Should their be a Limit on how many children people can have?

[Stelio Kontos]

Semaphore and Atsawin26, just stop. You both discredit yourself and bring nothing to this discussion.

I will, I realized that person isn't capable of really debating anything, just regurgitating whatever talking points they happen to believe in.

Sorry, carry on!

[semaphore]

Semaphore and Atsawin26, just stop. You both discredit yourself and bring nothing to this discussion.

This is an issue of government regulating your personal freedoms. Libertarianism is directly related to any such topics. Commenting on libertarianism is a legitimate discussion. Q.E.D. I mean, the mods were fine with people chitchatting about football in the Falklands thread. That was exponentially more off topic.

Inb4 this post gets infracted.

I will, I realized that person isn't capable of really debating anything, just regurgitating whatever talking points they happen to believe in.

Sorry, carry on!

Being a hypocrite then accuse others of hypocrisy, and upon getting that pointed out flees. Talk about capable of debating anything

[Hyve]

use of resources has nothing to do with over population, we're just really inefficient.

More efficiency means we could have 10 jillion people on the planet, so long as we have the resources to support it.

We could in theory continue to support billions more people on the planet, with improved drilling techniques and other capabilities, we'll be able to harvest resources from other planets and deep within our core soon.

That said, it is exactly that, a theory. We don't live on a planet were the ecosystems are balanced and we work in harmony with them. We're a virus in terms of our behaviour. We move from place to place, uprooting entire species, killing them off and ruining the land so we can all have some McDonalds.

Areas that were once lush forest and woodland are now desert, massive landslips claim thousands of lives each year and the weather patterns are changing due to a lack of oxygen, and to much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

If we keep our system up, we'll be long dead before we reach 20 billion, simply because we'd have died from Oxygen starvation.

[Boogieknight]

Personally I think 2, max 3 children is the limit.

Three would be the preferred number. At 2 you have stable population (2 parents, 2 children, zero net population growth.) At 3 you would have a modest growth in the population. This is one of the reasons Japan has a negative birth rate.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Three would be the preferred number. At 2 you have stable population (2 parents, 2 children, zero net population growth.) At 3 you would have a modest growth in the population. This is one of the reasons Japan has a negative birth rate.

Does Japan have a child limit? I'm not keen on Japan.

[Amirila]

Technically there IS a limit. You can't have how many children as you want (at least for women). Let's say at a reasonable age of 13 to 50 you can perhaps have a child every 1.5-2 years. You may have twins, or a miscarriage, or one. But you can't have an infinite number of children

[Hyve]

Three would be the preferred number. At 2 you have stable population (2 parents, 2 children, zero net population growth.) At 3 you would have a modest growth in the population. This is one of the reasons Japan has a negative birth rate.

But why is that a problem. Typically people are much healthier and live much longer. Years ago people die off at or around the pension age, and so if you had an ageing population it was a problem.

However, with international markets now open, the population of individuals countries is not longer relevant. Think of it like a factory. As technology improves, we need fewer people to operate the factory. Years ago, we needed hundreds of people to put together the product, clean the floors and ship it to the customer. Now, we need a few people to monitor the machinery, and some cleaners, with our delivery outsourced to another company.

Why would we then continue to hire and employ the same rate of people as we did years ago? We wouldn't! That is effectively (Although a very simple version) of what is happening to the countries. We need fewer people to run our countries, yet we're stuck in the mindset that more people = more productivity.

[semaphore]

Does Japan have a child limit? I'm not keen on Japan.

No. Japan has subreplacement fertility rates.

[solvexx]

If it was up to me they wouldn't be allowed that. I personally feel too many people out there have children who shouldn't already. If it were up to me their would be a parenting licence needed to have children or you get fined heavily or cut off of government aid completely. Just because you biologically can have children doesn't mean you can be a parent. People like this woman gets handouts and then wants to bitch that it's not enough.

I wasn't expecting the last past about her saying someone needs to be accountable.
That was actually, pretty funny.

OT: I don't think there should be a limit and that fertilizer crap you went on about is horrible. :/

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No. Japan has subreplacement fertility rates.

Yay for learning.

[semaphore]

However, with international markets now open, the population of individuals countries is not longer relevant. Think of it like a factory. As technology improves, we need fewer people to operate the factory. Years ago, we needed hundreds of people to put together the product, clean the floors and ship it to the customer. Now, we need a few people to monitor the machinery, and some cleaners, with our delivery outsourced to another company.

Why would we then continue to hire and employ the same rate of people as we did years ago? We wouldn't! That is effectively (Although a very simple version) of what is happening to the countries. We need fewer people to run our countries, yet we're stuck in the mindset that more people = more productivity.

But that is a massive problem. It's a sectoral transformation into a services economy, which are more poorly paid, while the non-working population that has to be supported is ballooning. It's not a problem if the decline is slow and drawn out, but the fiscal and social weight of a relatively sudden drop is troublesome.

[Hyve]

But that is a massive problem. It's a sectoral transformation into a services economy, which are more poorly paid, while the non-working population that has to be supported is ballooning. It's not a problem if the decline is slow and drawn out, but the fiscal and social weight of a relatively sudden drop is troublesome.

It all comes down to management. With the current lack of intellect in most governments, it would be an issue, but with proper systems put in place, there would be jobs in all sectors for various people of different ages. As the country moves to a more service based system, it would increase national profits, allowing it to subsidise certain areas, and improve other fields of business such as hospitality and tourism.

China has been doing this very well, but sadly poor management and greed has done exactly what you feared. With the proper governing body in place, China would've been a super power years ago, it would have a larger economy then the US & EU combined, and it would also be one of the nicest places to live and work.

[semaphore]

With the current lack of intellect in most governments, it would be an issue, but with proper systems put in place

Yeah, that's why I very much doubt the ageing population issue is going to be properly managed =/

[Kreeshak]

If so many children is a problem - the way to deal with it is not legislation or abortion but education.

[Hyve]

Yeah, that's why I very much doubt the ageing population issue is going to be properly managed =/

I know you can't reply to this yet, due to your ban, but I would like to have a lack of faith in the government, a system that can be changed every four or so years, depending on the nation you live in, whereas entire social systems take decades to change!

[Hyve]

can you believe that she received ban before me, sexism, men discrimination

Just stop ... Seriously ...

[Shifthappens]

Im fine with people on welfare or disability, as long as that money is spent responsibly and not on shit like drugs, booze, smokes.
i have ZERO respect for people that capable to work and still sit on welfare keep saying they cant find a job, its bullshit, if you want to work you will always find a job. Where there is a will there is a way.

As for having many children, if parents can give them roof over their heads, food, education then its up to them, otherwise no. Personaly i dont plan on having more then 2 so i can send them to private school and give them good future.

[Deleted]

I cannot, I woke up with this huge urge to get banned, considering that I'm an animal, male one I need to follow my urges blindly - baaaan meee already

Hopefully it's a permaban. You're obviously depressingly immature.

[Deleted]

immature? I'm phsically a grown up man, psychological maturity is a hoax and shit repeated by girls who tend to like wrinkles on already wrinkled ballsacks - are you a girl? or maybe a juicy pederasty representative? you fuck

Lol, okay.

[Deleted]

No, but the state shouldn't support more than two.