Amazon.com Widgets
  • Let's start with those that voted yes then.

    Since you all support eugenics/depopulation "to save the planet" or what ever propaganda story you bought into. We shall start by forcefully sterilizing you and your offspring. Lead by example sort of deal.
    All of a sudden not such a good plan when your legacies are at stake huh? Though cookies, You wish to impose this upon others then don't be a hypocrite!

    You know who won't be depopulating? The rich, And those with holocaust complexes. Because you lunatics support something akin to genocide towards the entire globe.
    Maxvaxx yourselves and family with a cyanide injections.

  • We should disincentive families from having more than 2 children

    Earth cannot ultimately support unabated population growth. The more people on the planet, The more natural resources we'll consume, Resulting in more emissions, More damage to natural habitats and ultimately global warming.

    Poorer, Less well educated people tend to have the most children yet they are the people who will be most likely to suffer due to climate change and habitat loss.

    Contraception and education is key. Religion unfortunately had

  • Human population control fixes almost all issues.

    Yes. Human population should be reduced to 6 billion. World is overpopulated already, Population growth only creates more and more different types issues to everyone and everything. There are lots of different methods to control human population, But nobody mentions this method: capture few hives of africanized honey bees from america and secretly transport them to europe, Asian, African, Israel, Australia countries. Then nature takes care of the rest and these angry bees will become world wide to reduce amount of humans.

  • Yes of corse

    I ikill my child lastr week because i think he need a better world for live so that the fact that _i kill him my body are the same after a pregnancy so please do it again when you want to f**k with sombody protect you that is very important

  • Human Rights > Human Survival or Human Rights < Human Survival?

    Compromise. This single word literally defines this human population argument. Are you willing to compromise some of your "fundamental human rights" for the greater good. Or are you going to be that greedy useless human being who just eats, Sleeps, And watch TV all day and watch your wealth basically come at your doorstep. I do hope the former but unfortunately humans only care about themselves. If we can change that (if almost every human being agrees which is near impossible) then sure you can have as many babies as you want but also realizing the impact it may have if other families do the same. Humans need to be aware about their actions and for the people who disagreed with limiting population, I have a question. If overpopulation is a serious issue in like 2050 and the future and wars are fought over resources and governments cannot provide for the citizens, Does the concept of "human rights" exist. Everywhere on the streets you would see peopling killing each other for bottles of water and clothing. Guess what? That could've been prevented if we limit out population. Although the other side argues that technology is improving life and can sustain it, It isn't improving fast enough if human population is not managed. I know the no people will comment saying that you are taking out rights away and I'm so sorry but to call you guys selfish useless people who believe rights are more important than the survival of the human race. We need to be working on improving life for those who are here so that we can improve life for our children. Think of this as a video game. The developer keeps adding new stuff to the game but doesn't fix game-breaking issues. This results in an angry player base and people will not support the game. Although there is no negative effects of people not supporting the developers, There is a huge impact on this human population topic because it is REAL LIFE. And please don't mention populating other habitable planets because guess what? The same thing will happen again in that new planet.

  • Reduce reproduction rate

    Human population increase is driving huge numbers of other life forms to extinction.
    Exponential growth, Increased production of consumables from rapidly decreasing supply of resources, Removes components essential for the lives of other species.
    Biodiversity is essential for sustaining life in all its forms.
    Human ignorance and selfishness is destroying the living world yet those who could turn around this bleak outlook are blind to reality.

  • We are way out of balance with nature already.

    All things in life are about balance: from our planet's position from the sun to our diet.
    Animals produce CO2 and plants produce O2, We need each other. But we are destroying plants and producing more humans. The sole cause of climate change is ourselves.
    Any unchecked and uncontrollable expansion is cancerous. We are currently becomi ng a cancer to this planet.
    People are getting married and reproducing at a really fast rate. There are too many humans already. We do not need more. I agree with the proposition from the Georgia Stone which said humans' population should be kept under 500k. And each human should be an asset not a liability.
    We need to realize that we are just a part of nature, Never above it. That sacred balancing should be taught to all humans.

  • Issues ranging from Social to ecological could all benefit from limiting human population.

    Global Warming - Even w/ humans providing minimal impact per person, The increase in Human population will eventually cause Global Warming
    Deforestation, Extinction of species, Pollution, Lost of wilderness, And any of many other "Green" issues - These are all cause by the byproducts of Humans. As long as Human population increase, These issues will increase.
    Social / economic conflicts - Wars are typically fought over natural resources such as land, Minerals, Oil and other resources. Limit humans and limit the need for the resources.
    This list could go on, But a intelligent reader will get the point.

    So how to you resolve the population issue?
    1. Limit the scope: world wide change can not be made at one time. Make changes at the country/state/region level.
    2. Strict controls on immigration: Local limitation of population will not be effective if immigration is not controlled.
    3. Limiting births: There would be heavy push to telling anyone they can't have children. But, It could be made undesirable.
    3a. Remove any financial incentives for children - No tax breaks or additional Gov support.
    3b. Create financial incentives a not having children.
    3c. There may be other models.

  • One Species or the Earth?

    This planet simply cannot sustain such a (rapid) expanse of our population. There is plenty of evidence and proven arguments to show this: the highest background extinction rate in recorded history, Expanding urbanisation, Massive deforestation, More and more land used for farming, Agriculture and landfill. If our species continues to grow in such a way, The Earth will eventually just be a home to the bare minimum number of species we need in order to survive. We need to institute both population and wealth caps, So much wealth in the hands of so few is absolutely ridiculous and nothing but selfishness. A family should not consist of more than 2 children, Thereby allowing smaller growth over a longer time period and giving us longer to try and counter the problems we are facing.

  • Leave something for future generations

    Human population is already in overshoot. If we want there to be future generations, We must stop stealing resources from them. Also, If there only was a few million people on Earth, They wouldn't be able to destroy the environment or exterminate species or cause a greenhouse effect or destroy the ozone layer or need to exhaust the groundwater. They couldn't do it even if they tried. But now, No matter how much we try the opposite, There's no helping us. We are simply too many. We have exceeded Earth's long-term carrying capacity through sheer numbers.

  • 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.

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.
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.