Population control - Sterilization?

Question

I reject the age old religious and social ideologies that consider lots of kids the greatest gift. THAT world is over in this millenium. The only real solution I see besides mandatory sterilization after TWO CHILDREN is as follows. Any woman (not family but woman) may have TWO CHILDREN. At that point they may have another child but it will cost them a heavy income tax along the lines of 10% so if you are in the 25% bracket child #3 brings you up to 35% and #4 puts you in the 45% tax bracket and so on. You want it you pay through the nose. Poor people? Sorry 2 is ENOUGH. The govermnet can offer tax incentives for sterilizations and tax incentives for adoptions but in today's world having 4, 5, 6 kids is INSANE and selfish and simply unacceptable in a civilized world as populated as ours and with all the impending global deterioration (i.e. warming).

Does anyone agree with this idea?

Answer 1

I'm sorry, I believe in a free society and mandatory sterilization would be a complete anathema in such a society.

I agree that we should control the growth of population. I think we should raise awareness that zero-population-growth is very possible and I think contraceptives should be as easy to acquire and use as possible, but I don't believe in rounding up people and forcing them to be sterilized.

Answer 2

You are regurgitating Paul Ehrlich's nonsense from 1970s. The reality is much more interesting. People have many children because (1) they live on a farm and have no other way of increasing the farm output (machines are out of their reach pricewise, and so are laborers), and/or (2) they expect to have no other means of supporting themselves in their old age. With increasing wealth, agriculture can be mechanized, the bulk of population moves into the cities, and a national old-age pension system can be established (not to mention the fact that contraception becomes readily available). The birth rates drop like a stone, and the problem takes care of itself. This has happened in many places around the world in the last 250 years. Demographers call it "demographic transition". Many demographers believe that by 2100, almost every country of the world will undergo the demographic transition and the population growth will stop altogether.

Obviously, once that happens, another problem arises immediately. In China, where population control has been in force for a long time, it is usually referred to as "the 4-2-1 problem": one working-age adult is expected to take care of two parents and four grandparents...

Answer 3

This is a ridiculous idea. Not to even go into the details of how and why, let me suggest an alternative which has been shown to be effective by the W.H.O. and is demonstrated in the history of industrialized nations.

In less developed nations, the education of women is normally forsaken for the education of males. In these situations women are easily manipulated and more easily sucumb to whatever the male desires. As you educate women of that population, they more readily resist the difficulties of pregnency in a challenging environment. Birth rates drop because they can more cautiously decide when to have a child, but that child will be more likely to succeed.

As industrialized nations gave more rights to women birth rates did the same thing. Look at Japan, the US or almost any industrialized nation. We are at risk of economic difficulty because the population of older generations are still tending to be larger than the new population.

Answer 4

Well... after all the baby-boom generation dies... perhaps the population will stabilize a bit? Sounds mean (sorry if it does!), but it's the truth. The Baby Boom generation are heading into their senior years soon and nowadays people aren't having as many children. I don't think sterilization should be used at all. It's really the countries like China and India that need the most control, since their populations go into the billions... but sterilization is not the answer.

Answer 5

no. if every woman has two children, then the population will still increase every generation. for every one person that dies, two people are born. you need to limit the amount to one child. forget the tax incentives. that's a long-term solution that won't solve anything fast. you need something that will absolutely end the current population growth. something like this would be....mandatory sterilizations of all low-income families. that would end the population problem in one generation (next 20 years). it'd cost a lot of money, unless we built something like a giant radiation machine that just irradiated the genitals of people and sterilized them.

Answer 6

Did you know that the actual law in our society is the complete opposite of what you are suggesting?
When I had my son, I was happy with what I had and wanted no more. Two years later I became pregnant with my daughter. I was only 22 years old.
I wanted to get my tubes tied right after the birth of my daughter, so I discussed with my doctor, during my 6 month checkup, if she would be willing to preform the procedure as soon as the baby was out. It was then that I was informed that I could not have it done.
By law, the only way a woman can get her tubes tied without medical reasons is as follows:
25 years old with three kids
27 years old with two kids
or 35 with one child

I thought this to be very wrong and went to the medical board to appeal my right to sterilization. After all a man can get snipped at the age of 18, where is our equal rights now????
My defense when I went in for my hearing was that I already had one child and was getting ready to have my second. I was un-married and working as a waitress in a small town resturaunt. If I kept having children, the state was going to be the one supporting them as well as the taxpayers. I was denied.
I am now 25 and still only have the two kids. I have gotten through college now and have a pretty good job. I am also married to a wonderful man who is raising my children as his own.
You have your work cut out for you my friend. To get what you feel would be right for our society, you must first overturn the laws we have to keep us populated. (by the way, the reasoning for the law is to keep the USA populated for war time. We need our soldiers)

Answer 7

women's fertility confirm the delivery cost, not men's. The delivery cost in maximum third international international locations have dropped dramatically over the final 30 years and the inhabitants is now not growing to be exponentially. 10 billion isn't the present inhabitants yet the place the inhabitants is expected to height in 2050 earlier it starts to say no. it fairly is expected that we ought to feed 20 billion people.

Answer 8

I totally agree! I would take it one step further. Drug addicts should automatically be sterilized, as well as anyone that has committed a violent crime.

Answer 9

nature is going to take it's course no matter what!!