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.
The total number of babies born in the U.S. last year was 3,941,109. That’s 37,388 fewer babies than were born in the U.S. in 2015, which represents a 1% decline.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
How many of the people who would advocate for this have children of their own?
Controversial topic, no doubt about it.
In the future I believe we will see laws like those in China on a grander scale.
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
People could consume less instead..
originally posted by: scojak
a reply to: TheLotLizard
What about kids in small villages in the middle of nowhere? Villages that grow their own crops and don't use fossil fuels. Are those kids bad for Earth? Of course not.
It's the lifestyle the parents choose to give their children that makes them a burden on the planet. These lifestyles are supported and endorsed by pop culture.
If all kids lived in those small villages that grew their own crops and left no carbon footprint, they would cease to be a burden on the planet. That is proof that they are NOT the issue.
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
People could consume less instead..
More people are bad for the earth in any way shape or form. So yes they are just as bad. There is NO WAY a human being can live without making a carbon footprint sorry.
human lives are nothing when the extremist left invokes the claim that it will be done "to save mother Earth"
originally posted by: scojak
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
"Science proves kids are bad for Earth"
LOL. No it doesn't
What science proves (if you can call it proof) is that the average human life in today's society has an overall adverse affect on the planet. Kids are not the problem, the parents and popular culture are.
We need to combine the sustainable lifestyles of a third world village with the access to food and health care and infrastructure we enjoy in the first world.
originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: FamCore
I'm pretty sure it is a necessity in some Third World Nations though since a lot of them suffered from overpopulation.
that's only because science doesn't support your ideas that spirits and gods are controlling the planet.
originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I'm concerned when anyone with a materialist viewpoint speaks of ethics. I'm particularly concerned when they are a scientist.
there are plenty of solutions that don't require limiting people's freedom to have kids