Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[BJean 16]

Sunta: What do you expect them to say? That they don't care about the Polar Ice cap as long as they can reproduce? I guess they could go silent but I'm sure they have certain beliefs and feel they are justified in doing what they do.

I am like the newgirl07, I've always been a "live and let live" kinda girl. There will be a point at which that will no longer be possible and we'll all have to get proactive about this and other planet threatening behavior.

There are other ramifications to consider when addressing the issue of overpopulation in the United States. newgirl07 touched on one of them gently, in the middle of her post.

[Sunta 4]

There will be a point at which that will no longer be possible and we'll all have to get proactive about this and other planet threatening behavior.

I feel that point is now. I guess I wish others did, too.

[BJean 16]

People have been talking about population control since I was in college. It was all the rage back then to declare that you were only going to have a maximum of 2 children, no matter what the Catholic Church said.

Then there was the phase where people declared that since Americans were soon going to be outnumbered by the mass of humanity in the overly populated parts of the world, we should keep our numbers up so that we could compete if (or when) it became necessary.

Now it's global warming and the suggestion that we should be cognizant of our footprints because the earth is dying.

Who knows what it's going to take for people to believe they should worry about the future of the planet. Right now, many Republicans pooh-pooh Al Gore's movie and declarations about global warming. I have friends who actually say that they believe that global warming is a myth and that we're only going through the normal cyclical weather phases.

I've never understood why they think that the term "global warming" was something Al Gore invented just to get attention. :phanvan

[green 6]

Interesting thread...

Me: Atheist, childless by choice (non-breeder), totally happy.

BTW, there have been studies done that show that the more education you have, the less children you will likely have (generally speaking, of course there's exceptions).

Usually, I adopt a "live & let live" attitude but there are serious ramifications to overpopulation and our planet. I've heard that Leonardo DiCaprio made a documentary about the environmental damage that we've done. It's called "The 11th hour." I don't know if it's out yet but it sounds like it's not a pretty picture.

I am one of those atheist childless by choice individuals and as you can see from my age, 58, I have certainly walked the walk to the point where there is now no second guessing my choice.

From my reading on demographic shifts and breeding patterns it is my understanding that it is in the most educated and affluent societies where one will find that the birth rate is crashing. It is likely to be those who live in impoverished countries who are presently continuing to reproduce at a much higher rate than wealthy and well educated folks

Though the whys for this birth pattern are complex they can be boiled down to a number of reasons. Certain third world economies are still agricultural and are reliant on primitive forms of farming. Families who must survive by farming will require a lot of manpower. These families will view their children as sources of manpower and thus as sources of assistance to the family economy. These families will see a large family as being fine and fruitful - both on a spiritual level as well as on a practical level.

Bear in mind that poor people who live in primitive conditions are aware that many of their children will not survive to see adulthood and to have children of their own.

While farming folk need big families in order to survive, well educated city folk do not. You may be interested to learn that the birth rate in western Europe was falling prior to the 2nd World War. The baby boom really was a strange demographic glitch.

We are comfortable with understanding the mechanics behind the business of the population crash of other species. I have a hunch that there is something in the way of a population crash - a gradual one perhaps - with respect to us humans.

Yes, there are certain families who are anxious to parent a clutch of children. So what! These folks are in the minority and the birth rates in most of the affluent western countries are in a nose dive. I really do not see the children of these folks as leaving an overly large carbon footprint. If we really want to go after carbon criminals I think that we must look to our own adult generations, da boomers and some of the people who are sliding around in the wake of our excess.

[BJean 16]

Yup, well said, Green!

[Hope2BHottie 0]

I'm new here as of yesterday and not sure if I should jump on the debate wagon so soon, but I will.

Exactly how many kids is too many? Is 4 ok, but 5 too many? WHO draws the line? And what gives them the right to draw the line for any family?

I have four children. My grandmother had 10.

What now? Do we castrate the men with more than 5 children? Or tie the tubes of women with 6 children?

My point is simple. How many is too many? And....says WHO?

[BJean 16]

Hope2BeHottie: Great points. It's cool that you've jumped in full force!

I think the thread was started by someone who is very concerned with environmental issues today, and is asking for people to act responsibly when it comes to our planet.

I don't think anyone here seriously believes that we should have a police force to round up offenders and castrate or sterilize them.

Unless of course, you're talking about women who consider abortion and then I think there's a posse quite willing to take those women to task.

[harlito 0]

Does anyone on this thread understand the correlation between population and global warming?

No, please explain.

I figure with more population there is always going to be more issues to deal with but not all will necessarily be problems for long. If you are afraid of having to deal with these issues and just want them to go away then keep pointing fingers at those who disagree with you. This may not be what you are doing or you may not even realize that it comes across this way... I don't know... I say lead by example and keep it up.

You seem like a very caring and intelligent person and I do not wish to get into any kind of global warming debate with you. I will just say that I disagree with most of the findings that are being hyped in the media.

My only wish in regards to the environment is that people would just show some concern in protecting it. If everybody showed just a little concern we'd be much better off. I can't do anything about China's pollution or even the smog in Los Angeles - I can do what I can within my own immediate environment. It seems that too many people are good at offering up problems without looking for logical solutions and then they blow their gaskets over things that they have no control over.

People having children is one of these issues. We have no control over other people in this regards so why get too upset over it - we shouldn't. As time goes by the truth will be evident and people will make the most natural of choices for survival. Civilaizations have run themselves into the ground but the world has continued to grow. Man is a survivor and will continue to be. So have confidence in our ability to survive.

[gadgetlady 4]

NEW PAGE 1

[Sunta 4]

What now? Do we castrate the men with more than 5 children? Or tie the tubes of women with 6 children?

