Poll: What Form Of Birth Control Policy
Poll Options
View poll results: What Form Of Birth Control Policy
Birth Control For Every Family (limit on how many kids)
48 32%
Birth Control In Extreme Cases
39 26%
Birth Control For Disabled People
17 11%
None
48 32%
Voters: 152.
Page 1 of 2
#1
(poll coming)

So the world is massively overpopulated, adding to environmental problems. Do you think there should be a form of governmental policy to prevent people having say 5 kids?
Additionally what about people with disabilities or genetic disorders procreating? Is it not politically correct to point out that several generations of people can be affected by 1 person? Do you consider it a personal right to have kids, or furthermore to have several kids?
#2
There are families in the world that have to be big, because not all of them survive childhood, and the family depends in part on the children as they grow up for income.
#4
Here's a thought:
Drinking, although the high from the drug alcohol is comparable to that of other illicit drugs, is legal in the US. Why? Population control.
Smoking is legal.
Gay marriage would help.
War would help.
Cars don't have automatic seatbelts (
tons more crap that is irrelevant but can be twisted to your liking.
Jackson RR5 ivory w/ EMG 81/85
Jackson DX6 w/ SD Distortion & Dimarzio Super Distortion
Fender Starcaster Sunburst
Mesa/Boogie DC-3
Johnson JT50 Mirage
Ibanez TS-9
Morley Bad Horsie 2
Boss CE-5

ISP Decimator
Boss DD-6
Korg Pitchblack
#5
Quote by blue_strat
There are families in the world that have to be big, because not all of them survive childhood, and the family depends in part on the children as they grow up for income.


I was referring to developed nations.
#6
Population in developed countries is already going down, isn't it? Or would be if it weren't for immigration. I don't think anyone except very religious people would be having more than 5 kids.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
#7
its called mandatory chemical castration

GUITARS CURRENTLY USED
Ibanez RG7621
Ibanez RG121
ESP LTD H-400
#8
I believe the many aborted chinese female fetuses stand as testimony that it's probably not a good idea.

Furthermore, it's developing nations that are the real risk for overpopulation. In more rural areas, family units require more offspring (work on the farm, high mortality rate, support parental units in old age).
In developed nations, you don't need those sorts of things, and it's more expensive to raise kids anyway.

As for preventing the disabled from makin' babies.... That sounds a little too much like eugenics and makes me uncomfortable. There's too much room for error/corruption.
Last edited by AA00P at Oct 28, 2009,
#9
Quote by whalepudding
Population in developed countries is already going down, isn't it? Or would be if it weren't for immigration.



Yeah but considering the 60s baby boom etc it isnt saying much. I dont know what ther US population was 300 years ago but it wasnt 500 million!
#10
A lot of the population of earth comes from underdeveloped nations, where there really isn't much to do but make babies. So they make a million, some die but some live. But the population increases still and theres not a lot we can do about it. Not enough money.
Quote by Sooopo
You sir, have made my day awesome.


8/7/09

RIP Les Paul, I bet he's forming a kick-ass band up there to play The Great Gig in the Sky. Maybe we'll all have to use a Stairway to Heaven to go see them play. You know I'm funny.
#11
all morals aside, we NEED IT
If a mortal stands before us
Strike him down with sleight of hand.
And if heaven rides against us
Then God himself must be damned.


Computer Science major! Apple enthusiast!
I wear Vibrams and type with Dvorak!
#12
China dude
Quote by JacobTheMe
JacobTheEdit: Hell yeah Ruben.

Quote by Jackal58
I met Jesus once. Cocksucker still owes me 20 bucks.
#13
How about this: The world isn't overpopulated.

There are plenty of resources for everyone, just not everyone gets the chance to obtain them. I don't have any statistics, but I'm sure that if all the food in the world was distributed evenly, everyone would have plenty to eat. It's not a matter of there being too many people (or not enough resources), just not good enough organization to meet their needs.

EDIT:
Quote by Sir-Shredalot
Yeah but considering the 60s baby boom etc it isnt saying much. I dont know what ther US population was 300 years ago but it wasnt 500 million!

US population is ~300 million
Quote by ThinLizzyFan
I love you



Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
Women and children first
And the children first
And the children
Last edited by namesroverrated at Oct 28, 2009,
#14
After seeing most people and their children...they usually stop after the first one, possibly second...
#15
Yeah, those people with disabilities...so evil.

