Amazon.com Widgets
  • We must teach all human children about POPULATION and SEX EDUCATION

    You humans are the #1 cause of loss of life to biodiversity and you pesky humans are also the leading cause of pollution. The ONLY way for humanity to survive for the next century is to embrace education and use technology for the better good. Humans who contribute to waste by a factor of 18 times more than they contribute to cleaning up should be euthanized. Also repeat violent criminals should be honorably euthanized as well. Parents should have 2 children, if they do not produce a male the first two times then they can go for a 3rd, but after that no more babies, unless the parents can prove that they are well beyond their means in the ability to support the family.

  • Time to grow up

    There is no longer any use for high populations as we move into a post industrial society. It's childish to presume that all people are born with the right to reproduce. These are ideas from a more primitive, selfish society of greed and assumed self importance. It's time for people to grow up. We're owed nothing, we owe everything to this blue planet.

  • We will Eventually Have to Do it

    I believe we need to limit the population on planet Earth to 10 billion. Not because of oil and gas usage, but if food usage. Oil and will be replaced by electricity by 2025 if the electric trend continues. But food is a different story; according to studies, the uppermost population limit is 10 billion, anything past that number will result in feeding problems. Today though, food is not a problem. The reason why people think that it is, is because of Africa. Because Africa has food growing difficulties because of the planet heating up due to the CO2 we release in the atmosphere while driving gas cars, whichs heats there crop fields. But as I stated earlier, gas cars should be replaced by 2025 if the electric trend continues. Humanity will not stop at this number; if everything continues as planned with the space program, we should begin colonization of the planet Mars by 2050 (the first landing should occur by 2035). That is well within our lifetimes! Since Mars is about half the size of Earth, then Mars should be able to hold just under 5 billion people. Which brings up the population to nearly 15 billion! It it will continue growing as we reach out for the stars.

  • We should limit it because

    If human population keeps increasing, more people can be born. Water, food and other natural resources will be harder to get because there are more people. If we don't limmit the population people might starve because more people will need more food and other resources. There might be a fight for food, water, space, clothing and some other things.

  • If there should ever be a law...

    Name for me a single thing that would improve if the world population increased to 9 billion. Name for me 100 things that would improve if world population settled at 1 billion. I find it infinitely easier to honestly answer the second question. Would you seriously sacrifice everything for a misplaced sense of freedom?

  • We need to control.

    We don’t have enough food to sustain higher populations meaning that if we didn’t control the population we would run out of food quite quickly. So if you think 'NOPE we shouldn't control' think about the fact that we would run out of food too quickly if we didn't control.

  • We need more education

    The fact is that a major reason why the world is overpopulated is that too many people do not realize the effects too many people have on the planet. If people, especially women, were better educated, then they could understand why a large population is bad in the long term. With better education, women also would have more opportunities to learn and have jobs, which could lead to them not having as many children.

  • The earth isn't big enough!

    Families used to have many children because:
    a) Many of them would die from sickness, and
    b) More children meant more hands for farming
    Nowadays, infant mortality rates are low and families don't need more children to make money. Having more than 2 children isn't necessary anymore. If we let the population grow anymore, there will be mass famines in the future.

  • We are this world's worst disease

    We can't put an end to the Sickness. .That would mean our own extinction and no one wants that , But we have to control it to a point where we can all continue with our lives without Killing our Host!!!
    Lets Face it We Are The Problem
    !!Learn,To Survive!!

  • We NEED population control urgently worldwide

    There is no need for large families. There is no need for x billion number of people. We need to focus on improving our technology and research, education, getting in a world government so all the countries are ran equally, reducing our population, putting more wild space between ecologically friendly homes and improve our healthcare tenfold AND WE MUST MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO OUR SPECIES. Those should be our aims.
    This is not a war. This is the brink. If we cannot dramatically reduce our population then our world as humans is going to crash,
    The technology exists now to immediately help, but it is expensive and only the rich can afford it. We have the technology to power our homes independently and clean our air.
    Money is old now AND IT IS FAILING because it is becoming too common and too many people earn too much while contributing very little. We should be classed more on our contributions to society to give us our social status, not how much money we have.
    If money did not exist and your contribution was highly valued in your society (bearing in mind a society of less people) and you were asked to give a helping hand building a home for a homeless person, would you say yes? Or would you slam the door?
    We need to pull together as a species on this subject. If we do not choose now it will eventually be forced by nature herself.
    It is not just ourselves as people that are ruining our planet. It is also our farms, our livestock and (sadly) even our pets.
    Each household should be permitted only one or two children.
    We have to see the bigger picture.
    60% of UK wildlife is declining. I didn't notice before, but now I do. There has been an incredible drop in wildlife in my town over the past five years.
    We can't just halt the population, it needs to be reduced and humans may have to interfere with nature to bring it back since we have done so much damage.
    I want my child to have a bright and natural future. Not surviving in a concrete matrix.
    Imagine what a better life there could be with more environmentally friendly technology, nature and less people.

