OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Non-Religious Topics => Topic started by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 05:28:23 PM

Title: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 05:28:23 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 05:37:52 PM
Bad idea to force sterilization on people. Limiting married couples freedom to procreate how many children they want another problem.

If anything my generation will take of the population decline with its selfishness and narcissism.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 23, 2012, 05:46:48 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 05:49:13 PM
The population density in the midwest to west isn't even close to as high as the east. We have plenty of room to expand if we need to.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: William on July 23, 2012, 05:52:58 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 05:54:40 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 23, 2012, 05:55:10 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Rapid population growth is something of a myth.

Populations are localized. And controlling population growth brings its own problems. In places that have draconian laws like China, a country looking at revising its policy, there are not enough workers born to support the existing population. In Europe, there is the same problem due to a decline in birth rates. If you really want to control population, you don't start with babies, you start killing off old people.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 23, 2012, 05:55:49 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

Take a look at how this has worked out in China.. Not good. Not good at all
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 23, 2012, 05:56:42 PM
The population density in the midwest to west isn't even close to as high as the east. We have plenty of room to expand if we need to.

And, as small farms close, Midwestern population is decreasing even more. It's becoming unsustainable to live in one-horse towns.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 23, 2012, 05:56:59 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

I have never thought America should follow any other nation about anything.  But to answer your question, this would certainly be a violation of the constitution.  If you remember, some states attempted to sterilize women in the past and it didn’t go so well.

Rapid population growth?  I think legalized genocide in the form of abortion is doing a bang up job of that.  

People can have as many kids as they want as long as they are prepared to support them.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 23, 2012, 05:57:08 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Rapid population growth is something of a myth.

Populations are localized. And controlling population growth brings its own problems. In places that have draconian laws like China, a country looking at revising its policy, there are not enough workers born to support the existing population. In Europe, there is the same problem due to a decline in birth rates. If you really want to control population, you don't start with babies, you start killing off old people.

Exactly right. Plus there is no real need to do either.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 05:57:12 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

Take a look at how this has worked out in China.. Not good. Not good at all
Anybody with an IQ lower than 100 must be sterlized during their puberty.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: William on July 23, 2012, 06:03:19 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

This is controversial amongst Orthodox Christians?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 06:05:06 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

This is controversial amongst Orthodox Christians?
I asked the same question about birth control but I was wrong.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 23, 2012, 06:14:33 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

Take a look at how this has worked out in China.. Not good. Not good at all
Anybody with an IQ lower than 100 must be sterlized during their puberty.

I hope they don't measure the IQ during puberty. We'd have no children then. :angel:
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

Take a look at how this has worked out in China.. Not good. Not good at all
Anybody with an IQ lower than 100 must be sterlized during their puberty.

I hope they don't measure the IQ during puberty. We'd have no children then. :angel:
lol twas a joke. I remember hearing the same thing the OP said but in a different light from Adam Corolla on Loveline, about how he hated impoverished and uneducated mothers reproducing without having the means to support them or supporting them by using the government for aid.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 06:22:28 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 06:27:23 PM
"In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. And in order to achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States would have to reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population would have to be reduced by two-thirds.[55]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 23, 2012, 06:28:03 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

This is Eugenics propaganda planned by people that are far from Christians.

We do not have a population growth problem.  Take a drive out of the city and into the country and you will see it.   15 goats can be raised on 1 acre of land and fully self sustain, and that's with chickens.  People would need just a bit more.  There is so much vast and empty land out there....

To make a law and force other people at gunpoint (all laws are enforced with a gun) to be sterilized, is one of the most un-Christian things I can think of.  Children are a blessing from God.  The matrimony service recognizes this, as well as other parts in the old and new testament.

I have 5 children, and our home is very low impact.  Our electric bill is 1/5th of those around us.  Much of our food comes from our animals.

You don't even need to drive out there.   Go to google maps, go to purdon, TX and look at the satellite.  It's a small town southeast of the Dallas area.  Lots and lots of land, and this is not the least populated spots either.  There is TONS of land.  Go up through the Texas panhandle, Oklahoma panhandle... Montana... Tons and tons of land open and empty. 

Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 06:29:17 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 23, 2012, 06:33:22 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
I promise you this is Eugenics propaganda brother.

Look
http://maps.google.com/?ll=36.144529,-100.681458&spn=1.104532,2.705383&t=h&z=9 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=36.144529,-100.681458&spn=1.104532,2.705383&t=h&z=9)
(I just did that random)
Go through the midwest and all over.  Lots of acreage for people, livestock, sustainment.

Check out Montana, you could have people all in there with livestock...   There is such vast openness.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=butte,+mt&hl=en&ll=45.994099,-112.37915&spn=0.475127,1.352692&sll=36.789319,-101.204102&sspn=0.008558,0.029311&t=h&hnear=Butte,+Silver+Bow,+Montana&z=10 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=butte,+mt&hl=en&ll=45.994099,-112.37915&spn=0.475127,1.352692&sll=36.789319,-101.204102&sspn=0.008558,0.029311&t=h&hnear=Butte,+Silver+Bow,+Montana&z=10)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Asteriktos on July 23, 2012, 06:57:31 PM
I read the other day that one of GK Chesterton's close relatives (a grandparent I think) had 23 children. What more evidence do we need that limits are needed!?  :D

Also, GiC would have a field day with this thread!
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 23, 2012, 07:01:53 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

"Experts" say a lot of things and turn out to be wrong.  Remember man made global warming?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 23, 2012, 07:03:05 PM
I promise you this is Eugenics propaganda

I agree.  Why is it no one ever learns anything from history.  Wait, I know.  It gets revised.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 07:04:53 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

"Experts" say a lot of things and turn out to be wrong.  Remember man made global warming?

do you deny that also?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
I promise you this is Eugenics propaganda

I agree.  Why is it no one ever learns anything from history.  Wait, I know.  It gets revised.
It's kind of like how people try to still promulagate communism still when it has been tried and failed for centuries. It just doesn't work, but that doesn't stop people from pushing it.

Anyway back to the OP, I'd love to see some statistics of growth in this country, at what rate and at what locations.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 23, 2012, 07:15:38 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

"Experts" say a lot of things and turn out to be wrong.  Remember man made global warming?

do you deny that also?

Global warming caused by man?  You bet.  I should think almost everyone other than Al Gore knows it was all a ruse by now.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 23, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Aindriú on July 23, 2012, 09:45:53 PM
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001685405/1115581193_8de09_NotSureIfSerious_answer_101_xlarge.jpeg)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 10:30:54 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 23, 2012, 10:31:57 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

I watched them all.  I can't say how accurate it is without seeing actual numbers, but it certainly is something to think about.  The entire world population in with a house and a yard in the size of Texas.  
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Aindriú on July 23, 2012, 10:32:22 PM
That is pure speculation math.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 23, 2012, 10:36:02 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.

The entire world population in with a house and a yard in the size of Texas. 

The issue is not size; it is resources. Even if we can fit those people in Texas, would we really have enough resources to sustain them? I blame China and India for this problem. Because they can't control their population they are screwing over the rest of us.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 10:37:34 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Aindriú on July 23, 2012, 10:39:20 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

How Protestant of you.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 23, 2012, 10:41:34 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

I am all for adoption.  The problem in the US is the government makes it too difficult and expensive.  When it is easier and cheaper to fly to another country, twice, and adopt a child, the program here needs to be adjusted.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

How Protestant of you.
ROFL

I'm dying over here.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 23, 2012, 10:44:24 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

Oh come on. We are no longer barbarians whose only means of trusting someone is if they share our blood. If people actually started just adopting children we would see a much better population along with children being provided proper homes.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 10:44:54 PM
I promise you this is Eugenics propaganda

I agree.  Why is it no one ever learns anything from history.  Wait, I know.  It gets revised.
It's kind of like how people try to still promulagate communism still when it has been tried and failed for centuries. It just doesn't work, but that doesn't stop people from pushing it.

Anyway back to the OP, I'd love to see some statistics of growth in this country, at what rate and at what locations.

The growth of U.S. population  

The United States is the third most populous country in the world following China and India. The U.S. population, currently more than 265 million, is growing by about 2.5 million people each year, making the United States one of the world's fastest-growing industrialized nations.(1)
In 1994, there were about 3.95 million births and 2.29 million deaths in the United States, resulting in a net natural increase of nearly 1.7 million more people. Net immigration added approximately 816,000 people.(2)
The Census Bureau projects that in the year 2000, the U.S. population will exceed 275 million, more than double the 1940 population.(3)
By 2050, the nation's population is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people -- the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California.(4)
Sixty percent of pregnancies and 40 percent of births in the United States are unintended. Among industrialized countries, it has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy.(5)

The impacts of U.S. Population  

Because Americans eat a diet heavy in beef and other animal products, U.S. per capita grain consumption is four times higher than that of developing countries.(6)
Americans constitute five percent of the world's population but consume 25 percent of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians.(7)
The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the world's industrial carbon dioxide emissions, a leading cause of global warming.(8)
In the last 200 years, the United States has lost 50 percent of its wetlands, 90 percent of its northwestern old-growth forests, and 99 percent of its tall grass prairie.(9)
Every day, an estimated nine square miles of U.S. rural land is lost to development.(10)

http://www.overpopulation.org/USAFactsZPG.html

Overpopulation is affected by things such as birth rate, immigration, and longevity.

(http://www.buddycom.com/animal/images/worldpop.gif)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 23, 2012, 10:46:32 PM
Just give it a couple more decades guys. Tension is brewing all around the world. Soon we'll have another world war where millions die and that'll restore the population  ::)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.

The entire world population in with a house and a yard in the size of Texas. 

The issue is not size; it is resources. Even if we can fit those people in Texas, would we really have enough resources to sustain them? I blame China and India for this problem. Because they can't control their population they are screwing over the rest of us.

yet, the average American consumes much more resources than the average Indian and Chinese combined.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 23, 2012, 10:48:22 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 10:50:46 PM
Just give it a couple more decades guys. Tension is brewing all around the world. Soon we'll have another world war where millions die and that'll restore the population  ::)

Unfortunately, overpopulation and the associated rapid consumption rates causes wars over territory and resources. The resource imbalance also creates strife between the haves and the have nots, which precipitates violence. Don't try to tell me  that oil had nothing to do with invading Iraq.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 23, 2012, 10:52:50 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

Oh come on. We are no longer barbarians whose only means of trusting someone is if they share our blood. If people actually started just adopting children we would see a much better population along with children being provided proper homes.
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

But I'm just messing with you. Personally I won't be adopting any children, I will only have biological.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Aindriú on July 23, 2012, 10:53:32 PM
Unfortunately, overpopulation and the associated rapid consumption rates causes wars over territory and resources.

This is nothing new to the industrial age.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 10:54:16 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org

Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 23, 2012, 10:56:09 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org

Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.

