Poll: Population Control and You - 7 Billion People

I'll be ready to exit the world by the time it's an actual problem and not sensationalized bull****.

If you want to keep the population constant without suffering horrible economic problems, you'd be better off getting rid of old, sickly and retired citizens rather than stopping your birthrate. That proposal would never fly, of course, but it will yield a far better result than reducing the amount of children and youths to compensate for the increasing lifespan.

I don't think we will need it. They said 30-40 years ago that there would be widespread famine, instability and lower quality of life because of the increasing population. We now have well over 2 times as may people on the earth as 1970 and the quailty of life as a species has increased substancially by every measure. I think we will be fine.

Jacobistheman

When we reach peak production there....

people gonna die.

Earth has enough recources to sustain 10 billion or more, recources are just not shared equally.
Also, for the meat eaters, its cots alot more grains etc to feed cows JUST so we cdan eat the cow (meat eaters) than if e just atre the grain ourselves.

if world becomes vegetarian we will have ALOT more food overall.

signed- meateater, i love my steak :)

Tell Africa, India, and China to stop ******* like rabbits. Simple.Hexagon_777

Why is Africa, a landmass with 54 countries, treated as if it were one country?

Developed countries like the U.S. already have negative birth rates, the problems are with asia and africa, there should be restrictions there as they obviously need them.

CaveJohnson1

Actually the United States sees an average of one birth every 7 seconds, and one death every 12 seconds. That's not a negative birth rate.

Africa is really the only problem here. Maniacc1

Not really. The issue is with resources. People in 1st world countries tend to consume several times the amount of resources per person than people in 3rd world countries.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]Tell Africa, India, and China to stop ******* like rabbits. Simple.worlock77

Why is Africa, a landmass with 54 countries, treated as if it were one country?

Eventually the highly populated areas will become unsustainable and enough people will die out that it won't be a problem. China's government is fixing thier population problem with their 1 child per couple rule, and India and Africa will eventually have a population crash just because their environment won't be able to provide the necessary food for the people there to survive.

Start World War III..

Ok maybe WWII not a good idea. but 2 children per family is a better idea?

Tell Africa, India, and China to stop ******* like rabbits. Simple.Hexagon_777

well in an ideal situation , a 1 or 2 child policy would be implemented all over the world, but of course thats impossible, .

and while there are some predictions that the world's population will fall , alot of that is from the developed world, where people live longer and have less children than before, which would create quite the issue when it comes to supporting the increasing numbers of pensioners (hence why some countries are raising the retirement age)

most of the increase is from the developing world.

A lot of people like to suggest a limit on how many children people can have, but no one seems to have any clear ideas about how such a policy would be implemented or enforced.

A lot of people like to suggest a limit on how many children people can have, but no one seems to have any clear ideas about how such a policy would be implemented or enforced.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

A lot of people like to suggest a limit on how many children people can have, but no one seems to have any clear ideas about how such a policy would be implemented or enforced.

BranKetra

Which is a completely different idea to the one I posted about.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

A lot of people like to suggest a limit on how many children people can have, but no one seems to have any clear ideas about how such a policy would be implemented or enforced.

worlock77

Which is a completely different idea to the one I posted about.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Build the societies by educating them. By that point, they should fully understand the problem.BranKetra

Which is a completely different idea to the one I posted about.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Which is a completely different idea to the one I posted about.

Darkman2007

You're right in saying that religion affects the person who believes in it, but at the same time, I think increased knowledge will also affect how a person lives.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Build the societies by educating them. By that point, they should fully understand the problem.BranKetra

Which is a completely different idea to the one I posted about.

I'm talking about policies that limit the number of children people can have. I thought that was pretty clear, seeing as how I said "a limit on how many children people can have".

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] In that case, considering you didn't quote anything, it's hard to tell what you're talking about. Unless you're saying that educating people wouldn't change the birth rate. In which case, I disagree.

BranKetra

the US is one thing, but the US isn't where the major growth of world population is, and while you might be surprised to read this, the US is a relatively secular country , so its not an ideal example for the rest world.

its a whole combination of religion , culture, lack of education , and lack of any family planning (with all that this includes)

heck , even a lack of Women's rights in quite a few places is a cause of this.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Which is a completely different idea to the one I posted about.

worlock77

I'm talking about policies that limit the number of children people can have. I thought that was pretty clear, seeing as how I said "a limit on how many children people can have".

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] In that case, considering you didn't quote anything, it's hard to tell what you're talking about. Unless you're saying that educating people wouldn't change the birth rate. In which case, I disagree.

BranKetra

I'm talking about policies that limit the number of children people can have. I thought that was pretty clear, seeing as how I said "a limit on how many children people can have".

What? I'm not saying a thing about education, I haven't even mentioned it. I have spelled it out for you, in two posts now. Try reading them.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] educating people is one part of it, but sometimes its religion or culture, Judaism and Islam for instance encourage large families. you can give someone an education , it will help him earn more, but if his religion tells him to have more children , he will go for that.Darkman2007

the US is one thing, but the US isn't where the major growth of world population is, and while you might be surprised to read this, the US is a relatively secular country , so its not an ideal example for the rest world.

its a whole combination of religion , culture, lack of education , and lack of any family planning (with all that this includes)

heck , even a lack of Women's rights in quite a few places is a cause of this.

