Population control vs The right to life

[Kyle]

Hypothetical questions:

Do we as a species have a duty to keep the worlds population at a reasonable level? (with regards to resources) and is there any way we can do it without restricting a persons right to have as many children as they want?

Is it irresponsible to have upwards of half a dozen children or is it none of anybody's business so long as they have a good upbringing?

[Verbal]

If parents have the financial and emotional might to support them, they can and should be allowed to have as many as they like.

[Kyle]

Even if it leads to a boon in population?

[Jesus.]

There is still plenty of room left, and theoretically there are enough resources, although they are not shared out in a fair way. I doubt we'll ever need to implement such measures, as nature has a way of kicking the s**t out of life when it needs to. Some new plague, or a different strain of an existing disease will cull huge parts of the world, and it will generally be in the poorer places with poor infrastructure.

Also, who sets the numbers for what reasonable population is? And who decides which people are allowed to have children or not? It's impossible to regulate.

[smeagol]

ugly people and tossers should be banned from having kids that will be a good start lol

[Verbal]

Even if it leads to a boon in population?

Yes. If what I just said was law then the world's population would already be half of what it is.

[Kyle]

Those questions always get reeled out when people have to do something universally. Who gets to decide? Who implements it? Who has the right to dictate to others what we should do? Oh it's too much hassle let's forget about it.

Some people argue that at 10 billion the population will tail off, some people argue that even 10 billion people with a decent standard of living and access to resources will be too much.

[Kazanne]

ugly people and tossers should be banned from having kids that will be a good start lol

That's you ruled out then Smea:joker::joker:JOKE,you're lovely really:hugesmile:

[Niamh.]

I don't like the idea of it and hope that we never have to consider doing it.

[smudgie]

A sensible approach would be to try and encourage smaller families.

Just 200 years ago the population of Britain was a mere 9 million. Quite frightening to think what another 50 years even of the population rise will do to this little Island..

[Niamh.]

A sensible approach would be to try and encourage smaller families.

Just 200 years ago the population of Britain was a mere 9 million. Quite frightening to think what another 50 years even of the population rise will do to this little Island..

Yes but on the otherhand the population of Ireland was over 8million before the famine in 1845, now it's less then 6 and a half million. I think Nature does have a way of controlling the population

[MTVN]

A sensible approach would be to try and encourage smaller families.

Just 200 years ago the population of Britain was a mere 9 million. Quite frightening to think what another 50 years even of the population rise will do to this little Island..

I'm not sure how much that could have been avoided though, most of it is due to things like lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, better medicine, technology, greater wealth etc. rather than family size

It's a difficult question and one I'd rather leave to the experts, I think there can be a lot of scaremongering about population increase which isn't always as big a danger as it's made out to be (talking generally in the world here now not the UK)

[Niamh.]

Removed some posts, back on topic everyone.

[MTVN]

Surprises me that some people are happy to do it, what a waste of 9 months of your life

[arista]

Hypothetical questions:

Do we as a species have a duty to keep the worlds population at a reasonable level? (with regards to resources) and is there any way we can do it without restricting a persons right to have as many children as they want?

Is it irresponsible to have upwards of half a dozen children or is it none of anybody's business so long as they have a good upbringing?


http://www.boulevardmovies.com/images/P/soylent-green.jpg
you need to watch this Future film
from 1973

[Jesus.]

Couldn't you find a bigger picture, my green friend?

[arista]

Couldn't you find a bigger picture, my green friend?


temp Glitch

[Vicky.]

Theres nothing you can do stop stop people having kids, besides forced sterilization or forced abortion. And I like to think we are civilized enough to not inflict that on people tbh

[arista]

Theres nothing you can do stop stop people having kids, besides forced sterilization or forced abortion. And I like to think we are civilized enough to not inflict that on people tbh


China does it
One child rule


Problem is they abort all girls


Only have boys.


Now not enough women to be married , with
on a Ch4 Docu' the other week

[Niamh.]

Theres nothing you can do stop stop people having kids, besides forced sterilization or forced abortion. And I like to think we are civilized enough to not inflict that on people tbh

I'm reading a book atm where the world has been destroyed by a nuclear disaster so the survivors live under ground in a massive silo, the women have an implant to stop them getting pregnant and couples have to enter a lottery to try for a baby, if they win the implant is removed and reinserted after they have a baby. I wouldn't like to live in a world like that

[Vicky.]

China does it
One child rule


Problem is they abort all girls


Only have boys.

Yeah, that will work out well in the long run eh?