My point is simple. How many is too many? And....says WHO?

Well, as I have said many, many, many times on this thread (I guess it falls on deaf ears), I do not advocate tying tubes or castration or anything similar to that.

All I want is for people to become educated about the impact of population on the environment and then make their own decision about childbearing. That's it. For some reason, people always seem to get very angry over my use of the term "become educated", as if I'm implying that they are "uneducated' in general. I'm not implying that.

There are many things in this world I would like to become educated about. One thing I am educated about is the impact of population on the environment. Thus, I have made the decision to (possibly) adopt rather than bear, children. This is my own personal decision, based on what I have learned regarding carbon footprints, and the impact of population on environment.

If someone were to truly delve into, and learn, about the issue, and then go on to decide to still have many children, then that is their right. I am not trying to take that right away and would not advocate for anyone who would try to take that right away. But my hope would be that by learning about the issue, perhaps they would choose to, say, have one child and adopt the rest. If they choose that, then great. If not, then that is their decision and no one should be able to take that decision away from them.

It's like this: say that alot of people didn't know that smoking causes lung cancer, and someone posted a thread saying "I wish people would become educated about the effects of smoking before they decide to smoke or not." The poster would certainly hope that once people knew the effects of smoking, they might choose not to smoke. It's not to take anyone's decision away, it's simply to hope that people would have the opportunity to to learn about the effects of smoking, before making the decision, so that they could make an informed decision. Does that make sense?

[Sunta 4]

No, please explain

This article is a re-print. It explains far better than I could, and gives links to Websites to obtain further information:

Technological advances during the last century led to low mortality rates and high birth rates across countries around the world. In addition to this, increased migration and concentration of population clusters in selected locations have put extreme pressure on the surrounding regions.

Scientists are now predicting that unless we bring a healthy balance in the growth rate many countries will be facing acute food shortage and our environment may face irreversible damage that will jeopardize our future. According to a UN report, the world population is predicted to grow from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050. Can you imagine the pressure this will put on our scarce resources?

Some common definitions of Population

For a brief overview of world population, read this. This article gives a brief history of the unprecedented growth in population since the last century. It also provides reference for different theories on population growth. You can also visit this website for a look at the population statistics for countries and their major cities.

Population Growth and the Environment

'Overpopulation indicates a scenario in which the population of a living species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche.

In common parlance, the term usually refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment (the planet Earth). Read this article on overpopulation to know how overpopulation can lead to acute shortage of resources.

Though the birth rate has fallen in some economically advanced countries, it has increased alarmingly in other countries, leading to increased pressure on land and other resources.

Since human habitat and livelihood are closely interconnected with the surrounding ecosystem, increased pressure from population can cause irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems. Significantly, in some cases, technological advances of developed countries lead to more exploitation of natural resource than the so-called developing countries.

So the problem is not simply population growth but finding the right balance between population growth and sustainable development. These issues are discused here. Visit this website for a more comprehensive look at population issues.

Pressure on Scarce Resources

There is a growing imbalance between the demands of human populations and the resources that support human life. Fresh Water, land, finite resources like fossil energy are depleting very fast because of increased pressure to meet the growing demand of an expanding population.

According to a study most replacement of eroded agricultural land is now coming from marginal and forest land. The pressure for agricultural land accounts for 60 to 80 % of the world's deforestation. The fresh water that is consumed or used up by agriculture is not recoverable.

Already daily news and reports tell us that competition for water resources among individuals, regions, and countries and associated human activities is already occurring with the current world population. Overfishing has led to almost complete extinction of some species of fish as even the smallest fish gets caught in the net to meet market demands.

In regions like eastern Canada, for instance, overfishing has been so severe that cod fishermen have no fish to catch, and the economy of that region has been devastated. For details visit this webpage.

The Future

Current trends in population growth indicate that fertility rates have been decreasing in some high-risk regions. But the growth rate is still not stable enough to provide relief. According to reports, more than 99 % of that growth occurs in the poorest countries already torn by strife. For projections of world populations, download this file.

You can also visit this site to know more about issues related to population growth and environmental concerns. What are the current trends in population growth across the globe? Do we consume more than we can regenerate? Will there be enough food to go around? Will climate change lead to droughts and disrupt agriculture? These are some of the key questions discussed in the report here.

[gadgetlady 4]

Sunta, when the title of your thread is "Stop having so many damn kids; population control anyone?", it doesn't convey sentiments of rationality and personal choice. It conveys a presumption about kids ("damn kids") and a political advocacy ("population control"). While you may have said after your original post that you don't advocate enforced population control, I'm sure you can see how the title of the thread can set people off.

[Hope2BHottie 0]

Pardon me if I did not read the 80 pages of posts before responding, perhaps I should have. I apologize if I "jumped the gun" However, it seems the title of the thread and the FIRST post had little to do with environmental issues. In fact, there was only one small reference made regarding the environment.

"I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!"

Being a seemingly intelligent person, I'm sure you now understand my confusion. The title and initial post were more about "damn kids" or "bleeping kids" rather than the environment.

[Sunta 4]

The title and initial post were more about "damn kids" or "bleeping kids" rather than the environment.

I have learned that some on this board "get" tongue in cheek and others don't and never will.

I now take a much more serious approach to my posts, since there is no room here for sense of humor, sarcasm, or satire.

[green 6]

The title and initial post were more about "damn kids" or "bleeping kids" rather than the environment.

I have learned that some on this board "get" tongue in cheek and others don't and never will.

I now take a much more serious approach to my posts, since there is no room here for sense of humor, sarcasm, or satire.

You must pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and ask Him to unlock the gates of their minds in order that they are able to see the difference.....