jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (9 posts)

Should we control the growth of our population? And if so, who should refrain fr

  1. Sterling Sage profile image78
    Sterling Sageposted 7 years ago

    Should we control the growth of our population? And if so, who should refrain from having children?

    Would you personally agree not to have children if it would keep the world and its people healthy? What would be a just way to curtail reproduction?

    The Human population is always growing, and our world has limited resources. The more depleted our resources become, the more urgently we need to limit our own growing numbers.

    If it were up to you, who would have children and who wouldn't? How would you decide?

    I'm especially interested to hear from young people who haven't (yet) had any kids, but I encourage anyone with a good idea to share it.


  2. H P Roychoudhury profile image48
    H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years ago

    For the protection of the world- weather we are conducting Copenhagen Green House Gas conference. For preventing nuclear holocaust, we are thinking through UN to formulate non-proliferation treaty. But what is about over population, the effect of which is going to destroy the pleasure and beauty of the world. For a disciplined happy family, the family require an estimated budget of expenditure, and a limited number of family members. Similarly a happy universe require equal-distribution of wealth and a control of population region wise that might be by moral teachings if failed by uniform enforcement of law.

  3. nightwork4 profile image61
    nightwork4posted 7 years ago

    though i might sound harsh, anyone who is not able to afford their kids , shouldn't be having them. social assistance is great but when a person raises their kids on it as their main sourse of income , it's not right. we don't have the right to say who can or can't have kids but we do have the right to use common sense before we have them. also people who have serious genetic problems shouldn't have kids due to the fact that the kids will end up being a burden on society .

  4. Jefsaid profile image72
    Jefsaidposted 7 years ago

    Who would be denied? is the question.  How can one person be denied over another?  How can accidental pregnancies be avoided or even determined? Would compulsory abortions be required?  Maybe there could be the requirement to hold a license to prove you are able to financially support a child although again circumstances can change and what would be the measure. 

    I can see no real solution other than one of two extremes - education or dictatorship.  Anything in between would be contentious.

  5. sarasca profile image74
    sarascaposted 7 years ago

    I agree with the person who answered that anyone who cannot AFFORD to raise a child should not be permitted to have one.  It seems anymore that more people live on government assistance than don't.

    Since this is a hypothetical question, issues relating to politics (i.e. dictatorship status) are moot.

    People under the age of 25 should not have children, because they are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to comprehend what it means to give up your priorities for at least 18 years and place someone else's needs above your own.

    People who are already on government assistance should not be permitted to have children.

    People who have more than child by more than one parent should not be allowed to have another child by yet another person.

    People who have EVER had an abortion should not be allowed to have children.  They should've given it up for adoption so someone who couldn't have kids could have given it a good home and a good life.

    People who cannot successfully demonstrate that they are capable of existing as responsible, independent adults should not be permitted to have children.  (This includes people who still live with mommy and daddy for whatever reason.)

    People who have terminal diseases with a remaining lifespan of less than 20 years should not be permitted to have children,, because a CHILD should not have to lose a parent.

    People who have been in a relationship with each other for less than THREE YEARS should not be permitted to have children.

    People who have ever been convicted of sexual offenses against a child should not be permitted to have children.

    I guess I could go on...but there you go.  Food for thought.

  6. andrew savage profile image61
    andrew savageposted 5 years ago

    For the benefit of maintaining sustainability and stability on our planet, I highly recommend enacting a law to make it so that everyone is required to take drugs that will render them temporarily infertile until they find a suitable match and have taken a screening test to see if they have the aptitude and skills essential to bringing another life into this world. This solution is very easy, as it would begin with where we are now as a society and would continue through weeding out bad elements within our universal culture and preventing such bad elements from becoming poison in the well so to speak. An IQ test is a very good example of a test to include into the rubicon or rubric of creating more people. And there may very well be many other tests and evaluations that we should implement into creating a license department for creating children. Moreover passing legislation for such a proposal will make removing genetic disorders from the population much easier, and other countries and cultures would no longer have to have prearranged marriages, thus granting the people a civil liberty to replace one that has been lost. That civil liberty of course being to seek out your partner freely, while signing onto the policy of selective or intelligent reproduction.

    1. profile image0
      CalebSparksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That idea is one the most monstrous and dictatorial notions I have ever heard of. Who has the rightful authority to regulate reproduction? Certainly no human power.
      May you never come to any position of authority. You lack basic morality.

    2. andrew savage profile image61
      andrew savageposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps. Perhaps it is far worse to excede one's carrying capacity of the world and to go on while we deplete tomorrow resources. My idea would prevent wars, famine, malnutrition and the death of potentially billions of souls.

    3. profile image0
      CalebSparksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are fighting an imaginary war, brought to a frenzy radical idealists. The earth is not overpopulated. Better management of current resources and better planning for future production would be more worth the time.