The Instigator
Swimwithcats
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jon.Ryan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The US, and honestly the whole world, should implement a cap on births per person/couple to 5.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 91055
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Swimwithcats

Pro

The way the world population is expanding is incredible (http://www.census.gov... for reference).

The amount of free space will only continue to sink, meanwhile the worlds' soil nutrients are, contrary to what we want to believe, quite limited in the long run. Fresh water will become less and less available without the use of desalination plants. Confined and closed spaces would birth inter-human frustration and potentially violence. One could speculate you might even see a tighter governmental grip on the populace, and as resources deplete the "top" would be protected while the mass incur increased suffering.

5 is a reasonable and agreeable number, and I think that in the future it will be easier to move down to 4, then 3, then 2, and on. We would be able to keep up an affordable amount of food so none of the population would have to starve. As modern medicine continues the huge scientific gains it has had, civilization may see an end to death as we know it, making the number of new births equal to the population the humans of the future so desire and can afford. Baby steps.
Jon.Ryan

Con

First of all, in The US the current rate of births per women is at less than 2. This means that for america at least, the population is unlikely to change significantly over the next couple of centuries and the rest of the world is expected to cap at 10 billion. Although 10 billion is a fair size larger than at current, th really isn't much a birth rate cap can do about it. This is due to how in almost all 1st world countries the birth rate per women is at less than 2 or will be there in the next decade or so, meaning it is only the 3rd world counties that seem to be causing the global population to rise. The reason a birth rate cap won't solve this is because the large amounts of births in 3rd world countries is due to the lack of birth control. This means that in most cases, the women giving birth don't intend to have children but have no way of stoping it from happening. This means that no matter what kind of laws are enforced, all you will get is a lot of people braking laws and an under-staffed, under paid and under-funded police force chasing after 'criminals' who's only crime was not being able to afford birth control and not being able to chose wether or not to have children (women have very little rights in most 3rd world countries).
Debate Round No. 1
Swimwithcats

Pro

Does your statistic on two births per woman include women who do not have children their entire lives? Where does this statistic come from? I would like to see sources.
Meanwhile I would like to present a statistic by the PEW research center; yes, 22 percent of mothers ages 40-44 have only one child, however 24 percent have three children and 14 percent have four or more children. (2014) (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) The trend is located downward, yes, but it is incorrect to say that it will definitely continue to shrink. Think of it this way, fourteen percent of the population are at least doubling the population size.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... It is also shown that as education decreases, family size increases. That is not exactly the trend we would want to see if we are wishing to create a more intellegent society.

I do not think that those who have more than the limit of births should be considered criminals. It is quite obvious when looking at China's old one-child policy that wealthier families had the advantage, as they could afford to pay the fine for multiple children, and it is good to mention that it was destructive to their economy as well for less children had to take care of more aged parents/grandparents. However, some policy restricting the number of births to at least stop an outrageous number would be good at "trimming the fat" and it will make a statistical difference.

I do not put forth any cement policy of incentive or punishment for this, thought I do have some ideas, but rather make the point that something should be worked out that would encourage this policy. Whether it be increased access to (or possibly mandated) birth control, abortion if the fetus is within the acceptable time in its development, placing a child for adoption or in some national academy, offering an incentive for families to have the ideal number of children in that time, or some combination of the like, in the future a policy of some sort is needed.

Life expectancies are on the rise and bellies will need to be filled, heads will need beds, and for some stupid reason everyone feels they are entitled to at least one vehicle.
Jon.Ryan

Con

Jon.Ryan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Swimwithcats

Pro

Hello, I am still waiting on a response :(
Jon.Ryan

Con

Jon.Ryan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jon.Ryan

Con

Jon.Ryan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Swimwithcats

Pro

"I only came here to argue one round".
Thanks Jon.
Jon.Ryan

Con

Jon.Ryan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Swimwithcats 1 year ago
Swimwithcats
yesssssir
Posted by jkdufu 1 year ago
jkdufu
Do I hear a neo-malthusian?
No votes have been placed for this debate.