PDA

View Full Version : Birth Rate Limits


PlasmaHam
April 27th, 2017, 10:40 PM
Recently, I have heard many from the Left start to support the idea of birth-rate policies, similar to that of China. They typically claim that a birth-rate policy would be used to prevent over-population. Most recently, Bill Nye the not-so Science Guy, was in full support of a tax upon large families to "fight climate change." Support for this principle is growing among the far-left, so I think it is time we start to take the possibility of government population control serious.

So, should we have a birth-rate policy? Why or why not? If so, what should that policy be?

Brightwolf
April 27th, 2017, 11:05 PM
I don't really support this, mainly because of all it could entail. If there was a birth-rate policy, what would happen if someone who was at that limit? Abortion of the child? (Granted, the Left would probably be fine with this). However, I highly doubt Conservatives would support that. I wouldn't anyways.

tigers
April 27th, 2017, 11:17 PM
No thats bad. Every child should be welcomed.

refrigeratorx
April 28th, 2017, 12:21 AM
So are you all okay with the already quite overpopulated world increasing by a few BILLION people in the next 30 years? Will we have enough food? People are already starving everywhere now!!

Uniquemind
April 28th, 2017, 02:37 AM
So are you all okay with the already quite overpopulated world increasing by a few BILLION people in the next 30 years? Will we have enough food? People are already starving everywhere now!!

Plagues and disease will naturally solve the overpopulation bottleneck, it's just a matter of time.


We're beginning to see that now with antibiotic resistant bacteria, once something blows up into a big pandemic, overpopulation won't be a concern. Nature finds a way to reach homeostasis. People need not inflict unnecessary tragedy upon themselves both for moral and practical reasons.

PlasmaHam
April 28th, 2017, 11:38 AM
I don't really support this, mainly because of all it could entail. If there was a birth-rate policy, what would happen if someone who was at that limit? Abortion of the child? (Granted, the Left would probably be fine with this). If this sort of policy is enacted in the USA, they would probably enforce it via economic pressure. They could add additional taxes to families with over a certain number of kids, remove government programs that give extra benefits per child, or establish a fine towards families. This is the most likely route they will take.

But again, sterilization and forced abortion could eventually become the enforcing agent if such a policy is enacted
So are you all okay with the already quite overpopulated world increasing by a few BILLION people in the next 30 years? Will we have enough food? People are already starving everywhere now!!We actually produce enough food for everyone to have a plentiful life, and then some. The reason people starve is due the restrictions of food distribution and unfair government which distribute food unevenly (like North Korea.) I actually believe we are producing more food per-person than at any other time in history, so mass starvation is not a problem.

mattsmith48
April 28th, 2017, 11:56 AM
This planet is dangerously becoming overpopulated, but I don't think a birth rate limit is the best solution. China's one child policy is a disaster, creating multiple social and economic problems. By having early sex ed in schools, teaching kids healthy sexual behavior like using condoms and birth control you help prevent early and unwanted pregnancies.

Uniquemind
April 30th, 2017, 12:29 PM
This planet is dangerously becoming overpopulated, but I don't think a birth rate limit is the best solution. China's one child policy is a disaster, creating multiple social and economic problems. By having early sex ed in schools, teaching kids healthy sexual behavior like using condoms and birth control you help prevent early and unwanted pregnancies.

And teen pregnancies are trending downward if you look at data over the last 50 years comparing decade to decade.

However oral cancers are on the rise given increased prevalence for young people to practice oral sex around 9 to 11 years of age among peers.

This is why you've noticed dentists check out the mouth during your checkup's nowadays. They're looking for oral cancers.


But agreed I think one child policies are bad, especially when many cultures do not embrace feminism and will have a preference towards having a boy or girl as their one allowed child. There are also horror stories in China of government thugs basically home invading women in China and forcing an abortion right in the woman's own home.

So no, I'm pro-choice, but that is not a scenario that promotes choice.

ShineintheDark
April 30th, 2017, 05:09 PM
I think it's quite a complicated issue because the US and UK do have an overpopulation problem but not in the way of children but in elderly. Both nations have an excess of over-aged people and a deficit of children so the better solution for nations such as the US is to ENCOURAGE childbirth but also find some way of dealing with older people (hopefully not a culling cos that would be bad).

PlasmaHam
April 30th, 2017, 06:27 PM
Okay, there seems to be an unanimous opinion against such policies which legally mandates a birth limit. So for the sake of discussion let's tone it down.

Would anyone here be supportive government policies which discourage, but does not ban large families? For instance limiting child tax deductibility to only two kids or placing a "over-population tax" on large families. I would be curious if people are open to that possiblity.

mattsmith48
April 30th, 2017, 07:06 PM
And teen pregnancies are trending downward if you look at data over the last 50 years comparing decade to decade.

However oral cancers are on the rise given increased prevalence for young people to practice oral sex around 9 to 11 years of age among peers.

This is why you've noticed dentists check out the mouth during your checkup's nowadays. They're looking for oral cancers.


But agreed I think one child policies are bad, especially when many cultures do not embrace feminism and will have a preference towards having a boy or girl as their one allowed child. There are also horror stories in China of government thugs basically home invading women in China and forcing an abortion right in the woman's own home.

So no, I'm pro-choice, but that is not a scenario that promotes choice.

I've never eared that oral sex can lead to mouth cancer, it's probably more due to some kids being to lazy to brush their teeth everyday.


I think it's quite a complicated issue because the US and UK do have an overpopulation problem but not in the way of children but in elderly. Both nations have an excess of over-aged people and a deficit of children so the better solution for nations such as the US is to ENCOURAGE childbirth but also find some way of dealing with older people (hopefully not a culling cos that would be bad).

That would just delay the problem to another generation, anyway by the time those children are grown up and able to either replace them in the workforce or take care of the aging population it would already be too late. Immigration is probably the best way to at lease limit the effects of this problem, because just telling everyone we need more people, please start fucking, it could get out of control very fast

Okay, there seems to be an unanimous opinion against such policies which legally mandates a birth limit. So for the sake of discussion let's tone it down.

Would anyone here be supportive government policies which discourage, but does not ban large families? For instance limiting child tax deductibility to only two kids or placing a "over-population tax" on large families. I would be curious if people are open to that possiblity.

Larger families are not always the richest and taxing the parents because they have multiple kids is taking away money that could be used to feed or dress those kids. I keep saying best way is to educate teenagers at an early age and encouraging them to use contraception to prevent early and unwanted pregnancies, and if when they are older they want 3 or 4 kids its their choice.

Beauregard
April 30th, 2017, 09:37 PM
Okay, there seems to be an unanimous opinion against such policies which legally mandates a birth limit. So for the sake of discussion let's tone it down.

Would anyone here be supportive government policies which discourage, but does not ban large families? For instance limiting child tax deductibility to only two kids or placing a "over-population tax" on large families. I would be curious if people are open to that possiblity.


Not really since it will basically not end well. Cuz what will a family who cannot avoid this taxing do? It leads to an increase in abortion due to financial matters...and what do you think will happen if at the same time government makes abortion illegal as so many conservatives want?
Just a horrible scenario.

What if you remarry and the new partner wants kids with you but you already have reached the number of kids without having to pay additional taxes with your former partner and can't afford more?

It's wrong no matter how you look at it. It cuts personal freedom rights. It could horrible effects on kids.
And in my opinion it will do nothing to regulate population in a positive way.

ChloeF
May 1st, 2017, 08:39 AM
l read somewhere that China is beginning to have second thoughts about the wisdom of their one child policy, seems they have an over population of males and not enough females.

Uniquemind
May 1st, 2017, 01:55 PM
l read somewhere that China is beginning to have second thoughts about the wisdom of their one child policy, seems they have an over population of males and not enough females.

Yeah a lot of rural areas in China have experienced women and girls getting kidnapped and what ends up happening is the poor girl basically is trafficked and ends up in a forced marriage-wife role to some male bidder.

There are many reports of this by various fathers of daughters in China whom they just lost.

It's because culturally males were favored over females. And as those males get older and frustrated they can't reasonably find a 1:1 ratio for a partner, they get or turn violent and society in turn gets more violent. Women are important to society they help counter balance the male ego.

---

Another problem regarding supporting the elderly within America, is that the infrastructure of how employment and taxation is working is changing for unskilled labor and even skilled labor.

