. After that, we may be allowed to let the human population rise for a bit, until it hits the ceiling. This cycle will probably happen 2-4 times, until the human fertility rate lowers and stabilizes (it's currently going down, and generally does with larger population for some reason), at which point we can metaphorically relax.
Yeah, i mean you can't live off growth and that is essentially the deal here.
There is nothing wrong with obliging people that can't even support themselves... obliging them not to create even more people that also can't support themselves. That is stupid. I'm against eugenics controlling, redesigning the human race but by the same token we shouldn't celebrate allowing the dumbest and the stupidest to do all the breeding. That's a prescription for disaster. Some parts of the world need to be yelled at, some of 'em really need to be wapped with a stick. It comes down to they're just consuming resources (and im not saying you cut them off). There's got to be some kind of real extortion imposed on many of these countries because people are living off welfare essentially. Some are living off food provided by other parts of the world at a deficit to themselves and to the other country and there's no point in subsidising that. There's no point in perpetuating it. Unsustainable economies have no excuse to be fed if they're not going to be responsible, sustainable and not going to try to be rational and countries that aren't going to do anything to control their overpopulation should pay a price for that lack of responsibility. So anyway, the issue does get complex but their really has to be a change in the social meme, the norm. People have got to feel stigmatized a little bit. The decision to have kids can't be celebrated or embraced, everybody can't be applauding and congratulating and all that stuff. When they hand you the cigar, you've got to shove it right back up their ass or something because they are not doing the world a favour, they are not doing you a favour. They're just increasing the burdens on the future especially now we're getting into messy times because the rich have broken the economy and lifes going to get more tricky or rough.
I don't have a problem with big families, but nobody should have almost 20 children. The Earth is turning to shit in part because it is way too overpopulated, and having 20 kids isn't helping.
So to answer the question: It shouldn't be legal to have children in excess of 10. (Or something similar)
but say, you have 2 children, along with 2 billion other people, so there are 6 billion people in the world right now. In 20-40 years they have 2 children themselves, now there 7 billion people in the world. They now have 2 children each, so 21 billion. 20-40 years after that, ~16 billion people (considering deaths, but along with advances in medicine prolonging the human lifespan considerably)
there are really only 2 solutions to this problem, create a maximum limit for the age of a single normal human being, or limit the amount of new humans being created
Please give evidence to prove that the world is overpopulated. I do not believe that this is true.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35811049]but say, you have 2 children, along with 2 billion other people, so there are 6 billion people in the world right now. In 20-40 years they have 2 children themselves, now there 7 billion people in the world. They now have 2 children each, so 21 billion. 20-40 years after that, ~16 billion people (considering deaths, but along with advances in medicine prolonging the human lifespan considerably)
there are really only 2 solutions to this problem, create a maximum limit for the age of a single normal human being, or limit the amount of new humans being created[/QUOTE]
Do you mean from scratch? The scenario doesn't work at all because birth-rates & death-rates shift as a population grows & adapts. It is never a prefect straight line. Again: compare first world & third world rates.
[QUOTE=joes33431;35720538]We can barely feed everyone in first-world countries[/QUOTE]
Do you have any idea how much food is thrown away each day in first world nations?
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46743203/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/experts-percent-worlds-food-thrown-away/#.T6S_SHLu76M[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw-away_society[/url]
I think a big part of this equation would be estimating just when the human population will level off & at what number, & the reasons behind it. Predictions vary between sources, split with both optimistic (technology/education) & pessimistic (starvation) outlooks & so is difficult to pin down. In any case, there is more at play here than simple rates: education, technology, culture, wealth, resources, & the way these items are related.
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35831712]
Do you have any idea how much food is thrown away each day in first world nations?
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46743203/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/experts-percent-worlds-food-thrown-away/#.T6S_SHLu76M[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw-away_society[/URL]
I think a big part of this equation would be estimating just when the human population will level off & at what number, & the reasons behind it. Predictions vary between sources, split with both optimistic (technology/education) & pessimistic (starvation) outlooks & so is difficult to pin down. In any case, there is more at play here than simple rates: education, technology, culture, wealth, resources, & the way these items are related.[/QUOTE]
Remember back in the 50s when the great minds of the decade were warning us that within 30 years we'd run out of food and space? They said the same thing in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (Soylent Green was a 1970s-60s interpretation of what they thought 2010 would be like, while Asimov predicted a bleak future for the Earth in his Empire series, specifically that we were forced to convert all available land to farmland while living in underground cities to support a staggering population of [I]8 billion[/I].)
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;35835209]Remember back in the 50s when the great minds of the decade were warning us that within 30 years we'd run out of food and space? They said the same thing in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (Soylent Green was a 1970s-60s interpretation of what they thought 2010 would be like, while Asimov predicted a bleak future for the Earth in his Empire series, specifically that we were forced to convert all available land to farmland while living in underground cities to support a staggering population of [I]8 billion[/I].)[/QUOTE]
Do you remember Mr. Malthus? He was saying the same thing in 1800!
