Quantcast

Since the planet is over-populated, should there be a worldwide limit on children per family?

PaulBot415 2012/06/14 16:15:25
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Overpopulation: The World's Problemby

Vince Busam



The world's population will soon reach a level where there will not be enough resources to sustain life as we know it. Growth must be checked to avoid this catastrophe. Many environmental, social, and economic problems either stem from or are increased in magnitude by the overpopulation problem. With an exponentially increasing population, the problems created by overpopulation grow correspondingly. To ensure population stability not only in the increasingly wealthy third-world areas, but also in the industrialized areas, countries and individuals must work together to achieve zero population growth.

The earth does not contain enough resources to indefinitely sustain the current enormous population growth. For instance, there is a limited area of arable land and living space. China, home to 1.2 billion people or 1/5 the world's population, is an excellent example of the kinds of problems that arise in an increasingly crowded society. Trying to increase the standard of living of its people, China has industrialized and the economy has grown (Hanson). This increase in wealth has increased the demand for food in China. The demand is so great that China went from exporting 8 million tons of grain in 1992 to becoming a net importer of 16 million tons of grain in 1994 (China News Digest). This causes a world-wide grain shortage which raises prices, which in turn puts food out of reach of even more people.

In many areas, there is simply not enough food to feed the growing populations. Each day 40,000 children die from malnutrition and its related diseases. 150 million children in the world suffer from poor health due to food shortages (Turbak, 20).

Another resource, which cannot keep up with an increasing population, is water. The supply of fresh water is limited. The recent California drought exemplifies this problem. Conflicts ensue between farmers, municipalities, environmentalists, and others over water rights. Recently, environmentalists battled with Los Angeles over the diversion of water from Mono lake to the LA basin. The Mono Lake incident and the aqueduct fights highlight some of the conflicts that arise over water. Creating fresh water can be expensive. A swelling population may have to turn to desalinization for their clean water. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia is the only country for which this process has had any success. However, Saudi Arabia does not require the vast amounts of agricultural water that California and other areas need. Another possible solution to the fresh water shortage is towing icebergs from the polar caps. This is just too costly for many areas.

In addition to depleting resources, overpopulation increases environmental problems. Pollution is an environmental problem whose magnitude is increased by overpopulation. As more people drive more cars, use more electricity, throw away more trash, and cut down more trees, the environmental problems we experience are greatly increased. The earth could easily sustain a small population of highly polluting people. But as more people such as ourselves pollute, massive problems occur. Pollution is magnified in developing nations. As those nations with larger growing populations become richer, their pollution increases with their wealth. Developing nations often promote industries that pollute to compete economically. These industries are less tightly regulated in order to stimulate growth.

Besides causing the environmental strains on the earth, overpopulation causes a large number of the social problems in today's society. One example of this is described in the recent study by Ohio State University showing that children whose family sizes were larger did worse in school. "The research, to be published in October's American Sociological Review, found that as family size increases, parents talk less to each child about school, have lower education expectations, save less for college and have fewer educational materials available" (CAPS).

Each individual's political power is reduced with increased population. As the population increases, each representative in the US and state congresses (as well as senators) represents a wider segment of the population. This problem was initially addressed by increasing the number of representatives. However, when the number of US representatives reached 435, the sheer numbers became unimaginable and led to a cap on the number of representatives. In Lincoln's time, there were 185,000 residents in a congressional district. Today, there are about 600,000 people in each district (Oberlink). The only alternative would be increasing the number of representatives, however this would only decrease congresses' efficiency.

Social funding per capita is also reduced when the population grows. Again, California provides an excellent example. In 1990 there were 5.7 million children enrolled in California's K-12 schools, while there will be 7.9 million in 2000 (Bouvier 41). "Our secondary school population is growing by 177,000 a year. The Dept. of Education projects that 35,333 new classrooms, or approx. 1,399 K-12 schools will be needed by the year 2000. That is almost a school a day. California already has some of the largest class sizes in the nation (Phillips)." With this growth in school needs, the state cannot meet the budget requirements. This has significantly contributed toward the state's deficit, as well as reduced the quality of education.

