POPULATION CONTROL

I do not agree that it should be left up to the citizen. This is why the world is overly populated right now is because the citizens have the choice. I believe if there were laws put into place that would prohibit a family from having more than 2 children and permit the lawbreakers to face fines & penalties or for those wanting more than 2 children the couple should have to apply for a permit to have another child. Depending on the population of the area at the time the couple applied for their permit, would determine weather or not their permit was granted. A judge such as an administrative judge could handle this type of decision. For some reason if the couple gets denied there should be a time frame in which they could then re-apply.

Idea for the world
Laws
Voting is now closed for this idea.
Result
36% Approved
Rating
Votes
50
Views
3274

65 Comments

  • I object because people would probably have children anyway if they really wanted them. People who accidentally get pregnant might try to hide or kill their children to avoid the fines. I also don't think that people's freedom to live their lives how they want to should be controlled so much by the government. I agree that the earth would be better off if people were having less children. I think instead of having laws to control the population, people should be better educated about the consequences of their actions. They should make family planning a required educational course taught in high schools. This would discourage people from having more children, but let them choose out of their own free will instead of forcing them to live how you think they should.

  • That would be perfect if (just in America alone) a county that started out with only a few million people of which grew to now well over 300 times that in just a few hundred years. Can you imagine in 100 more years how many people there will be? Now look at all the other countries. Especially China who's population super cede's everyone's. America is fortunate enough to have sex education in most of our schools. Other countries may not be so fortunate. I believe most children in America learn about sex education around the 6th grade. I also believe they should have another class towards what 1170 mentioned with a family planning type class in high school. However the only way i believe to slow down a birth rate that is completely out of control is to regulate it.

  • Idea guy your idea is bucking the trend of modern thinking on population control. That's cool. Most people will point to parts of the world where population growth is in decline, and increased affluence in those regions. There does seem to be an unarguable connection between the two. But equally, India and China have both regulated offspring numbers in recent decades to the great benefit of their countries and the rest of the world. They have not been sufficiently recognized for their bold policies that have perhaps made the difference between an unmanageable world poulation and one that is just barely manageable.

  • Thank you # 2. That is also a very well stated fact about India & China I forgot to mention.

  • Educate people on the importance of population control - help them to see that population control is more important than satisfying their desire for procreation. Use the "natural law" of hierarchy of desires to motivate people, and save on the need for law enforcement.

  • The earth will naturally deal with any species that becomes over populated.

  • I object because your idea would be scorned at by 90% of world citizens, nobody wants to be controlled in any case the POW has no power to introduce laws nor can be a dictator. He can however offer advise to world citizens and world citizens, that there is a very growing need to cull population sensibly. That is by education people and cultures and those in poverty to plan smaller families. All ready in the Philippines 30% of the population due to such education are into family planning. But where people are rapped up in culture and there religion and the advise by the older members of their families, that issues a view the more children the more help one gets when you get old. Governments giving rewards to couples having children should cease doing so. But democracy should be geared to the wishes of voters and they clearly do not wish to have any form of dictatorships. Yes this should be left to the world citizens and they should be very aware of the facts on overpopulation, it is up to them if the case is put over powerfully and they become aware of how life for them can be better for them if they had a smaller family. The chance for all their children getting a good education and not just 1 or 2 out of 10. Plus its much easier to feed a smaller family. You are of course thinking more about a well developed country and a much smaller percentage of the worlds population. But the real horrors are within developing countries the third world.