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35818714]Please give evidence to prove that the world is overpopulated. I do not believe that this is true.[/QUOTE]
it is straining now, but will soon be overpopulated. This is very simple to prove: more people have more babies which take up more space which have more babies which take up more space........... until there is not effectively enough space (or resources) to effectively keep their standard of living above the minimum
[editline]8th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35831712]Do you mean from scratch? The scenario doesn't work at all because birth-rates & death-rates shift as a population grows & adapts. It is never a prefect straight line. Again: compare first world & third world rates.
[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't be exact, but an extreme example is the spacer worlds in Asimov's Robotics series (birth permits). Even if we could roughly match the death rate then the population explosion would slow down to a crawl.
The good thing is that it is slowing down on its own slightly, as in the BRIC countries women are generally having more independence on weather to have a family or not
No. If they have the means to support and nurture the kids they should be allowed to have as many as their joy departments will support. The Duggars are a good example, they have no problem supporting that huge family and seem to all be quite happy.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35875846]it is straining now, but will soon be overpopulated. This is very simple to prove: more people have more babies which take up more space which have more babies which take up more space........... until there is not effectively enough space (or resources) to effectively keep their standard of living above the minimum.[/QUOTE]
First of all, that is not proof of anything. You just made a bunch of speculations with no evidence, statistics, or expert opinions to back it up. Secondly, your claim is based on the assumption that a higher population takes up more space, which is not true.
The entire point of my post was to get some sort of statistics or an essay written by a scientist that proves that the world is overpopulated or close to overpopulated. The whole thread has been nothing but speculation or discussions based on the assumption that the world is already overpopulated, when this has never been proven.
Completely absurd to think this needs monitoring to prevent overpopulation. Birth rates in the developed world are already pretty damn low, and they're falling rapidly in the developing world. The world population is set to plateau at about 9 billion [url=http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf][citation][/url].
Absolutely not, it is a basic need of an organism and limiting it is ridiculous. It's not your or anyone else's place to say who can reproduce and how much.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;35914260]Absolutely not, it is a basic need of an organism and limiting it is ridiculous. It's not your or anyone else's place to say who can reproduce and how much.[/QUOTE]
I don't accept that it is a need for any individual organism because it doesn't require some course of action that's necessary for their own need but like as if for someone elses (which itself is bewildering to who). We can see it today that it often has a competitive nature to it all. If it's in the state of requiring help or support, then it's just sad to see a continuation of that kind of system being exercised where new people have to be responsible for someone elses mistake of giving existance to that problem, that the purpose they are born is fufilling his needs that don't reflect yourself in anyway. Even that doesn't really happen and hope it shouldn't.
I think having kids is quite superficially exaggerated in what people think they should be having kids for. To me, it's often seen as a present to themselves, to satisfy their selfish want, to cling on to a new toy they can dress up and be proud of. To know that their love between two people was so great that it has made a person everyone can drivel over and say they are special. Parents having the right to have kids is unplausible on the basis that the child will grow up to have rights, so i really can't agree with that either that there are any kind of right involved. It should be what it is, just doing it because someone felt like it.
I'm legitimately surprised they haven't had a retarded kid yet (referring to the Duggars as they're the only ones I know)
[QUOTE=Daemon;35980122]I don't accept that it is a need for any individual organism because it doesn't require some course of action that's necessary for their own need but like as if for someone elses (which itself is bewildering to who). We can see it today that it often has a competitive nature to it all. If it's in the state of requiring help or support, then it's just sad to see a continuation of that kind of system being exercised where new people have to be responsible for someone elses mistake of giving existance to that problem, that the purpose they are born is fufilling his needs that don't reflect yourself in anyway. Even that doesn't really happen and hope it shouldn't.
I think having kids is quite superficially exaggerated in what people think they should be having kids for. To me, it's often seen as a present to themselves, to satisfy their selfish want, to cling on to a new toy they can dress up and be proud of. To know that their love between two people was so great that it has made a person everyone can drivel over and say they are special. Parents having the right to have kids is unplausible on the basis that the child will grow up to have rights, so i really can't agree with that either that there are any kind of right involved. It should be what it is, just doing it because someone felt like it.[/QUOTE]
It's actually instinctual to want to have a child.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35998322]It's actually instinctual to want to have a child.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was instinctive to have sex.
[QUOTE=Daemon;36000808]I thought it was instinctive to have sex.[/QUOTE]
It is instinctive to want to pass on your genes, which includes actually having a child.
Seems more like a cultural fascination in this day and age because like i said, it does not come under any clear, purposeful need to do it or motive. I do not want to pass on my genes (have kids), nor are they impulses in my intention to have sex like other strong instincts that have this understanding. We know sex is a need to feel euphoria driven by a chemical. Metaphorically, we are just satisfying our biological drug addiction by doing it. We can understand it isn't necessary to fulfill that need because of what it is. Hunger is an obligatory need for carbon and energy and so what is the incentive to pass on my genes?
Secondly, if it's instinctive to do something, does that give you a right to do it?
Raping someone was justified because i was overcome by instinct - [I]"i couldn't possibly reason with that decision"[/I], for example.
Also instinct that makes us want to hurt other people under certain circumstances but we don't allow it. What makes this such a deprivation that it can't be permitted to not be encouraged if it isn't even on a equable level of instinct such as aggression?
Let's take competitive tendancies as a behavioural instinct. We know it is just self gratification bullshit like many others so what in the definition of having babies makes it any different? Nothing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.