What? I'm not saying a thing about education, I haven't even mentioned it. I have spelled it out for you, in two posts now. Try reading them.

worlock77

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]True. The Bible states that a child who doesn't obey their parents should be stoned. Whether or not that meant to the death is up to interpretation, but in a predominately-Christian country like the U.S. today, people don't follow it to a tee. Like this situation, people can still raise families without making villages per married couple.BranKetra

the US is one thing, but the US isn't where the major growth of world population is, and while you might be surprised to read this, the US is a relatively secular country , so its not an ideal example for the rest world.

its a whole combination of religion , culture, lack of education , and lack of any family planning (with all that this includes)

heck , even a lack of Women's rights in quite a few places is a cause of this.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

the US is one thing, but the US isn't where the major growth of world population is, and while you might be surprised to read this, the US is a relatively secular country , so its not an ideal example for the rest world.

its a whole combination of religion , culture, lack of education , and lack of any family planning (with all that this includes)

heck , even a lack of Women's rights in quite a few places is a cause of this.

Darkman2007

I just don't think that giving up on places like Africa is the best idea. It paints it really bad image for people to claim to be the "1st world"--the most advanced, but turn a blind eye to stuff like this. I'm not saying we need to treat them like children or be the global police, but they're human, too. It's possible that all an education would do for them would be a way to screw the rest of the world over. On the other hand, something good can come out of it. It could take hundreds of years, thousands even. It's better than just watching them destroy themselves and us. Things like poaching can't be regulated in places that don't recognize international regulations. You can even see that in places like Japan with dolphining and whaling.

I would have a different opinion on this if it were a different world and we all had a Prime Directive going on.

^Practice what you preach.BranKetra

we do. North America's and Western Europes population growth have plateued and even declined.

As for the topic, I am not concerned yet. When I drive home to see my folks and I stop seeing nothing but empty countryside for hours on end, then I might get worried.

Thankfully the population of the world isn't even close to being a problem.

i'm for it, back in the day people had kids because chances are they might not survive, we don't live in that time anymore

Hunting in the third world just got a little more challenging. Well at first be easy shooting but no economic incentive need to sell the pelts some how.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]^Practice what you preach.mrbojangles25

we do. North America's and Western Europes population growth have plateued and even declined.

As for the topic, I am not concerned yet. When I drive home to see my folks and I stop seeing nothing but empty countryside for hours on end, then I might get worried.

Hunting in the third world just got a little more challenging. Well at first be easy shooting but no economic incentive need to sell the pelts some how.

Communist_Soul

Developing nations have a population issue, while developed nations have an aging population. As for the one-child rule in China? It's working terribly. The rule only has bearing in relatively better off areas such as cities, while in the poorer countryside it's completely unenforced.

People complain about wealth-distribution, and in a sense population has something to do with it (but not nearly the sole cause of course). Rich people are having fewer children, the wealth they possess goes to even fewer people; while poorer people are having more children, spreading what money they have available even thinner.

"There is enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone's greed."Victorious_Fize

Need more wars.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]"There is enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone's greed."GhoX

ONCE AGAIN...
THERE IS NO OVERPOPULATION ... THATS WHAT GOV. WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE.... !!!
LOOK AT ALL OF THIS AREA ... ITS UNINHABITET!!!!
WE HAVE LOTS OF PLACE ON EARTH!
OPEN YOUR EYES!
THEY WANT US TO BE LESS TO GET BETTER CONTROL OF US... LOOK AT CHINA >_>!


[Sarcasm] OH MY GOD! LOOK! THERE ARE SO MUCH PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T MOVE!! O_O!
A TRAGEDY! ....

Yes, I think there is no need for anyone to have more than two children. Two is plenty and is capable on a double income for most countries, anymore and it becomes a drain on the government resources which come from taxes, therfore greatly effecting the economy of that country.

Yes, I think there is no need for anyone to have more than two children. Two is plenty and is capable on a double income for most countries, anymore and it becomes a drain on the government resources which come from taxes, therfore greatly effecting the economy of that country.

sailor232

Matthew-first

lol that looks like a stretch of highway 46 in California. Is that really China?

ONCE AGAIN...
THERE IS NO OVERPOPULATION ... THATS WHAT GOV. WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE.... !!!
LOOK AT ALL OF THIS AREA ... ITS UNINHABITET!!!!
WE HAVE LOTS OF PLACE ON EARTH!
OPEN YOUR EYES!
THEY WANT US TO BE LESS TO GET BETTER CONTROL OF US... LOOK AT CHINA >_>!

OH MY GOD! LOOK! THERE ARE SO MUCH PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T MOVE!! O_O!
A TRAGEDY! ....

Matthew-first

Living space isn't an issue, resources are. But thanks for commenting without understanding the topic.

I do not see us ever being able to control the population. UprootedDreamer

People are only allowed 1 child for 2 generations. Fixed.

Goverments will start using Population Control.

CONSPIRACY!