In the 1980's, there was a 10% population density increase in the US. This led to a 20% decrease in housing affordability. The supply has not kept up with the demand for housing, which caused the real estate boom. This causes continually growing urban communities such as Los Angeles, which has experienced problems due to its sheer massiveness (Johnson).

The traffic problems we face daily are another result of overpopulation. Just in California, 300,000 hours are wasted in traffic congestion each year at an estimated annual cost of over 892 million dollars. In addition, these idiling motors add to the pollution problem (Oberlink).

Many people feel that efforts to stop the rising population are unnecessary. They feel the population is under control and, in effect, the population bomb has fizzed. Ben Wattenberg, in The Birth Dearth, cites that a shrinking population will put developed nations at a severe disadvantage. It will cause military, economic, politic, and cultural weaknesses in relation to other countries.

People against population controls cite statistics in their favor. According to the 1994 US Census, the fertility rate of 59 countries is below 2.1 births per female which is the number of children per family needed to maintain the population. China is down to 1.8, and Spain is down to 1.4 (Verburg). These people also claim Africa is experiencing shortages of laborers, even though they reject technology because of the reduced labor it requires.

Anti-population control advocates feel that the resource problems may not be as bad as earlier expected. Since 1960, the world's food supply per capita has increased 27% and the food production in developing nation has increased 20%. The world's oil reserves have increased from 100 billion cubic meters in 1980 to 158 billion cubic meters in 1993. Only 50% of the world's arable land is used. Grain production increased 2.1% in the 80's, well above the 1.4% necessary to feed the increasing population (Verburg). According to the UN, the world's population may stabilize at 7.5 billion in 2015.

Although opponents to population stabilization cite statistics in their favor, the overwhelming majority of statistics point toward a severe problem. One in four births in the developing world outside China is unwanted (Verburg). It took 123 years, from 1804 to 1927 for the world to produce its second billion people, yet it took just thirteen years, from 1974 to 1987, to produce the fifth billion (UN Population Division). There are three more people in the United States every second with nine births and three deaths every two seconds (Universal Almanac, 173). In 1960 Europe was the most densely populated continent. By 1991 Asia surpassed Europe's denseness with 176 persons per square mile while Europe only had 168 persons per square mile. Americans can barely feel this squeeze with only 43 persons per square mile ("Population," World Book Encyclopedia). If the population continues to grow at current rates with no further decline (a highly unlikely scenario), there will be 694 billion people on the Earth by 2150 (Verburg).

The Catholic Church represents major religious opposition to controlled population. The Church's official stand is against any birth control whatsoever. They believe God should plan families. The problem includes Catholics obeying John Paul II's Human Vitae, the church using its political power in stopping abortion and birth control advances, and protesting the discussion of family planning at world forums such as the UN Women's conferences (Ehrlich, 22).

Zero Population Growth is the foremost American activist organization for population control. They cite several solutions for the population problem including family planning services, international awareness, population education, improving women's status, and economic incentives. Many of these solutions have been implemented in various countries with success. These are easy solutions with few adverse side-effects.

The Chinese government has been able to control population by creating economic incentives for families with less than two children. With 1/5 of the world's population and only 7% of the land, population checks were badly needed. Population control was achieved using education, government propaganda, and community pressures. For instance, a couple promising to have only one child receives a one-time reward of money and rice. If that child does not live to maturity, the couple is allowed another. The child will receive a private plot of 70 square meters of land, compared to 50 for a child in a larger family (Mings, 479).

Similar techniques could be implemented in the United States by slowly removing the tax write-off for more than 2 children. Families will not experience extreme economic hardship if the decline were gradual enough. Moreover, government revenue could increase. An example of such a solution would be amending the current US H.R. 6, a middle-class tax cutting bill, to limit the $500-per-child tax credit to two children.

Birth control and family planning is another excellent way of slowing the surging population growth. Japan is a crowded nation the size of California with a population equal to about half the US population. Population controls were badly needed. Condoms have proven to be an extremely successful way of slowing the growth. With dedicated stores, such as Condomania, and aggressive advertising, condom usage reached 547 million in 1991. This is almost as much as the 561 million the US used with twice the population.

