luke viia Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 the last two posts here are kinda.. uh... seriously? BFC: i assume you'll be one of the first in line to be sterilized. troon: you're in favor of telling people how many children they're allowed to have? for real? wouldn't it be smarter to give benefits to families who have less (or no) children as opposed to enforcing a rule that says you CAN'T have more than so many children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason. This kids thing is a part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason *inserts IDM gag* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated also: no family should be able to have more then two children, one to replace each of the parents. seems logical enough right? what the fuck is going on with these people who think it's ok to have all these fucking children, like it's nothing at all? ffffuuuuuuccckkkkkk! killing children is not the answer. . . . I don't think limiting the amount of children people can have will necessarily end the killing of children. The result of a policy like that may be that more children are aborted/killed. The answer is always education and birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated also: no family should be able to have more then two children, one to replace each of the parents. seems logical enough right? what the fuck is going on with these people who think it's ok to have all these fucking children, like it's nothing at all? ffffuuuuuuccckkkkkk! killing children is not the answer. . . . it is complicated, you don't just go "full birth control" into areas where people's lives depend on human workforce, ie male children..it didn't work well even in china Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr lopez Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason *inserts IDM gag* the media's calling it the "aborted Live 8.....(million)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason *inserts IDM gag* hah .. oh nos I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason *inserts IDM gag* the media's calling it the "aborted Live 8.....(million)" or adjustin the beaver count. (something for the entertainment media) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eh Speedy Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Now if only India had aborted Troon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The answer is always education and birth control. specifically, educating women. Women with better education want less kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Meh, there are people everywhere who just shouldn't be having kids and are just plain stupid for having them. For example, a 20 year old male acquaintance of mine just got fired, has a 2 year old, another kid on the way, a pretty decent criminal record, no mode of transportation, and a fucking stupid head on his shoulders. Fuckhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 education? i would think that goes without saying and should be the utmost priority the first step towards laws against excessive births might be to introduce the issue of overpopulation more vigorously into the media and popular culture . of course a law could not be implemented over night, the concept would have to be slowly introduced . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 we've crossed the event horizon in terms of the earths population. it's all black holes from here... what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I think you should have to pass some sort of test to have children if there has to be some sort of population control. if you are completely ignorant or have no way of financially supporting your old child/children then you can not reproduce at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coalbucket PI Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 There are weird situations like in Russia now where people have more abortions than babies, nobody immigrates, everybody gets an education and takes it out of the country and the population dives. I suppose the point is that if you try to reduce a population without just culling a uniform percentage it is a mess for the country. I think Japan has leveled out its population but a low birth rate and long life expectancy means they have a load of pensioners to support with a small workforce. I think you should have to pass some sort of test to have children if there has to be some sort of population control. if you are completely ignorant or have no way of financially supporting your old child/children then you can not reproduce at that time. chipped vas deferens valve linked to bank account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 The answer is always education and birth control. specifically, educating women. Women with better education want less kids. It is sexist (to to mention ignorant) to assume that it is mostly the woman's fault. Men make up 50% of the equation. Many times men don't want to wear condoms. Also, like it or not, in many countries, men don't want the women to have educations. And guess what, those men still have unprotected sex. Also, think about how people, male or female, let religion dictate whether or not the use birth control. Think about it. The Vatican isn't keen on it. Not a lot of women in there, especially calling the shots. the first step towards laws against excessive births might be to introduce the issue of overpopulation more vigorously into the media and popular culture . of course a law could not be implemented over night, the concept would have to be slowly introduced . . The problem with child limit laws is that (if you are trying to avoid abortions) people still, and will always have sex. Protected or not. With that in mind, people will get pregnant. If there is a 2 child limit law and you have a woman with 2 children who gets pregnant again, guess what... abortion. I don't think child limit laws are the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 what a fucking trainwreck of a thread! there are multiple problems here. the first problem is that of unwanted babies, which mankind has been struggling to deal with since the beginning. the romans used to carry the unwanted newborn up a mountain, leave it under a tree to die of exposure or be eaten. now that we have the technology to storm the uterus, the