AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Limiting Birth To One Per Country

83 14672
firetail_madness
offline
firetail_madness
20,591 posts
Blacksmith

What do you guys think of the possibility of limiting how many children a mother can give birth to? In my opinion, in places like Africa and India, where there is lack of birth control, we should help focus on that. Apparently, Earth can only support about 10 ~ 20 billion people at max, and at the rate we are growing right now, it could reach that population in 2025~2030. (I have no sources for this, it's a rough estimate)

This has it's drawbacks though. You could never have a sibling, and families would be much smaller. What do you think?

Anyways, here's a website on overpopulation.

  • 83 Replies
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Eh, we all know that I firmly support eugenics as long as it is properly applied and in the interests of science, not politics.

Secretmapper
offline
Secretmapper
1,747 posts
Nomad

Really, it just depends on the place. Of course if we were just talking about population.
For example, Singapore has baby bonus program, because their labor force is low.
While in China, they have one child policy, because of their huge pop.

The thing is the culture, religion, beliefs, etc. of the person. THink about it, you were planning to have 9 kids, then the goverment doesn't permit you. That is the number one reason people disagree with this

AircraftCarrier
offline
AircraftCarrier
145 posts
Shepherd

Finally, state my word, in about 50 years later, the Earth will break into WW3 because of energy shortage, water shortage and food shortage caused by overpopulation. By the end of WW3, >50% of humans will be killed.
Another possibility is that, before the aforementioned shortages become critical, the governments will devise some devious way to cull the population...

Programpro
offline
Programpro
562 posts
Nomad

I also think the ends justify the means. Whether a strict population law was enforced for several generations, or a quick violent war was sparked, so long as the human race comes out of it with a higher quality of living than before, I would support it, gladly.


Okay, so are you okay with it if we decide o kill you and all your loved ones and friends in the interest of reducing overpopulation? If you answer "yes", then you're full of BS.

At the core of ethics is the golden rule; You don't want to be killed, so you shouldn't kill someone else... someone else who's innocent/nice/loved/functions-in-society anyway. This golden rule does't extend to murderers who need to be killed.

Sorry for that last digression, I just wanted to clarify my view on not killing.


I think the space colony idea is great... although you should make agriculture the second-to-the-topmost layer, and then have the solar power layer be transparent. This way the plants can get natural sunlight which means less energy wasted on UV lights.

Also, was just thinking that most people think of the moon as having much less surface area than the Earth, but it has quite a lot
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Okay, so are you okay with it if we decide o kill you and all your loved ones and friends in the interest of reducing overpopulation? If you answer "yes", then you're full of BS.


Eugenics isn't killing people, it is limiting who is allowed to procreate based on genetics. Essentially only those who will pass along the most beneficial genes would be allowed to have children. And yes, I would support that if it was implemented properly. Please educate yourself on the terms I use before you try to flame me because you don't understand what I'm saying.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Also, yes, in certain areas then the elimination of some humans would definitely be in the best interests of society as a whole, and when dealing with issues like this we MUST put the needs of our species over the needs of individuals.

Uproar
offline
Uproar
333 posts
Nomad

OK, this will be the third time i post this video.

Watch it, take in it's values other then anti-Muslim & racist, but the world population values.

Watch, learn & understand the world cannot be placed to 1 birth per family, fact is Muslims in general need to stop jumping in to bed and stop immigrating. No racism it's just the honest truth, if you don't like that, then continue living in a world of dreams.

Population. End. Topic Over



If link turns out invalid, copy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
Programpro
offline
Programpro
562 posts
Nomad

Eugenics isn't killing people, it is limiting who is allowed to procreate based on genetics. Essentially only those who will pass along the most beneficial genes would be allowed to have children. And yes, I would support that if it was implemented properly. Please educate yourself on the terms I use before you try to flame me because you don't understand what I'm saying.


Look closer. My post was aimed at EpicGuy; I was in no way "flaming you" in that post, and I think it may be you who doesn't understand what I'm saying. He says the ends justify the means, and that the death of many is okay to stop the overpopulation. I say no.

That being said, I also disagree with the idea of eugenics; anyone who wants a kid should be able to have one.

And fine, if the individual doesn't matter to you then in the event of overpopulation I assume you will kill yourself for the good of mankind, right?

Wrong... and for good reason, too.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Seeing the state of our planet and some of the people on it I'd be quite happy to thin the gene pool a little.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Look closer. My post was aimed at EpicGuy; I was in no way "flaming you" in that post


I caught that, albeit after my post. My apologies for that. I blame beer.

