Human Population Limiting

[User Deleted]

We all know about unemployment, and encroaching on animal territories. My thought is a local population limit not allowing rapid growth of cities. And Is it just me or does "15 and pregnant" and "Octomom" seem a little ridiculous?

People don't need to have 15 kids. My first thought is either you are desperate for your family name to go on, or you are just a plain slut. That's just my impression.

So the negatives, we would have a piece of our freedom stripped away. But is that small sacrifice worth it?

We would have less animal trouble. Lets face it, we take out animal habitat like no tomorrow. They have to go somewhere. Well why not stay where your territory was taken? Yes, and we kill them for taking their territory.

Secondly,unemployment seems like it might be helped if there weren't too many people for their city. People would have more food available too. We again don't need 15 kids.

So in my opinion each city should have a population limit. 2 Kids a person most likely. And if population got low they raise the limit.

Summary, a population limit should drop unemployment, famine would be more rare, animals have more habitat and invade cities less, it seems to be worth the freedom loss to me.

As you can probably tell, I think we should limit population in each city, hypothetically speaking (since we know even if one city does it is not happening world wide)

So my question to you is what do you think of a population limit?

[Angel Androgynous]

Hmm... I do not feel strongly one way or another... on one hand, it can be beneficial... but on the other hand, it's really the couple's/woman's business... this is a really interesting topic.. I'll hang around and see where I lean more towards...

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I think we should only limit population if we get to the point where the planet cannot sustain us. I think that is the whole world is over-populated then the United Nations should limit the number of children people can have or we should build colonies on the ocean and the moon and Mars.

[User Deleted]

limit the number of children people can have or we should build colonies on the ocean and the moon and Mars.


I think mars/the moon/oceanic colonies are too expensive. And that's what I am saying, a limit of X children per couple based on unemployment, food stocked, and size of the city. Since apparently I wasn't clear that I didn't mean mass manslaughter.

[Sage]

Overpopulation is only a problem in the third world. Population levels in developed countries are either leveling out or falling. The USA, for instance, is only seeing a growth in population because of immigration. Your plan is stupid and unnecessary. What would happen if someone has more than two kids?

[User Deleted]

Overpopulation is only a problem in the third world. Population levels in developed countries are either leveling out or falling. The USA, for instance, is only seeing a growth in population because of immigration. Your plan is stupid and unnecessary. What would happen if someone has more than two kids?

Okay, let me give a small example. Here in my town, we are growing at about a 2% rate. And the appearance and death of local animals has been increasing at about the same rate.

I will give you this, it wouldn't be necessary everywhere like I said, however so as you also said some places really need it. China, if I am not mistaken, already has a limit.

Also as global population increases uses of our natural resources goes up (as well as previously stated problems). And it is predicted by some scientists at our current rate of population's growth that we will reach a population of 9.3 billion by 2050. If that doesn't sound like a problem I must be the dumbest person on VT.

[Sage]

I will give you this, it wouldn't be necessary everywhere like I said, however so as you also said some places really need it. China, if I am not mistaken, already has a limit.
China doesn't have a population limit, they just give tax incentives to people who don't raise more than a single child.

Also as global population increases uses of our natural resources goes up (as well as previously stated problems). And it is predicted by some scientists at our current rate of population's growth that we will reach a population of 9.3 billion by 2050.
Again, you are implying that population is increasing everywhere evenly, which it is not. This shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject. The population is rising primarily in the third world and developing nations. In places like Europe and Japan, the population is actually going down.

You have to understand this: Let's say two people fuck and give birth to one child. The population thus goes DOWN by one from the last generation to the current one, because two people are replaced by one. If two people fuck and have TWO children, the population remains the same, as two people from the last generation are replaced by two more for the current one. Population only rises when people have more than three children, OR when someone immigrates to a new country.

Population levels are SHRINKING in the developed world because people are more educated. Being more educated means they're likely to delay starting a family to look for work or finish their higher education. People with higher educations also typically have less children, where as people with lower educations and lower incomes will have more children (by choice or by accident), who can all work to raise money. This is especially prevalent in third world countries, where education is very low and people are very ignorant towards sex.

This is not a problem in the developed world.

If that doesn't sound like a problem I must be the dumbest person on VT.
Your words, kiddo, not mine.

[User Deleted]

China doesn't have a population limit, they just give tax incentives to people who don't raise more than a single child.

Again, you are implying that population is increasing everywhere evenly, which it is not. This shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject. The population is rising primarily in the third world and developing nations. In places like Europe and Japan, the population is actually going down.

