improfane's Journal: Stop Having Kids

I started a controversial thread in the article Earth's Population To Hit 7 Billion This Year.

I strongly believe people should be having less children and taking responsibility for their actions.

I honestly do not understand how people can regard me selfish for this opinion.

Population control is not necessarily an extreme measure that others have assumed. In the UK we have tons of teenage prenancies. I mean tons. There's a page on Wikipedia dedicated to it. Some areas in Britain are full of single mothers which live off the state. I find this a disgusting waste of resources.

What if they taxed young children who have children young more? These kids should be in school - not getting pregnant. There is a really good post about sending girls to school, as that really does work.

Some jackass modded me overrated because they disagreed. Humanity has a long way to go!

Edits needed

[mcgrew]

Fewer children, not less children. And you need a <p> at the end to fix the journal bug.

As to population growth, the answer is feeding those already alive. Populations in most developed countries are falling. One of my grandmothers had seven kids, one had four. I had two. It's the poor who have a lot of kids, because they don't have as good a chance of all of them surviving.

There was a book back in 1968 titled The Population Bomb [wikipedia.org]:

It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience.[2][3] The book has been criticized in recent decades for its alarmist tone and inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."[1]

Like all futurists, he was wrong -- technology came to the rescue. The world now has twice as many people as Ehrlich said would ruin it.

Hell, Asimov's Bailey robot mysteries had Earth with a population less than we actually have today, and they had to exist on yeast. Personally, I'm optomistic about the future. And remember, populatiojn problems have a (horrible) way of fixing themselves.

It Must Be An Individual's Choice

[WrongSizeGlass]

What if they taxed young children who have children young more?

I don't think taxing young, and very possibly single, mothers is the answer. Taking whatever resources they have as a penalty for getting pregnant only guarantees they'll be in desperate straits for the rest of their lives.

Yes, the population is growing & growing and is getting out of control. Any form of population control that is not an individual's own uninfluenced choice will end up being resented and resisted. There is no moral way for any institution to force people not to have children (or to

Re:

[improfane]

What can we do then?

Would you say you are wealthier because you don't have kids?

Re:

[WrongSizeGlass]

What can we do then?

I'm not sure if any person or any organization can do anything without becoming a doer of evil. When China went to the "one child per family" policy it led to the deaths of countless baby girls. That's just wrong. The families shouldn't have killed of the baby girls, but a son is required to preserve the family name. Culturally China isn't that different than most other nations when it comes to the preference of a son.

In societies where the basic technology exists to determine the sex of the baby very ear

Re:

[WrongSizeGlass]

When a significant number of men cannot find a mate it will result in more crime and violence

That should have been "When a significant number of men cannot find a mate it will result in violence and related crimes". That 'submit' button was just too tempting.

Re:

[WrongSizeGlass]

Sorry about replying twice - I hit 'submit' instead of continue editing. And it looks like I hit 'quote parent' twice too ;-)

Would you say you are wealthier because you don't have kids?

I suppose I might be to some degree, but I am not a good barometer. I donate a lot to animal charities and to those in need (certainly more than a child or two would have cost).

For me it was not a financial decision at all. I know that I have no patience for children and that I would not be a good parent. It was not a selfish choice (as many have told me) but one that ensures I wou