Do you think people should stop having babies (for the time being)?
Once you vote, please explain why you support or not support the idea.
yes | 47 | |
no | 24 |
Ask Your Question today
Once you vote, please explain why you support or not support the idea.
yes | 47 | |
no | 24 |
We should turn back lots of measures that allowed people to live so long. Smoking and drinking should be cheaper and advertisement for it allowed again, even to minors. Speed limits should increase and seat belts no longer mandatory. Regulations for carcinogenic chemicals should be more lax.
HAha thats one way to do it. We could also do like they did in the anime "Deadmans wonderland". It would only effect criminals though. So it wont be doing anything for the idiots in society that seem to be aiming for their own destruction.
Definitely for people in Africa or India, but people in countries such as France or Japan are predicted to have some serious problems later on from the lack of childbirths without enough immigration to compensate for the growing number of dependent (i.e. old) citizens.
Not entirely stop, that's an extremely unreasonable request. But perhaps slow down? I have to be honest, I do think it's irresponsible these days to go having any more than max 4 or 5 kids. And 4 or 5 is still quite a lot. Just being realistic.
Absolutely! At one child per couple you halve the world population. At 2 children you maintain it, but people are living longer, so actually, you are adding to the population.
Since the fresh water and food production are nearly at saturation level right now, what exactly is the point in increasing the world's population?
Do you want to live through food riots? Watch or be one of the millions who will die of starvation and/or thirst?
Every baby you have brings us closer to the edge of disaster.
I sure am glad I won't live to see how you all are going to fuck up this planet. The generations before you have done a pretty good job of it and now it's your uneducated, ignorant and pathetic (it seems from the poor grammar, spelling and stupid postings on IIN) chance to help.
No, because in 70 years time we'd have a very unbalanced population in terms of the age distribution and no way to quickly fix the problems that would arise.
Perhaps people could get a tax break for not having children and the value of the tax break each year would be directly proportional to the number of live births the previous year, thus always moderating the population and never overmoderating it.
This comment is at the top?
This fucking thing?
People will always fuck "unsafely" regardless of their tax status....
Fewer? There wouldn't be fewer lol, just more liars "that don't know how dat kid got there".
People don't curb sex lol. It's so naive to think they would.
Hop flop.
Tax really does work as a way to change behavior. If it didn't, they wouldn't put it on certain types of food, alcohol and cigarettes. Or, rather, they probably would anyway but because they do they can also say they're doing it for public health reasons and back it up with evidence (which you are now going to say is faked).
Tax didn't change alcohol or cigarette consumption at all, it just made people who do those things end up with less money, rates have not dropped much. The same would happen with this issue. I mean gosh dang hop, get a grip on reality.
And as for sex, that would change even less.
Already, the world has seen decreases in birth rates at industrialized countries. The countries that have higher birth rates are ones that are less industrialized. Even in the United States, people are experiencing the lowest birth rates the country has ever seen. A recent Time magazine issue goes over the "childless America" effect and interviewed couples who didn't want children. However, they reported that people spend over $1 billion dollars on baby items.
Considering China, even though the one-child policy has been in place since the '80s, the population growth will keep increasing until the last generation before the one-child policy fades. The newer generation will see a lot less people in time, but it'll take several years before that happens. Because of gendercide on girls and honor of having boys keep their last names (male preference), there are millions of men who probably won't have the opportunity to get married because of the huge shortage of women.
True, it is your choice of how many children you want and there are millions who would/do raise theirs wrongly, but I'm not here to preach. Just stating the facts.
No, people who want to have child should have child, there should not be any restrictions whether the parents are damn poor or disgustingly rich, black or white, live in Europe or in Africa. In my opinion only a woman can decide if she wants to have a child or not.
Considering how much overpopulation we have going on we should definitely put a stop to "baby making". Only problem is, you can't really control that.
Some people shout not have kids in the first place
and then there's the people who are "pro life, everybody should have a chance"
No. We're going to have to burden the future generation because there are going to be tons of seniors. I say one child policy, like China.
It would certainly do the earth a lot of good. Adoption is more responsible.
I just don't see the evidence to support curbing the human population. What we need to do, though is to look to expanding out beyond Earth, beyond the solar system, eventually.
Possibly one of the single most retarded statements I've EVER seen on this website. Congratulations on being a complete and utter buffoon.
The problem is that we may not be able to wait that long. We're well on our way to a J-curve, and no human has gone beyond the Moon yet.