And yes, we should aspire to be like china, where babies are flushed down toilets after birth or left outside in a basket as the parents arent allowed them :thumbs:

[the truth]

limite benefits and pay benefits in food vouchers and these people would soon stop breeding for profit

[arista]

Yeah, that will work out well in the long run eh?

And yes, we should aspire to be like china, where babies are flushed down toilets after birth or left outside in a basket as the parents arent allowed them :thumbs:



Thats for Over populated China Only.

[Jesus.]

Breeding for profit?

I think it's really odd that the biggest corporations aren't in on this.

[Jesus.]

6% of all the people that have ever lived, are alive today.

[Kazanne]

6% of all the people that have ever lived, are alive today.

Well,that's a conversation stopper:joker:

[user104658]

limite benefits and pay benefits in food vouchers and these people would soon stop breeding for profit

1) with the 26k cap (if they would actually enforce it) benefits are already effectively capped at 3 children, 2 if you live in a high rent price area.

2) The vouchers idea is impractical verging on impossible, as you don't just live on "food". You have food, shelter, utilities, other household essentials (cleaning, bathing etc), transport... all to consider. who decides the ratio of benefits paid as each? Especially as they vary from household to household? Where can vouchers be redeemed? is it only supermarkets for food? What about clothes? Much cheaper 2nd hand online but presumably that wouldn't be an option with vouchers. Who handles VAT - do retailers have to pay cash VAT on money they only have a government IOU for? And what sort of administrative staff would be needed to implement something like this? Not only handing out said vouchers, but paying out the money to the retailers who are redeeming them. Not to mention the obvious potential for retailers to scam the system, redeeming more vouchers than they have actually taken... The scale involved to actually account for each and every voucher would make being "exact" pretty much impossible. oh and what about change? are the vouchers given out as 1p tokens? or as £5 vouchers? what if you're only spending £2.50? do you get change in vouchers, or cash, or just not at all?

...

[Kizzy]

To be fair I'm surprised that this hasn't been suggested, I can see it hapening actually, maybe not food but energy.

[smudgie]

Food vouchers of sorts have been used before.

I think they started a scheme a few years ago for the food banks rather than handing out emergency loans.

We got vouchers for butter in the 70's.



Oh yes, unemployed people got vouchers for fruit, veg, fruit drinks etc a couple f years ago.

[Kizzy]

I thought those on income support still got milk and fruit vouchers?

[smudgie]

I thought those on income support still got milk and fruit vouchers?

No idea, I just know when my BIL was on the dole he got vouchers for fruit and veg.

[Vicky.]

If you are on low income (not just IS) and have a child under 5..you get milk tokens. Can be used for formula, or fresh fruit and veg. Nothing else.

I get them..wouldnt have known I could get them if my midwife in hospital didnt get me to fill the form out when I was still doped up :joker:

[Nedusa]

Yes but on the otherhand the population of Ireland was over 8million before the famine in 1845, now it's less then 6 and a half million. I think Nature does have a way of controlling the population

I wouldn't put the Irish potato famine disaster at the door of Nature rather put the blame for that one squarely on the shoulders of the British Government...!!!!!

[joeysteele]

1) with the 26k cap (if they would actually enforce it) benefits are already effectively capped at 3 children, 2 if you live in a high rent price area.

2) The vouchers idea is impractical verging on impossible, as you don't just live on "food". You have food, shelter, utilities, other household essentials (cleaning, bathing etc), transport... all to consider. who decides the ratio of benefits paid as each? Especially as they vary from household to household? Where can vouchers be redeemed? is it only supermarkets for food? What about clothes? Much cheaper 2nd hand online but presumably that wouldn't be an option with vouchers. Who handles VAT - do retailers have to pay cash VAT on money they only have a government IOU for? And what sort of administrative staff would be needed to implement something like this? Not only handing out said vouchers, but paying out the money to the retailers who are redeeming them. Not to mention the obvious potential for retailers to scam the system, redeeming more vouchers than they have actually taken... The scale involved to actually account for each and every voucher would make being "exact" pretty much impossible. oh and what about change? are the vouchers given out as 1p tokens? or as £5 vouchers? what if you're only spending £2.50? do you get change in vouchers, or cash, or just not at all?

...


I personally wouldn't like to see any population control at all.

As to paying the benefits in food vouchers, that just wouldn't work at all either,I disagree with any move to that whatsoever.

It would likely in fact cause more poverty overall and not help at all, those who were paid in food vouchers would soon be able to easily find other people who would give them cash for the vouchers and under the food vouchers value too.

If people are entitled to benefits them pay them like others get paid with funds into their accounts and not discriminate because they need benefits by them paying them in 'vouchers'.
Benefits are there as a right and if people are genuinely entitled to them then there should be no conditions as to how they are paid.
Just pay them.

