Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?

[Ortho_cat]

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.

[Marc1152]

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...

[Ortho_cat]

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.

[JamesR]

...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.

[Νεκτάριος]

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. 

[JamesR]

...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.

[Shiny]

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.

[Marc1152]

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.

[Marc1152]

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... 

[Shanghaiski]

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.

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?

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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?

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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?

[Shanghaiski]

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)

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Marc1152]

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

[Shanghaiski]

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?

[Νεκτάριος]

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. 

[JamesR]

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? 

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Kerdy]

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

[Kerdy]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[Νεκτάριος]

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? 

[TheMathematician]

I have a Modest Proposal for you all
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[Kerdy]

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.

[Νεκτάριος]

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. 

[Kerdy]

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. 

[TheMathematician]

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.

[William]

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.

[Νεκτάριος]

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. 

[HabteSelassie]

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

[Kerdy]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[Νεκτάριος]

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.  

[Kerdy]

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.

[JamesR]

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.

[Ortho_cat]

...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.

[Ortho_cat]

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)...

[Ortho_cat]

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"... 

[Kerdy]

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.

[Ortho_cat]

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

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?