Nothing is happening... Population is slowing... Your math is faulty.

whatever...

Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 23, 2012, 11:02:41 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org

Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.

Nothing is happening... Population is slowing... Your math is faulty.

whatever...



Population is increasing, every day. The population growth rate is slowly decreasing (currently at 1.3%). Even at this rate, our current population will double in only 65 years to 14 billion. Also keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 23, 2012, 11:58:00 PM
...Even at this rate, our current population will double in only 65 years to 14 billion. Also keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.

Playing Devil's advocate, there is also no guarantee that it will continue to increase...War, famine, disease, obesity etc. Humanity usually has some huge epidemic every hundred years or so that lowers our population.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 24, 2012, 12:53:01 AM
I think the government at the very least should stop subsidizing large families.  No tax write offs after child number two.  No free public education after child number two.  etc. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 24, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
...No free public education after child number two.  etc.

That's a horrible idea. What if it leads to more abortions and/or people even murdering their third child after it is born because they cannot afford to provide for it or send it to school? Likewise, what about the wellbeing of the child? Should a child be deprived of education because his parents cannot afford to send them to school and the government won't provide schooling to them just because of their birth order? Just look at how horribly policies like this have worked out in China where people abandon their female children and even murder their children.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shiny on July 24, 2012, 01:09:36 AM
I think the government at the very least should stop subsidizing large families.  No tax write offs after child number two.  No free public education after child number two.  etc. 
lol yes this is a GREAT idea.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 24, 2012, 09:54:21 AM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org

Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.

Nothing is happening... Population is slowing... Your math is faulty.

whatever...



Population is increasing, every day. The population growth rate is slowly decreasing (currently at 1.3%). Even at this rate, our current population will double in only 65 years to 14 billion. Also keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.

I understand your mistake. It is a very common one. The current population will not and cannot double.. PLEASE watch the video I posted. The author and his organization are professional demographers. He has worked extensively in China and is considered an expert on their population experiments.

It is guaranteed that people eventually die... :)

The population will peak in 25 years. It will then decrease. In 75 years it will be back to today's size.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 24, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
I think the government at the very least should stop subsidizing large families.  No tax write offs after child number two.  No free public education after child number two.  etc. 
lol yes this is a GREAT idea.

Then the United States will cease to be a World Power. We would have an unsustainable population structure if we discouraged population growth, too many elderly and too few working young. The Arab World will become far more dominent. Their average age is just 29.

Governments are waking up to this. The USA has a fairly good replacement rate but in Russia and many parts of Europe they are projected to lose population at an alarming rate. They are considering doing just the opposite of what you suggest. They are thinking about offering a big tax incentive for the third child on.

People are our most valuable asset... 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Forced sterilization is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances.

So sterilization is going to be OC.net's next favorite argument in 3..2..1...

Take a look at how this has worked out in China.. Not good. Not good at all
Anybody with an IQ lower than 100 must be sterlized during their puberty.

I hope they don't measure the IQ during puberty. We'd have no children then. :angel:
lol twas a joke. I remember hearing the same thing the OP said but in a different light from Adam Corolla on Loveline, about how he hated impoverished and uneducated mothers reproducing without having the means to support them or supporting them by using the government for aid.

How many children did Adam Corolla abandon one wonders?

Are these impoverished and uneducated mothers reproducing by themselves, or with deadbeat fathers who impregnate them not thinking of the children they are begetting, and abandoning the poor mothers to the mercy of government assistance?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:33:50 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

"Experts" say a lot of things and turn out to be wrong.  Remember man made global warming?

do you deny that also?

Global warming caused by man?  You bet.  I should think almost everyone other than Al Gore knows it was all a ruse by now.

You either travel in close circles or you live in Texas.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:35:30 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Math. Isn't that like voodoo with numbers?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:37:59 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.

The entire world population in with a house and a yard in the size of Texas. 

The issue is not size; it is resources. Even if we can fit those people in Texas, would we really have enough resources to sustain them? I blame China and India for this problem. Because they can't control their population they are screwing over the rest of us.

Do you have actual evidence for your paranoia? Have you been forced to go without something because some blighter in Bombay snatched it from you?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:38:49 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

I am all for adoption.  The problem in the US is the government makes it too difficult and expensive.  When it is easier and cheaper to fly to another country, twice, and adopt a child, the program here needs to be adjusted.

How does it compare to the fertility industry route? (Curious)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:39:13 PM
Instead we should focus on convincing people to adopt because there are millions of perfectly good children out there in need of a good home but most people are stubborn and just make their own as if blood means anything.
It means alot actually.

How Protestant of you.
ROFL

I'm dying over here.

One down.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:40:28 PM
Just give it a couple more decades guys. Tension is brewing all around the world. Soon we'll have another world war where millions die and that'll restore the population  ::)

As I said before, the only sure population control is to kill everyone over 40.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:44:02 PM
Just give it a couple more decades guys. Tension is brewing all around the world. Soon we'll have another world war where millions die and that'll restore the population  ::)

Unfortunately, overpopulation and the associated rapid consumption rates causes wars over territory and resources. The resource imbalance also creates strife between the haves and the have nots, which precipitates violence. Don't try to tell me  that oil had nothing to do with invading Iraq.

I will tell you that, frankly because we have yet to see oil dividends. Then there was the oil embargo. If we were so desperate for Iraqi oil, we'd have made friends with Saddam again.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 24, 2012, 03:44:53 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 03:45:34 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org

Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.

Nothing is happening... Population is slowing... Your math is faulty.

whatever...