  • I object because of two reasons: First we need, either privately or publicly and hopefully the former, a better waste-recycling infrastructure. Currently, 3 billion of Earth's 7 billion people survive on food produced from fertilizer made from the organic atoms (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous) found in crude oil. Consider that most of the atoms making up your body resided under the ocean floor not ten years ago. When we look at the population problem in a chemical, dare-I-say scientific sense (the way all problems should be addressed), we see that we need to reintroduce the organic atoms that we have been denying our ecosystem back into our food supply. This first argument basically states that better food production is always possible through improved technology.
    Secondly, we are already approaching the Technological Singularity. Within a century, humans will be able to achieve immortality through cybernetic enhancements, and will have little to no investment in procreation. The sex drive coupled with mankind's love of his physical strength will be rendered obsolete once man can trade in his meaty body for one that can perform thirty times as well, last three times longer, and require much less input.
    Meanwhile, let's preserve our freedoms. Everything else is violence, and violence is not the answer.

  • Ok, 1st to Babelfish, I do not see how my idea would be scorned at by 90% of the worlds population when China's population alone makes up for 20% of the worlds population. The reason I mention China again is because they are a country who's population growth is regulated. In the next few decades, India, the world's second most populous country is expected to surpass China in population (who currently has the largest population of any country). By 2030, India's population is expected to be 1.53 billion. That same year, China's population will be 1.46 billion at it's peak and India will become the world's most populous country. As of 2005, India has a total fertility rate of 2.8, well above replacement value, so it is growing much more quickly than China. India's population growth is also currently regulated & they are still growing faster than anyone else. Population regulation is the control of the size of a population. This regulation implies a tendency of the population to achieve or return to a size at equilibrium or in harmony with the surrounding environment. If a population tends to remain about the same size, then it is said to be stable. Thus for, there would be no need to regulate populations. There are currently basically two different types of population regulation; Density-dependent Control & Density-independent Control. A density-dependent factor is one where the effect of the factor on the size of the population depends upon the original density or size of the population. A disease is a good example of a density-dependent factor. If a population is dense and the individuals live close together, then each individual will have a higher probability of catching the disease than if the individuals had been living farther apart. Similarly, competition for food and other resources will rise with density & affects an increasing proportion of the population. Not only will a greater number of individuals be affected, but, more importantly, a greater proportion of the population will be affected if they are living close together. For example, bird populations are often affected more by this type of regulation. In general, density-dependent factors are biological factors, such as diseases, parasites, competition, and predation. A density-independent factor is one where the effect of the factor on the size of the population is independent of and does NOT depend upon the original density or size of the population. The effect of weather is an example of a density-independent factor. A severe storm and flood coming through an area can just as easily wipe out a large population as a small one. Another example would be a harmful pollutant put into the environment, e.g., a stream. The probability of that harmful substance at some concentration killing an individual would not change depending on the size of the population. For example, populations of small mammals are often regulated more by this type of regulation. In general, density-independent factors are physical factors, such as weather factors (e.g., severe winter) or the presence of harmful chemicals. Human population growth has been exponential since the beginning of the 20th century. Much concern exists on the impact this growth will have, not only on the environment, but on humans as well. The world bank projection for human population growth predicts that the human population will grow from 6.8 billion in 2010 to 9 billion by 2050. Which is 2.2 billion more people to feed, house, & clothe in less than 40 years from now. This estimate could be offset by three population control measures; (1) Lower the rate of unwanted births, (2) Lower the desired family size, & (3) Raise the average age at which women begin to bear children or reduce the number of births below the level that would replace current human populations. (Referenced from: Encyclopedia Britannica) My idea may not be the best solution to our problem, but no one can deny that our worlds po

  • Now to MicahSchweitzer, My post has nothing to do with waste control, or bio-genetic improvements. This topic is about POPULATION CONCERNS. If you have an idea about something to solve waste problems or idea's on bio genetic improvements then post your own idea. Please read the About this site & How it works to the left. Thank you for your concerns.

  • I posted everything above however my session timed me out before I was able to post so this is why it shows me as anonymous above.

  • I also just realized my post got slightly cut off at the end. The closing sentence was; My idea may not be the best solution to our problem, but no one can deny that our worlds population growth is out of control.

  • Also for the comment about accidental pregnancies (especially from rape victims) they can always make amendments to a law making exceptions for accidental pregnancies of this type. The same goes for divorcing families.

