Population Control.

[ayuaddict]

I'm sorry but i have no link to post here.

This is just me voicing my thoughts and reading yours.

When abortion clinics became legal and easily accessible crime rates in areas around them dropped.

To adopt a child you need to fill out applications and have them accepted as well as get interviewed.

Obviously the ever growing population of this planet is an issue, and may one day be the cause of it becoming uninhabitable.

Supposedly all men are created equal but some sure turn out to be nothing but a burden on the rest of society.

So I say that it would be a good idea for everybody who wants a child to have to go through the same process that adopters do. A background check, interviews, financial eligibility, stuff like that. Of course this probably will not ever happen but it seems like a great idea to me, if you disagree voice your opinion as to why, I think it would be an interesting subject.

[sidewaysil80]

in a perfect world i agree. but the liberals (look at me throwing that around as if I have declared a party lol) and those who have kids purely for govt. aid increase will create such a stink it's not even funny. HOWEVER, i don't know the actual statistic but i was listening to Laura Ingraham and she was talking about abortion or census statistics and the poverty and below poverty demograph of the country are dying at a faster rate then are reproducing. Granted something like 20% or 30% of those deaths were attributed to abortions. But i found that to be an interesting tid-bit.

[Pactin]

Reading the title I expected this to be a different type of population control lol.

I feel it is a bit of a one-sided argument, due to the fact that it deals with prohibiting human potential/ reproduction. A comparable argument would be "Let's allow only Group X to gather/eat food, because our resources are limited." It is a viable (although necessary) human process conducive to life, and to constrain this act could be seen the same way.

Forgive me if this made no sense, it's late and I didn't want to forget my response lol.

But I believe a better population control would be to limit the amount of children people are allowed to have. I know, it still says "no", but it doesn't prohibit the behavior altogether.

[sidewaysil80]

i'm not ignorant or naive enought to believe that an "idiocracy" type world awaits or that we will actually breed ourselves stupid (not saying thats what you were getting at or anything). with that being said i do agree with op though. their are wayyyyyyyy to many people that SHOULD NOT be reproducing. people can flame away in 3...2...1...you have generation after generation of certain demographs and social classes that survive primarily solely on welfare and govt. aid. you know what the worse part is? i'm willing to bet that the majority have no desire to get off of it and/or they're reproducing just to maximize they're payments. the sad thing all these little kids that are aimlessly being brought into the world are seeing that and will likely follow in their parents footsteps. i read a piece discussing the amount of compensation you can get combined off welfare, unemployment (if applicable), WIC (which when used properly i have no problem with), and other forms of govt. aid and the numbers were in the 50's. of course they're going to opt out and not strive for better, they will get the same amount of money (if not more considering they prob won't make it through high school) MOOCHING of the rest of america then if they were part of the work force.
because of that i would vote for sometime of screening process to have children. now i'm sure they're will be exceptions and in that case their potential parents would probably pass whatever screening would be implemented. (sorry for the rant i'm going on 29+hours awake)

[SR240DET]

Regulating how many kids you may conceive is unrealistic but we can continue to have wars. I like how the French foreign legion does it. Think about how many criminals on the run we can off with that system leading them to believe they will have a new start, identity, etc. when the survival rate is less than 50%.

[ronmcdon]

Completely agree there ought to be some level of regulation.

while i think it's hard to punish ppl for having kids irresponsibly,
it might be easier to give incentives to raise kids responsibly (i.e tax breaks).
Do not give tax break or other rewards to ppl who aren't (if not also have a lot of kids)
China was sorta doing this on their 1 child policy.
I felt while it was taken to the extreme, it wasn't such a bad idea if implemented on a more moderate level.
Honestly I feel our gov't is just reinforcing irresponsibility all the time instead of encouraging responsibility.

With education, encourage parents to take a couple classes on child development, & proper child-rearing techniques, etc.
Stuff is really complicated, but totally essential for raising kids.
Raising children really ought not be a 'trial & error' experience.
There's been so much research on it, yet so little education to the public.