Another factor attributing to the decrease in population growth in Japan is the stressful working conditions. Men concentrate heavily on work and less on recreational activities. Because of the resulting high stress levels, overall sexual activity has declined and the sperm count with it. These factors, coupled with the high condom usage, has slowed Japanese population growth. The slowed growth has resulted in a temporary aging of the population, which creates minor problems, but is unavoidable in any fix to population growth (Watanabe).

Population growth is slowed as women's rights are increased. This is evident in developed nations where fewer births occur as the woman's role in society changes. Elevating women out of their lower-class status in many nations will greatly aid progress. As women gain economic, political, and reproductive power in today's industrialized nations, birth rates drop dramatically and now most of western Europe is at or below replacement level.

Finally, all the people of the world must be made aware of the situation. The problem is not popularized in the media as much as other problems which stem from overpopulation such as the environment, AIDS, and lung cancer. Children and adults are well informed on how to help the environment, how to avoid AIDS, and that smoking is bad for their health. But they are not well informed about all of the problems of overpopulation. Overpopulation information needs to be more widespread than it currently is. This can be reasonably achieved with information in TV segments and in science and social studies classes.

While less developed countries face the biggest problems, solutions also need to be implemented here in the US. In California, the fertility rate grew from 1.947 in 1982 to 2.480 in 1989 (Bouvier 13). Educating the public will ease California's population growth.

Successful steps have been made in fighting the problem. The first step, recognizing the problem, was reached by Thomas Malthus with An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Malthus pointed out that population tends to grow at an exponential rate while the food production grows at a geometric rate. Thus population growth must be checked. He mentioned "positive checks" such as war, famine, and disease, and "preventative checks" such as celibacy and contraception ("Population," Encarta).

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb. They were the first to popularize how serious the problem had become. While incorrectly predicting short term large-scale famine and plague, the book awakened the world to the upcoming problems.

Today, the United Nations Population Fund is collecting information on the problem. Events such as the UN Women's conference in support of family planning and birth control have raised the status of women, an important step in reducing population. Family planning was not even on the agenda in the 1972 conference, but it was stressed in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, as well as the 1994 Women's Conference (Marshall).

With an impending crisis looming over the horizon, the afore outlined steps must be followed to ease the population problem and the many other problems which are directly related to it. When people are educated to the benefits of limiting family size, they respond with lower birth rates. Education, coupled with economic pressure, will end the overpopulation problem and ease many of the other problems faced by today's society.

Works Cited

Bouvier, Leon. Fifty Million Californians? Washington, D.C.: Federation for American Immigration Reform, 1991.

CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) (1995, October 16). _grades articls_, [e-mail to Vince Busam], [Online]. Available e-mail: vabusam@hooked.net.

China News Digest (1995, October 17). _China Warns of Ag. Crisis_, [e-mail to Vince Busam], [Online]. Available e-mail: vabusam@hooked.net.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. The Population Explosion. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

Hanson, Jay (1995, November 2). _Who Will Feed China?_, [e-mail to Vince Busam], [Online]. Available e-mail: vabusam@hooked.net.

Johnson, Howard. "Overpopulation Linked to U.S. Prosperity Decline." 1995, August 14. [Online]. Available: http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/press1.html.

Marshall, Alex. "Busting the boom: Population control works; but continued progress needs more funding." World Paper. April 1991: 11-12 S.I.R.S. "Population" 29.

McCuen, Gary E. Population & Human Survival. Hudson, Wisconsin: Gary E McCuen Publications, Inc., 1993.

Mings, Turley. The Study of Economics: Principles, Concepts & Applications. Guilford, Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1995.

Oberlink, Ric, J.D. "Population and Representation." CAPS Newsletter, Winter 1995. Vol. 26, page 5.

"Population." Microsoft Encarta. 1995 ed.

"Population." World Book Encyclopedia. 1986 ed.

Phillips, Jamie (1995, October 17). _Social impacts of population growth_, [e-mail to Vince Busam], [Online]. Available e-mail: vabusam@hooked.net.

Turbak, Gary. "Tick... Tick... Tick..." American Legion Magazine. July 1992: 20 S.I.R.S. "Population" 52.