  • When the humans of the world abuses it's freedoms, then I feel we need to take the next step & start regulating certain freedoms such as our freedom to have as many babies as we want to balance out our population with the millions of other species we share the earth with.

  • must be left up to the citizens of the world, but educated in a better way, if all start thinking in others than in our self, anyone can be president for a day, and so on, we won't have more children if we think in the global best interest, we won't by expensive things just the necessary don't you think?

  • To Anonymous, I apologize that my post looks like it was directed towards you. When one objects to an idea on this site, it first recommends that one starts their objection with "I object because ". My points were addressed to IDEAGUY's proposal. I was trying to explain things that could make his proposed mandate unnecessary.

  • Woops. I was just signed out, and I just noticed that IDEAGUY had that problem. Anyway, sorry if my points seemed to have nothing to do with population problems. They did. The waste-recycling point addresses famine due to over-population, and the cybernetic point tried to address the fact that the first point mostly just delays the problem.

  • I do agree with your point Anonymous, however a good portion of society today in the more developed countries are well aware and already educated of our impending dangers from excessive population growth. Are we even starting to slow down? No. Why? Because not enough people think that too many people is a bad idea.

  • I object because saying that the world is overpopulated is a fallacy. This wonderful planet can support even more billions. The problem is not too many people, the problem is that we are not acting together altruistically as One Humanity, with care, concern, empathy, and compassion for each other, and we are instead acting from our selfish egoism, to the benefit of a few and to the detriment of the many.

    Therefore, we have societies that over produce products to break so they must be replaced, so that they can over consume and over buy at the expense of others and at the expense of this planet for false growth and profit, rather than sharing, producing quality products that last and follow nature's rules of sustainability, and living reasonably so that all may live well. We are a species that is unique in its inability to be in harmony with our environment, and thus, we are severely out of balance, which violates the natural law of homeostasis. Science has now shown us all that we are interconnected and globalization is not something that we can reverse, even if we wanted to. Since we are integrally interconnected and interdependent, we cannot continue to violate the natural laws that we must learn to exist within, like the law of balance, homeostasis.

    We can only resolve issues when we seek to solve them from their root cause. Our global population numbers are not the cause of our various worldwide crises. We must look deeper, and each and everyone must look within. It is as Einstein has said, “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”

    The situation for humanity on this planet right now, in all of the escalating and multifaceted crises on every level and realm of society, requires us all to be in a new kind of relationship between people. Globalization has brought about the necessity for this new relationship between us, in order to survive first and foremost, and then also in order to live well, and to flourish and be happy.

    This new interconnection between people that must be implemented globally is foundationally a relationship of a good and positive interconnection, a good relationship of mutual benefit and responsibility, mutual care and concern, a kind of a contract or mutual guarantee with each other to care for one another. This is so that humanity can come into balance with a new law of nature that has been revealed to us, a new way of thinking about life and viewing the world, to look out for our neighbors even before ourselves. To flip our egoism to altruism. This is not to be confused with morals, ethics, and religions, but rather, this newly revealed natural law is as foundational and universal as the natural law of gravity or the four laws of thermodynamics.

    Humanity's process of evolution has come to the point where this new law of nature has revealed, and so we have to adapt to and align ourselves with it to overcome together, the various crises occurring in our world.

  • the above comment is my post. apparently there is a program bug here with logins.

  • So if population isn't the main problem currently, what will we do when it becomes a problem?

  • World Over-Population: Already, there are many areas around the planet that can not sustain the human populations, resulting in starvation, poverty, disease, crime, war, economic instability, pain and misery. The world population is currently growing at an amazing 211,000 people per day (as of year 2005; that's 77 million per year; or about 1 billion per 13 years; that's all births > deaths per day)!