Another solution is to simply try & teach this stuff at high school.
Everyone has a good chance of bringing up their own kid, or look after others' sometime in their life.
If laws can't be passed, then at least have education prepare/inform ppl for practical tasks, like raise their kids a bit more adequately.

[raz0rbladez909]

I agree with everyones posts that have been made so far in this thread, however I believe any more government control in our lives would only be more intrusive than beneficial. I think welfare should be done away with honestly, because with it, you will have people that will abuse the system, and it is obvious that is what is currently happening. For the few that will only use it temporarily to get back on their feet in case of a job loss or other hard time, you have hundreds of thousands that stay on the program just leaching off of the rest of us. I think that just getting rid of welfare alone would help people think twice about senselessly reproducing to continue obtaining a check. I think that limiting reproduction or having a pre screening to see who's fit to be a parent would be a smart idea, however how could you control that? How could/would you punish someone who went against the system and reproduced without permission? I think certain people that reproduce excessively should be taxed MORE instead of recieving tax breaks like they do now, like all of these reality shows (john & kate+8, quintuplets, etc) just showing these people who obviously have some issues if they feel they need that many kids just to have them. Man I really like this topic but I dunno any realistic way it would be possible.

[drift freaq]

The funny thing about this is, if you look at the data the population explosion is actually happening in third world countries. China, India, Mexico, some parts of south and central America, Africa. Truth be told census data wise population in developed Western Nations is down. More Families are having 1-2 Children instead of 4-5. Large families are no longer the norm and quite expensive to maintain in modern western economies.

Now China has the rather draconian 1 child doctrine because they are aware of their population situation. India and the rest just seem to ignore it.
Honestly I am not sure regulation would work. We are not a dictatorship and telling people they cannot have a child is dictatorial.

Education is really the key here. If you educate people on the pitfalls and expenses of raising children then perhaps they would think more.
I for one am a firm believer in only bringing children into the world you can afford to raise. Its not fair to the child, to not be able to afford them.

Now things have changed quite a bit from when my father married my mother and started our family while still in College. For one its a lot more expensive, for two opportunity that made him move forward without thinking about it have changed for a lot of people these days. Less job security, less likelyhood of having the kind of job that would support a family of five.
Making social requirements for having children is actually less right wing than some of you may realize. Liberals and the democratic party love creating hands on i.e. regulations and requirements for everything.
You really could not stand on the tenants of the constitution all the while telling people they cannot have a child. Its a basic freedom to co create. Now unfortunately how some people handle that freedom and human nature can be rather poorly thought out.

It comes right back to education. Educate children about the costs of having children. Shit we have sex ed classes in Junior high, make it a requirement for a financial responsibility part of that.
I mean they taught us about how babies are born and what not why don't they teach about after you have a baby this is what it takes to raise the damn thing. LOL
I think they do a rudimentary type deal of that at the high school level these days. Though they should be sitting the kids down and saying this is what it takes, you have to be making x amount of dollars. You have to be able to own a home. You have to be able to pay for x and x and x. ETC.....

Education to me is a far better way to tackle the issue rather than just straight up making set requirements based on laws. You start making requirements and then it becomes the issue of well what do we do if they violate the requirement? Make a law to punish them? If you do that you are now going towards fining or possible imprisonment for violation . Do we really need to create more situations that could add to the already large prison population? A population that is already partly swelled for locking up some people for victimless crimes already.

This just is not the type of subject that is easily regulated in a society based on freedom or the proposal of freedom.

Oh and I am all for abortion, It is the Women's decision what to do with their bodies be it wrong or right.
We should not be telling a person what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

[ronmcdon]

I'm not a firm advocate of punishment either,
albeit more for practical reasons as opposed to moral.

Yes, like you mentioned, imprisonment only adds to the financial burden of society.
Besides, imprisonment seems a tad rash.
Fines could be implemented, but that's only going to adversely effect the child, IF the family is already low on money.
In addition, enforcing those rules will also take up resources.

