Population

[Juliangel]

The population of the United States grew to 281,421,906, according to figures released by the Census Bureau Thursday. The new national figure marked a 33,399,123 gain from 1990.

With the growing poverty class and numbers on public assistance should the US create laws limiting the number of children a couple can have?

 

[brazenblaze]

NO..the government should not be allowed to mandate the number of children an average individual may have. However, I do believe that those on welfare should be restricted to how many children they may have after being placed on welfare.

 

[Expertise]

Bad idea for two slightly simplistic reasons.

An aging population that will have to be supported by public funding.

Secondly, look how well it worked for the Chinese. Horror stories galore.

Not to mention the fact that it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Chuckus]

Not touching this one with a ten foot pole. I see Pro's and Con's on both sides............but as a general rule my opinion is the Gov't should not have any control over how many children a family are allowed to have.

Now if that family is ON public assistance THAT is an entirely different case altogether..........

 

[TonyG]

You raise many issues with this question but to answer it simply...no. I second Expertise's comment "just look at China"

 

[Juliangel]

I completely agree with Expertise I ws just trying to bring serious discussion to the board, it seems to be what people want.

 

[Chuckus]

I agree also with Expertise in general, I think if you try to dictate who can and who cannot have X amount of children it is way to open for corruption and abuse.....bad idea to try and control the population with that method. I just thought I should clarify my position.

I do have a real problem with people who have been on Welfare the majority of their lives, not due to physical limitations (i.e. handicapped, etc..) , but more so people who abuse the system and STILL have numerous children....

 

[Juliangel]

Georgia now has a law limiting the number of years you can be on public assistance, I believe it is 3 or 4 years. I think that is a big step towards helping the system but a lot more needs to be done.

 

[Chuckus]

Georgia now has a law limiting the number of years you can be on public assistance, I believe it is 3 or 4 years. I think that is a big step towards helping the system but a lot more needs to be done.

That is the way it should be, I think there are definite cases where people need the assistance, i.e. handicapped, etc.., but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think NC is not far behind Georgia in doing the limitations on public assistance......gotta start down that path sometime.

 

[miles]

Not gonna go there.
Nope.
Not gonna do it.

 

[April]

The population increase isn't entirely from children being born. You have to take into account immigration numbers as well. A more palatable solution would be to limit immigration even more than it is now. Limiting the number of children American citizens can have would be absolutely unnaceptable to this country. The very idea goes against what our country stands for.

 

[brazenblaze]

re: limiting immigration

...but doesn't limiting immigration also go against everything we stand for? Aren't we "the melting pot"?

 

[Chuckus]

standing in the corner with his finger on his temple.....

This could get interesting.......

The population increase isn't entirely from children being born. You have to take into account immigration numbers as well. A more palatable solution would be to limit immigration even more than it is now. Limiting the number of children American citizens can have would be absolutely unnaceptable to this country. The very idea goes against what our country stands for.


...but doesn't limiting immigration also go against everything we stand for? Aren't we "the melting pot"?

 

[Juspar Emvan]

Responsibility

I agree with Chuckus, Pros and Cons for Africa. Though I note he has an interesting pole. I'm not from the States, or North America at all, in fact not even from the northern hemisphere.

Where I come from we probably have a population density 3rd only to Russia and Canada, but here are some thoughts.

Surely the key thing is responsibility. If you can't aford to care for and keep children, don't have them. Welfare abuse is rife here and I loath it. I think people should restrict thier progeny, however there are some basic rights that people desreve not to have interfered with. It's got to be up to individuals. Saddly the places that are going to tax the worlds resources the most are third world and not just beyond our control, but probably beyond our education as well.

That's disjointed and controversial, I'll be following this.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Responsibility

Surely the key thing is responsibility. If you can't aford to care for and keep children, don't have them.
...
Sadly the places that are going to tax the worlds resources the most are third world and not just beyond our control, but probably beyond our education as well.

Limiting Immigration to the US, or even limiting polpulation growth inside the US via tax incentives and welfare dis-incentives won't solve the problem.

Slowing the birth rate in the US would be a start, but totally ineffective in solving the world population problem -- third world countries.

There are long standing and deep seated cultural imperitives for a high birth rate in most countries of the world. In those countries where manpower is still the driving force behind food production, there are financial imperatives as well. Until those problems are addressed, the world population problem is insolvable.

Sufficient investment in agricultural technology around the world would be a start on the financial imperatives. The cultural aspect will have to wait on the changes in the economy that agricultural improvemnts would bring.

Until there is the economic base to support mass communications, there are few effective ways to educate against the cultural bias.

It can be done, but I wonder if there is time enough for anything other than draconian measures. War, Famine, Plague, and Pestilence are probably going to do more to control population than any thing mankind can do -- at least as far into the future as I can see.

 

[Skibum]

Wierd harold is on the right track. There are cultural imperitives to have many children in some cultures, especially those with high mortality rates, and no Social Security. If parents are going to be dependent on their children in their old age, they want to have enough children to insure that some survive to supportthe parents.