Population is increasing, every day... keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.

Logic?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 24, 2012, 03:59:07 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 24, 2012, 04:03:43 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.

What about the child though? Should he/she have to suffer because his/her parents are idiots? 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 24, 2012, 04:17:08 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.

What about the child though? Should he/she have to suffer because his/her parents are idiots? 


All children do that, James.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 05:06:27 PM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

"Experts" say a lot of things and turn out to be wrong.  Remember man made global warming?

do you deny that also?

Global warming caused by man?  You bet.  I should think almost everyone other than Al Gore knows it was all a ruse by now.

You either travel in close circles or you live in Texas.
Neither
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 05:09:38 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 05:10:43 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.

What about the child though? Should he/she have to suffer because his/her parents are idiots? 


All children do that, James.
If the ask the kids.  They all think their parents are idiots.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 24, 2012, 05:16:57 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: TheMathematician on July 24, 2012, 05:22:41 PM
I have a Modest Proposal for you all
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 05:23:23 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 24, 2012, 05:25:59 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 05:29:57 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 

I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: TheMathematician on July 24, 2012, 05:31:17 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 

I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 
Well, the only way i can see paying for someone to have sex, is if you purchase porn, and let's be honest, who PAYS for porn anymore.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: William on July 24, 2012, 05:38:19 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 

When I read comments like this I have to check to make sure I'm on orthodoxchristianity.net and not r/politics on reddit.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 24, 2012, 05:58:32 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 

I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 

You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I'm paying for you to have sex. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: HabteSelassie on July 24, 2012, 06:31:51 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think the biggest tragedy of the post-modern era is the demonization and vilification of the family and of having children.  In our modern world of business as usual and ambitious capitalism we have begun to demonize having children. The terms for people who have young families, or large families, are usually demeaning or negative.  The institution of the family and the place of children is generally looked as a detriment to progress, to making money, to achieving one's personal goals.  Wasn't having a family the point of ambition and goals in the first place? Even Darwin would agree with this..

The family is a gift from God.  It is a mystical experience.  We  must pray about it, to find the Grace to be able to fulfill our responsibilities and obligations, but it as much a gift as it is a chore.  Families are our purpose.  Further, as a Church or as a society we are all an extended family by default, because metaphorically speaking, we share the same planet and we are all in the same boat than in this regard.  We mutually effect each other.  This is why God has put us in this world, to act in synergy with His Grace.  We play our part, just like the Saints and Angels have their roles in the Heavenly Court.  The Devil is trying to destroy us and buy himself more time by trying to slow down the family.  In the Scriptures and in the Synaxarium we read of many righteous men and women praying their entire lives just to be blessed with a single child like Samson or Samuel, like John the Baptist or like Saint Tekle Haimanot!  Now, people pray to NOT GET PREGNANT!! Lord have His Mercy!! Where are our priorities? Our values?  The Devil might even think he was winning.

The myth of "over-population" is just that, a myth, and one of the Devil's most potent in his arsenal. It is fear mongering at the highest level, the complete opposite of love thy neighbor.  Instead of loving our neighbors, we arbitrarily decide some are worthy to live, and others are excessive, burdensome, over-populating..  What a crock!!  All life is valuable, God doesn't make mistakes as they say.  If God brings a life into this world, it is for a purpose, and no life is less sacred than another.  Overpopulation is not a physical reality, it is a political matter of resource distribution.  Whether we are talking about the 1984/85 famine in Ethiopia, the Irish "Potato Famine" of the 19th century, or even perhaps the famine which occurred during the time of our father Jacob and the Twelve Patriarchs who took the people of Israel in Egypt where there was plenty of grain.  How did the Apostles deal with the coming of famine in the book of the Acts? They prepared because of the gift of prophecy.  The Devil always tries to deceive us by fear, by making us afraid that we will never have enough, that we are never good enough, that we will always fail and even die.  The Devil suggests there are not enough resources to go around, to share, so people give into their passions and they fight, and they covet, and they steal, all of which are sins against the Golden Rule.  


We need to fight the spiritual battle in prayer, and pray for family like the righteous couple Elisabeth and Zachariah, and not let the Devil make us afraid of our very children who are what makes the world go around and a good enough reason as any to get up out of bed each new day :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 06:34:44 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 

I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 

You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I' m paying for you to have sex. 
For starters, I pay taxes too.  IRS at the point of a gun?  Let's not be over dramatic.  And the entire puzzle you've created has pieces which do not fit together.  Isn't this called Non-Sequitur?  Perhaps Argument from final Consequences.  It's been some time since college English.  In any event, it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think the biggest tragedy of the post-modern era is the demonization and vilification of the family and of having children.  In our modern world of business as usual and ambitious capitalism we have begun to demonize having children. The terms for people who have young families, or large families, are usually demeaning or negative.  The institution of the family and the place of children is generally looked as a detriment to progress, to making money, to achieving one's personal goals.  Wasn't having a family the point of ambition and goals in the first place? Even Darwin would agree with this..

The family is a gift from God.  It is a mystical experience.  We  must pray about it, to find the Grace to be able to fulfill our responsibilities and obligations, but it as much a gift as it is a chore.  Families are our purpose.  Further, as a Church or as a society we are all an extended family by default, because metaphorically speaking, we share the same planet and we are all in the same boat than in this regard.  We mutually effect each other.  This is why God has put us in this world, to act in synergy with His Grace.  We play our part, just like the Saints and Angels have their roles in the Heavenly Court.  The Devil is trying to destroy us and buy himself more time by trying to slow down the family.  In the Scriptures and in the Synaxarium we read of many righteous men and women praying their entire lives just to be blessed with a single child like Samson or Samuel, like John the Baptist or like Saint Tekle Haimanot!  Now, people pray to NOT GET PREGNANT!! Lord have His Mercy!! Where are our priorities? Our values?  The Devil might even think he was winning.

