Should American families have two child max rule to limit population growth?

For the last 50 years, world population multiplied more rapidly than ever before, and more rapidly than it is projected to grow in the future. In 1950, the world had 2.5 billion people; and in 2005, the world had 6.5 billion people. By 2050, this number could rise to more than 9 billion.

Views: 359

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Absolutely I have been saying that forever

ive bin sayin men with hats shud deffinently watch dis video 4evur :O

yeah, i think so too! actually one child! i dont think i would call it a rule. people think china is crazy but whatever. i dont think means people have to have abortion. no one saying that. it should be like people already find it difficult financially. but i dont think humans should use money! there should be some guidelines like that. not relgions. government should say stuff like, you all are having too many kids! you all drive too fast! you all cant be using that chemicals its polluting! you all have to have consent for sex(people dont know that?), ha, that was actually a psa(public service announcement) on freespeech channel. or, you all need to eat less meat!! or go vegan. but i read survey one in 200 pregnancies without intercourse. and condoms fail 2 percent. but is that going to be taught? i have notion modern history class is like 80 percent propaganda. we have to think globally. locally but globally too. i read number of people per kilometer!! i just feel claustraphobic. around non-vegans. but seems people want to make real estate mogul star wars mega cities. freaking scary. i say it(urbanism) is not fair to rural people. right?

Trying to dictate by law how people should live their lives always backfires. That's why prohibition was a disaster. The so-called "war on drugs" has been a disaster. Obamacare is a disaster. We don't need more political liberalism(I call it that because it seems to have nothing in common with actual liberalism) or conservatism. We need green libertarianism. I agree there are way too many humans on this planet but the answer to the problem isn't some intrusive law like they have in China. How would you enforce it anyway? More fines like with Obamacare? Forced sterilizations or abortions? You're opening up a can of worms if you try those things in the United States.

What is needed is a change in cultural norms and attitudes. People have children because they have been encouraged and nurtured to do so by both political liberals and conservatives. All the major institutions in the United States put human reproduction on a pedestal as if it were an act of noble heroism. People who don't have children are either ignored or vilified and definitely not rewarded or hailed in any way. Don't even get me started on religions. In fact, religions are one of the main obstacles to a real, honest, non-politically-correct discussion of the subject of overpopulation and many other things.

Look at all those commercials about starving children. Sure they are starving but they wouldn't be starving if they hadn't been born in the first place. Yet, to blame their parents for having gone and sown their wild oats and produced kids is taboo. We also aren't allowed to talk against the religion that tells these people to go out and multiply like rabbits without being called anti-religious bigots. In other words, we have to ignore the cold hard facts of life just so that no one gets their feelings hurt.

Literally, we have religions that say a person who masturbates or pleasures themselves, all by themselves without involving anyone else, are evil heathens who are going to hell according to their books and fairy tales. On the other hand, people who have actual sexual intercourse that produces starving children, or just more children period, are hailed as the noble innocent poor that we all must save because we, not them, are the problem. If we are ever going to achieve a world without actual poverty, war, and starvation we have to begin accepting the fact that some people are not exactly innocent but rather irresponsible, ignorant or gullible, lazy, cowardly, and parasitic.

The fact of the matter is that a vegan person who has abstained from sexual intercourse as I have(yes, a virgin but I do pleasure myself) or who at least has taken steps not to cause any pregnancies is far more noble, disciplined, and responsible than some moron who continues to regard animals as property, the world as his toilet, and women as baby-making factories.

Masturbation is not evil. Pornhub is not the problem. Abstinence from sexual intercourse or at least from causing pregnancies is not the problem. I can assure you it is not someone like me who has ever caused the birth of any children in this world or spread any STD's. I should get a medal or something. Just kidding...but really I'm just telling the facts. Religion sure as hell has not made the world safer or cleaner, people happier, or brought us any closer to life, liberty, and the free pursuit of happiness for both people and animals. Whatever progress humanity has made has been in spite of religion not because of it. We need more cold hard facts and science and less fairy tales and arbitrary books full of hypocritical puritanism and prudishness.

We need governments that encourage and nurture veganism, abstinence from pregnancies if not from sexual intercourse, and basically living correctly(Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't do stupid things like jumping off of buildings or driving your car at 200 mph just because you are stupid and bored). If someone wants to make bad choices and chooses to do so they need to be told that they caused their own problems rather than be put on a pedestal as a victim of everyone else. People who have made responsible and factually logical decisions aren't the ones who should be made to feel guilty, punished, or have the government taking their freedom and money away to reward those who have done things which cause problems. Even idiots should have the right to make their bad choices...we just need to stop rewarding them and showering them with sympathy for it. If you tell someone that you love what they've been doing they'll just keep on doing it. If you crash your motorcycle and break your neck and back because you love motorcycles and you love how fast they go and how it feels to ride without a helmet that is your problem not mine and don't come crying to me about it. See, just don't encourage it and you won't have to prohibit it.

No restrictions is my vote. 

I also would vote for a dislike button feature added to vegfriend. com

There is a lot of foster kids and kids that have no home though. I believe in personal freedoms and not trying to hinder them also.Do we look at the foster care system and how many kids that are abounded and abused.Where is the line drawn where some shouldnt be allowed to have anymore kids to abuse or just have to get welfare for.When Social Services gets involve these children end up right back with parents that abuse and neglect them. I dont think there is no easy answer for the problem at all in this area.

Yes, there should be this rule, but as some have mentioned in this discussion already, it is very sensitive topic and difficult in my opinion. So, basically the rule means that you should only sort of "replace" yourself with a child, and since it takes 2 people to reproduce, you may have 2 children in this model. But what about a divorced family? Or if a father of such family has also a lover - she has her right to have a child, but he would run out of his permitted count, or? :)

What would happen if that was made a law?

u wudnt go tu heaven "Riki" wud u like dat :O


Support Us


© 2019   Created by Xiao Kang.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service