how manycildren should each couple bring up ??

Question

all animals have controled rate of birth and death, except humen which aiming for unlimted number on the account of distinction of other speacies. as we are reducing the carbon dioxide emmession to reduce it from eating the ozone layer, shall we put a law the stop birth for atleast on generation ( i.e. the next 25 years)

Answer 1

For any species that has 2 parents, the long-term sustainable number of surviving offspring is 2.

When the population reaches the limit of what the environment can support, each generation can be no bigger than the previous generation, and thus the number of children must be no more than the number of parents (i.e. 2).

Whenever the birth rate rises above 2 for any reason, the death rate rises to compensate. When an animal population exceeds the sustainable level, animals die due to starvation, disease, predation, cannibalism/war, etc. This is true for any species, whether bacteria or humans.

In the case of humans, the only debate is about what the upper limit is. The limit depends not only on our population, but also on how much each person consumes, and on the technology that we have.

If, for example, technology allowed us to grow 1% more food (and everything else we need) each year, then the upper limit on human population would increase 1% per year.

In fact, although our technology is improving, it is not keeping up with our population growth. Therefore, our population is coming closer and closer to the limit (if we haven't already exceeded the long-term sustainable limit, which is quite possible!).

Our technology is likely to continue improving well into the future, but eventually it will reach physical limits. The first law of thermodynamics (a fundamental law of physics) states that the total mass of the universe cannot be increased. Since humans have mass, of course, the maximum mass of the human population must stay within the maximum mass of the universe. Thus there is an absolute upper limit to the human population, no matter how good our technology gets.

At current growth rates, the human population would reach the mass of the universe in somewhat over 10,000 years, which is a long time compared to a human life, but a very short time for a species.

The practical limit is nowhere near 10,000 years because we can't convert all the mass of the universe into naked humans floating in space, happily eating and breathing nothing. Even a few hundred years seems absurdly optimistic, and it's quite possible that we've already exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of Earth.

In the long run, the average number of surviving children per family MUST be two. If the birth rate exceeds 2, then the death rate will go up (from starvation, disease, wars, etc.) until the net rate of births minus deaths is 2 (e.g. if you have 5 children then at least 3 will die and at most 2 will survive). This is not something we have a choice on or that some technological breakthrough will change -- the laws of thermodynamics and the math of exponential growth are completely inflexible.

Although it's theoretically possible for one family to have 3 children and another family to have 0 or 1 children, as a practical matter, right now the average number of children is well above 2. In other words, it's not averaging out. The upper limit should be 2.

If you have more than 2 children, you are slaughtering your own grandchildren as well as everybody else's grandchildren (or great-grandchildren, or great-great-grandchildren... depending upon many generations it takes for our arrogance and selfishness to catch up with us.)

As for whether we should pass a law to limit the birth rate to 2 for at least a generation, this is a difficult issue. If people understand why the birth rate must be 2, then hopefully a law will not be necessary. If people don't understand why the birth rate must be 2, or if they are simply so selfish that they refuse to change their behavior even when they understand the physics and math involved, then passing and enforcing a law will be very difficult.

Given current trends, at some point the situation will probably be so desperate that we will need to pass such a law, so we need to work very hard to make sure that we don't get into a situation where our only choice is to pass and enforce a law.

Answer 2

As many as they want and can afford to bring up and provide with a college education. There are enough diseases wiping out people, we shouldn't need to limit the birth of more. Have you not heard that a baby is God's opinion that the world should go on?

Answer 3

Then you'd have to deal with human rights... and what about all the people that don't want children... over here lots of schools are closing down because the birth rates have fallen...

Answer 4

No I don't think there should be a law to stop birth..it's God's gift! but people should figure out if they can take care of the baby before they have it!

Answer 5

Don't be such a wuss and have kids b/c that's what we humans are supposed to do. Don't worry-the earth can handle us-it's handled a lot of abuse already. Just make sure the kids are emotionally stable and we'll all be OK.

Answer 6

3..and no

Answer 7

only one c'mon i think currently the human race adds like 300.000people to it every day. now i'm a dog (literally)and even i can see people need some change but who will start it

Answer 8

Three children are best to look after.

Answer 9

I would say two children... ideally one boy and one girl. But this will even out I am sure.

Answer 10

I think it should be four children