This is why I'm totally for incentives, or NOT giving incentives if the gov't wants to change behavior.
If the parent opts not to take child support classes, be financially responsible, etc, there ought to be incentives offered.
This would be easier to regulate b/c ppl would regulate themselves, being the natural opportunists (nothing wrong with that, we all are on some level) that they are.

Also, if the parents don't bother to bring kids up well, everyone suffers, not just the kid.
It's odd how our gov't doesn't mind using so much funds on public schools, yet so little on this.
School can't, and really ought not be expected to fix everything.
They are there to educate kids, not to discipline and fix the problems parents (and the gov't) fail to implement.

I studied education for a little bit (terribly depressing profession that wouldn't realistically fit my personality) and spent many hours in teacher observation.
I feel like teachers are being spread way too thin for being expected to be 'teacher-disciplinarian-therapist-counselor' all in one pkg, and some 30-40 kids in one classroom.
No wonder why results aren't always optimal.

[drift freaq]

I would tend to agree with you about deplorable way our schools have turned into secondary parents. Its bullshit that a school should determine if a child has mental health problems for instance but that is exactly what is going on.

Between to many students per teacher to the school nurse being able to prescribe psychiatric drugs the situation has become terrible.

I for one do not want a school nurse telling me my child needs drugs based on her opinion. I also do not think they should have the right to take that decision out of the parents hands based on the schools judgement.
This is actually a real issue and problem in some school systems in the U.S. today.

I digress here though,

back to the main subject

Incentives are not a bad idea. Give them an incentive to have a smaller family, give them an incentive to learn about the pitfalls. I agree that people are inherently opportunistic and given incentives in these areas it could be beneficial.

[BOROSUN]

might as well raise the nazi flag.

no more bruce lees or dwades. military are probably banned because of the high divorce rate.

anyways, what's going to stop people inlove for having kids even when they don't meet the requirement?

[theicecreamdan]

1-2 kids--- tax breaks
3+ extra taxes

[ronmcdon]

I'm not sure if you ought to tax them extra @ 3.
you don't want to penalize parents who are taking good care of their kids.

now if the parents aren't doing a good job and financially strung,
giving them no tax breaks ought to be a severe form of punishment enough.

up to a certain point it gets ridiculous.
no reasonable person should feel the need to have more than say 8 / 10 + kids.
There's no way you can be an effective parent if you're spread that thin.

[ESmorz]

Kill 'em all.

This planet would be better off without us.

[theicecreamdan]

I'm not sure if you ought to tax them extra @ 3.
you don't want to penalize parents who are taking good care of their kids.

now if the parents aren't doing a good job and financially strung,
giving them no tax breaks ought to be a severe form of punishment enough.

up to a certain point it gets ridiculous.
no reasonable person should feel the need to have more than say 8 / 10 + kids.
There's no way you can be an effective parent if you're spread that thin.

two people making 2 kids is operating at replacement level, IMO in an ideal world reducing the population (1 kid per couple) would be the smartest in looking at our future.

Above that you're growing the population and straining future resources. You're also utilizing more services, mainly schools, that could use some extra money.

An extra (small) financial burden associated with having kids could, in theory, make people think about the financial responsibilities that come with having kids. And if its spent wisely, the money should go towards making things that a lot of kids probably don't get when raised in a financially stressed home. Good meals for kids at school, education in general, a "you made it" tax break for young adults after they're earning enough money to have to pay taxes. Grants, scholarships and stuff like that.

[Walperstyle]

Just tax that dumb Kate+8. Problem solved.


(in reality though, OP must be in an Urban area and doesn't really get out much. There is plenty of land, and plenty of food out there if you wish to leave what you are use to and go live a slightly different life. I'm writing this while watching an 8 point buck eat a tree in my neighbors yard.)

Don't tax people for having kids, just cut the welfare off to those that don't deserve it.