debate is more complicated. i'm not sure there is a good answer, here. i'm not a terribly sentimental dude and i think the romans had it right the second problem is a lot more complicated. in third-world countries, or second-world countries with less scruples* children are cheap labor, and so they make a lot of them. the third problem is outdated gender identities. i don't know much about indian society, but i gather each gender has very distinct roles. it seems to have wound up that males are a lot more economically valuable than females. most parents surely wouldn't kill ANY of their kids..... but there are always a few sociopaths. *but the fuck do i know, really. if i had a choice between popping out 14 kids and starving, i'd probably opt for the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 laws this, laws that - china has that whole thing going - what happens when you accidentally have a third? Unplanned pregnancies can happen even with people using birth control. What if someone has triplets? Not to be all scientific or anything either, but the replacement rate for developed countries is 2.1 births per woman, and is higher for developing countries. Wikipedia says 2.5 to 3.3 percent. The global replacement rate they say is about 2.33 births women, where population growth would trend to zero. You have to take into account mortality rates you see. The world population is growing, but it is growing at a declining rate (due to all the edumacation them womens be getting). In the meantime, we're trying to avoid placing laws restricting people's reproductive rights. Just to note in a macabre sort of way, that 8,000,000 is less than 1% of India's population - and this is over a decade. If they keep going at this rate though, in the end, you won't have to worry about it troon - natural selection will take care of them. In the meantime, Indian women will have their pick of husbands - that's what happens when you have a skewed sex ratio - ask the Chinese. To clarify for all the inevitable howling - I'm not for forced abortions (or sterilization), I just also happen to believe that whilst government is certainly necessary - government has no business telling me how and when I can fuck, and how many kids I and my partner can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 laws this, laws that - china has that whole thing going - what happens when you accidentally have a third? Unplanned pregnancies can happen even with people using birth control. What if someone has triplets? Not to be all scientific or anything either, but the replacement rate for developed countries is 2.1 births per woman, and is higher for developing countries. Wikipedia says 2.5 to 3.3 percent. The global replacement rate they say is about 2.33 births women, where population growth would trend to zero. You have to take into account mortality rates you see. The world population is growing, but it is growing at a declining rate (due to all the edumacation them womens be getting). In the meantime, we're trying to avoid placing laws restricting people's reproductive rights. Just to note in a macabre sort of way, that 8,000,000 is less than 1% of India's population - and this is over a decade. If they keep going at this rate though, in the end, you won't have to worry about it troon - natural selection will take care of them. In the meantime, Indian women will have their pick of husbands - that's what happens when you have a skewed sex ratio - ask the Chinese. To clarify for all the inevitable howling - I'm not for forced abortions (or sterilization), I just also happen to believe that whilst government is certainly necessary - government has no business telling me how and when I can fuck, and how many kids I and my partner can have. well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 send them all into space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I agree with troon on the media thing. People will do a lot for you if you make them feel that they are doing something selfless for the sake of the whole, or at least because everybody else is doing it. Unfortunately media is a wing of Industry, whose single minded goal is never ending growth. So good luck getting the media on board in any meaningful way. For the time being at least. And as chen said, there has been a steady contraction in birth rates globally. What we are debating about, kind of like with putting carbon in the atmosphere is how much is a safe level to end up with. An amount that won't effect us too severely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murve33 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Just to note in a macabre sort of way, that 8,000,000 is less than 1% of India's population - and this is over a decade. If they keep going at this rate though, in the end, you won't have to worry about it troon - natural selection will take care of them. In the meantime, Indian women will have their pick of husbands - that's what happens when you have a skewed sex ratio - ask the Chinese. To clarify for all the inevitable howling - I'm not for forced abortions (or sterilization), I just also happen to believe that whilst government is certainly necessary - government has no business telling me how and when I can fuck, and how many kids I and my partner can have. Never thought of that. I guess will let India do it's thing then, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred McGriff Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated are you referring to hot dogging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 How much is a safe level to end up with. An amount that won't effect us too severely. Replacement rate of 2.33 globally :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated are you referring to hot dogging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 How much is a safe level to end up with. An amount that won't effect us too severely. Replacement rate of 2.33 globally :) This is getting us back to the argument where you believe that we have to ever increase in population for fear that there won't be enough young people around to keep the economy stable. Hence your smiley i spose, you cheeky sot. Because you know that i meant an even if perhaps slightly negative population growth, as your model only delays the inevitable crunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.