    Posted by: gd29
  • No we shouldn't

    There is no good, legal way to do so. The only effective way, would be to institute a limit on how many children you can have, which is a violation of human rights. If I wish to have only one child, thats my right. But it's also my right to have 10 children, if I so choose. The government should not be in the population control business. They have no right to tell me or anyone else how many children we can have.

  • Population limits itself

    If overpopulation were to be achieved, it will either A) not be a problem, or B) cause many people to eventually die because of there is no way for the people to live a sustainable life since the population limit has been supposedly exceed. A) if it is not a problem there is no need to control it. B) In that case there is still no need to control it because it will ultimately control itself. even though there is suffering from route B) there is still suffering caused by controlling it.

  • We Shouldn't Limit It

    I do not agree with limiting population growth. It is wrong to me You are basically telling people that they can have a certain amount of kids. What if people want a big family? That is something many people of the world want and it is wrong to tell them they cannot.

  • Overpopulation Is an Old Story

    Mandel thought an overpopulation crisis would happen about a hundred years ago. It didn't. Technology always keeps up. Even famines aren't caused by overpopulation/not enough food. They're caused by economics and the fact that many governments don't have a social safety net in place to deal with problems like this and some can't afford it. Talking about overpopulation makes it easy for people to dismiss problems like world hunger. The fact is we could abolish world hunger by the end of the year if wealthier nations came together and agreed to it.

  • It's somebody's freedom

    Some couples like to have a lot of children, because they feel happier and more comfortable with more members in the family. It’s somebody’s freedom to decide what they want for their family. The family is a couple's decision to make. Government should not control the decisions in a family.

  • No, because human populations should grow naturally. The higher population gets, the more people there are who benefit and the more we adapt.

    There are problems with every proposed means to hinder the natural expansion of mankind. Condoms dull sensation, have problems of poor fit, semen backpressure, and multiple modes of "failure." Many people have practical or "religious objections" to especially "artificial" methods of "family planning." Pulling out is said not to work very well. Each drop of precum can contain up to 50,000 sperm, and often more than a few drops oozes out of the penis head long before ejaculation. It seems humans were designed to steadily multiply.

    As a pro-lifer, I very much favor a greater spread of human life, and a much stronger flow of babies into the world.

    As the world population grows, the numbers of parents yearning for more children can also easily grow. Yet another compelling argument for the continuing natural enlargement of the human race.

  • Abortion, Killing & Crime

    It includes abortion and killing children, which is crime! If giving birth to a child that is illegal, killing them and aborting their future is a larger crime. Where do you see humanity. Also 50% of the land on earth is covered up with human, what about the other 50? Also to control the population, proper education is needed to provide but can the world bare to educate people? No, so no sense in blaming people for giving birth to a illegal or third child.

  • No, because it's not ethical.

    In our modern world, freedom is highly regarded. Having children is a freedom that should not be deprived from people. However, it is true that the unimpeded growth of human population is created enormous problem.
    Since limiting human population growth is ethically unjust, thus wrong to legalize, we can only limit human population growth through social methods. If government resources are put into spreading scientific info to the general public, and encouraging people to think of environmental implications of their lifestyle when making decisions, I think a portion of people would actually refrain from having big families, or choose to adopt instead.
    Since we all know how much media affect us, I also wish more TV shows like Bones would surface (or similar influence in media), instead of ones like Vampire Diaries or those reality TV shows. Bones has been great at raising odd topics of society, especially at touching those topics from a delicate objective viewpoint. It inspires thought while delivering entertainment.

  • We should NOT limit human population growth!

    Humans were meant to be on this planet for one reason or another, don't take that away. Parents who can afford and take care of more than two kids or whatever standard they might change it to should be allowed too. Telling the parents no you have two kids that's enough is against our constitution. They have the right to have as many kids as they want. However, I do believe if you are getting help from the government you should not be able to have a bunch of kids or any for that matter. If you cannot support yourself how are you suppose to support another person. But limiting the amount for the whole country is not right and is against everything America is known for. People come here for a new and better life, let's not change that.