United Nations Population Divison: Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis. "World Population Growth from Year 0 to Stablization." 1994, July 7. [On-line]. Available: http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/milestones.html.

The Universal Almanac. Kansas City, Andrews and McNeel, 1994.

Verburg, Peter. "The Threat of Population is a Myth." Alberta Report. 1994, September 26: 42-43 S.I.R.S. "Population" 98.

Watanabe, Teresa. "In Japan, You Spell Birth Control: C-O-N-D-O-M" Los Angeles Times. 1994, August 23: H1 S.I.R.S. 95b.

Wright, Robin. "The Fuse Still Sizzles on World Population Bomb." Los Angeles Times. 1994, August 23: H1 S.I.R.S. 95a.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Fef 2012/06/14 17:00:47
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    Fef
    +4
    The world doesn't have too many people -- just too many dependent people.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Live Free Or Die 2013/03/02 01:19:39
    Maybe, but then again, maybe not
    Live Free Or Die
    It wouldn't be right to make it a law, but I think when the other countries catch up to us their birth rates will slow down. I don't know if that will be in time to save the planet. We have to stop polluting and cutting down all the trees - but that seems impossible to do.
  • Pronata... Live Fr... 2014/03/20 18:13:15 (edited)
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Why do you think their birth rates will slow down? Due to the RAMPANT CONTRACEPTIVE PUSHING of this wicked selfish era?

    The number of women of childbearing age is higher than it has previously been, so with more baby holes from which babies can emerge, we ought to be having more babies than ever.

    Save the planet from what? The planet has no phobia of "too many" people. That is NWO criminal elitist "mad scientist" nonsense. If they really wanted to "save the planet," the NWO criminal elitists would stop suppressing Tesla's free-energy technology.