    There are only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of arable land.
    The world population in year 1 A.D. was 250 million people.
    The world population in year 1492 was 500 million people.
    The world population in 1804 was 1.0 billion people.
    The world population in 1922 was 2.0 billion people (doubled in 118 years; increasing on average by about 23,000 per day).
    The world population in 1959 was 3.0 billion people (increased by 1.0 billion in only 37 years; increasing on average by about 74,000 per day).
    The world population in 2005 was 6.68 billion people (more than doubled in 47 years; increasing now by 211,000 persons per day!).
    The world population by 2039 could be 8.0 to 13 billion.

    In 1959, there were 12.16 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 3 billion people).
    In 2005, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
    By 2039, there may be only 2.81 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 13 billion people).

    Arable land is being lost at the alarming rate of over 38,610 square miles (24.7 million acres) per year. Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people). At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn't grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!

    In geography and agriculture, arable land is land that can be used for growing crops.

    Land which is unsuitable for arable farming usually has at least one of the following deficiencies: no source of fresh water; too hot (desert); too cold (Arctic); too rocky; too mountainous; too salty; too rainy; too snowy; too polluted; or too nutrient poor. Clouds may block the sunlight plants need for photosynthesis, reducing productivity. Plants can starve without light. Starvation and nomadism often exists on marginally arable land. Non-arable land is sometimes called wasteland, badlands, worthless or no man's land.

    Now consider the following: the sea-level is rising due to rising temperatures and melting ice.
    The island nation of Tuvalu is slowly being submerged. The people of Tavalu have requested permission to move to immigrate to New Zealand.
    The islands in the Chesapeake Bay are being submerged.
    Bangladesh's lowlands farmlands are being submerged and saltwater is seeping into fresh water systems.
    NOTE: For about every foot rise in the sea-level, the inland flooding is about 100 feet. Many people live along coastlines all around the world.

    Starting to get the picture ?

    So to say that "the IDEA of the world being over populated is a fallacy" would just be proving to each & everyone of us how nieve humans are on this matter & also proves how selfish our nature can be. I don't believe I am being selfish by providing IDEA's to correct or curb a major world problem. A fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. With that being said, every ounce of data or bits of information that I have posted has been directly referrenced out of the Encyclopedia Britannica. So sense I have based my IDEA's on facts, it is then not a fallacy.

    On the other hand, I do agree with most of the rest of your arguement about people needing to become One altruistic voice.

  • Use up every square inch of available arable land that you possibly can & fill it up with as many people as you can & then we shall see what goes to the benefit of whom, & what leads towards the detriment of many.

  • Why dont we just put stuff in the water to help make humans less fetile? Decrease the overall chance of being pregnant.

  • Bottled Birth control? Now that is an idea!

  • Ok. So bottled birth control is out of the question. Unstable citizens might pour it into our main water supplies and mess up a lot of innocent people's lives. This is not the goal. The goal is to achieve a solution for our increasing population crisis WITH everyone's individual approval. A unanimous decision by all governments must be agreed upon when the problem of an un-manageable population size becomes blatantly relevant. If this time is not now, then they will still have the same agreement to make when it does become relevant.

  • The argument that overpopulation is a fallacy and that "we just have to use resources better and/ or we will self correct anyway" is the politically correct position these days. It's unfortunate, as a lot of other animals we share the planet with are being devastated while we enjoy this position on our own population levels.
    Ideaguy there is no realistic possibility of laws limiting offspring numbers worldwide. But there should be a targeted global population mitigation strategy (education/contraception in growth hotspots). This is because self correction (that will come) can be of the good kind (peaceful) or the bad kind (culling through famine/wars), and such a policy would just improve the chances of avoiding self correction of the bad kind.
    OK famine/wars seem unlikely today, but what happens when you stack on a couple more billion people, have a couple of unfortunate weather events, and the food runs out? (Food could run out for reasons other than weather events too - think global electricity outage/Carrington event in this day of complete reliance on technology (ok , one idea too many in this post...)).

