Should couples apply for permission or a licence to have children, how do we manage the world population?
since I was born (1965) the world population has almost doubled, is it time to start managing the world population? we only have a finite amount of resources and living space, if things are left as they are things will get very ugly.
as a youth+ I was a rampant swordsman, but I was always protected, always. I'm not sure why education isn't working, surely kids nowadays are aware of the dangers and the pitfalls of unprotected sex?? or do they just not give a shit?
and the country's that still practice having dozen of children as their forebears did, I don't have a clue how that can be sorted out. ;-)
Answer this Follow this
I would definitely say " Education " is the key. Too many children are having children. Not just one, but many. It is definitely a problem with caring for the kids from an unplanned pregnancy. It is not suitable or acceptable for the taxpayers to pick up the " tabs " for these children.
People who are unable to care for their children by working on their own should not have had children period. It is a decision that effects the child and his way of life in the future. I've watched my stepdaughter bring 5 children into this world and live off of welfare for 20 years. It has disgusted me to no end, along with her deadbeat husband. Now my grandaughter is following in her footsteps, exactly.
So.. yes, I'm in agreement for ' 0 ' population. I think that if people plan parenthood, it is fine. But to literally have one after the other is simply idiotic.
|1 year ago. Rating: 3|
In most western countries there are not enough babies being produced to maintain the population. An increasingly aged population needs young people to service their needs and pay their pensions.
Large families are mostly a feature of the third world, so like it or not, we have to allow these people to enter our countries to redress the balance, but they need to have job offers before doing so.
|1 year ago. Rating: 2|
Hi Grit very good question I think Education and Education needs to be applied Urgent as there will not be enough food to supply all these hungry mouths I do think China has it right and there are plenty of poor children who need to be addopted why have children when the world has so many, I get annoyed at the children have children and then they have children and they are all on wefare and houses are profided for them and every other thing and I cant make the list as it would turn into a essay and I am a Tax payer which is very annoying as my husband and my selve are surpoting these kids as for licence it wouldt work I like what band4 said wait till everyone is responceble has a job and have been together four at laest five years then you can breed but I still feel there should be a limit on children 1/2
|1 year ago. Rating: 1|
In China, the one-child policy has resulted in the abortion/murder of many female embrtos/infants - and the same happens to a greater or less extent in almost every country where amniocentesis is readily available. The effect of this, of course, is to produce a gross imbalance of the sexes in the next generation. When last I checked, the ratio of male/female live births in South Korea was 114/100. In other words, for every seven men, only six women. Because they have such rarity value, for the most attractive young women the rewards of prostitution will be enormous, and extremely safe - which will further reduce the availability of presentable potential wives. Another factor in Korea is the long-standing tradition among successful Japanese men of keeping a Korean mistress alongside his Japanese wife, so there will be a further outflux.
In India in Mrs Ghandi's time, they tried a sterilization program of extreme inefficiency. Because the male operation is so much cheaper and less invasive than the female, that was used exclusively, and inducements were offered - usually a transistor radio. And because the people administering it were Indian bureacrats, it was corruptly applied. So men in their 70s were vasectomied two or three times, and flogged their spare sets for drinking money; while of course, it would have been politically unthinkable to apply it effectively. Can you imagine the outrage if a twelve-year-old girl who had committed no serious crime were to be forcibly dragged from the bosom of her family, even if that family was notoriously criminal and inept, and given a compulsory hysterectomy? Applied on a large scale, that might be effective - but no politician in a nominally democratic country would dare.
There are other factors at work. For instance, the habit of many men, especially in the UK the USA and Australia, of importing Thai or Fillipina 'mail-order brides' will further reduce the availability of presentable women in their countries of origin, with more emotional hardship to their male contemporaries. So, given that there is no obvious way of increasing the female population, the most likely recourse is a spontaneous and unregulated reduction in the number of males. This can be, and is being, achieved by gangsterism and dangerous driving - but only in part. The most effective way of reducing the male population is war.
Grit, the solution towards which you seem to be probing is eugenic legislation, whereby the least desirable elements in the population - i.e., those with serious genetic abnormalities, along with the least intelligent and the most emotionally unstable - should be compulsorily sterilised, by hysterectomy or vasectomy, at an early age. Before World War II, this was very heavily canvassed and widely approved, especially by socialist thinkers such as H G Wells and the Webbs. The US embraced it, as did every Protestant country in Europe except the UK. However, it was also embraced by a socialist thinker called Adolf Hitler, whose take on it was, to put it mildly, rather eccentric. Eugenics has never recovered its respectability.
Interestingly, it looks as if eugenics may be getting back in by the back door, though only on a very small scale. Women who want children, but don't want a husband, or whose husbands are infertile, are resorting to AID - and they're understandably picky about who the donor should be. Apart from having no overt genetic defects, the ideal donor has a good first degree from a top-flight university - bonehead English from 'State' won't do; he should be proficient at a serious musical instrument - bonehead rock guitar won't do; he should be reasonably athletic, between 6'2" and 6'4" tall, and on the lean side without being ectomorphic. Any of you who fit that description, and like the idea of siring a number of children whom you may never meet, see if there's a clinic near YOU!
|1 year ago. Rating: 1|
Wow didn't think I'd ever hear anyone say it b-4 it was too late & I don.t think I did. Some one mentioned the stupid & ugly of which I easily qualify. I would agree to extermination if six billion others would also sign up. And by the way I'm guessing your not running for any political office since those self serving A wholes never have had the balls to chance not winning a position of power to support their need for personal importance. Perhaps the scientists can come up with something to rid the planet of All the worthless greedy humans. We can hope.
|1 year ago. Rating: 1|
Someone came up with an interesting idea :
All young men as soon as they reached puberty should give a sperm sample which would be stored for their lifetime, and then have a vasectomy. Girls when they wanted to become pregnant would access their chosen partner's sperm. Simple, ingenious and cheap. I can't think of many objections, can you?
|1 year ago. Rating: 0|