[neonaire]

2012 is coming soon, we wont get over populated

[Csomme]

Less government means more responsibility on the shoulders of the citizens. Take away free health care and welfare, etc. Then you have the perfect system to filter out the stupid that can't make it on their own. They have to rely on themselves to provide food and what not, and eventually can't because they're lazy or whatnot, they'll be too poor to decide to have kids, if they get knocked up they can either make money by putting the kid up for adoption or try to raise it and fail.

It's the perfect population control, make more people responsible for themselves.

Just my opinion, may not make sense to all, it's certainly not 100% effective, but there's always going to be that 5% that falls outside the lines.

[xpertsnowcarver]

Unfortunately, Not in our time.

Standard of living needs to be significantly higher to force people to understand that having kids without thinking about the financial and practical aspects is incredibly foolish. The idea of educating people is valid, but still too ideal. The idea of regulation child birth by any means is (as mentioned before) intrusive. This includes the removal of welfare programs. Besides, the US Gov't overall wants more people to tax. They are not inclined to slow down future tax income.

[ronmcdon]

Unfortunately, Not in our time.

Standard of living needs to be significantly higher to force people to understand that having kids without thinking about the financial and practical aspects is incredibly foolish. The idea of educating people is valid, but still too ideal. The idea of regulation child birth by any means is (as mentioned before) intrusive. This includes the removal of welfare programs. Besides, the US Gov't overall wants more people to tax. They are not inclined to slow down future tax income.

What?! As if the cost of living is not already high enough! I am shocked to hear this, esp given the fact that we live in socal. I can understand if you want ppl to feel their financial burden. The simple solution would be to NOT give anyone any child-support incentives. If anyone wants a kids, it's entirely on them, at least in terms of immediate financial consequences.

Education itself isn't the 'end-all' solution to irresponsible child-rearing, but I do think it's a cost-effective, non-intrusive option that would increase the likelihood that parents are more informed, and hopefully do a better job with what they have. I feel that all things equal, it doesn't hurt to inform ppl into making more informed important decisions in life, regardless of context.

[blueshark123]

i say someone should invent a pill or shot u give to kids when they are born that prevents them from having kids till at least 18 cause no one should be having kids at 18 cause they cant take care of themselves.

[Mr Miyagi]

Id like for the US to adopt the China 1 child policy.

[Mikey213]

How many people die from all forms of smoking, drug use, suicide, abortion, gang violence, bad drivers, drunk drivers, extreme stupidity and dynamic psychological eugenic classification/ filteration techniques here in the west? Pretty sexy population control strategy if you ask me. As opposed to a potential Eienstien that coulda' shoulda' would've in china.

[Mr Miyagi]

How many people die from all forms of smoking, drug use, suicide, abortion, gang violence, bad drivers, drunk drivers, extreme stupidity and dynamic psychological eugenic classification/ filteration techniques here in the west? Pretty sexy population control strategy if you ask me. As opposed to a potential Eienstien that coulda' shoulda' would've in china.

There's a reason they dont have as much debt as us. :angel:

[Mikey213]

What does debt mean? Uhahahahahaaa...

[Matej]

Sterilize everyone below a certain IQ. :)

[Mikey213]

^ brilliant! :P

[exitspeed]

You should need a license to have children.

[Banana_Cute]

Schools should be funded more to focus on safe sex education.

Since high school, I saw quite a few females who are pregnant. 1-2 for every 8 girls maybe. Now my lil sister graduated. Everytime i come over to my dad's house i hear her talking to her friends about "did you hear she had a baby already and that so and so is pregnant". likes wtf...Is it a high school trend to have a baby because of the show TEEN MOM???.. idk.

[raz0rbladez909]

You should need a license to have children.

+1, but also remember plenty of horrible drivers have licenses lol

[ronmcdon]

licensure (not sure if that's even a word) doesn't guarantee anything.
it just insures that some type of bar is set.
whether or not the bar is high enough, like a US driver's lic, or even relevant is another question.