  • I'm confused why some people think equilibrium mechanics are a reason to regulate population growth. I always saw it as evidence that artificial controls are ineffective (China aside).

    Back to the point though, the amount of arable land is not a limit by itself. Energy is. The amount of sunlight which falls on the earth is 1000x more than we currently need and vertical farms can produce many more times the food than conventional farming does at many times less the energy cost of monoculture. And better quality too. Indoor climate control eliminates the need for pesticides. Not even soil is necessary. Food grown in the city can be sold the same day it is harvested, no need to import - not even exotic food.

    As for famine, the problem today, is not a problem of production or over population. The problem is with economics. The poorest farmers and textile workers cannot compete with industries subsidized by rich governments. Goods exported to Africa are so cheap they can't earn a decent wage to support their own economy. These two industries are vital because food and clothing are the skill sets which every society already has.

    Similarly, war as a cap on population is a misconception. Twins and triplets became ubiquitous after WWII to fill the gap in the population. Hence the baby boom generation. Not because nature had numbers to make up for, but because the increased value of labor created prosperity.

    Anyway, the population will peak at around 9 billion and start to drop again. So yes, we will self correct. It is the politically correct response, it is also the factually correct response.

    @002 I'm guessing you're part of the Carl Sagan generation! Respecting other species, although profound, is a rather weak argument to save them. We need to save them because they'll save us! That holds more weight in the political sphere.

    I think you might like these TED talks: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jason_clay_how_big_brands_can_save_biodiversity.html
    http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html

    Though not directly related to over population issues, they're definitely worth watching!

  • I object because the problem is that people need to be able to learn and think for themselves. It is not an issue of freedom and choice, but an issue of knowledge and responsibility.

  • I object because I think the decision to have or keep a child belongs to the pregnant mother and not to some lawmaker

  • Unfortunately, the human race's growing population is inevitable. Yes, over-population is a serious problem, but there really isn't anything we can do that won't go against individual liberties to solve this issue. Hopefully by the time we have used up all of our resources, we either A.) have colonies in space or underwater; B.) have found an efficient way to conserve our resources and protect our environment. Option "B" sounds the most practical for right now.

  • I object because population growth is not particularly an issue. David Attenborough made a brilliant documentary recently on how large the world population could be. If we are at 7 billion now he concluded if we lived like the people of Zaire we could host 25 billion people on the planet but of we want to live like americans then we can host 1.5 billion.

    The issue os lifestyle ot the number of people. We need to deal with our outrageous wastefulness and profligacy.

  • I object because it is every persons right to have as many children as they like

  • I object because religious indoctrination has contributed to overpopulaion...not one's choice. Women don't have a voice over their body and reproductive rights in many countries. Education, modern reproductive choices and sexual ed is the key in reducing overpopulation.

  • The re-application timeframe seems needless, since as time progresses, population only increases. Also, I think it's pretty obvious how many kids people have, with social security numbers in the US, and other fairly reliable means of census in other countries, so the concept of "permits" would only lead to corruption - eg. people forge ID's and passports, or bribe those who make them all the time.
    I agree with this concept as a whole, though. 2 kids max. Any more than that is just imposing your own narcissism on the environment. People who have 5+ kids disgust me because they obviously know nothing about ecology.

  • I object because it is a personal decision that each couple makes as to how many children to have. I think a better answer to this would be to increase family planning education efforts. But a '2 child limit'? Ask China how well their one child policy is working for them. Since, in Chinese culture, female children are not preferred, significant numbers of female babies are killed shortly after birth. While this will ultimately lead to a reduction in population in China due to the shortage of Chinese women, I MOST certainly do NOT support such a 'solution'.