I don't think too that controls on the children anyone can have as to numbers is a good road to go down either so as I said at the start,I am against that too.

[thesheriff443]

we already have population control!
22,000 kids die every day of starvation.

[Niamh.]

I wouldn't put the Irish potato famine disaster at the door of Nature rather put the blame for that one squarely on the shoulders of the British Government...!!!!!

hhhmmm well, that's a discussion for another day I think :laugh:

[smeagol]

lets just hope all the myths and beliefs are untrue as when the dead rise to walk the earth you wont get a seat anywhere.

maybe the world needs a war. china has the right idear 2 kid rule.though no idear how they enforce that. not sure i want to know

[user104658]

maybe the world needs a war. china has the right idear 2 kid rule.though no idear how they enforce that. not sure i want to know

A world war would probably turn nuclear which I guess would be good population control... In the sense that there would be pretty much zero within a hundred years or so. Including most animals...

Chinas policy is "officially" enforced by fines based on a percentage of income. Unofficially, it involves infanticide (usually drowning at birth) or abandonment.

[sassysocks]

A sensible approach would be to try and encourage smaller families.

Just 200 years ago the population of Britain was a mere 9 million. Quite frightening to think what another 50 years even of the population rise will do to this little Island..

Just because people can afford large families does not make it moraly ok.

We can't really legislate it but such people should face similar stigma to those that have large families who can't afford it.

Well off people have the same responsibilty to the population as a whole as anyone else and should not be let off the hook simply because they have the finances to indulge themselves with little or no thought to the bigger picture.

[Kizzy]

I thought the problem we had in some places such as China and Japan was not enough of a population to maintain their aging population and also their infrastructure?
Here we don't have any provisos yet, there was a suggestion that child benefit be restricted .. would that really detract anyone from having a 3rd child...who knows?
Larger families were more common until the advent of adequate birth control but infant mortality was higher than it is now so would that not even out?
There's a lot in the news relating to immigration having a huge impact on population in the UK, that may well be true, if the population is to be maintained but the population decide not to procreate you order in....

[x-evenstar-x]

If people only had children when they were in a good position to have them everything would be fine.

[smudgie]

Just because people can afford large families does not make it moraly ok.

We can't really legislate it but such people should face similar stigma to those that have large families who can't afford it.

Well off people have the same responsibilty to the population as a whole as anyone else and should not be let off the hook simply because they have the finances to indulge themselves with little or no thought to the bigger picture.

I totally agree with this.

[x-evenstar-x]

The point of earth is life! And if people are in a good financial position and all the rest of it why not have as many kids as they want, the problem about people who can't afford it and have loads of kids is that it costs the tax payers a lot of money! Also it's unfair on the child.

[user104658]

If people only had children when they were in a good position to have them everything would be fine.

The problem though, is that it's not always planned. My first daughter wasn't, me and my partner were both 4th year University students and certainly not in a "good position". I'd not even call our position "good" now - we do fine but we're still several years from paying off University debt and until that's done, we can't afford to look at buying property. In an ideal world, we would have had all of this out of the way before having kids, I guess. Then again - I personally don't like the idea of being a "middle aged parent" at all, quite looking forward to still being young enough to have a whole life ahead of me when they're grown.

So anyway, because it's not always planned, what can you do? Do you condemn everyone who accidentally gets pregnant before being able to afford it to a life of extreme poverty, or force their hand into abortion or adoption? How is that in any way "civilised"? We might as well just give up on the notion of a moral society completely. The only reasonable option is to help people in that situation. Especially its not only the unemployed who "cant afford it" - an adult on full time minimum wage has NO chance of supporting a family without things like tax credits. So that means many adults don't get to have a family, not because they are unemployed, but because their FULL TIME job isn't "good enough" in a survival climate that is completely artificial (the monetary economy)?

The only reasonable option is to provide support for families. And because it must exist - it's inevitable that SOME people will take advantage of it deliberately. There's very little that can be done about that.

Your proposal steers uncomfortably close to eugenics - and the worst possible kind of eugenics, because it has nothing to do with anything other than cold hard cash, which (let's face it) comes with LUCK as much as with hard work, and certainly doesn't reflect ability.

More simply; you might find yourself allowing well off people of average intelligence to breed, over less well off yet more intelligent people.

If we must have eugenics... can we at least base it on something useful, like allowing people with above average IQ or above average physical ability to breed? Rather than "folks wot got moneys"?

