[quote][u] [i] [b] I have no idea, I just know that neither of you should be allowed to have kids! 😂🤣 [/b] [/i] [/u][/quote] Ha!

i think when it gets really bad, we should consider limiting children. other than that, free will as long as the parents arent complete idiots [spoiler]imagine if the world was in a situation where baby making was necessary because of underpopulation?[/spoiler]

All I'm saying is that the one child policy existed.

Nobody should be forced not to have kids. That’s what China did. The vast majority of population growth is happening in poorer countries with low education rates for women. There’s a direct link between the education levels of women, women’s access to birth control and lower birth rates. Which is why birth rates in western countries have been in decline for decades. If we want lower population growth the obvious solution is give women greater access to education and birth control.

Birthrates are actually declining in first world countries. Having children is always good and we shouldn't Thanos the population away. With more humans, comes more productivity and goods.

My personal opinion is that a lot less people should have kids than actually do. From what I've read and heard, the statistics seem to show that generally, the people having the most children are the poorest and least educated the world over. Having too many children that are unable to be supported is what causes an apparent lack of resources. You have a million parents staying that they can't afford their 8 million kids, and now there is a statistic stating "8 million children go starving. . . " When globally, there may be plenty of resources to support that many people, just not in the area where those families are, and its the families specifically that are struggling to support themselves. In addition to this, in very impoverished areas, there can be a genuine lack of resources that make it difficult to sustain families even if they only have one child. These statistics get compounded and its difficult to separate (for the laymen who hear these statistics after they have been filtered) and discern where there is a genuine lack of resources, and where there is a por distribution of ample reaources. This is from my own personal experience in dealing with people, and not based on a study or research, other than the cursory stuff I read occasionally. So I wouldn't want my opinion to dictate any sort of policy, because it's not as informed as it should be. I also feel that there are solutions that could be implemented that would help ease the lack of resources. I know that a lot of people are against genetically modified produce, but it is possible to genetically modify plants to grow with less footprint, with more yield, and yielding edible crop more than once per season. They can also be modified to not be as attractive to pests, and to grow in climates that are ingospitable. So I do believe it would be possible to plant crops in areas where people need them but they are currently unable to farm. Maybe not literally everywhere in the world, but a toast in more areas than are currently viable for farming. There are also sanctions against damming rivers, creating certain types of power plants, and other life-improvement infrastructure that are seen as non- eco-friendly. The eco-friendly solutions are more technologically advanced and more expensive, so third world countries are unable to develop infrastructure as quickly as their growing population needs. Third world countries often receive substantial aid from more wealthy countries, and because of the sanctions, if third world countries were to create infrastructure that was not on the approved methods list, that aid would stop. So for example sake, let's say a nuclear power plant costs 3 billion dollars to create, and takes 5 square miles of land. It would power a population of many millions of homes. The equivalent power output of windmill power plants would require much more land, which would reduce the amount of farming area available, while also being much more expensive to build and set up, while providing less power to less people. So the aid that actually goes to infrastructure is woefully insufficient, since the nuclear power plant is banned from being built, and because if the perception that the people in the area need food badly (which is very likely true), the aid given is in the form of food an clothing. Factor in corrupt government, corrupt regimes, militias, and other dishonesty, and the food doesn't even go to the people it is supposed to. So the current aid is ineffective, infrastructure fails to be created, and the statistics continue to rise, which perpetuate the misappropriation of resources.

All I'm saying is we hunt deer to keep their populations in check so they don't do too much damage to the environment and starve so...

Birthrates are actually declining in the US.

I think the population should be curved. A 10 year ban on all babies would drastically help with over population. However I also think that people should have free will with how many kids they want and a ban on children would be totalitarianism which I'm against. The most plausible way to curve population is war. I don't think we'll be mining other planets in 20 years. That's a pipe dream. Maybe 100 years from now... Maybe.

Overpopulation actually, if you look at it. is not an issue. you just need to take the congested areas and spread them out

Isn't that what New Zealand shooter was bitchin about? Birth rates? Doesn't China limit their people? Anywhoo.... where I live the State programs are very generous to people who want to breed... but I think in my economic arena, industry prison employment makes it difficult to find the TIME and personal energy to have more kids. Me personally as well, with the way American women are being raised and conditioned in this country it is quite possibly suicide for men to breed. You are blamed for everything and in control of nothing. Personally I'd take a hammer to my skull first before I'd ever bring another kid into this world and I LOVE MY KID... it's just too hard with society rolling to calamity.

Truck drivers complaining about resources being used up when their job is transporting resources from A to B. Yep, let's cut down consumerism and then cut truck driver jobs since there won't be a need for as many. Just sayin

[b]SOLIENT -blam!-ING GREEN[/b]

... I concur... [spoiler]those dudes should definitely not reproduce[/spoiler] [spoiler]not included in the DLC[/spoiler]

The more a country is developed the less kids they have

[quote]I mean, enforcing a two child limit would help solve the problem. The issue is many of the more outdated interpretations of holy books insist upon numerous children, as that would strengthen the presence of that religion in the world. Call it instruction from some higher power if you wish, just recognize that the higher power was supporting the destruction of the planet, intentionally or unintentionally. Although to be fair we do have room for many more people on the planet earth than we do now, we would just have to start being much more efficient regarding resource production and people would have to be willing to live in dry/cold climates. [/quote] ^Wyoming

🤔 Odd cuz that exact same subject popped up yesterday for me as well

In America the average family is one or two children. There are nations where one father can sire 16 or more children. The European Union favored immigration due to low birth rates. As far as nations that have a high birth rate, the only way to enforce compliance to a maximum offspring rule is through over throwing their government. Whether that is accomplished through warfare or a bloodless coup sponsored by the US or EU, there are always consequences.

Bump

Weird indeed....I don’t believe it’s anyone’s business as long as you’re being responsible for the children you are having.