  • Agreeing with 1469. This is a touchy subject, one that ignites our natural, biological flares because it interferes on the most fundamental of levels, our animal, natural drive to find mates and reproduce as well as the vast majority of cultural understanding of the value of rights of the individual, which I by no means contradict. Nevertheless it needs to be addressed, and the realities cannot be avoided (which kudos, many of you dissenting are not avoiding them) in order to make a patchy, incomplete, false solution to the problem of overpopulation. The human species is responsible for one out of two mass extinctions in all of world history (not meaning human history; I'm counting the dinosaurs), and it is in our midst, with loads of species dying off every year. This is caused primarily by very simple human decisions; not just pollution, but transmigration of species, habitation, and other things I may not be educated enough on the topic well enough to adequately address, or even bring up. But as to that last, simply inhabiting an area hurts wildlife native to it; and that is inevitable with the growth of the human species. We are expected to increase from 7 million to 8 million in something like the next 10 years, according to The New Yorker; the rights of the People must not be infringed upon, but, neither must the rights of the animals whom we have to deprive of their habitats to continue expansion. Build up? Past a certain point, I don't think our good luck is going to last forever with this issue. But, as 1469 notes, allowing for exceptions I would not agree with at all; not for specific people. Let a population enjoy that right when necessary, not the privileged who know someone in, to speak of my own nation, Washington. There is a lot of progress in the arena of ecology; not so long ago we were looking at a silent spring. But I do believe temperance bears out; this issue needs to be waited on a bit longer, just discussed for now so people are ready if it needs to be done. Basically I agree with you it's a good idea, but I think it appropriate to see if things work out on their own first, and wait till it's necessary; it is a major decision. If neither the rights of the People nor those of the Animals could be infringed upon, that would be ideal. Thank you and kudos for posting a radical, difficult idea that you must have known would not be popular but that is in great need of discussion in the world today, like most other topics, I say with tongue in cheek, that are so unpopular, in the first place, indeed.

    - PeaceandRightsHawk; I so dubbed myself as an inversion of "War Hawk," the American term for what it sounds like, because I am as serious about freedom as those historical figures were about war; and an act of violence or a deprivation of rights is an act against freedom. For some reason my last post posted anonymous, so I'm citing my own name.

  • quick amendment: world's population is obviously not 7 million; I was not thinking well enough when I wrote that, but obviously that is supposed to be 7 and 8 billion - PeaceandRightsHawk (which it makes sense to disallow editing of remarks, but I wish I could go back and fix that lol)

  • I object because they are already trying this in China. The corrupt government system keeps it form being successful and changes the fees all the time, causing late term abortions for amilies who cannot pay the higher cost.

  • I agree the human population's increase needs to be controlled but I do believe this is a complicated problem and needs an equally complicated solution to solve it properly. I don't believe your solution is good enough to solve this problem, but I do believe the human population's increase is a big enough concern that we should talk about more.

  • I object because this may amount to the systematic killing of people.

  • I object because it is an incredibly ignorant way to look at how to gain population control

  • I agree with that it is an incredibly ignorant way to view the situation, not only is that an idea that would only work in a dictatorship but it would mean we would end up like some eastern countrys where mothers feel they have no choice but to dump their babies by the road side or in bins, rivers etc. and those who admited to it, would they have a forced abortion as punishment or a fine or imprisonment? how would this actually improve the quality of life? You need to take longer thinking out these ideas and maybe ask yourseld if the idea belongs on a site that is about democracy to begin with and whether it is a practical solution ,which this most definately does not appear to be in any way other than it being about population control which does need addressing.

  • Technological advancement, economic/ecological reform, and higher standards of living would solve the problem without totalitarian means.

  • I object because, population is not something that we human can control, its something beyond our capacity. i understand many people think locally, some globally and few think universally.

  • I object because government should have no say in my personal life. And it has no business to tell me what to do with my body. just as the government should not be able to tell a woman what she should do with her body as far as abortion goes.

  • I object because - Population control would support a for-profit system that does not care about the results of linear production and consumption, leaving us with nothing in the end.

  • I do believe that population control is only good for those who have borders.