He says the ends justify the means, and that the death of many is okay to stop the overpopulation. I say no.


While I don't agree that it is necessary at this point, I would have to agree that at some point overpopulation may get to the point where selective elimination of various areas of the population, coupled with eugenics, may become necessary to bring the world population down to manageable levels.

We do the same thing when overpopulation of animals becomes so detrimental to the environment that it becomes necessary, why should the human animal be exempt from this?

That being said, I also disagree with the idea of eugenics; anyone who wants a kid should be able to have one.


And what do we do when that rampant breeding comes to a point where there are overmany undesirable traits added to the human gene pool? Or when that breeding creates overpopulation to the point where the quality of life of all is reduced as a result? Should the rights of the individual be so much more that these rights infringe on the rights of society as a whole? Where do we draw the line then?

And fine, if the individual doesn't matter to you then in the event of overpopulation I assume you will kill yourself for the good of mankind, right?


If it came to that point, most likely not. However we are nowhere near that point as of yet. However if we properly instituted eugenics in such a fashion that overall good of the species was placed first and it was not a tool of the government I would support that. And if such application of science decreed that I was unfit to have children or to limit my partner and I to only one child I see that as a non-issue.

If we are not allowed to create children through intercourse I see no reason why we could not use in vitro fertilization to create a child for us that was within the guidelines of the eugenics movement, or to adopt a child to care for. These are other options for childbirth that I would think would be present in a purely scientific application of eugenics and I see no issue with that at all.
Programpro
offline
Programpro
562 posts
Nomad

While I don't agree that it is necessary at this point, I would have to agree that at some point overpopulation may get to the point where selective elimination of various areas of the population, coupled with eugenics, may become necessary to bring the world population down to manageable levels.

We do the same thing when overpopulation of animals becomes so detrimental to the environment that it becomes necessary, why should the human animal be exempt from this?


Don't try to equate other animals to humans.

And really my main problem is that the killing seems to be the first solution that comes to your guys' mind. There are many other solutions that would all have a fair shot of working before we get to the killing stage.

And what do we do when that rampant breeding comes to a point where there are overmany undesirable traits added to the human gene pool? Or when that breeding creates overpopulation to the point where the quality of life of all is reduced as a result? Should the rights of the individual be so much more that these rights infringe on the rights of society as a whole? Where do we draw the line then?


Note that I said they can have A kid if they want one. I think that, if it comes to it, we can limit families from having TONS of children; but selecting who gets to make a kid and who doesn't is just so wrong.

However if we properly instituted eugenics in such a fashion that overall good of the species was placed first and it was not a tool of the government I would support that. And if such application of science decreed that I was unfit to have children or to limit my partner and I to only one child I see that as a non-issue.


Well, it's not a "non-issue" for everyone.

Watch it, take in it's values other then anti-Muslim & racist, but the world population values.


It's not racist... it's pure statistics, in terms of the racial parts. And it's anti-Muslim in the same way muslims can be seen as anti-christian.

Watch, learn & understand the world cannot be placed to 1 birth per family, fact is Muslims in general need to stop jumping in to bed and stop immigrating. No racism it's just the honest truth, if you don't like that, then continue living in a world of dreams.


This. Awareness must be spread to them (assuming the video is true)
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Don't try to equate other animals to humans.


And why not? Humans are animals, why are we any better? And why do we apply our own desires on other animals yet feel we are immune to the same reasoning behind those acts?

And really my main problem is that the killing seems to be the first solution that comes to your guys' mind. There are many other solutions that would all have a fair shot of working before we get to the killing stage.


Killing is about the furthest thing from my mind. I abhor killing (with the exception of hunting and fishing) and find that it is a last resort option. That being said, even last resort options at some point may become the best available option. To ignore that simple fact is folly.

but selecting who gets to make a kid and who doesn't is just so wrong.


And what makes it wrong? We screen for things like spina bifita, down syndrome, deformities, and other genetic malfunctions and allow the parents the option to abort in the presence of these, why is it any more wrong to take it one step further and screen for genetic predisposition to undesirable traits prior to conception?

And would it be detrimental to society as a whole to say that those people who show propensities to pass on traits such as these should be disallowed from reproducing? Obviously we can see that these things are terrible blights on humanity, however these are genetic diseases. If you want to eliminate them you have to find and halt the distribution of the genes that cause these. Eugenics is how you go about that.

