Quiverfull evangelical shananigans

[Nemesiah]

All questions aside, something one of the comentators said was along the lines of "If you can afford it have as many kids as you want", and it was later talkend in the segment.

I believe there should be a cap to how many kids you can have, namely "1" so that we could combat overpopulation (which I believe is a problem nowadays)

This however poses a rather big liberties problem since limiting how many kids you have could be seen as a huge invasion of your rights.

What do you think? Should the governments of the world start (or continue like in china) to limit how many kids you can have

On the other side, I understand that regions of europe are becoming depopulated, what do you believe should be done about it?

Best regards.

Ed.

 

[Vivre]

What do you think? Should the governments of the world start (or continue like in china) to limit how many kids you can have

No. The humans have to be made aware of the disadvantages of overpopulation and be motivated to support a long term target of cutting it back.
E.g. stop discriminating because of origin and ease adoption. Maybe reward non-breeding for a while. ...

On the other side, I understand that regions of europe are becoming depopulated, what do you believe should be done about it?

Nothing. I see no problem here. Give animals and plants a freetime from us :mrgreen:

 

[Nemesiah]

What do you think? Should the governments of the world start (or continue like in china) to limit how many kids you can have

No. The humans have to be made aware of the disadvantages of overpopulation and be motivated to support a long term target of cutting it back.
E.g. stop discriminating because of origin and ease adoption. Maybe reward non-breeding for a while. ...

On the other side, I understand that regions of europe are becoming depopulated, what do you believe should be done about it?

Nothing. I see no problem here. Give animals and plants a freetime from us :mrgreen:

What do you think? Should the governments of the world start (or continue like in china) to limit how many kids you can have

No. The humans have to be made aware of the disadvantages of overpopulation and be motivated to support a long term target of cutting it back.
E.g. stop discriminating because of origin and ease adoption. Maybe reward non-breeding for a while. ...

I understand the moral dilema but the problem is of such magnitude that maybe the government should step in.

Like with say seatbelts, you are supposed by law to use them, yes they are infringing in your liberty not to use one while driving but it is supposed to be for your own good, in the same fashion, overpopulation is becoming a problem; we are 7 billion people now, with projections that put you guys at 10 billion by 2050 (I will almost certanly be dead by then) famine is becoming an increasing problem due to the climate change (driven in part at least by human action) so its becoming a topic of the common good to limit how many children people can have.

There are many instances in which government limits an individual's rights for either the individual's or society's good, why should reproduction not become one of those now that it is becoming a problem?

What happens if people don't catch on? if they keep breeding and increasing in numbers? If that happens we could either iremedially harm the environment or devolve into a darwinistic sciety that allows huge amounts of people to live lives of utter desperation, of hunger and poverty, of ignorance.

Wouldn't giving up reproductive freedom de worth a world with less people and thus more resources for everybody?

In ancient times we needed huge amounts of people to build things and to feed other people and to create wealth, nowadays this is not so, machines allow us to live comfortable lives as long as there are enough resources for everybody.

I believe that deniying people resources is cruel, denying them more than one children is not, they get to reproduce, they get to care for someone and have a family, etc... just not as big.

 

[Frenger]

Like with say seatbelts, you are supposed by law to use them, yes they are infringing in your liberty not to use one while driving but it is supposed to be for your own good,

Not just for your own good, but for the good of the people who's life you are part of. A person who dies in a car crash doesn't die in isolation, and by protecting them you are protecting, quite likely, a family too. But this is only in addition to what you're saying.

in the same fashion, overpopulation is becoming a problem; we are 7 billion people now, with projections that put you guys at 10 billion by 2050 (I will almost certanly be dead by then)

I'm sorry to hear that.

famine is becoming an increasing problem due to the climate change (driven in part at least by human action) so its becoming a topic of the common good to limit how many children people can have.

Actually, a large part of famine is due to the sheer amount of food we actually waste. According to this report half of the food produced gets wasted. So, we can feed the population we have, it's just stupidity and incompetence that means we don't.

There are many instances in which government limits an individual's rights for either the individual's or society's good, why should reproduction not become one of those now that it is becoming a problem?

I think the problem is, how do you go about policing it? What happens if someone accidently gets pregnant? The obvioius answer is abortion, but what if they don't come forward until it's too late? Do we kill the infant? Fine them (the parents' not the infant)? Do we rehome it with another family?

When you infringe a right like this, you don't stamp it out, you push it to the back streets. China (as some stories suggest) has forced parents to do horrible things. Because you can only have one child a boys are more sought after, you have girls that are born which are abandoned and of course die. This, I would suggest is more a cultural problem than policy, but these kind of laws do push these kinds of responses.

In the same way that banning abortion only pushes abortion to the backstreets, you don't solve the problem, you only really make it more dangerous.

What happens if people don't catch on? if they keep breeding and increasing in numbers? If that happens we could either iremedially harm the environment or devolve into a darwinistic sciety that allows huge amounts of people to live lives of utter desperation, of hunger and poverty, of ignorance.

If it helps, I believe we would have blown ourselves up by the time that happens.

Wouldn't giving up reproductive freedom de worth a world with less people and thus more resources for everybody?

Possibly, but then you would also limit the amount of people able to create those resources.

In ancient times we needed huge amounts of people to build things and to feed other people and to create wealth, nowadays this is not so, machines allow us to live comfortable lives as long as there are enough resources for everybody.

I believe that deniying people resources is cruel, denying them more than one children is not, they get to reproduce, they get to care for someone and have a family, etc... just not as big.

I definitely see your point, but I don't think this solution is practical for the reasons I have briefly outlined above.

 

[Vivre]

Dear Nemesiah
I'll discard all I've written last night after your reply has stirred me up and now I feel exhausted and sad again.

No, I would never vote for dictatorship and to me the most elementary aim of life (to survive) can't be compared with an artificial behavior of applying timelimited selbstfixation under explicit circumstances (stay in a moving vehicle, I'm not even forced to enter).

And I think an aim of achieving 'more resources for everybody' is just proceeding like ever - there's no behaviour change, no understanding, no learning and no esteem in it.

Some of the questions that I'd noted:
- Why make sex a crime?
- Who will be prossecuted: the female for pregnancy or the male for fruitfull intercourse?
- Do you want to breed generations of 'superior exclusives'?
What about:
- life-span-limit
- put abortion + failed suicide under death penalty
- guns free for everyone any age
- only allow same-sex relationships


oh - and by 2050 I'll be long gone too

greets ~ Vivre

~~~

addendum: I stumbled across an older thread you'd might like to give review as well: world population and ET
out of which I'd like to pass on a recommendation of Laurens: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? (feat. Sir David Attenborough) (direct yt-link)

 

[Laurens]

I don't think a law against having more than one child is going to do much good. I believe it is all down to education, equal rights for women, and availability of contraceptives. The problem is most accentuated in the third world, where women don't often have access to contraceptives or university level education (if any at all). It is shown that women who are able to study at university and have some control of their own destiny have less children. These are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed first.