But even if young people existed in higher numbers, the job and taxation revenue won't necessarily be there because the old model assumes young people are working and the government is collecting more income tax per person working.

The secondary layer to the problem is those entry level jobs are being replaced by machines, and any jobs for humans left over require some kind of specialized training which is a barrier cost of entry because of college or education costs. A vicious cycle of it's own.

Even Tesla just announced they're developing trucks and have prototypes already that make Truck drivers obsolete, which for many families is a livable salary.

Porpoise101
May 2nd, 2017, 09:35 PM
Overpopulation is a myth. There's no need for population controls unless there's some sudden boom in a localized area. But then you can just use economic incentives to get people to move if need be.

Dmaxd123
May 6th, 2017, 07:28 AM
the only limit I think is you should only be allowed XX deductions whether you have 3 kids or 10 kids, and welfare should have a cap on it.

also part of welfare should be the woman getting a birth control shot/implant and once the technology is out there the man getting something too... if you can't afford 1 kid you can't afford more

PlasmaHam
May 6th, 2017, 11:09 AM
also part of welfare should be the woman getting a birth control shot/implant and once the technology is out there the man getting something too... if you can't afford 1 kid you can't afford more

So are you suggesting we sterilize the poor because their children are a burden to society? I don't typically make Nazi comparisons, but that sounds too much like Hitler eugenics for my liking.

mattsmith48
May 6th, 2017, 01:29 PM
the only limit I think is you should only be allowed XX deductions whether you have 3 kids or 10 kids, and welfare should have a cap on it.

also part of welfare should be the woman getting a birth control shot/implant and once the technology is out there the man getting something too... if you can't afford 1 kid you can't afford more

That would so lead to discrimination against blacks and Hispanics. Lets make sure President Pussy Grabber doesn't see this.

Dmaxd123
May 7th, 2017, 07:16 AM
i'm saying I don't care about the race: if you can't afford to take care of your kids don't have them.

when you get a job and can take care of yourself like a responsible adult, have as many as you wish.

i live in a rural community, plenty of white people are on welfare out here. I'm also not suggesting sterilization, I specifically went with temporary/reversible methods so when a person decides to be an adult they can go back to making adult decisions like: do i have more kids or not have more kids.

ShineintheDark
May 7th, 2017, 10:24 AM
I think preventing people from having children is a very misguided thing for the same reason we can't just make people in poverty-stricken AAfrican countries stop producing: having children is a naturally ingrained human instinct. Whilst working may distract us from such, you can't just tell people not to have kids unless they really don't want to themselves

PlasmaHam
May 7th, 2017, 12:02 PM
i'm saying I don't care about the race: if you can't afford to take care of your kids don't have them.

when you get a job and can take care of yourself like a responsible adult, have as many as you wish.

i live in a rural community, plenty of white people are on welfare out here. I'm also not suggesting sterilization, I specifically went with temporary/reversible methods so when a person decides to be an adult they can go back to making adult decisions like: do i have more kids or not have more kids.
I think MattSmith was saying it would be used to discriminate against blacks and Hispanics because they form a decent percentage of those on welfare. I'm not sure how that constitutes racial discrimination, but that was his point.

Look, I am all for getting people off welfare, but threatening them with sterilization, even if temporary, is not the answer. Even if you say that someone on welfare will be un-sterilized once they get on their feet, you are still condemning thousands of people who live their whole life on welfare to never have the chance to have children. That is still sterilization if you never reverse it. I personally believe that no one has should have the power to deprive an individual of their basic biological right of consensual reproduction, never mind using it as a bargaining chip like you are suggesting.

mattsmith48
May 7th, 2017, 03:18 PM
How the fuck did this thing went from birth rate control to whining about people on welfare?

Uniquemind
May 16th, 2017, 05:32 PM
How the fuck did this thing went from birth rate control to whining about people on welfare?

Because earmarks tie polices of unrelated things together when it comes to budgets and political debates and voting on bills to what becomes law.

Ugarinino
May 19th, 2017, 07:48 AM
I don't support it too. By the way, I've found a new project on similar topic, maybe it'll be interesting for somebody - http://planetaryproject.com/planet_project/philosophy/