Imagine a world without heart disease, cancer, or down syndrome. A world without learning disabilities, deformities, and an overall increase in the immune system, physical capabilities, and intellectual capacity of society. I can't see that being a bad thing at all. The overall quality of life of the human species would be greatly improved.

This. Awareness must be spread to them


And what 'awareness' is that? You do realize that their religion promotes their method of procreation. Much as the Catholics are against birth control and condoms and abortion. They aren't making these decisions from an educated and aware position. They are making it from a religious one. Have fun trying to educate them that their religion is wrong. Perhaps you would like it if we forced you to be 'aware' that your beliefs are wrong.

See, you argue for individual rights in the case of population thinning and eugenics, but you are decidedly against individual rights when you disagree with their position or their religion. How much more hypocritical can you possibly get?
rafterman
offline
rafterman
600 posts
Nomad

Don't try to equate other animals to humans.

Why not? We are animals too, and we face problems from overpopulation as well.
Programpro
offline
Programpro
562 posts
Nomad

Okay, let me first say that when choosing between killing one human and killing 1 animal, you'd choose the animal. You'd choose the animal if it were 1 human vs. 100 animals, or 500 animals. Or let me put it in animal terms: Animals live to see their species succeed, and they look out for their species first. That's what we're doing. Killing an animal and killing a person are two totally different things, how could you not see that?

Eugenics sounds great when you say it that way but really you're infringing on people's right to procreate. It's just unethical.

And I'd say the need to have 8 kids is more of a cultural than a specifically religious thing; I'm sure many islamic families could be fine with just three kids in the event of overpopulation.

I just said don't kill people; I suppose limiting birth to 2 per couple would be acceptable. It's irresponsible in such a crowded world for people to be having so many children, so just... i don't know... at least make the unaware ones aware of the danger. And by the way i said make them aware, not force them to have less kids.

And isn't it hypocritical of you to say that you wouldn't kill yourself for overpopulation but it's okay to kill others?

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Okay, let me first say that when choosing between killing one human and killing 1 animal, you'd choose the animal.


That's honestly a debatable point. Simply because YOU would choose the animal doesn't mean that everyone would.

You'd choose the animal if it were 1 human vs. 100 animals, or 500 animals.


Again, very debatable point here. You are projecting YOUR beliefs onto me, and that's not going to work.

Give me an honest choice, no legal ramifications, and I have to choose between putting a bullet in your head and doing the same to 100 or 500 animals, for this example we'll say wolves. So, I won't go to prison for murder if I kill you, and I won't go to prison for poaching if I kill 500 wolves. Guess what bub. Honest to goodness I'm putting a .40 S&W right into your ocularcranial cavity. Sorry.

Eugenics sounds great when you say it that way but really you're infringing on people's right to procreate. It's just unethical.


And what is ethical about people having children who can't take care of them? Or people who continue having children even though they have aids, or an extremely high propensity for down syndrome or other deformities, things which they pass to their children, who then become a burden on our educational system, or medical system, and our society.

When is it more ethical to do that, than to screen for these things and say "Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but you have a 65% genetic predisposition for spina bifida. We simply cannot allow the chances that you create an offspring doomed to a life of suffering. However we can offer to implant a genetically healthy embryo for you to carry to term and raise if you still desire to raise children."

And I'd say the need to have 8 kids is more of a cultural than a specifically religious thing; I'm sure many islamic families could be fine with just three kids in the event of overpopulation.


I would agree that they would be fine with 2 or 3 kids. But you are infringing on their personal rights, as well as their cultural and religious beliefs in order to impose your brand of morality. How is that any different than imposing eugenics or population thinning? In either case you are infringing upon individual rights in the interest of the greater good.

And isn't it hypocritical of you to say that you wouldn't kill yourself for overpopulation but it's okay to kill others?


I suppose so. However you will recall that I simply said that should the need arise that thinning of the population could in some instances be necessary. Luckily for me that won't be in my lifetime. However if it is, so be it. Do I want to die? No. If my death somehow makes this world a better place for my children will I do it. You bet.

The most obvious method of population thinning is to first eliminate the sick and the old. Those who are the greatest burden on the species are of the least benefit and as such are the first to be eliminated. I'm neither sick nor old so I'm not too concerned to be honest. When we look at quality of life in respect to population control we must look at the greatest quality of life for the greatest amount of time for the greatest amount of people. And as I said, if it happens when I'm crippled, sick, old, in a coma, or what have you then so be it.
Showing 46-60 of 83