Should there be more widespread human population control?

Asked by: cp8
  • Yes probably. The people who definitely shouldn't have kids are the ones who do.

    Poor people have no place bringing kids into the world when all there will be is suffering. One solution to the problem may be to stop sending aide to Africa. The more we feed them the more dependent they will be, and they will continue to breed beyond their ability to feed. Sometimes the only way to solve something is to make it worse first.

  • Human population needs to be controlled

    With the skyrocketing birth rate, humans are reproducing much faster than we are dying. With every year, we gain about 127 million people, and lose about 53 million. We are expected to reach our carrying capacity in 2040 - 2050 if we continue at the same rate. If we don't control people better/more than we will reach a very quick demise. On this topic, controlling people can be very difficult and frustrating, but it must be done in order for us to survive.

  • Population Bomb In The Society

    The current rate at which the population in this world is increasing is only going to bring disaster in this planet. The worse affect of this is on the natural resources which are depleting in an infinite rate. We are approaching our end. The Arithmetic growth of resources is not able to compete with the Geometric growth of population. Thus it is an utmost need to adopt stricter measure to control ever increasing population.

  • I believe I would have to most assuredly say, yes.

    In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back—and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each. Less water for every cattle herder in the Horn of Africa. (The United Nations projects there will be more than four billion people living in nations defined as water-scarce or water-stressed by 2050, up from half a billion in 1995.) Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.) Less capacity in the atmosphere to accept the heat-trapping gases that could fry the planet for centuries to come. Scarcer and higher-priced energy and food. And if the world’s economy does not bounce back to its glory days, less credit and fewer jobs. Kind of predicament brings back an old sore topic: human population and whether to do anything about it. Let’s concede up front that nothing short of a catastrophic population crash (think of the film Children of Men, set in a world without children) would make much difference to climate change, water scarcity or land shortages over the next decade or so. There are 6.8 billion of us today, and more are on the way. To make a dent in these problems in the short term without throwing anyone overboard, we will need to radically reduce individuals’ footprint on the environment through improvements in technology and possibly wrenching changes in lifestyle. How long can any of us in any country pretend that resources are finite and alternated energy should be number one in innovation not more nuclear fission or stealth bombers. It was said if all the talent, man-hours and research was put into the Manhattan Project for building some thing constructive, we probable couldn't imagine the world today. So here we are, we feel we can only balance a budget by grinding the poor into the ground and throwing the dead in ovens.Population control is one of many reasons to support world government. Compulsory sterilization is the only alternative to universal poverty. World population should be reduced to no more than 1 billion and held at that level permanently. Courage is needed. Feel the fear, then support it anyway. And isn't this odd in the shadow of the United states trying to take away safe abortions, pelvic exams, mammograms, and birth control. Have the 65 and up men taken that last synapse firing and mesmerized you younger people into a big bowl of steaming sh8t to eat?

  • There are no practical nor moral means to impose population "control" upon people. Human population growth should be left more natural and totally unrestrained.

    Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred. Birth control should be discouraged worldwide, and human populations free to grow wildly and unchecked. There more people there are in the world, the more people there are who can benefit and experience life.

    Birthing babies is just as natural and proper, as breathing or the heart beating. A vital, natural life process.

    Human life is sacred in all its forms: old person, child, toddler, baby, fetus, the natural spurting of semen. Large families should be advocated worldwide and birth control discouraged. People should be encouraged to marry younger if they are ready. Human populations should spread freely everywhere throughout the earth.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.