i would like to know everbodys point of view on population control, could you contribute?

Question

and im not talking just offspring limitation, i want to know what you guys think about abortion, smoking, sex ed, war, and anyting else you could think of that controls the population

Answer 1

You have asked too many questions to answer in one sitting, so to speak.

But I think that birth control should be put into all of the food we eat. If you want kids, you have to pass a series of tests (mental, financial, etc.) then you would be given an antidote that would allow you to get pregnant or get someone pregnant.

Answer 2

I have this great recipe for a new meal I call "Soylent Green." >:-]

Seriously though: I agree, "offspring limitation" of the type practiced in some countries like China, namely forced abortions & sterilizations, is definitely the wrong way to go.

War is also a terrible means of population control. The whole point of pop. control is to make the world a better place, but war only makes the world worse through much suffering and misery and hate.

Smoking: I'm all for it. The gov't should not be in the business of discouraging it, except for minors. On the same token, the gov't should also get out of the healthcare business--let smokers be 100% responsible for their own health care costs. One could even attach a small surcharge to each pack of cigs which would fund healthcare for non-smokers who could prove that they have been harmed by second-hand smoke. (BTW for the record, I'm a lifetime non-smoker myself.)

The best and most successful ways at limiting population growth, though, is to give individuals maximal reproductive freedom. This includes:
* Easy access to cheap, effective birth control.
* Easy access to safe, legal abortions.
* Comprehensive sex-ed in school.
All three of these are proven ways of controlling population growth, and are actually more effective than more draconian means like one-child policies. (Or completely ineffective programs like abstinence-only, which put "feel-good" morality above actual evidence and results.)

Many western nations already have populations that are either stable or even in decline. Japan and Italy, for instance, are two countries whose populations are shrinking. The US population grows mainly thru immigration; its natural birth rate is just barely above the 2.2 kids-per-woman zero-growth point. All these countries with stable or shrinking education all tend to have the three characteristics above (birth control, abortions, sex ed) in common.

For the most part, populations will tend to stabilize once a country gets sufficiently developed, economically & educationally. Those with higher economic status and higher education both tend to have fewer kids on average than people who are poor and/or have little education. This is reflected on both the micro-level (with individuals) and on the macro-level (comparing different countries).

BTW a stable or declining population isn't always a good thing. In particular, it can lead to a shrinking economy and, perhaps much worse, it puts extreme pressure on a country's gov't retirement system like the US's Social Security program, which operates more like a Ponzi scheme. In a stable or decreasing population, the average age increases over time, thus you end up with more and more retirees being supported by fewer and fewer workers. Several European countries are already feeling great pressure on their gov't retirement systems, and Social Security here is likewise in need of major reform Real Soon Now.

Answer 3

Some of the real pluses of freedom and tolerance are the freedom to let others do unto themselves as they see fit, and to tolerate it.
Pro-lifers feel that every conception should be followed through not realizing how crowded our planet would become if that policy was enforced. Somebody has got to go...

Answer 4

Abstinence never led to overpopulation, and abortion has never given us brilliant minds to help solve the world's problems. I think it was Mother Teresa who was once asked if there would ever be a cure for AIDS, and she said no, because the person who was to have discovered that cure was just aborted.

Answer 5

I think it's about choices. Your question is so broad, that's the best I could do without rattling on forever.

Answer 6

Doing my part as a proud gay man...