[Kyle]

The problem though, is that it's not always planned. My first daughter wasn't, me and my partner were both 4th year University students and certainly not in a "good position". I'd not even call our position "good" now - we do fine but we're still several years from paying off University debt and until that's done, we can't afford to look at buying property. In an ideal world, we would have had all of this out of the way before having kids, I guess. Then again - I personally don't like the idea of being a "middle aged parent" at all, quite looking forward to still being young enough to have a whole life ahead of me when they're grown.

So anyway, because it's not always planned, what can you do? Do you condemn everyone who accidentally gets pregnant before being able to afford it to a life of extreme poverty, or force their hand into abortion or adoption? How is that in any way "civilised"? We might as well just give up on the notion of a moral society completely. The only reasonable option is to help people in that situation. Especially its not only the unemployed who "cant afford it" - an adult on full time minimum wage has NO chance of supporting a family without things like tax credits. So that means many adults don't get to have a family, not because they are unemployed, but because their FULL TIME job isn't "good enough" in a survival climate that is completely artificial (the monetary economy)?

The only reasonable option is to provide support for families. And because it must exist - it's inevitable that SOME people will take advantage of it deliberately. There's very little that can be done about that.

Your proposal steers uncomfortably close to eugenics - and the worst possible kind of eugenics, because it has nothing to do with anything other than cold hard cash, which (let's face it) comes with LUCK as much as with hard work, and certainly doesn't reflect ability.

More simply; you might find yourself allowing well off people of average intelligence to breed, over less well off yet more intelligent people.

If we must have eugenics... can we at least base it on something useful, like allowing people with above average IQ or above average physical ability to breed? Rather than "folks wot got moneys"?

I seriously doubt Evenstar was making a proposal for eugenics she was likely stating an observation based on personal experience. No need to be haughty really.

[user104658]

I seriously doubt Evenstar was making a proposal for eugenics she was likely stating an observation based on personal experience. No need to be haughty really.

"haughty"? ...

[chuff me dizzy]

I seriously doubt Evenstar was making a proposal for eugenics she was likely stating an observation based on personal experience. No need to be haughty really.

That is what i believed her to be saying too

[sassysocks]

The point of earth is life! And if people are in a good financial position and all the rest of it why not have as many kids as they want, the problem about people who can't afford it and have loads of kids is that it costs the tax payers a lot of money! Also it's unfair on the child.

Life without quality and with suffering is not the point. Everyone regardless of financial situation should be more concerned with relieving the suffering of those already here than indulging their own need to produce little clones of themselves. Money or not - it is selfish.

[user104658]

That is what i believed her to be saying too

I don't really see the distinction, the jist was: "It would be best if only people with money had children". Whether thats based on personal observations or not (and is there such a thing as an opinion that isn't based on personal observation??), the statement still is what it is.

[x-evenstar-x]

The problem though, is that it's not always planned. My first daughter wasn't, me and my partner were both 4th year University students and certainly not in a "good position". I'd not even call our position "good" now - we do fine but we're still several years from paying off University debt and until that's done, we can't afford to look at buying property. In an ideal world, we would have had all of this out of the way before having kids, I guess. Then again - I personally don't like the idea of being a "middle aged parent" at all, quite looking forward to still being young enough to have a whole life ahead of me when they're grown.

So anyway, because it's not always planned, what can you do? Do you condemn everyone who accidentally gets pregnant before being able to afford it to a life of extreme poverty, or force their hand into abortion or adoption? How is that in any way "civilised"? We might as well just give up on the notion of a moral society completely. The only reasonable option is to help people in that situation. Especially its not only the unemployed who "cant afford it" - an adult on full time minimum wage has NO chance of supporting a family without things like tax credits. So that means many adults don't get to have a family, not because they are unemployed, but because their FULL TIME job isn't "good enough" in a survival climate that is completely artificial (the monetary economy)?

The only reasonable option is to provide support for families. And because it must exist - it's inevitable that SOME people will take advantage of it deliberately. There's very little that can be done about that.

Your proposal steers uncomfortably close to eugenics - and the worst possible kind of eugenics, because it has nothing to do with anything other than cold hard cash, which (let's face it) comes with LUCK as much as with hard work, and certainly doesn't reflect ability.

More simply; you might find yourself allowing well off people of average intelligence to breed, over less well off yet more intelligent people.

If we must have eugenics... can we at least base it on something useful, like allowing people with above average IQ or above average physical ability to breed? Rather than "folks wot got moneys"?

I was just saying that would be the ideal! My parents had me at 17 they didn't have a penny I'm not condemning anyone in that position at all nor am I judging anyone. I just think that would be the ideal of course there are accidents I'm a prime example of that!

At the end of the day kids are very expensive, I'm not saying people who are worse of shouldn't have any because that would be unfair they just shouldn't have like 5.