Should population growth cutting measures be backed up by law?

Sir David Attenborough has just become a patron of the Optimum Population Society which calls for the population of humanity to stop growing at such an unsustainable rate, if not reduce our numbers. BBC link

I think that we are growing far too fast. Our planet can barely sustain our numbers as it is, and all we are doing is increasing the tension amongst ourselves and on the natural world and it's other inhabitants (who, incidentally, are very good at controlling their own numbers. Although it usually involves a boom of a population followed by a crash where large numbers die off from starvation).

This will, of course, garner opposition. Couples will say "It is our choice as to how many children we have". Well, they have to think about the welfare of their children. If they have 8 or 9 kids (like that vile disgusting woman in America, I feel sorry for her children. She should be sterilised so that such a travesty can never happen again >_>) it is going to have a huge impact on their children's lives. Not to mention on everyone else in their community as well as the rest of the world. It is selfish to assume that you can have as many children as you want. I definitely think that it should become a privilege and not a right as it is now.

The other main opposition will come from religious groups. It is part of the Catholic teachings, for example, that sex is only for procreation and that you should have as many children as you can maintain (hence the ban on contraceptives such as condoms [I'm not even going to talk about the pope's recent comments in Africa, ****** that he is >_>]). Any measures restricting the number of children that any given couple can have could not be accepted by the Catholic community.

So yes, there will be disagreements, but if we want to survive on this planet as a species (at least until we can live elsewhere, I personally can't wait to get to Mars =]) we have to exhibit at least a tiny amount of self control. Reproduction is such a primal urge I would like to think that we had developed enough to control ourselves.

Unfortunately, we are approaching a demographic time bomb. In fact in some countries it has already started to happen. In the more developed countries birth rates (overall, migrant populations tend to have much higher population growth rates than the native inhabitants) have been dropping steadily over the years. Coupled with us living longer it means that we have a large number of elderly people who need to be cared for and relatively few young people entering the world of work to pay for it. This is going to cause a major headache for future governments and can only lead to one (moral; there is always the Soylent Green path ._.) logical conclusion: higher taxes. Possibly substantially higher.

Now you may debate.

That's right, DEBATE FOOLS D:

 

If people were smart, they'd not be pumping out so many units (I like units better than babies... since there's so many). XD

Also, our planet can barely sustain our numbers as it is? Who says so? Some guy who has some Docturate in Ecology? I'm pretty sure the Earth is fine. The Earth can sustain WELL over what is currently present (about 8 or 9 Billion).

Again, Earth is fine. The people are the ones who are ****ed. If the entire human population began poluting the atmosphere at an uncontrollable rate where life ended up dying completely, it wouldn't matter. The Earth wouldn't suddenly be in danger. It's been through far worse than us. Plate tectonics, the magnetic reversal of the poles, earthquakes, valcano's, atomic blasts, and so on.

Now, depopulation is also unneeded. If people were smart they'd understand what they're doing is stupid. Sad to say, we can all agree that at least the large majority doesn't feel that way. So, assuming it continues, either drastic climate changes happens (so the Earth can restore itself to what it was before), some people suggest depopulation and depopulation actually occurs. Or wars happen and people die anyway.

I seriously think there is no hope for the gross majority of a valid perspective at fixing the issue. But, as I said, the Earth isn't going anywhere. We are. Pack your shit, folks. ;D We're going away.

 

I suppose by "able to support" I meant comfortably. If there was a climate shift there would be nowhere near enough food to support the world population. Although a big enough shift could make earth uninhabitable xD

Also, I meant the earth as in the other creatures on it. Rock is rock. Unless you are a dirty red >_>

 

That is very true. I just like being overly literal about subjects like this. xD

Though it isn't uncomfortable at all. It's only like that in places where food is greatly scarce, especially where there is large numbers of people. And as the population grows and food is more on-demand, the numbers can only increase.

Part of this issue I believe is fabricated and overly amplified. But, then again, that's just me.