  • Capitalism and Humanity

    For any capitalist state to work it needs a bare minimum 3.1 % increase in GDP. If you have falling birth rates then you can not achieve this so ultimately capitalist countries would fail. Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to adapted and solve a problem. Give it 20 yrs and all western countries will be in a constant state of depression because of a low fertility rate.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TN05 says2013-04-15T00:10:31.767
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would be a great place for 'Yes' voters to start. Save the planet, go kill yourselves!
Pronatalist says2013-12-28T11:19:24.817
A limit upon world population growth, makes no sense at all to impose upon people. What then if some arbitrary population cap is exceeded? Government violence? Excuse for murder? Excuse for bad talk or dissing our neighbors? Let world population grow freely without restraint, encouraging everybody possible to use no means of "birth control" at all, not even rhythm nor pulling out. Human life should spread freely, so that more and more people can experience life. The best way to avoid surpassing some stupid arbitrary population cap, is to oppose the very idea that a population cap ought to be imposed. Rather, let the entire planet grow denser and denser with people, and ADAPT, something that humans can do remarkably well.

Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred, so human populations everywhere should spread naturally, without the use of any means of "birth control." Our ancestors thought population is what it is, and human population size was not thought of as something to manipulate or control. People had more faith in the Bible, and so God's commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, meant more to them. Surely that commandment, at the very least, means that there is no need to use any "preventative measures" to restrain human fertility. Simply get married, then have as many babies as God gives or as the human body can naturally conceive.
snm_debate says2014-01-26T04:43:52.813
Oh, I'd be careful what you write, folks. Advocating suicide isn't freedom of speech, so says a court judge.

Http://politix.Topix.Com/story/1475-no-encouraging-suicide-from-your-computer-is-not-free-speech-court-rules
AMahabir7 says2014-02-18T04:31:21.600
Limit the popultaion before it is too late!!!
MasturDbtor says2014-11-25T05:47:26.933
To those who voted "yes":

http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Population_decline
http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Demographic_transition
http://www.Brookings.Edu/research/articles/2010/09/china-population-wang
jscix1 says2015-10-19T04:07:51.663
How arrogant do people truly have to be to think that their personal freedom of having children is more improtant than the destruction of our planet, the freedom and lives of the entire future of our species and all other species on this planet.

A very, VERY simple prospect: Earth has limited space, it also has limited resources, if we continue to breed out of control we will exhaust both the earths space, and it's resources.

Anyone who seriously think's that their 'right' to have children is more imortant than the future of literally EVERYONE, needs to seriously re-evauate their ethics.

Population control should of been implemented like yesterday. It's scary to think this really isn't a major issue for our society.
Clairity says2017-06-04T16:32:50.557
This is just an idea but what about if there was a lottery, if you take from the free pool of resources without equal contribution then you will be entered into a lottery of sorts. This lottery would be held bi-weekly and select 100 persons for self sacrifice. When you take without giving back, your chances for self destruct would be greater. It would be a persons own choice if they choose free, over working or trading with their community. It would strengthen community bonding in order to protect friends and family from having to take something without working or giving back as payment or balance. Just an idea. This would need a lot of refining and rebuilding of monetary structuring in order to get something like this working. Would love to hear others thoughts on this.
Clairity says2017-06-04T16:34:44.047
This is just an idea but what about if there was a lottery, if you take from the free pool of resources without equal contribution then you will be entered into a lottery of sorts. This lottery would be held bi-weekly and select 100 persons for self sacrifice. When you take without giving back, your chances for self destruct would be greater. It would be a persons own choice if they choose free, over working or trading with their community. It would strengthen community bonding in order to protect friends and family from having to take something without working or giving back as payment or balance. Just an idea. This would need a lot of refining and rebuilding of monetary structuring in order to get something like this working. Would love to hear others thoughts on this.
Clairity says2017-06-04T16:34:47.077
This is just an idea but what about if there was a lottery, if you take from the free pool of resources without equal contribution then you will be entered into a lottery of sorts. This lottery would be held bi-weekly and select 100 persons for self sacrifice. When you take without giving back, your chances for self destruct would be greater. It would be a persons own choice if they choose free, over working or trading with their community. It would strengthen community bonding in order to protect friends and family from having to take something without working or giving back as payment or balance. Just an idea. This would need a lot of refining and rebuilding of monetary structuring in order to get something like this working. Would love to hear others thoughts on this.
Clairity says2017-06-04T16:34:50.897
This is just an idea but what about if there was a lottery, if you take from the free pool of resources without equal contribution then you will be entered into a lottery of sorts. This lottery would be held bi-weekly and select 100 persons for self sacrifice. When you take without giving back, your chances for self destruct would be greater. It would be a persons own choice if they choose free, over working or trading with their community. It would strengthen community bonding in order to protect friends and family from having to take something without working or giving back as payment or balance. Just an idea. This would need a lot of refining and rebuilding of monetary structuring in order to get something like this working. Would love to hear others thoughts on this.