This one is pretty complicated. The implications of population control are great but, here is my argument for it:
Human beings have well exceeded the population at which we could find some equilibrium with the planet. Population control seems to be the only way to mitigate the lack of space a resources facing our species. Any thoughts?
Should you be allowed to have as many babies as you want, or should there be a world wide limit, as a consideration for future generations?
I am aware 50% of our population is in that little triangle by the great Lakes. And that of the rest, the majority is focused along the border.
And my point is that America isn't like that, the people are equally distributed. Even the provinces that are populated in Canada aren't completely populated so it's hard to actually figure out how much land that is actually being used by humans.
Regardless, it boils down to this. The more land we use, the more we harm other species. The longer we stay there, the more we deplete the region. The more we deplete the region, the more uninhabitable it is for other species. There is no REASON to have a population in the billions when we have such control over our food supply and safety. It just leads to conflict over land, resources, and just general issues.
I think population control is okay as long as everyone can still have at least one child. Though right now I don't think the problem is that the world is too inhabited. There are more important issues that need to be addressed.
That's funny, seeing as a nation with so much industry and agriculture, and not much of a post-industrial economy, China's birth rate has slowed down and is much less than it's historical counterparts such as the US and areas of Europe that experienced Industrial and Pre-Industrial phases. [/quote]
chinas birth controle fails because there are to many old people. and to less young people to work, pay taxes and pay for the old folks retirment. 1 child evry 2 parents = 1/3 working and paying for 3/3 of the people except for 2 childs evry 2 parents = 1/2 working and paying for 2/2 of the people.
except for 2 childs evry 2 parents = 1/2 working and paying for 2/2 of the people.
Not entirely true. Since people usually work between ages 18-65, it's quite likely that a parent and a child is working at the same time for several years.
yes but what when all the people from befor the 1 child law become 65? then only 1/3 will be working for 3/3. this is not a speculation. this is a real issue in chinas goverment. and they are alrdy feeling this happening. it wont be a surprise if china is going to drop the 1 child law into a 2 child law whitin the next 10 year. but this also got it's bad sides because ALOT people will directly start f*cking for a 2nd child. then you will need 1st alot schools then alot extra jobs for that generation. wich they can not create that easly. thats the reason why they didn't change it alrdy. they dunno how to fix this problem in a smooth way. this 1 child law of them realy back-fired.
and yes ofcours people die and are born dead or parants that die young. but that doesn't realy matter for the results of it.
my bad, i went on about the china part. you ment 2 childs. 2 child indeed has a better chance for success. because not evry1 will be having 2 kids and the amount of people will drop slowly. and the financial ways will also be less disrupted.
from my understanding, there should be some limiting of population. some people don't know the responsibilities of limiting the ammount of children they make and just breed like rabbits. a simple, long term solution would be something like a liscence that allows you to have kids. this liscence proves that you are a responsible person and good with kids, and those who are without or violate this liscence would be subject to aborting the baby.
And my point is that America isn't like that, the people are equally distributed. Even the provinces that are populated in Canada aren't completely populated so it's hard to actually figure out how much land that is actually being used by humans.
I assume you have never been out West.
a simple, long term solution would be something like a liscence that allows you to have kids. this liscence proves that you are a responsible person and good with kids, and those who are without or violate this liscence would be subject to aborting the baby.
That law would absolutely never pass because of the bolded section. Absolutely nobody in their right mind would support a forced abortion. If it was to be replaced with the child be taken away and put up for adoption, it will be much more likely to be passed.
then you will not lower the amount of people. some crazy people probably even gonna try to make as much kids just to bug the goverment because they can't keep them. (not that i agree whit what the other guy said xD
Not maybe, you have to be born there. The majority of western population growth has come from immigrants. Canada gets less, and even more less in colder areas.
But before anything like a worldwide limit was ever considered, all options would be considered.
Your suggestion requires time. In that time until we can get out there into other places, should we control it or not?
I assume you have never been out West.
I'm not speaking for him or anything, but my post did give places like Montana as an example of low density regions. Yet, even with the states right before the rockies and along the Canadian border being less populated, they still do not show the excessive lack of population some places in Canada do. Also, the West is also growing much faster than Canada.
hinas birth controle fails because there are to many old people. and to less young people to work, pay taxes and pay for the old folks retirment.
what you are referring to is the 4-2-1 problem. You have 4 people, they each have babies, the two babies take care of the four, the two have a kid, and it is possible that this kid is taking care of the other 6.
But, as of 2009, all provinces in China have adopted an addition to the policy that states that couples may have two children if they themselves were only children. By doing so, couples can have two children, and of those two, they can only have one child, which will once again be able to have two children.
Also, the law does not apply to the entire Chinese populace, and even less is it strictly enforced over the populace.
1. To answer the question, both. We need to control the population because we can't handle the food demand. But on the other hand, would you kill your friends because there are too many humans?
2. Nature always finds a way to balance things off (ex. draughts, natural disasters, disease, etc).
2. Nature always finds a way to balance things off (ex. draughts, natural disasters, disease, etc).
I think that only works in a natural environment. In nature, you see so many chains and related events that it looks all to sustainable as if it could never go wrong. With us, though, we always see problems here and there because we've forgotten how to live with nature and instead control it. I don't think nature will balance things off in terms of humans, I think we'll have an impact on it.
But on the other hand, would you kill your friends because there are too many humans?
Noo... we band together and kill the people WE don't like Jk. It's a little two sided. So I guess you make sense. The answer probably is both.
Not sure, I thought the systems with so many interactions between different species are more sensible to changes; if one link disappears or gets altered somehow, this can have an impact on the whole ecosystem. It might swing into balance again after some time, but since every chain is linked to others, alterations there have a bigger impact. We do have an impact on nature, and nature has an impact on us. I don't know what will happen but I'm sure we're not out of influence and might regulate our population somehow, be it consciously or due to hazard. Or we suck the ressources out of our environment and decrease drastically in number after that.
To answer the title..
Population Control: Responsible Decision or Grevious Offense to Nature
Responsible decision, since population control of some animals or plants can preserve an ecosystem and also serves the controlled animals or plants themselves. It is wrong to think that everything in nature will lead to a perfect ecosystem itself, or that you should let everything grow without limits.