 

Information always is, it's the only way to get heard these days. Be as loud and extreme as you can and then when people start to listen tone it down until you approach the actual truth lol

Of course, we may be fine now but human population growth is still exponential (or at least it was the last time I heard lol). What happens when our population reaches 15 or 16 billion? It is easier to tell 6 billion people what to do than 16 billion.

Although, the apparent scarcity of resources may exist purely because of our capitalist society. If everyone thinks there isn't very much of a particular resource left they will be prepared to pay more for it. It also causes wars, and war is always good for business ;)

 

Ugh yes, we definatly need to bring in laws sometime soon which will limit the number of children you have; but with some exceptions, like if you had twins and it went over the limit you'd be excused ~

However we need to be careful- where government has intervened before in places like India it has become ridiculous- to the point where the government has carried out forced sterilizations and the such. Now, THAT is inhumane.

 

Not if we made having children a right and not a privilege. It would be the equivalent of taking your car off you if you were caught speeding.

The law would be clear, as would the punishment.

 

Population growth will never be a true problem as long as humans change the way they live on the earth. For instance. The Oceans.

We have the technology and reason to move all of society into the oceans. Places where there's far more land(underwater land), an almost endless source of food, and tons of thermal energy.

People who think Population growth is a problem really aren't looking in the right places for resources.

And by the time our population is expansive enough to overpopulate both land and sea, We'll have either been killed off completely by some inevitable catastrophe, or we'll have begun colonizing in space.

Also, whole thread - tl;dr

 

Yeah, in agreement with Cin and Darkwatch, I don't think our living on earth as a human race is in such a dire situation right now. Besides that, the fact that laws would exist limiting families to limit the amount of children they have just bugs me. What happens when a family goes over the boundary? Innocent lives are killed?

 

I completely agree with you. That the human race has become horribly irresponsible when it comes to kids. Some countries are so overpopulated and the earth's paying for it. It would be much better if the government regulated childbirth in some way (the book, Ender's Game, had an idea like this)

The issue then is that people already see having kids as something that is totally in their control. It would be hard to convince people that the government taking control of that would be difficult. I don't think people would take the idea kindly. We are a very selfish race.

 

Yeah. Resources aren't -actually- scarce. It is the scarcity-fueled business of capitalism for our monetary system that perpetuates that myth. But, if the population were to reach heights of 16 billion, there would be no doubt that it'd be very hard to manage. I'd imagine a lot more chaos than now to occur, since that's the only way we know how to act in cases of confusion and entrapment.

 

My Honors Spanish IV teacher is very political and has the same viewpoint as Promiscious Virgin.
She said if she was President, it'd be like this:
One couple is allowed to have one kid, maybe two TOPS.
If a couple has no kids, they get more rights (better and cheaper health insurance, better credit, etc.)
If you have an insane amount of children (like a certain American mother who refer to as a cephalopod...octopi are cephalopods, right?) then you get punished somehow.
Although that would create a bad environment for the kids...but something along those lines.

Now I'm all for beautiful scenery, but with extra amount of land this world has, urbanization needs speed up.
If we make expand our cities, we have more room. Unless we just dump the surplus amount of people in the woods or oceans and let nature take care of them

 

Honestly, these laws and regulations suggested, they really sound like the beginning of the situation in China. Where they have 10 people per square foot, and if a Family has any more then 2 children, they kill the extra ones.

 

If we move all our cities into the woods/rainforests/grasslands, where would our oxygen come from? And if cities cover too much, there won't be enough farmland to grow our food. Now, I have seen theories and plans for farms in towers, in the middle of cities, but that's 20-30 years off. Until then, we need our wilderness lands. Besides, there have been studies that show that people who experience even a little bit of wilderness (even a park) are better adjusted than those who live in an urban environment forever.

 

Plus half of the earth's oxygen comes from Coral reefs (phytoplankton on the reefs) that are now dying because of pollution.

Humans need to severely clean up their act and I think population is one of the things humans need to work on