Let's not generalize and insult the abilities of a huge community now. Are you so much better than somebody with a disability?

EDIT: And it's not like by killing off a single person with a genetic disability will destroy the strain. What makes it genetic is that it's in an entire family's line of DNA. So unless you want to kill off the majority of the world...
Warmoth Strat w/ Lace Holy Grails
'07 Roadhouse Strat
Washburn WD-21 all Koa Acoustic
Marshall JCM-2000 TSL-122
Bugera V-5
Last edited by Rogue Hermit at Oct 28, 2009,
#16
Sure, lots of welfare babies out there just fall right back into the system and start the cycle over. The gov wants to ban abortion but they ought to make it mandatory for certain individuals...as for the rest, retards should not have babies, shit, I am in healthcare and all these stroked out bedridden people, I'll bite my tongue. If you saw the shit I see on a regular bases you would be sick!
In the Valley of Vung
Last edited by Mr. Parker at Oct 28, 2009,
#17
Quote by namesroverrated
How about this: The world isn't overpopulated.

There are plenty of resources for everyone, just not everyone gets the chance to obtain them. I don't have any statistics, but I'm sure that if all the food in the world was distributed evenly, everyone would have plenty to eat. It's not a matter of there being too many people (or not enough resources), just not good enough organization to meet their needs.

EDIT:

US population is ~300 million



Maybe in the US after securing middle eastern oil supplys but in Europe there will be a lack of energy supply within 7 years (the EU warned of potential blackouts by 2017).

Furthermore its more reducing environmental damage, rather than sustaining it.
#18
Th government has no business whatsoever in interfering with the rights of two consenting adults to procreate as they see fit as as many times as they see fit.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#19
Quote by Sir-Shredalot
Maybe in the US after securing middle eastern oil supplys but in Europe there will be a lack of energy supply within 7 years (the EU warned of potential blackouts by 2017).

Furthermore its more reducing environmental damage, rather than sustaining it.

Implementing birth control policies will not solve the oil crisis, in fact, it would probably do nothing at all in terms of oil. At best, push it back a couple of years.
Quote by ThinLizzyFan
I love you



Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
Women and children first
And the children first
And the children
#21
Hell no the government shouldn't be able to regulate who procreates with whom, nor should they be able to determine how many offspring they have.
#22
Quote by Sir-Shredalot
I was referring to developed nations.

You referred to "the world".
#23
Government definitely should not regulate this. It's not right. The Nazis already tried...look where that got them
#24
Quote by namesroverrated
How about this: The world isn't overpopulated.

There are plenty of resources for everyone, just not everyone gets the chance to obtain them. I don't have any statistics, but I'm sure that if all the food in the world was distributed evenly, everyone would have plenty to eat. It's not a matter of there being too many people (or not enough resources), just not good enough organization to meet their needs.

EDIT:

US population is ~300 million

Oh God! Where is Joseph McCarthy when you need him?!
Jackson RR5 ivory w/ EMG 81/85
Jackson DX6 w/ SD Distortion & Dimarzio Super Distortion
Fender Starcaster Sunburst
Mesa/Boogie DC-3
Johnson JT50 Mirage
Ibanez TS-9
Morley Bad Horsie 2
Boss CE-5

ISP Decimator
Boss DD-6
Korg Pitchblack
#26
Quote by blue_strat
You referred to "the world".



Nope i stated the world was overpopulated, i didnt state all nations should introduce it just to discuss it with whoever is here Americans, Brits etc and their nations.
#27
Not to mention most of the developed world are having fewer and fewer children already so it's not necessary to impose stupid regulations upon them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Every country under 2.0 will have a declining population (excluding immigration/emigration), every country over 2.0 will have an increasing population, 2.0 on the spot will remain stable (again, excluding immigrants/emigrants).
#28
IMO, the world needs to get over the "OMG HITLER WANTED IT SO IT"S BAD" crap and realize that some kind of population control is absolutely essential for the species to survive in the long term. If exponential population increases continue without any change, we'll burn through our resources in the relative blink of an eye, then kill each other over what's left. We need to keep our numbers at a sustainable level until the technology is available for us to expand to somewhere besides Earth.