The myth of "over-population" is just that, a myth, and one of the Devil's most potent in his arsenal. It is fear mongering at the highest level, the complete opposite of love thy neighbor.  Instead of loving our neighbors, we arbitrarily decide some are worthy to live, and others are excessive, burdensome, over-populating..  What a crock!!  All life is valuable, God doesn't make mistakes as they say.  If God brings a life into this world, it is for a purpose, and no life is less sacred than another.  Overpopulation is not a physical reality, it is a political matter of resource distribution.  Whether we are talking about the 1984/85 famine in Ethiopia, the Irish "Potato Famine" of the 19th century, or even perhaps the famine which occurred during the time of our father Jacob and the Twelve Patriarchs who took the people of Israel in Egypt where there was plenty of grain.  How did the Apostles deal with the coming of famine in the book of the Acts? They prepared because of the gift of prophecy.  The Devil always tries to deceive us by fear, by making us afraid that we will never have enough, that we are never good enough, that we will always fail and even die.  The Devil suggests there are not enough resources to go around, to share, so people give into their passions and they fight, and they covet, and they steal, all of which are sins against the Golden Rule.  


We need to fight the spiritual battle in prayer, and pray for family like the righteous couple Elisabeth and Zachariah, and not let the Devil make us afraid of our very children who are what makes the world go around and a good enough reason as any to get up out of bed each new day :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Except for the Capitalism thing, I agree with what you just posted.  

The family is the core of any social structure and we are now witnessing the imploding of that social structure, I think, as a direct result of dissolving the family and personal responsibility.  My children, for example, do not understand most of what I do or do not allow them to do.  I have a responsibility to them which I intend to fulfill.  I am not perfect, but if more people felt the same way, I have a feeling the world would be a little better than it is today.  

I won’t get into the details, but I come across countless kids whose parents just don’t care and when something bad happens to them, they don’t understand why.  Just today I took the family to McDonalds to enjoy some good old fashioned “fat pills”, and I was watching a child of about 4-5, climbing over a railing looking down at a 40 foot drop and his mother was too busy texting to pay attention.  I was about to get up when a random mother with her own kids stopped him.  Of course, his mother was shocked at what he was doing.  Pathetic!  I will stop rambling now.

We need to cherish our children.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 24, 2012, 06:48:52 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 

I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 

You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I' m paying for you to have sex. 
For starters, I pay taxes too.  IRS at the point of a gun?  Let's not be over dramatic.  And the entire puzzle you've created has pieces which do not fit together.  Isn't this called Non-Sequitur?  Perhaps Argument from final Consequences.  It's been some time since college English.  In any event, it doesn't work.

I'm perfectly aware it doesn't make a lick of sense.  But you'll notice that is the logic that many of our posters who defend big families and the welfare they receive use when it comes to every other instance of government spending.  
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 06:53:03 PM
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.

Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 

Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.

Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 

I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 

You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I' m paying for you to have sex. 
For starters, I pay taxes too.  IRS at the point of a gun?  Let's not be over dramatic.  And the entire puzzle you've created has pieces which do not fit together.  Isn't this called Non-Sequitur?  Perhaps Argument from final Consequences.  It's been some time since college English.  In any event, it doesn't work.

I'm perfectly aware it doesn't make a lick of sense.  But you'll notice that is the logic that many of our posters who defend big families and the welfare they receive use when it comes to every other instance of government spending.  

This isn’t a politic forum, so I will simply say the American federal government has been stepping beyond its bounds in spending since the 1930s, and leave it at that.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: JamesR on July 24, 2012, 08:26:45 PM
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I'm paying for you to have sex. 

Better than giving the child a miserable childhood because his parents could not afford to feed him or give him schooling. And then in the future, due to lack of education, resorts to crime and goes to prison. Then you'll have to pay even more money to keep him in prison. Do you want that? Or, even worse, the child's parents kill him or abandon him because they cannot afford a child, and then you have blood on your hands because you were too greedy to help him. Education is a right; at least for children. All children should be entitled to education regardless of their economic status and/or how stupid their parents are.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 08:58:34 PM
...Even at this rate, our current population will double in only 65 years to 14 billion. Also keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.

Playing Devil's advocate, there is also no guarantee that it will continue to increase...War, famine, disease, obesity etc. Humanity usually has some huge epidemic every hundred years or so that lowers our population.

Oh i don't doubt that it will decrease at some point, due to disease, famine, war, genocide, increased abortion rate, etc. I'm proposing that it is better to prevent such things from happening in the first place by being responsible and addressing the problem upfront before it gets too severe. I also think that adoption is a great way to help control population size.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 09:00:33 PM
I think the government at the very least should stop subsidizing large families.  No tax write offs after child number two.  No free public education after child number two.  etc. 

i thin there are better ways to go about it than by punishing the children (which this does)...
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 09:08:56 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 09:21:54 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 09:22:28 PM
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 09:25:00 PM
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 09:27:03 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.


creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 09:27:30 PM
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 


I'm not talking about in America. Watch the video...
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 09:41:31 PM
here is a decent video which presents a well rounded approach to overpopulation and its effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN06tLRE4WE&feature=related
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: stanley123 on July 24, 2012, 09:47:49 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
This would be interesting if the European countries strictly limit the birth rate to 2 or 3 , while at the same time the Muslim countries such as Niger, with 95% Muslim population, continue to have 6, 7 or 8 children per married woman.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 09:49:57 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.


creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 10:03:53 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
This would be interesting if the European countries strictly limit the birth rate to 2 or 3 , while at the same time the Muslim countries such as Niger, with 95% Muslim population, continue to have 6, 7 or 8 children per married woman.