    It would be wrong to make a law against children? Upon that we agree. The world has no need of more government violence nor threat of kidnapping people and locking them up in animal cages (prisons) merely for disagreeing with corrupt government.
  • Pronatalist Pronatalist 2013/01/20 00:23:54
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred. We should welcome the human race to spread freely so that more and more people can experience life. I have long advocated the natural family growth without any means of "fertility control." Let babies push out freely.
  • PaulBot415 Pronata... 2013/02/26 02:47:42
    PaulBot415
    +1
    but its not fair to bring babies into a world that cant and wont support them. it forces them to suffer when they had no choice in the matter.
  • Pronata... PaulBot415 2013/03/04 08:41:28 (edited)
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    The world could easily support lots more people, huge numbers of babies, if we behaved more like the immense and sacred value of each and every person, was priority, rather than sin, selfishness, deception, and greed. Babies are more benefitted by being born, than not existing at all. Surely you don't expect married people to conveniently forget about having sex? As long as so many billions of people keep needing to enjoy sex, we should expect lots of babies to happen.
  • BystroffC 2012/07/15 23:11:19
    Yes, it would help save the environment
    BystroffC
    +1
    Saying we have the right to have as many babies as we can is like saying we have the right to destroy the planet.
  • Somkey ... BystroffC 2012/07/16 07:20:05
    Somkey the Hores
    Another New York commie heard from.
  • Pronata... BystroffC 2013/01/21 07:24:01 (edited)
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Allowing the world to grow denser and denser with people, does NOT mean "destroying" the planet. Presumably, if we allow everybody to have as many babies as they want or can conceive, in a world of so many "burgeoning billions" alive already, something is going to have to give. Why not give up the ridiculously low population densities of the past? By advocating a DENSER planet, we assure that parents can enjoy having their precious darling babies still, families can remain growing traditionally very large, babies can freely push out without nasty "birth control" hindrances and terrible side effects of contraception, and that government violence and deceptions and tyranny not be directed against naturally-growing families. I have long advocated large families worldwide, a denser planet, and that people not use any form of birth control, because each and every human life is of immense value and sacred, and so human populations everywhere should spread naturally, unhindered.
  • BystroffC Pronata... 2013/01/25 21:26:05
    BystroffC
    +1
    Thanks for your input. But... How dense can we get?
  • Pronata... BystroffC 2013/01/26 01:05:25
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    A whole lot denser, but it takes time to grow, and God has not abandoned us. It doesn't appear to be something to worry about within your lifetime.
  • BystroffC Pronata... 2013/03/02 00:36:48
    BystroffC
    +1
    God has not abandoned us. We have abandoned God! God gave us mathematics, and mathematics says we can't grow forever. Are we listening?
  • Pronata... BystroffC 2013/03/04 08:53:01
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Who is talking about growing "forever?" How about "for the forseeable future," for as long as God allows. Let's say, for example, by some either "optimistic" or realistic calculation, even with merely current technology, the world could be made to hold, let's say at least 200 billion. Why worry then as world population careens past 30 billion, perhaps a century from now? Couldn't that be viewed as 85% underpopulation? Why all the baseless Malthusian enviro-wacko poverty religion gloom-and-doom? Why not more celebrate the natural blossoming of human life?
  • DemonChild 2012/07/07 04:51:30
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    DemonChild
    We're not really running out of resources like the pessimists would have you believe (the Earth can sustain 286 billion at one time)
  • BystroffC DemonChild 2012/07/15 23:12:36
    BystroffC
    286 billion? I assume we would be eating one rice grain per year, then?
  • Live Fr... BystroffC 2013/03/02 01:24:03
    Live Free Or Die
    lol, that would be people just piled up on top of each other, scary thought!
  • beach bum 2012/06/27 08:15:47
    Yes, it would help save the environment
    beach bum
    yes
  • Rubyking 2012/06/26 23:23:51
    Yes, it would help save the environment
    Rubyking
    I just felt like saying that the reason china has so many people is because the tight vaginas make it harder to pull out
  • Pronata... Rubyking 2013/01/21 07:28:45
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Or the communist oppression puts life under stress, and life tries to survive so stress promotes more reproduction. Of course Asia must be doing something right, having half the world's "huge" human population.
  • Simmering Frog 2012/06/21 22:30:45
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    Simmering Frog
    +1
    Just want to know how you plan to enforce a limited child policy.
  • Pronata... Simmeri... 2013/04/08 23:41:01 (edited)
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    That is the beauty of letting world population grow freely. No use for government violence nor deception to "enforce" it. And did I mention that billions more may enjoy life? I have long opposed any "cap" to be imposed upon world population size. For what do we do when we reach it? Resort to unthinkable violence and draconian anti-people measures? I am a human. I have no such evil wish against my fellow man. So what if there gets to be some day, "too many" people? What does that even mean anyway? Why can't there just be, "too many" then? Would I complain if I had too much money? I see nothing wrong with having "too many" children. Let babies come as they come.
  • PaulBot415 Pronata... 2013/05/24 00:01:35
    PaulBot415
    and destroy the planet. basically.
  • Pronata... PaulBot415 2013/06/07 04:05:19
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    What do you mean by "destroy the planet" anyway? Destroy the scenic view of selfish filthy rich elitists, seeing people coming to cover more and more of the land?

    I have heard the opinion somewhere, of some educated idiot concerned that the planet is supposedly becoming a crowded feedlot for humans. So what if it is? That's no excuse to diss people's babies nor to impede the natural spread of human life. If human reproduction is fast becoming a "mighty force of nature," then let it do so. It is because it was meant to be. They say you can't stop people from having sex. So why do educated idiots think we should be able to "control" our growing numbers?
  • PaulBot415 Pronata... 2013/06/08 08:21:29
    PaulBot415
    I dont just mean parts of the planet that r used by the rich, I'm referring to the entire thing. A planet where 26.7 percent of the population will likely be below the poverty line by 2015. What you said there just sounded ignorant.

