Legal

Sir, I believe you've had enough (children)!

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:26:29 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Ahh... large families with lots of young children. The bane of every restaurant patron's existence. The problem may be curtailed in Britain due to a proposal by a private group to limit children to two per couple.

Limits on births per family are not unheard of. In China, it is encouraged in urban areas to keep offspring to one per couple. Government propaganda, such as this poster "Sweet Achievement" promotes this. This one-child policy has lead to some serious issues, some of which include: sex selective abortion, abandoned children, economic problems for the single child and infanticide of others. Although the "temporary measure" was put in place in urban areas only to control overpopulation, it is believed to have decreased the population by 300,000,000 over the past 30 years.

The proposal in Britain came about due to observations by the Optimum Population Trust that the population has grown by over 20% in recent years, and growth may be unsustainable. In addition, due to the high density and industrial development each new birth causes 160x the amount of pollution over the child's lifetime as a newborn in Ethiopia. The Trust wants the government to encourage families to "stop at two children," or at a minimum "have one child less" than planned.

The Trust states that the current increase of 1.5 million humans a week is "catastrophic" and all measures should be taken to ease the stress on the environment. Proponents of the plan point to Iran, where a voluntary two child policy eased overpopulation and state that if voluntary curbs are not established then mandatory restrictions may be put in place in the near future.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, England Prevails, China, One Child Policy, Overpopulation (all tags)

This story: 14 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

the ugly truth

gerrymander.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:22:48 PM EST

4.40 (obnoxious, astute, astute)

This proposal isn't about saving the environment. It isn't even about overpopulation.  What we have is another prime example of the true face some hide behind a mask of environmentalism: social control. All aspects of life must be managed by a central authority, which of course knows what's best in all cases.

The examples above give an indicator of how the group's leaders think the world should work. Give it whatever political name you like; what it amounts to is authoritarianism and evil.

11

^ 1

Re: the ugly truth

WMK.

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:59:25 AM EST

none

If social control/authoritarianism is something to be avoided - what do you propose be done about population growth?  (expanding the discussion focus to total global population)
I think that government interference in reproductive rights infringes on liberty but as is becoming apparent - we are entering into an age of consequences for our refusal to confront and solve problems and in many cases we are left with no palatable choices as to solutions, what do we do?

  1. Declare it a non-problem and ridicule those who say it is? (the FoxNews approach)
  2. Repeat that any attempt by 'authority' to control reproduction is evil? (ignore the question)
  3. Refer to some sort of market based self correcting 'thing' that will solve the problem but leave out any explanation of how that is going to work (or distract/derail attempts to discuss solutions)?
  4. Ignore the problem and be confident that the coming civilization train wreck will 'probably' happen after you die so what do you care if the shit hits the fan then (then repeat #2)?
  5. Subscribe to the idea that IF the problem is real THEN a massive die-off and global civilization meltdown is inevitable (aka the Rapture/Eschaton/party over) - so keep making money, doing nothing to avoid disaster, fight any proposals to do anything about it, and hope you don't live to see it?
  6. Other?

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

12

^ 11

Re: the ugly truth

gerrymander.

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 12:04:16 PM EST

none

If social control/authoritarianism is something to be avoided - what do you propose be done about population growth?

"Help them get rich" seems to solve the problem. Every prosperous country on the planet has a birth rate equal to or somewhat below the replacement population rate.

14

^ 12

Birth rates be damned

Lou.

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:22:28 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Yes, actual numbers are important...but so is consumption.  In terms of pure consumption, I'm guessing that 1 American consumes as many resources as say 100 Ethiopians.  So yeah, let's help everybody get rich.  What will they do with their money...continue to live in poverty?  Sure, they'll have fewer babies...but the babies they have will consume like...Americans.  Before too long, the Earth is going to look like a gnawed apple core.

Now, if you were to say that Americans/Western World should consume a lot less, while at the same time improving the living conditions of those that live on the edge, I'd say let's do it.  LOL...Americans consuming less!  I crack me up sometimes.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

13

^ 11

Re: the ugly truth

thefadd.

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:04:05 PM EST

none

Build space ships.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

7

Reducing the number of British people?

dzetetes.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 05:33:51 PM EST

3.66 (funny, funny, obnoxious)

Isn't that what the Germans are for?

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

2

Also

gerrymander.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:24:24 PM EST

none

Shouldn't the poll include a choice labelled: "that's up to the couple to decide"?

3

Enough children?

nmiguy.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:07:23 PM EST

none

My wife and I have 2 kids.  One boy and one girl.  That is quite perfect, in a way.  But limits on kids is a strange thing to order up.  What if you have 2 daughters and really want to have a son to pass down the family name or something?  Or what if you have a daughter and a son and you want your daughter to have a sister?

In the old days, more kids means a greater likelihood of passing your genes and history through the ages.  Having children is a path to immortality, in a way, after you are gone your memory can be passed on.  

I do not like this at all.  Most of the people advocating limits on the number of children you have probably don't have kids of their own.  Mankind does not survive without future generations.  Have as many kids as you feel you can raise properly, and can afford.  And of course as many as you want.  

4

^ 3

160 to 1

Lou.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:24:18 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Perhaps we could have a law whereby the more kids you have, the closer to Ethiopia you have to live.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

5

^ 4

Re: 160 to 1

thefadd.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:42:09 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

Perhaps we could have a law that you can have all the kids you want but if you have more than 2, they have to live in space! Lower our carbon footprint and expand our space program in one law! Call it the SPECIAL Act. Space Program Expansion and Carbon Incidence Alleviation Law Act.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

10

^ 3

Re: Enough children?

skeptic.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:00:23 AM EST

none

Generally speaking, it is good to allow individuals to make their own choices about their own lives; we all value our personal freedom.  So the idea that people should be free to have as many children as they want to seems very reasonable.  Still, that freedom is what has given us a world of over six billion people.  I personally can remember when there were only three billion, so the change is very dramatic within my own lifetime.  And what if this continues?  What would life be like in a world of twelve billion people?  I won't live to see it, but your children may.  And I predict that if they do, they won't like it.  There will be terrible shortages of food and water (there already are in many countries, but they will get worse everywhere), the world will grow ever more polluted, housing will become more scarce, all resources will become more scarce, people will increasingly fight over access to scarce resources of all sorts.  Problems of global warming will be impossible to solve, because even at a reduced level of consumption of resources, twelve billion people will consume too much and produce too much waste.  So we need to think about the larger picture of what the human race needs, and not just about what you personally want.  And this need, realistically, is more important than individual freedom of choice.  Sad to say.

6

Why...

thefadd.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:45:05 PM EST

none

...is Britain having this problem. Almost every other country in Europe has to import labor because its citizens aren't having ENOUGH children. Can't they just trade?

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

8

^ 6

Re: Why...

Thalia.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 05:54:35 PM EST

none

I suspect they're worried about the reproductive rates of those evil immigrants.  Because Britons have an average family size of 1.79 children per woman which is under minimum rate for maintaining a population level.

Thalia

9

^ 8

Re: Why...

Lou.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:50:49 PM EST

none

Does that .79 kid have to go to a special school?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

This story: 14 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment