• Yes, we should

    The truth of the matter is, the Earth is dying because of all of the people in it. If we do not do something sooner rather than later, we are going to be in a lot of trouble. Watching how high our population is would be a good first step.

  • There are too many people.

    The world is becoming overpopulated. To save ourselves and our families we need to restrict the amount of kids you can have, because too many of people are collecting money and taxes on their kids when they don't need it. This would also help with retirement and welfare because we wouldn't be paying out so much money to pay for all these people. (baby boom is a good example.)

  • Yes, because we're ruining the planet.

    Have you not seen the destruction of the planet on the news and for yourself? Every day animals are going extinct because of humans destroying their homes and killing them for selfish reasons like money and their pelts to wear. Pollution is causing the arctic to melt and destroying more of their homes and disrupting the food chain, the very backbone of life for the animals. We are ruining the land, the sky and once more people are born this process of destruction speeds up.

    I not only think population should be controlled, it should be enforced by law. Humans may say animals are overpopulating, but we're the only species that's overpopulated.

  • A declining population is needed to foster all sorts of life-style and environmental recoveries.

    More people could survive on Earth - badly. But not for far into the future.

    Ecological recovery is urgently needed for long-term sustainability - for all species.Ultimately, we depend on many, if not all, of the others.

    Real sustainability will require a change of attitudes towards all aspects of life and all forms of life. We need a global community of scientists that are able to think freely without bureaucratic and financial constraints. We need their technologies, but more so, we need their analyses of conditions to inform a new form of leadership with trust based on truth.

    Societies would then aim for the necessary conditions for sustainability, including an end to poverty, and for equality based on new attitudes to "rights" Property rights and the concept of "employment" would be anathema in a sustainable world.

    A declining population - just enough to suppress any need for "growth" - would leave room for hope, optimism and the attitudes these would inspire.

  • Yes, we absolutely should...

    Human population has increased at an almost exponential rate. With this growth comes an increase in demand for land, food, water, energy, and other resources. As human numbers grow species and their habitats diminish. The bulk of evidence suggests that human population growth is an important underlying cause of biodiversity loss. According to the most recent projections, by the end of the 21st century human population could reach as high as 16 billion or as low as 5.5 billion.

  • We are already too many... too many

    ...Not quantity but quality is necessary for this planet to survive! Don't you see it?
    The world is overcrowded already and full of hungry innocent kids born in ultimate misery.
    The planet is not an endless space full of goods for another 10 billion of hungry throats.
    Very soon the human life will become nothing else than terrible existence in hunger and misery.

  • ecosystem collapse is inevitable at present population size and consumption rates

    The finite nature of acceptable air, water, soil and material resources has been exceeded with the concomitant collapse of viable ecosystems throughout the world. Limiting conditions to population growth include potable water, agricultural water, agricultural soil, marine fish habitats and populations, air temperature, severe drought or flooding, fertilizer components, etc. Populations have been controlled by three main factors in the past. These are famine, war and disease. The same factors will again come into effect as climatic conditions worsen. The only solution is to reverse the consumption of planetary resources needed for human existence. This can be done by limiting population growth voluntarily or by allowing nature to take its course.

  • Increasing inequality of opportunity

    Daily, there are a greater amount of people born into poverty than comfort, human nature strives and claims to be about equality however we seem incapable of ever being able to achieve it. We should stop the rate of births for a few years and allow those already born to achieve a higher potential. But we may as well try to stop the Suns rise.

  • 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.

  • Because we are using up recources faster than we can replace them.

    The current population of the planet is around 7.2 billion. By 2050, the U.N. Department of Social and Economic affairs already predicts that there will be an estimate of about 9.6 billlion people on th planet. Most of the population will most likely occur in countries like China and India. As the population now sours, food and nessities will be a must needed factor to suport the population of the people on earth, resulting to deforestation of the planet.

  • 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.

  • It is against human rights.

    A government or other authority can not impose limits to human rights. That being said I do agree with population control. There are ways to enact these limits without the authoritative restraints. We should make all forms of birth control easily accessible and free. It is much cheaper to pay for a pregnancy prevented than to pay for an accident. We should also stop giving tax benefits for having a child. In that same spectrum we need to end assistance to families. If the family has too many kids, let them all starve or learn to live off the land. We need to get back to survival of the fittest.

  • 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 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.

  • 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 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.

  • No, we should not limit population growth.

    No government or any other such ruling body should limit human population growth. Having children is a cherished moment in one's life, and so long as the individuals having children are responsible parents, they should not be restricted from having them. In addition, many of the results attributed to overpopulation such as resource strain and pollution are really the result of neglect, carelessness, and greed on the part of other humans. Instead, governments or similar ruling bodies should advocate better decision making. In addition, studies show there is a correlation between education and a lower birth rate. More education and a lower birth rate is a solution that benefits multiple parties rather than just one or a few.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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.

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":

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.
elboardman says2018-06-06T22:25:11.973
Most organisms have the need (not the right) to reproduce in order to pass their genetic code before they die. This is simple evolution. Many humans, specially the educationally challenged ones, will always be against anything that prevents them from fulfilling their instinct. We need to take this into consideration when implementing a population control mechanism.

I think a combination of education and tax will do the trick. Educate and improve the status of females in our societies as mentioned before, and implement a resource allocation tax. Set a quota for offspring and if a person exceeds that number they get hit by a tax. No one likes to pay taxes and that will promote self regulation.

If a person does not pay the TAX then they automatically lose their health insurance. With no medical support nature will take care of the rest.

This way nobody is forced to limit the number of children they can have. So if people want to reproduce like rabbits, like most religious people think they are entitled to, just let them, but there'll be social consequences, one of them being a tax. We are social animals and we cannot live without one another. And life is all about the competition for resources, and since there are no natural predator for humans, rules must be put in place so we can coexist harmoniously among ourselves and the rest of the living creatures in this planet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.