    Not too mention, how do you expect those babies you are referring to, to have a place to live? Or how are they going to feel when their own kids don't have any ozone layer to protect themselves. Or any natural resources to live off of? If all you can think of is that people wont stop having sex, it shows absolutely no fore-thought at all. You must have no idea what it's like to have no money or to have less than what you need to live off, because if you did, you would not wish that on future generations of humanity.
  • silverandgold21 2012/06/19 23:56:25
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    silverandgold21
    +1
    not the governments job to dictate anything like that
  • PaulBot415 silvera... 2012/06/21 01:03:18
    PaulBot415
    you're right, people should be smart enough to police it on their own.
  • Warren ... PaulBot415 2013/03/02 00:57:51
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Are they?
  • Pronata... PaulBot415 2013/04/08 23:47:15 (edited)
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    People don't need to "control" how many children they have, either. Just take the responsibility for loving and providing for however many children they have, and let the population size grow "wild," up to God to determine the population size. Whatever happened to letting babies happen when they happen?
  • PaulBot415 Pronata... 2013/05/24 00:03:40
    PaulBot415
    but that is not realistic, because people are living outside of their means. and for some reason, in impoverished countries, the populations keep growing and they do not have the resources to provide for their own. you seem to be wearing rose colored glasses and the world is this amazing place for you, but in reality, we are running out of resources on a global scale and people are going to eventually start dying either way, so why not try to prevent worldwide catastrophe?
  • Pronata... PaulBot415 2013/06/07 04:42:57
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Most all shortages are phony. New World Order criminal elitists manufacture scarcity, to keep people fearful and controlled. All around thee is work to be done, yet people who want jobs sit around unemployed. Why? Because corrupt governments meddle and ruin their economies.

    What you see is not "overpopulation," but lack of sufficient population ACCOMMODATION. More and more people would be glad to live, so of course human populations everywhere ought to be urged to grow freely without birth control, even in regions where the population is already huge. Human life is sacred in all its forms, even as naturally-spurting semen. Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred, so the natural increase of humans should not be hindered.

    I think the world was starting to make good progress towards improving population accommodation, even public health advocates were preparing and welcoming the world to grow denser with people, back when growth was good, before "the pill" of 1960. "Free Love" rebellion of the 1960s really confused people, used to be that sex=babies, so sex was a serious matter, virtues and marriage-monogamy was promoted. Lots of sex and lots of babies. Cost of living was lower because taxes and government hindrances was lower.

    Why do the populations keep growing? A...





    Most all shortages are phony. New World Order criminal elitists manufacture scarcity, to keep people fearful and controlled. All around thee is work to be done, yet people who want jobs sit around unemployed. Why? Because corrupt governments meddle and ruin their economies.

    What you see is not "overpopulation," but lack of sufficient population ACCOMMODATION. More and more people would be glad to live, so of course human populations everywhere ought to be urged to grow freely without birth control, even in regions where the population is already huge. Human life is sacred in all its forms, even as naturally-spurting semen. Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred, so the natural increase of humans should not be hindered.

    I think the world was starting to make good progress towards improving population accommodation, even public health advocates were preparing and welcoming the world to grow denser with people, back when growth was good, before "the pill" of 1960. "Free Love" rebellion of the 1960s really confused people, used to be that sex=babies, so sex was a serious matter, virtues and marriage-monogamy was promoted. Lots of sex and lots of babies. Cost of living was lower because taxes and government hindrances was lower.

    Why do the populations keep growing? An old "overpopulation" article, "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis," cited as the prime reason for so much population growth, that the number of women of childbearing age is higher than it has previously been. Obviously babies are growing up and having still more babies. Estimates of the numbers of women of childbearing age, run around 2 billion. The demographic numbers say it it is not that we are having so many babies, but rather that there are just so many people having babies. I agree with parents everywhere loving their children and welcoming babies to push out freely without birth control. Birthing babies is just as natural and proper as breathing or the heart beating. Can we limit how much people breathe or how often they need to pee? Neither should human reproduction be hindered. We simply do not have 2 billion baby hole corks. As populations grow, the number of parents grows, and we should welcome growing numbers of people to become sexually active, and for babies to keep emerging out of ever more baby holes. Just as the world needs more toilets, growing cities should add more birthing clinics, and populations should always be encouraged to spread and expand freely.