Throw out all the baseless emotional/religious arguments you want, the effects of catastrophic overpopulation are undeniable fact.
#29
Didn't any of you take biology? An area will support its population on its own! When capacity is reached, people die. Earths human capacity has clearly not been met because we still have exponential growth. When limiting factors come into play, many will die and the cycle will start all over again. Seriously people, ****ing with Earths natural cycles DOES NOT EVER HELP.
Gear:
B-52 ATX-100
Mesa Oversized recto 4x12
Jackson DKMG (w/ BareKnuckle Warpigs )
Ibanez Acoustic

Feel free to add me or PM me.
#30
Quote by Not a Les Paul
IMO, the world needs to get over the "OMG HITLER WANTED IT SO IT"S BAD" crap and realize that some kind of population control is absolutely essential for the species to survive in the long term. If exponential population increases continue without any change, we'll burn through our resources in the relative blink of an eye, then kill each other over what's left. We need to keep our numbers at a sustainable level until the technology is available for us to expand to somewhere besides Earth.

Throw out all the baseless emotional/religious arguments you want, the effects of catastrophic overpopulation are undeniable fact.

Guess what's even more essential. Cutting down on consumption. Do that first.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#31
Quote by Not a Les Paul
IMO, the world needs to get over the "OMG HITLER WANTED IT SO IT"S BAD" crap and realize that some kind of population control is absolutely essential for the species to survive in the long term. If exponential population increases continue without any change, we'll burn through our resources in the relative blink of an eye, then kill each other over what's left. We need to keep our numbers at a sustainable level until the technology is available for us to expand to somewhere besides Earth.

Throw out all the baseless emotional/religious arguments you want, the effects of catastrophic overpopulation are undeniable fact.

In all likelihood we'll overshoot the carrying capacity, the population will fall briefly then rise again and eventually remain fairly constant at the carrying capacity.

The question is how many people the Earth can sustain given our skewed distribution of wealth/resources.
#32
Quote by Sir-Shredalot
(poll coming)

So the world is massively overpopulated, adding to environmental problems. Do you think there should be a form of governmental policy to prevent people having say 5 kids?
Additionally what about people with disabilities or genetic disorders procreating? Is it not politically correct to point out that several generations of people can be affected by 1 person? Do you consider it a personal right to have kids, or furthermore to have several kids?

(in stereotypical italiano) don't worry about it! well what will most likely happen is Iran with get the bomb, blow up israel, then there'll be another world war and enough people will die in this conflict to lower the world population and clear up some "living space" haha. who knows?
If you want to shine like the sun first you must burn like it.
#33
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Guess what's even more essential. Cutting down on consumption. Do that first.


Granted, people wouldn't be AS large either. I space out my meals and i'm just getting a gut now...and this has been going on for 18 years.

So,

I think that's a great idea to cut down on consumption. Even sounds like a catchy slogan.
#34

"I, for one, quite like this idea...."
I can honestly say I have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


I don't always post on UG, but when I do, I post in the Pit. Stay thirsty my friends.
#35
Quote by whalepudding
I'm not going near this one.

Pretty much.
I think it's time for a change.



Sig v5.0 (approximate)
#38
Quote by apak
Oh God! Where is Joseph McCarthy when you need him?!

I'm not a Communist! I swearz it!

At any rate, RU Experienced? is right, we'll just overshoot carrying capacity and then the population will fall and remain around carrying capacity
Quote by ThinLizzyFan
I love you



Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
Women and children first
And the children first
And the children
#39
Quote by denfilade
Natural birth control policies are already coming into play...infertility is at a recorded all-time high.



Not in my pants broseph!
#40
The countries with the highest population growth are all developing nations, whereas in Europe, Australia and North America, the ratio of births to deaths is very close to the replacement rate (I think it's about 1.7 births per woman, slightly less than 2 due to longer life expectancy).
The main reasons why some developing nations have high birth rates are lack of education, high infant mortality rate, low life expectancy, lack of family planning and medical facilities and the need for large families to work in countries where agriculture is the major industry.

Birth Control in developed nations won't solve the problem. China's one child policy has resulted in abortions, 30 million bachelors who can never marry, wife trafficking and other issues, but it's keeping over a billion people from starving to death.

The only way to control overpopulation in developing nations is to bring them up to the standard of the developed countries, which is not likely to happen any time soon. They need education, industry and medical care.
/wall of text

TL;DR - TS didn't think this through.
Page 1 of 2