It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Population control - Yes or No

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I'm not so much for telling people who can & cannot have offspring. I am, however, amenable to the idea of encouraging limiting (not outright restricting) how many offspring one may have. Thinking in the long-term, as in over multiple generations, those who aspire to be a Duggar and churn out as many as the uterus can aren't helping as far as resources go. If one couple has, say a dozen children, and those dozen children each go off and have a similar number, and each of those...it spirals very quickly and that one "clan" can be a huge resource drain down the road in a century or two.

Honestly, I think child-related tax credits should be used in a more reward-like manner for using common sense, but for those who don't breed like broodmare is a worthy status to achieve in life. I'd also like to see sterilization options as close to free as possible to help. Not just nippin' the nards, people, women, too. You carry it honey, you can decide to close up the baby shop or not instead of blaming men's danglies. I did. Nope, done, fin, two is enough, no more. Easy choice & a simple procedure, I can't fathom how women get away blameless with not getting it done and manage to blame men for excess kids.




posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

(Only if they are rats Piper man) sorry could 't resist it.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776
Isn't that argument like saying that only gay parents have gay children?


Do you think homosexuality and stupidity are interchangeable like that?

No it's not the same, and I know that two stupid people are not guaranteed to have a stupid child. But from what I've seen, stupidity and laziness can be easily learned or inherited from your surroundings. (Unlike homosexuality FYI)
edit on 4-5-2016 by Quantumgamer1776 because: Editing



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Interesting idea - I am currently in China, and was also here many moons ago, in a very rural area and so I have been aware for a long time of the one child policy which was implemented here.

But in my opinion, it did not work - I have met so many people who have other siblings. I know one person in her 20s (from a rural village) who is from a family of 7 (plus parents), many others in their 20s who I talk to have brothers and sisters. Yes, in the cities there are the Little Emperors (single guys who are spoiled rotten), and one child families, but from my travels and experiences I meet many people who have one or more siblings.

In the countryside here the policy was next to impossible to implement, and many people had second and more children as they were needed to help on the farm, and also to care for parents in their old age. Peer pressure was the only way it worked, but if you wanted a second, third etc child you just paid a bribe and you are left alone. In the cities it was/is very different, but still possible to have a second child.

As a result there is now a huge imbalance of males to females due to female infanticide many years ago, so the numbers are skewed and as a result Chinese men are bringing in Vietnamese, and other Asian, wives as they cannot find a (suitable) wife here.

I am sure that other countries will look at China's idea and one child policy as an example, maybe they will learn from it.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: PanPiper
a reply to: Raggedyman

So forcing animals outside of their habitat for us to survive seems reasonable?



Where do you get that from in my comment?



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
all I know is that everywhere is crowded, the lines are long, and people are having too many kids when they really cant afford just one. I had to pay so much in taxes this year its pathetic,,,,I cant afford kids because I have to pay for everyone elses, if I had kids I would get back thousands,,,thats not even right



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

I've already commented about the topic. No its an insane idea. And I agree that anyone pushing eurgenics should volunteer as tribute.

Also what your grandpa feeding the poor has to do with anything is also not on topic.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you need food, how do you get it, if you build a farm.. Where do you build it?



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

That is just an elitist view point. I understand some of the motives behind it, but saying the wealthy and intelligent can have children whilst the poor and not so intelligent cannot is just puerile. I have met plenty of familys disadvantaged and not incredibly well educated. To say they would be any better or worse as parents is just a disgusting outlook.

If i was performing poorly in the financial department i personally would avoid having kids because it would potentially mean a less enjoyable upbringing for them. Even with that choice made i would still be in a rage over the prospect of someone telling me i am not allowed them, a fair limit applicable to all? Fine. Rules only applicable to the poor? Get F***ed.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

They pay farmers to restore their lands to the wildlife instead of using them to grow food. If africa was properly cultivated it could feed a very high percentage of the world. We don't need more food, we need less greed.


edit on 4-5-2016 by RevolutionAnon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The people who tend to push this always want it for others but never themselves.

Poverty, depravation, violence and chaos breeds ingenuity far more than comfort and wealth. If you start deciding people in those conditions are worthless you may end up inadvertently killing the guy that was going to eventually change the world for the better.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

restore lands to the wildlife, then if africa is properly cultivated and you end with greed?

i have no idea what you are trying to imply..



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You can try and kill poor people. Theres alot of them though.. I don't think they would be to pleased and as you can't kill them without starting an internal war or imprison that many you better build some tall walls. As a bonus they generally have very low standards of life and therefore have little to lose compared to the better of...the most fearless fighters are those with little to lose.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

I thought it was quite self explanatory.

Governments have paid farmers to use their farms as places of wild growth instead of places of crop growth.
Africa is huge and has the potential to be cultivated for large amounts of food
There is enough food and wealth in the world for everyone to be well off. Greed is what inhibits everyone from getting that equal share. A world without hunger...A world without desperation...A world where children do not die every few seconds...All completely possible if the fat cats took what they needed instead of everything they can.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

So you want to cultivate the land of Africa where evolutionary animals have thrived, to feed a creature of intelligent design? Is that what you are actually saying?



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776
It is the same. Stupidity arises from the system just as from the parent. I swear some people...



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

Africa is a big place and is just an example. The animals would not have to be killed but even if it did impact them a little I find it more sickening that several children died before i finished writing this.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

edit on 4-5-2016 by RevolutionAnon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join