  • I love the idea, except for the obvious government meddling into our lives & dictating which it would require. I say mandatory sterilization after 2nd kid for both women AND men. And I don't mean 2 kids PER MARRIAGE or relationship. But, if governments were really serious about wanting to decrease population, they would cut off any incentives to breed in the first place. Like cutting off any so-called "entitlements" after the 2nd kid. This in itself would be effective. Anybody with OVER 2 kids would be denied Sec. 8 housing, food stamps or ANYTHING. The economy would turn around OVERNIGHT!

  • I object because The only proven way to substantially curb population growth is to educate and employ women.

  • NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • I object because such a law violates ones personal freedoms. Educate people instead.

  • I object because the only proven way to curb population is to educate and employ young women. Also if a person was in poverty, accidentally got pregnant, then they'd have to have an abortion, that is murder, I don't support anything that'll encourage abortion. Also let's look at the 1-child policy, that hasn't worked it's just violated women's rights.

  • I object because I believe we are spiritual beings more than physical beings and are here for a reason. I believe in freedom of choice in all things and that when people are expressing their true spiritual selves (LOVE) all will be in balance.

  • Cool! That's a clever way of looknig at it!

  • I think idea guy is really on to something here! I love the 2 biological children per couple idea and with this idea i want to highlight the big positive that more children would be adopted. Also the idea of educationg people in major growth areas is absolutly necessary. Another idea would be if contraception and abortions aren't readily available in these areas to make them so. And lastly to rebuttle everyone who says well we actually don't have to worry about it because we could have another 7 billion people and the world would be fine. PLEASE just think about it logically. Yeah if we were all huddled up standing together we wouldn't even take up all of the USA but when we are living our normal lives we are NOT all stranding right next to each other huddled up together!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have houses and people have backyards, and those people need schools and hospitals and firestations and shopping malls and museums and parks and roads and highways and beach houses and supermarkets and movie theatres and factories and FARMS which take up millions of square meters or acres and. Basically one person requires a WHOLE lot of space! Not just all the places they go but everything they use comes from somewhere! You eat right well that come from the thousands upon thousands of fields of crops and trees and livestock and the energy you use comes from big massive power stations usually most of the time constsantly spouting out smoke that sickens the air that every living thing on this planet breathes. Oh and I'm not finished because there is one other thing people seem to forget yeah even taking up all that room we can still grow but at what cost? Because you know what, there are millions of other species living on this Earth that might like a forest or lake to live in! You know we do actually have to learn to share at some point otherwise there will be no other species on this what beautiful Earth? Infact the Erath will not be so beautiful!

  • Refer to my Conceiver Tax

    http://www.globaldemocracy.com/idea/show/1001/conciever-only-tax-on-education

  • I object because although I am not a religous person I do believe in respecting other people's beliefs and I your law would totally infringe on people freedom of religion. How about we spend more time on educating people on sex education so there are not so many unwanted births by young people?

  • I object because population control doesn't work. It was proven not to work in China. The best way to reduce the growth of the population is to make the population rich, that is why the birth/mortality rate is decreasing in developed countries, and many of them have a higher mortality rate. In 3rd world countries such as India on the other hand, the birth/mortality rate is quite high because they're poor and they use reproduction to counter the poverty - more children - higher chances to get money. These things are well documented by economists.

  • I object because this is a basic human right. If you want to decrease population growth, historically the best way to accomplish this is through education and social economic upward mobility. Access to healthcare and factual information on human physiology and birth control are the only tools that have been shown to work effectively through human history.

  • I mean, we do not really want to go back to the Chinese 'one child policy'. At best, abortion would escalate, at worst the killing and even traffic of unwanted children would arise.

  • I object because as we have seen in China, attempting to artificially control the number of children born results in imbalance between male and female births. There is an entire generation of men in China who will never find a partner or have a family - this is one of the basic human needs.

Similar Ideas: