Globally do u believe that people should be allowed to have lots of kids?
Answer:
hey, would you like a case of dynamite?
clearly, it will not be long before there is a world wide population problem.
just as clearly, it has to happen before the world will be at all ready to address the problem.
isn't it interesting how many there are that say, "i live in the US, and drive a car, but we live modestly, and are not part of the problem. we need all of our children, because social security will not be available to take care of us."
((as if all those kids don't need to eat and drink fresh water, etc.))
yeah, it's probably all those Chinese, Indians, and Indonesians, growing rice.
Or the Africans, and other groups, living on the edge of starvation. It's okay though, they're not "real" people, like we are.
there is a reasonable good chance that family size in the US will be regulated.
but it has nothing to do with world population.
it has to do with Caucasians becoming a minority.
I feel people should have free access to birth control. That would help with overpopulation problems. If people only had the children they planned and really wanted, I think that would solve the problem. So I think people should be free to have children, but also be free NOT to.
hmm, no one has ever asked with the word 'globally'. Probably because it would difficult to implement, and most likely not happen. but in my opinion, just thinking about hte population explosion, its good to have two kids for two parents. If someone remarries, think its ok to have one more.
But morally, it probably all balances out. soem kids die young and don't make it. some kids do continue to age to a ripe old age.
"Should be allowed"? Who's going to stop them? Are you proposing a system of only one child like China? Maybe a forced sterilization program like in the US and Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s? The world has been there and done that. The results are horrific.
I believe people should all be allowed to have as many kids as they want. Just because they are having a lot of kids does not mean they are taking up all the resources.
We live off of about 25 thousand dollars a year. I stay home and I homeschool, so we don't waste money on all the capri suns and lunchables, and we also don't put that waste into the garbage. We do a lot of work on the computer, so there is limited waste of paper and pencils. When we do field trips it is as an entire family, so I am not running back and forth to the school 2 or 3 times a day every day. I go when we can and want to go. There are many advantages to a larger family. One of those for me will be when I am comfortable in my own home with the help and support of my children instead of taking up hospital bed being fed tv dinners when I am 90.
I think people should be allowed to have as many children as they like as long as they can provide financially and emotionally for them. There are too many people these days who just keep having kids with no desire or plan to support them. I agree that free birth control would help, but in countries where overpopulation is already a problem, I doubt it would be implemented.
why globally? what about choice, providing a family is able to provide this children with all of the moral and social responsiblilties regarding the preservation of the universe at large.
And if the answer is no? What will you propose? Nature will deal with over population. We just need to keep the breeders in their own countries for that to happen. It will be harsh.
I think they should be allowed to have as many kids as they want to, but I also think it would help a whole lot if people had better access to education on the subject and birth control.
I don't know who would enforce it. But most of our big problems these days are directly or indirectly related to overpopulation: energy, greenhouse gases, hunger, poverty... overpopulation is the root of a lot of war and cruelty.
In a situation where the individual's impact on the environment is limited, evolution favors those who survive and procreate best. We're among the best on the planet (insects might be better, maybe bacteria or viruses). Problem is, we and our world are changing faster than our genes can.
Yes if they could take care of them
I watched a news article just a few minutes ago describing how Canada's population is aging and the government may need to give incentives to increase the birthrate.
That news article was sickening to me.
Not only does it reduce human life to a matter of fiscal economics, but it does so at a time when the human population is so high the planet cannot support the current numbers. I thought the open border policy for all countries in the Commonwealth would have been enough to satisfy the governments need for a tax and labour base.
We have a weak willed, right wing government right now that takes its orders from south of the border. I hope that changes soon.
I strenuously oppose any attempt to force people to have fewer children. China does that, in some cases by forcing women to have late term abortions. It is an abomination and gross violation of human rights.
The world population growth rate is slowing all by itself. The reason is the world is getting richer. Rich people tend to have smaller families voluntarily. The native U.S. population would be DECREASING if there were no immigration from poor South American countries. As it is, even with immigration the U.S. population is growing very slowly.
Definately not overpopulation is at the root of most of our problems
but how can we ethically control it
.People are to vain or to proud ,Many many cultures rate men by the number of children they got ,In India,Africa,Mexico and USA amongst others
Our natural resources and especially food production are reaching critical levels as well as fresh water supplies .
People use and need land,so more and more is being changed to accomodate human growth and devellopment.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million
In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .
Each year pressures on water supplies are increasing with 70 million more people drinking cooking and washing ,not to mention Irrigation for agriculture which consumes 70% of all water supplies.
It is suspected that controlling factors have been in play already for quite a while .
SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
At a Bilderberg(UN)meeting in Kopenhagen in 1998 it was suggested to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved
And the Americans manauvring for a nuclear war is suspicious
Population control in the past and present and suspected
War (past .present and future)
All along native peoples have been suplied with arms and encouraged to wipe each other out ,(such as all over Africa )
Natures way disease(today,past and future)
Manufactured disease(suspected today)
Cures that kill(suspected today)
Poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)
Making children infertile or gay,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)
Birth control,(in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile
Today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )
Education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )
Laws that limit childbirth per family(China)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
People should have more information about birth control, but they should be able to have as many kids as they want. Women should not abort either, they could give their unwanted child for adoption and get operated so they wont ever have kids. Those women should not be allowed to have any kids.
That would depend upon where on the globe they are. Even in China the one child only rule only applies to the major cities, the agricultural regions are allowed more children. They need them to run the farm, just as USA did when we were an aggro based economy.
Speaking of economies, we all know that every business needs to grow. A properly administered country is run like a business or it goes bankrupt too, like North Korea, or USSR or Cuba or .. need I go on? If a country stops growing it can't support itself. If a country suddenly only has one child per couple the new population would soon not be able to support the existing population.
When was the last time you flew over the country in an airplane? Did you see people standing shoulder to shoulder? No? Me either. Even China has room between the people. Bangladesh is the most densely populated nation on earth and most of those people live in it's capitol Dacha.
We can not under populate the world anymore than we can over populate the Earth. The results of under populating would have an effect sooner than overpopulating, but we will never see it happen as the urge to reproduce is the strongest impulse we have behind self preservation.
I don't know if "allowed" is the right term but I certainly believe that people should think about their breeding habits before procreating. I don't believe that there should be laws over people but people ought to think about the major drain on this planets resources already in place because of our demanding lifestyles.
The more people there are the more resources required thus putting the delicate ecological system or its balance out of whack.
People worldwide need to think about the global impact before having huge families.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: