Too many people in the world
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
thefadedone
Needs a life
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 4,829
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,816
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
SummerRain
I dreamed that God would be forgiving.
I voted family planning and education as a general rule... but I think it depends on the country. Some countries already have these things, some don't, and some countries have a much greater need than others to reduce the amount of people. China, which has a 1 child policy, really needed drastic measures and it's unlikely education alone would have solves the problem. Some countries already have less than 2 births per woman and so arguably their governments don't need to do a lot more, or just need to keep doing it.
Family planning:yes
One child per family policy
nly as a last resort, but given the circumstances today I'd say yes.
Incentives:Obviously I put food stamps as an example. What they could have done is give food stamps only to people having two children or less. If you have three children or more you're not eligible for food stamps. I could see this doing a lot of good. This would primarily apply to the United States only.
More education:yes.
Other:this is an issue that should be talked about. Politicians, the media, and even the Pope should be talking about it. The most important issue of our day. Civilizations have collapsed in the past and it's more than capable of happening in the future.
One child per family policy
nly as a last resort, but given the circumstances today I'd say yes.Incentives:Obviously I put food stamps as an example. What they could have done is give food stamps only to people having two children or less. If you have three children or more you're not eligible for food stamps. I could see this doing a lot of good. This would primarily apply to the United States only.
More education:yes.
Other:this is an issue that should be talked about. Politicians, the media, and even the Pope should be talking about it. The most important issue of our day. Civilizations have collapsed in the past and it's more than capable of happening in the future.
I voted for education because the more you know about something the more you are likely to make the correct choices.
Also I voted for the incentives because it would make people want to have less children.
Also I voted for the incentives because it would make people want to have less children.
thefadedone
Needs a life
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 4,829
Family planning:yes
One child per family policy
Incentives:Obviously I put food stamps as an example. What they could have done is give food stamps only to people having two children or less. If you have three children or more you're not eligible for food stamps. I could see this doing a lot of good. This would primarily apply to the United States only.
More education:yes.
Other:this is an issue that should be talked about. Politicians, the media, and even the Pope should be talking about it. The most important issue of our day. Civilizations have collapsed in the past and it's more than capable of happening in the future.
Yeah I could see that doing a lot of harm. I see a lot of starving children if denied food stamps. There is no reason to punish the children of parents who have multiple kids while on food stamps.
Education, free birth control, and free access to reproductive health services need to be offered.
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
It is also the theatre of the rich. And the middle class.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
And, in many countries, children their main or only social security and pension provision.
thefadedone
Needs a life
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 4,829
And a highly popular activity during natural disasters such as snowstorms, blackouts, and ice storms.
Children cost a lot of money. If you're poor and you know you won't be getting food stamps if you have more children most smart ones would be likely to have less children. Many foreigners depend on America exporting their food. If America has a major crisis because we have far too many people Americans and many foreigners will suffer. Other species are better off as well if had tried to keep our population smaller. Americans should have been taught that keeping our population small comes first before anything else. All means should have been used to ensure this happens.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Of course it is, however, the rich and middle class have access to education, BC and family planning etc., etc., etc. It is those who don't have access to such things (predominantly the poor in 3rd world countries) that are contributing the most to world population growth and they're not going to stop having sex.
ledboots
Peace
So we starve the children, our very future? Honestly, I don't think you're thinking this through. The majority of pregnancies are unplanned.
ETA Have you ever volunteered in a food bank or shelter? See the hungry children there in the summer when the school breakfast and lunch programs are closed down. Jeesh, rainforest.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Other than the pesky little fact that increasing benefits does not seem to increase the number of children a person has, why the hell would you punish children for what their parents do?
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Indeed.
Watched a proggie about AIDS once and how these people in some poverty sticken greif-hole were still bonking away like rabbits not giving a rats toss about the risks.
The gist of one comment, can't remember it word for word, stuck firmly in my mind ...
That gist was that people don't worry about tommorow if their problem is just to survive today.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Indeed, again!
Having some experience of the welfare culture in the UK I would add this.
The welfare kings and queens often rely on society not being willing to 'punish' children for parental 'crimes'.
They use children as hostages for ransom, if you look at it one way.
Nope. There are cheap ways a person can prevent themselves from having children in the future. A vasectomy, for instance. You'd still have food stamps for most of the poor, and I also believe in cheap health insurance. The poor would be better off than they are right now.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
But in this instance, increased benefits shows that increased benefits for additional children don't lead to larger families.
Unlike the UK(?) the US has welfare programs run by the states. The benefits differ. Some states put caps on the total benefits. Other states are more generous. Studies have looked at how these changes in payments have affected family size, and we can't find a difference.
It just doesn't seem like people want to have more children to get more benefits.
Perhaps it's the size of the benefits. In the US, the benefits per additional child are pretty small - in 2003, the average was $71/mo per each additional child.
My biology doesn't allow me to give birth, and I've avoided (purposely) never having children, so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that raising a child on $71/mo doesn't leave you with money left over. Not to mention 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth.
Or it just could be that regardless of money, people just don't find large families to be beneficial. This would explain why the poor, world-wide, upon receiving education and access to dependable birth control, tend to drop their family size.
The evidence we have shows that benefits don't have an affect on family size. Thus it's pretty silly to advocate cutting benefits to limit family size. It just won't work.
So you'd cut funding for the poor, and they'll be better off?
Similar threads