    The catastrophe is NOT that so many people have become alive, but the evil NWO global tyranny depopulation plans to stop this progress. Can you not see how even the "weight of numbers" naturally argues for continual population growth? The more populous we become, the more people there are to benefit. Food grows on trees. Condoms don't. What is needed, is a denser planet. We can do far better to absorb our rising populations, and to go on welcoming parents to enjoy having their precious darling babies.

    popping out babies

    popping out babies
    (more)
  • PaulBot415 Pronata... 2013/06/08 08:26:01
    PaulBot415
    There arent enough benefits to go around anymore, and there will be less and less every year that passes. And there will be less and less, the more mouths there are to feed, the more cars there are to fuel, the more houses need space and the more people need to fish the oceans. The list is endless, but the natural resources are not. More people = more problems. And more harmful waste products hurting the environment. The more likely it will be that the planet may just deal with us on it's own. The world is a living thing, and it has the capabilities to wipe out humanity if need be. Super volcanos, massive earthquakes resulting in massive tsunamis. If the atmosphere is done enough harm we could end up in another ice age or with world wide flooding. Your logic is not logical. What you are saying makes no sense what so ever.
  • k fleming 2012/06/16 20:05:50
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    k fleming
    +1
    On top of that, "overpopulation" is not the West's problem at all!!
    Europe, and US, etc, do not produce enough children to even maintain their populations! The only way these countries grow is through immigration. WE need to stop saying the world is over populated and start pointing the finger directly at developing countries to start taking control of their own problems!
  • Warren ... k fleming 2012/06/18 13:34:21
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    But we in the west consume vastly more of the Earth's resources. The world cannot support US standards of living without eliminating most of the human race. So we are stuck with most of the world destined to poverty.
  • k fleming Warren ... 2012/07/16 15:55:44
    k fleming
    Not my point, WE aren't overpopulated, India and China are. Stop making overpopulation such an issue here. It's western culture that thought of conservation, the rest of world would just happily rape the earth and allow mishandling of chemicals, etc.
  • Warren ... k fleming 2012/07/17 13:11:52
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    The only reason it is not your point is because you are missing the point. The US is dependent on the third world for the resources to drive our economy, and the only way we can maintain access is by ensuring poverty for the rest of the world. If we ever allowedthem to exploit their own resources, our own economy would collapse. This is a fact. Population, resources and economics are global.
  • Pronata... k fleming 2013/04/08 23:51:20
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    China and India are NOT "overpopulated." They are underdeveloped. They could hold a lot more people, if ever they needed to. There are places all around to put more people. Let the planet grow denser and denser, so billions more, our very own progeny, can live.
  • k fleming Pronata... 2013/04/15 14:54:48
    k fleming
    I don't believe they are technically overpopulated either, their main problems are cultural and government.
    BUT, if the West is going to stop having children (which we have), immigration MUST be better controlled. But that's another story....
  • Pronata... k fleming 2013/04/15 18:43:36 (edited)
    Pronatalist Pronatalist
    Yes, that is another reason we in the West, ought to be having naturally large families. So we can have MORE room for more immigrants. We can have a larger inflow of immigration, when our own large population is really booming, that way we don't lose our culture and become swamped with immigrants slow to assimilate and learn English.

    U.S. population is low compared to what it ought to be. Just to catch up to average world population density, we ought to have 500 million or more, because our land mass is so huge. We could easily hold as many people as China, if we have freedom so we can adequately expand infrastructure to better absorb our natural increase.

    Gone are the days of frontiers to fill. The direction we should be going now, is to actively encourage the planet to steadily grow denser and denser with people. India should feel no shame yo have such a "huge" population on limited land. Literally now, more people than acres of land. They are doing their part to help the planet hold billions more people. What they should be ashamed of, is government corruption and false religion, which cruelly traps people in poverty.

    large india family

    large india family
  • Sayer Stewart 2012/06/15 23:11:51
    No, people have a right to choose the number of kids they have
    Sayer Stewart
    Unless you want to end up like China where they have forced abortions.
  • Somkey the Hores 2012/06/15 07:10:14 (edited)
    Maybe, but then again, maybe not
    Somkey the Hores
    Who's going to enforce it?

    How about everyone who thinks the planet is overpopulated KILL YOURSELF for a start. OK?

    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    enforce thinks planet overpopulated kill yeah
  • PaulBot415 Somkey ... 2012/06/17 19:54:18
    PaulBot415
    +1
    Why kill ourselves? We shouldn't kill anyone. Just help it thin before the planet does it for us. I'm not saying to kill people. Just stop having so many damned kids when there are too many humans.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 07:55:10

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals