I've responded to this question--or one like it-- before, but let me say that you're making one heck of a valid point!
YES, we need to follow China's example on this one. But can you even IMAGINE the outcry if someone running for office had, as part of their platform, "Hi there! The problem is there are too many of you. The solution is obvious, right? Vote for me!"
This is just one of those areas where representative government just isn't up to the task. Don't get me wrong, I'm red-white-n-blue to the core, but our system just isn't organized to respond to unpopular but critical needs. It's going to take a complete change of mind to bring about the necessary changes. And we all know THAT isn't going to happen. China can do it because they have a "top -down" authority structure; here the "top" has to answer to the "bottom" for its actions.
Pity. But a "one family, one child" rule would be a great start.
2006-08-02 10:45:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by stevenB 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Over Population (OP) causes over-crowded schoolrooms. Each new mouth added to insurance policies drives up the cost of everyone elses. The job market is flooded with positions that cannot be filled. Married people must take responsibility. If their churches, beliefs, or whatever say "No Birth Control, or Abortion', then let the money from the church collection baskets pay for their OP children. Let the Anti-Abortionists put their money where their mouth is & raise funds to raise those non-aborted babies.
OP should be taught in high school. Girls should be shown videos of birth — screaming and all. Girls and Boys should be taught the cost of raising a child for 18 years, plus cost of living increases, and college tuition costs for each child. Girls and Boys should be taught practical things like balancing a check book, dangers of credit cards, 'Don't mess with the IRS'. It's odd. We have Mortgage Calculators to figure out how much Real Estate we can afford, but no Baby Calculators to see how many children we can afford.
No wonder fellas run bolt they realize the burden they've taken on. The single mother trying to support the brood becomes a burden on society, and an easy target for pedophile men, while looking for a next potential marriage partner.
Why is it always the wealthy's responsibility to pay for their poor decisions of those who choose to OP? You will never see a politician stand up and address this issue. High schoolers can be taught to take responsibility for their bodies, etc.
2006-08-02 17:46:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by mitch 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No more than 3.
2006-08-02 17:25:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by heavy6metal9babe 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
People cry and whine at the mention of having a restriction of child, saying that it's unnecessary, but what the dumb bats don't realize is that their taxes will be down and there will be more land and stuf. I think having one child per family is not gonna fly, but certainly if you're dirt poor with six kids you can use a condom.
2006-08-03 11:41:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
40,000 children starve to death everyday, our seas are dying from our waste, arable land is disappearing at 2% per year,finite resources (like oil) will soon run out and people have the stupidity to say the world has room for more people.
2006-08-02 17:30:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by iknowtruthismine 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's getting scary.
2006-08-02 17:35:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mattman 6
·
0⤊
0⤋