You have to understand this: Let's say two people fuck and give birth to one child. The population thus goes DOWN by one from the last generation to the current one, because two people are replaced by one. If two people fuck and have TWO children, the population remains the same, as two people from the last generation are replaced by two more for the current one. Population only rises when people have more than three children, OR when someone immigrates to a new country.

Population levels are SHRINKING in the developed world because people are more educated. Being more educated means they're likely to delay starting a family to look for work or finish their higher education. People with higher educations also typically have less children, where as people with lower educations and lower incomes will have more children (by choice or by accident), who can all work to raise money. This is especially prevalent in third world countries, where education is very low and people are very ignorant towards sex.


This is not a problem in the developed world.

Okay, so I was wrong about china.

Okay then, so if there isn't too many people why do we have unemployment? Our population is already too high. It needs to be lowered. ESPECIALLY in third world countries.

I suppose we could A. try to help those who are unhallowed to contribute to the nation and ultimately lower the money that could be put into anything else if population was lower, or B. put a limit until this is not an issue.

[Sage]

Okay then, so if there isn't too many people why do we have unemployment?

That's a loaded question, and a different debate altogether. Unemployment is high because of economic and business reasons, at home and abroad.

[User Deleted]

That's a loaded question, and a different debate altogether. Unemployment is high because of economic and business reasons, at home and abroad.

So are you saying high population has NO contribution to the issue? Things aren't in black and white.

[Sage]

So are you saying high population has NO contribution to the issue? Things aren't in black and white.

I'm saying that compared to economical factors, it's negligible.

[Infidelitas]

I am on the fence on this matter. I don't see how you can enforce a child limit without spending millions and millions of dollars. Will the government give out free Vasectomies and Hysterectomies for people who already have had one or two children? How will they control it?

[User Deleted]

Anyways I thought the average american family had 2-3 children. That would still result in a rise in population.

I am on the fence on this matter. I don't see how you can enforce a child limit without spending millions and millions of dollars. Will the government give out free Vasectomies and Hysterectomies for people who already have had one or two children? How will they control it?

Like china does. With a fine for an incentive.

And a notice once you have had the limit of children you are allowed without a fine. Twins would be an exception if that's what put you over the limit.

[Sage]

Anyways I thought the average american family had 2-3 children. That would still result in a rise in population.

Source please.

[Magus]

Learn this image.

http://www.jillstanek.com/Japan%27s%20population%20pyramid.gif

This is called population age pyramid, along with gender population. On the left, there is an increase in young population, and decrease in old population. In the middle, the young and old are almost equal, and the mid-ages are more. The last one has old population more than young population(the case of Japan).

[User Deleted]

Source please.

Go to 122. 2.06 children average.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

[Sage]

Go to 122. 2.06 children average.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

That's not much of an increase.

[landone]

I don't think there should be a rule of having less kids - maybe passed 2 kids they have to pay? Idk. That's for the politically inclined to decide, I presume :)

[Iris]

Trying to decrease the number of births could be very damaging to the economy. The younger generation has to support the various needs of the seniors who are unable to work, so if the number of seniors becomes higher, or even equal to, the number of those working, the economy could plummet. That's a bit of a problem right now actually, as the Baby Boomer generation is retiring and leaving the next generation to take care of them financially.

[User Deleted]

Trying to decrease the number of births could be very damaging to the economy. The younger generation has to support the various needs of the seniors who are unable to work, so if the number of seniors becomes higher, or even equal to, the number of those working, the economy could plummet. That's a bit of a problem right now actually, as the Baby Boomer generation is retiring and leaving the next generation to take care of them financially.

Hmmm, it could be a slow, controlled, decrease. Rather than an immediate limiting. Slow enough not to impact the economy.

---

Gonna do this clarification without bumping


The side of our impact on the ecology.

My point seemed to be (as it is now clear to me) seemed to accentuate to our population is growing too much. Much to the contrary. We have already made a large impact. Especially through deforestation to make cities and roads, oil spills, the large, heavily noticeable things.

As for the side of for our own sake, ever hear of a J-curve in terms of population? We are becoming that rapid increase, and we should still thrive for years to come, but then like all populations that become massive, our global population will plummet down as fast as we grew.

I recall you saying population is falling in some places, with our impact already in foot the rest of us need to slowly begin following their example. It is a good thing (for the time being)

[Iris]

Hmmm, it could be a slow, controlled, decrease. Rather than an immediate limiting. Slow enough not to impact the economy.

That's already happening. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/31/news/la-heb-us-birth-rate-falls-20110331)