An effective social security program is the best way to eliminate some of the pressure that leads to over population.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

NO

I have seen the results first hand of what that policy leads to. My daughter is Chinese, abandoned due to her sex. We are affluent enough and technology driven enough to absorb higher numbers. As people become more prosperous, they tend to limit family size. I really think the population will tend to stabalize at a certain point and that we will begin to build and plan a little bit more vertically. With our capablilities, I do not beleive we are headed for Soylent Green. (Blue maybe )

 

[sweetfeet]

Weird Harold is on the right track. You can offer free birth control in our country, you can offer incentives to only have one or two kids, but in other cultures and countries, it's just not something that will change easily. Through education, people in our country need to understand the detrimental effects of overpopulation. I'm a big fan of the Zero Growth Factor.

 

[Juspar Emvan]

Another factor

Add to the mix for your USA situation the issue of increased life expectancy. More people are living longer. This means that the birth/death balancing act is changing. As more children come along than ever before we are faced with more of the elderly sticking around too.

I'm from a country where the governemt provide pensions to 65+ citizens, which means that my taxes pay for them to live (add that one to the tax thread.) Not sure whether you are set up with govt assisted pensions or just some sort of super annuation scheme over there. But my point is that here we need the increased births to spread the cost of supporting a top heavy age distribution. Vicious cycle really because that means that by the time these new kids are looking for thier pensions, we'll need even more wage earners to support them.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Another consideration is an approach that South Korea tried with success, and that's via media. The media portrays big happy wonderful families having warm merry loving times. A shift in media thinking to smaller families would do the trick as well.

I don't think there is anything wrong with informed people having the choice to have big families. Some women were meant to be mothers. If they can afford it, then go for it. I just horribly wish that they would look into adopting the past preschool aged children that are sitting in foster homes waiting for a family to adopt them. There are 19,000 of them in Kansas alone. Yes, we are doing so ourselves, as soon as the StudMuffin's doc gives the okay.

As far as welfare goes, legislating the number of children a woman can have on welfare will cause an outcry about their rights. Watch the lawsuits explode. Rather, limit the number of dependents Welfare will pay for. If a woman can only have two children paid for by welfare, she may consider having less. I am, ashamedly enough, related to a woman who kept having kids because she got welfare checks for them. Yes, dad, that's why they call us trailer trash.

 

[Naked Hunny]

As a former welfare mom I can say the problem is with the system! In PA the max for benefits is 5 years thats all fine and dandy. They tell you that you should go on birth control but its not covered by your Medical Assistance. if most these people cant afford food how are they supposed to afford birth control pills! maybe the government should start a program that offers birth control to the people on welfare!

 

[Unclebill]

A Very Effective Incentive!

Originally posted by Skibum
Wierd harold is on the right track. There are cultural imperitives to have many children in some cultures, especially those with high mortality rates, and no Social Security. If parents are going to be dependent on their children in their old age, they want to have enough children to insure that some survive to supportthe parents.

An effective social security program is the best way to eliminate some of the pressure that leads to over population.

There is already a VERY effective and cost free incentive but politicians are loathe to even speak of it because it limits their ability to confiscate the earnings of some to give to others.

It's called personal responsibility. If you have kids, they are your responsibility to feed, clothe, house and heal. It is not a legitimtate enterprise of government to steal from those who earn and give to those who don't just because some politician decides it's 'fair'! Fair to whom is the question they frantically hope no one ever asks. Because it's certainly NOT fair to the victim of their theft.

Private charity and private welfare works effectively and at minimal cost. It helps those who need help while they need it and doesn't create generations of welfare recipients.

And the only effective social security plan follows the same model. If you want financial security in your advanced years, plan for it when you're young enough to earn what you need.

Without the confiscatory taxation so prevalent through the world, this would not pose near the problem that it is today. And without the false promise of some politician to take care of everyone, it becomes a serious consideration of the responsible in society. We don't have it quite so bad in the USA as do most other countries but our Democratic (Socialist) Party is working hard to close the gap.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: A Very Effective Incentive!

There is already a VERY effective and cost free incentive but politicians are loathe to even speak of it because it limits their ability to confiscate the earnings of some to give to others.

It's called personal responsibility. ...

Your arguments are only relevant to the "developed countries" and to that extent I agree with you. I persoanlly have two daughters and a vasectomy.

Where your argument fails, is in the countries where the crux of the world population problem lies -- Places where taxation isn't used to provide welfare, but still contributes to the problem.

In many countries, "personal responsibility" means having enough children to help produce enough to both pay taxes and eat.

In the developed countries, where most of we internet users come from, the birthrate is declining, despite the numbers of "welfare mothers." That is because of social pressure, higher education levels, and access to mass media.

I'm not trying to say that only the third world is responsible for world population problems, only pointing out that without changing social and economic pressure for everyone there is no way the problem will ever be solved. Changes have been progressing for a long time in the "first world", but lag behind in the rest of the world.

A solution for the USA, Europe, Southeast Asia, or any single region of the world won't do. Any solution has to work for the entire world.

I don't see anything on the horizon that's going to make a difference in my lifetime. I've done what I can, and encourage others to do the same. I come from a large family, but I realize that model won't work in the 21st century as it did in the 20th.