I agree.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: HabteSelassie on July 24, 2012, 10:04:03 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)

The UN  (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_3.htm) also came to the same conclusion that it is likely that the world population will plateau and actually fall into decline around 2100..



stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 10:04:31 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.


creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 10:13:24 PM
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

have you read a book about evolution? if so, which one?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 24, 2012, 10:14:26 PM
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else.  

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

have you read a book about evolution? if so, which one?

"a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years."
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: William on July 24, 2012, 10:40:34 PM
Ortho_cat, why does your axe need grinding?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 10:53:37 PM
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else.  

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

fair enough. but if you are interested in investigating the subject, then I would suggest you read at least 3 of the following books:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Books-Evolution-Published-Decade/lm/R6SZF692OH56G

write down a list of all the observations (evidence) mentioned in the book (it will be in the hundreds). Then come up with a theory that better explains ALL of these phenomena better than the ToE already does.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 24, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
Ortho_cat, why does your axe need grinding?

not sure. i just wanted to start a thread to see how people suggest solving the problem of overpopulation, and i find out that most people here deny that it is happening as we speak...right before our very eyes  ???
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: ZealousZeal on July 25, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

If you can prove the ToE wrong with the simplest of questions, please do PM it to me. I'd dearly love to go down in history books for such a breakthrough, not to mention the fame and prestige that would be mine in the present. Think of the talk shows! ;)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
Limiting family sizes below replacement levels will only work if coupled with mandatory euthanasia for those incapable of taking care of themselves - i.e. the elderly, the disabled (both mentally and physically), and the work adverse.  It is too heavy a burden for society to bear to take care of those beyond those that they have the capacity to do so.  By too heavy I don't mean "inconvenient" I mean straight up impossible.  Having a ballerina bench press 250 impossible.

As a Christian I cannot support euthanasia of this sort and so I cannot support limiting family sizes across the board.

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 25, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 01:47:06 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing? 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 25, 2012, 01:52:10 PM
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I'm paying for you to have sex. 

Better than giving the child a miserable childhood because his parents could not afford to feed him or give him schooling. And then in the future, due to lack of education, resorts to crime and goes to prison. Then you'll have to pay even more money to keep him in prison. Do you want that? Or, even worse, the child's parents kill him or abandon him because they cannot afford a child, and then you have blood on your hands because you were too greedy to help him. Education is a right; at least for children. All children should be entitled to education regardless of their economic status and/or how stupid their parents are.

Or maybe, like many other examples, he turns out to be inventive and save people from some other crap.

Who is being denied education in America? (Or indoctrination.)
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 25, 2012, 01:53:25 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)

No such thing as science without an agenda. Scientists are people. People who need people to fund their research. They're the luckiest people in the world.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: HabteSelassie on July 25, 2012, 01:54:06 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Not even necessarily birth control, just education and development.  Birth control is like an artificial band-aid in developing countries to bridge to development gap, but in all actuality, lifestyle and demographics can have a more formative role than access and proportionate use of contraception.  In other words, we can be entirely (stereotypically) Catholic about life, and still reduce population numbers ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 25, 2012, 01:54:29 PM
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 


There are plenty of schools that hand out free condoms to children. Some even provide lessons on how to use them.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 25, 2012, 01:55:57 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.


creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: stanley123 on July 25, 2012, 02:20:53 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...
Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 25, 2012, 03:15:19 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing? 

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 25, 2012, 03:21:07 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.


creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."

yes that's right. all this technology that you are using right now and take for granted on a daily basis, which is explained by theories and based on observation of physical properties and our understanding of such is all just relative and biased...developed by scientists with "agendas"  ::) Strange we don't see all these alternative "theories" to the theory of gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism if there are all these competing facts out there. Theories are used because they work and they best explain observations about the world around us.  It's as simple as that.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: HabteSelassie on July 25, 2012, 03:23:50 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline ;)

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 25, 2012, 03:29:23 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.


creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."

yes that's right. all this technology that you are using right now and take for granted on a daily basis, which is explained by theories and based on observation of physical properties and our understanding of such is all just relative and biased...developed by scientists with "agendas"  ::) Strange we don't see all these alternative "theories" to the theory of gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism if there are all these competing facts out there. Theories are used because they work and they best explain observations about the world around us.  It's as simple as that.

You're note even looking at my point.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 25, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline ;)

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Agreed.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 03:41:10 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...
Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 03:43:36 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing? 

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 03:46:49 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline ;)

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Large populations of young adults without future prospects make excellent soldiers/guerrillas.  Beyond that, they are a benefit only if the society has the means to provide them work, education, and a future.  Without those, they are a ticking timebomb.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: stanley123 on July 25, 2012, 04:04:22 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...
Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.
We never took one cent from the government, but lived with what we had. I would object in having some stupid government low level functionary invade our house and demand that my mother undergo sterilization. I realise that you are not advocating this, but government functionaries often exceed their authority and some are known to act with a certain arrogance. Some years down the line a court of law might decide that the government functionary acted illegally, but it would be too late to reverse the harm that the sterilization had done. 
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 04:19:11 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...
Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.
We never took one cent from the government, but lived with what we had. I would object in having some stupid government low level functionary invade our house and demand that my mother undergo sterilization. I realise that you are not advocating this, but government functionaries often exceed their authority and some are known to act with a certain arrogance. Some years down the line a court of law might decide that the government functionary acted illegally, but it would be too late to reverse the harm that the sterilization had done. 

I see your point about government functionaries.

I was kind of just brainstorming with this because the other option is to stop giving out handouts to people who refuse to work, something that would not have affected people like your parents.  The problem is, the bleeding hearts want us to throw money at the problem with no real solutions offered.  I was just trying to find a compromise, the sort that would have made King Solomon smile...
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: HabteSelassie on July 25, 2012, 04:50:30 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I am getting appalled at the vilifying and demonizing (blame the victim) of government assistance to the poor.  The Church doesn't snub her nose at accepting BILLIONS of dollars of government assistance to feed the poor, for hospitals, for education, run by the Church, why do folks here on the forum continually demonize public assistance? We pay taxes just like Christ asked us too, why should we then demonize the good things the government does with it like feeding the poor or carrying for the sick?  Sure, everyone seems to wave the flag about going on a US crusade against the Muslims, but heaven forbid Uncle Sam give a poor child a bite to eat without the forum demonizing the child as a bum and the government as having some kind of nefarious agenda.

How can we reconcile this with Matthew 25 and Galatians 2:8-10 exactly?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 05:04:10 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I am getting appalled at the vilifying and demonizing (blame the victim) of government assistance to the poor.  The Church doesn't snub her nose at accepting BILLIONS of dollars of government assistance to feed the poor, for hospitals, for education, run by the Church, why do folks here on the forum continually demonize public assistance? We pay taxes just like Christ asked us too, why should we then demonize the good things the government does with it like feeding the poor or carrying for the sick?  Sure, everyone seems to wave the flag about going on a US crusade against the Muslims, but heaven forbid Uncle Sam give a poor child a bite to eat without the forum demonizing the child as a bum and the government as having some kind of nefarious agenda.

How can we reconcile this with Matthew 25 and Galatians 2:8-10 exactly?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

For starts, the reasoning behind the .govs feeding the poor is less one of morality but rather of weaponizing the masses (demagoguery) or at best it's Machiavellian in keeping them entertained and fed enough that they won't disrupt the social order.  Like I said in my last response to you in this thread - young poor people with no future are a powder keg.

I for one do not like sitting on a powder keg.  I would rather see them have a future and become part of what makes a nation strong.  To do this they need to do some of the work themselves.  They need to be motivated.

Keep in mind also that we do not have true poor like you would have found in Christ's time, except possibly the hobos.  We do not have poor to the level they have in third world countries.  The lower classes in the US live in a very comfortable species of poverty, one that comes complete with automobiles (albeit, often antiquated ones), cell phones, fashionable clothing, et cetera.  There are some dirt poor people, but they are not the majority.  They are usually rural.  Many of them would probably prefer to better their lot, and many of them do not receive the assistance they need.  Most of it goes to a growing class of "professional poor".  These are the ones I feel antagonistic towards.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: HabteSelassie on July 25, 2012, 05:13:39 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Poverty is complex.  Too think that people should be as starkly poor as folks were living in Auschwitz to deserve assistance or charity is deplorable.  Christ didn't ask us to define the level of merit for charity, simply to give when asked by those in need if we have it to give.  The US certainly has plenty to give.  By the way, I agree completely that over dependence on government assistance is a problem, for example, on  macro-level it is crippling Ethiopian development, and yet, at a localised level, we can't negate the value of public assistance in putting food, education, and healthcare in the hands of those in need.  There is a myth in the American economy, one of so-called meritocracy, and it is as prevalent and unsubstantiated as these myths of overpopulation we read on this thread :(

Lord have His Mercy!!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 05:29:21 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Poverty is complex.  Too think that people should be as starkly poor as folks were living in Auschwitz to deserve assistance or charity is deplorable.  Christ didn't ask us to define the level of merit for charity, simply to give when asked by those in need if we have it to give.  The US certainly has plenty to give.  By the way, I agree completely that over dependence on government assistance is a problem, for example, on  macro-level it is crippling Ethiopian development, and yet, at a localised level, we can't negate the value of public assistance in putting food, education, and healthcare in the hands of those in need.  There is a myth in the American economy, one of so-called meritocracy, and it is as prevalent and unsubstantiated as these myths of overpopulation we read on this thread :(

Lord have His Mercy!!

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Poverty is complex.  As you might have noticed I divided the poor into four distinct groups (and more might exist) - working poor, rural poor, hobos, and "professional poor".  For every malady you often need a different cure.  Christ told us to visit the sick but He never told us how to do it.  If someone has Ebola and your only solution is to amputate his leg...well, you're not going anywhere.  Some cases of poverty, especially temporary poverty, can be dealt with by a quick influx of cash.  In other cases, like the rural poor, they may have lived that way traditionally (like hillbillies) and might be better off if they are just left alone.  The working poor need to be given education so they can become more skilled - from there they will do the work.  The professional poor need to have their crutch taken away.  They need to be motivated.  You can keep throwing cash at them all day...but what have you accomplished!  This is their biological niche!

Christ told us to help the poor.  Look at the paralytic.  First, Christ asked if He wanted to be healed.  The poor must want to be helped before we can help them.  Then Christ made the man work...on the Sabbath even.  He told him to take up his bed and walk.  What we have been doing for the last generation has accomplished nothing.  I say we stop thinking outside of the box and think a little bit more in the Book.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: ZealousZeal on July 25, 2012, 09:50:37 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: orthonorm on July 25, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Surplus labor. Well functioning capitalism, especially the capitalism of our day requires quite a bit of it.

Already had to give this simple lecture today to some privileged guy psychologizing a group and making them responsible for the role they fill made necessary by the system we all partake of.

Gotta have the unemployed. In fact, we make sure of it. (Anyone remember the hay day of the Clinton years and having to keep the dropping unemployment rate in check?)

The new and interesting development of global capital is the unemployable class.

A beautiful world.  
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: orthonorm on July 25, 2012, 10:38:18 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I posted a modest proposal on this before. It was in jest. And it would work.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: ZealousZeal on July 25, 2012, 10:56:28 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: orthonorm on July 25, 2012, 10:59:08 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.

I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Kerdy on July 25, 2012, 10:59:59 PM
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 


There are plenty of schools that hand out free condoms to children. Some even provide lessons on how to use them.
I know.  It's despicable.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: ZealousZeal on July 25, 2012, 11:02:51 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.

I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.

There's plenty of threads down there just ripe for such a joke, I'm sure. Or you can PM it to me. Can't be worse than the one vamrat sent me once (which I've gotten decent mileage on BTW. Thanks, vamrat!  ;) ).
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: orthonorm on July 25, 2012, 11:03:11 PM
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 


There are plenty of schools that hand out free condoms to children. Some even provide lessons on how to use them.
I know.  It's despicable.

What do you find piscable?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: That person on July 25, 2012, 11:14:46 PM
That is pure speculation math.

Fixed.

Seems pretty applied to me...
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on July 25, 2012, 11:15:09 PM
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.

I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.

There's plenty of threads down there just ripe for such a joke, I'm sure. Or you can PM it to me. Can't be worse than the one vamrat sent me once (which I've gotten decent mileage on BTW. Thanks, vamrat!  ;) ).

I aim to please/disgust/please!   ;D
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Ortho_cat on July 25, 2012, 11:24:16 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.

if they are living sustainably then they are doing great; I say carry on with busines as usual. Unfortunately few societies are in this position today (I doubt any industrialized nations are). Most nations are depleting their resources faster than they can replace them.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 26, 2012, 07:56:42 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.

if they are living sustainably then they are doing great; I say carry on with busines as usual. Unfortunately few societies are in this position today (I doubt any industrialized nations are). Most nations are depleting their resources faster than they can replace them.

All I can say is research Eugenics, and overpopulation propaganda.  I don't know if you live in the city or not.  But please, just use google maps.  Look around and there is barren land everywhere.   

If anything, I believe we could quadruple the world's population and be just fine, if not more.  It's not a problem.  If we talk "using resources" that's a different issue.  People could build "earthships" (google them they are cool).   
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 28, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
...Even at this rate, our current population will double in only 65 years to 14 billion. Also keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.

Playing Devil's advocate, there is also no guarantee that it will continue to increase...War, famine, disease, obesity etc. Humanity usually has some huge epidemic every hundred years or so that lowers our population.

Oh i don't doubt that it will decrease at some point, due to disease, famine, war, genocide, increased abortion rate, etc. I'm proposing that it is better to prevent such things from happening in the first place by being responsible and addressing the problem upfront before it gets too severe. I also think that adoption is a great way to help control population size.

There is no problem... Population will peak in 25 years and then go down again. The population will be exactly what it is today in 75 years.

If you monkey around and try to limit population ( for no good reason, see above) you will alter the basic structure of society. That is the result in China. They will soon have just one male to support three to four generations above him. They are screwed. Let's not do the same..Thanks for your concern.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on July 28, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.

if they are living sustainably then they are doing great; I say carry on with busines as usual. Unfortunately few societies are in this position today (I doubt any industrialized nations are). Most nations are depleting their resources faster than they can replace them.

Not really..We will eventually have an oil problem but there are plenty of resources to support a much larger population than we have now.

Here, take a few minutes and watch these and then try to relax ;

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: ialmisry on July 28, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org


Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org

Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.
Only if people cause it.

Singapore and Hong Kong are among the most "overpopulated" areas in the world.  They are also among the richest.

You could fit all the world's population in an average American home lot in Texas, and the rest of the world would be uninhabited. At present, my background noise is the "Matrix" in which there is a line I caught where the machines deride humans as the only species that depletes its resources and then moves on to survive.  It seems the agenda behind that didn't notice that plenty of places have been inhabited by humans for millenia.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: William on August 14, 2012, 03:17:18 AM
Okay seriously denying humans their reproductive autonomy is WRONG. Ends do not justify the means.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Marc1152 on August 14, 2012, 11:09:37 AM
Okay seriously denying humans their reproductive autonomy is WRONG. Ends do not justify the means.

Plus, overpopulation is a myth so the ends and means would both be an error.
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: Gunnarr on November 07, 2012, 05:12:09 PM
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on November 07, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew

Huh?
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on November 08, 2012, 12:28:14 AM
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew

Huh?

It's not easy being Green....
Title: Re: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?
Post by: vamrat on November 08, 2012, 12:34:57 AM
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew

Huh?

It's not easy being Green....

Green with envy of the great Patriarch +++Kyrill I+++ of the Third Rome.