Would that truly be a good idea? We could lump war into it, but war, among so many things, is ultimately wrong in my eyes. Sure, I may sound heartless, but if we had a cure for diseases, or resources for everyone, wouldn't the world be so over-populated, 3-fold of what it is now? I'm not saying we should pick and choose who should die, but although the planet is a renewable source of our existence, it seems to be running down a bit.
Although having children is our right as humans, wouldn't it make sense if people didn't have so many children as a solution? There are so many people just plopping kids out, and not even taking care of them.
For instance, I know this woman, she has had 10 children, and she only has one in her custody. What was the sense in all of that?
I know that people look down on those who choose not to have children, because they are fearful that there will be no more people (ignorant eh?).
So, in your opinion, what would be a great idea to help stabalize...
2006-08-24 03:18:39 · 8 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
the resources in ratio to people?
2006-08-24 03:19:12 · update #1
Say if we were all to have only 1 or 2 children, we would have more time for them, more resources for them, more understanding of their needs and wants, sorrows and happiness.
2006-08-24 03:25:36 · update #2
They may turn out to be better people out of this in the long run.
2006-08-24 03:26:06 · update #3
I myself, have only 1 child. I don't plan on having anymore, and it is not because I don't like children. I love my son. I feel that if I have more time for him, more time to provide for him, and more time to understand him, I hope to make him a good person. If I had more than one child, it would honestly be senseless for me.
2006-08-24 03:28:44 · update #4
I am impressed by the insight fullness and intelligence of some of these answers. Of course we need the odd ball, for some reason. We don't need other planets. How much would it cost to reduce the deserts and non arable soil on earth as compared to starting all over again on Mars?
2006-08-24 03:41:43 · answer #1 · answered by chrisbrown_222 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree with you, would love to have had children, but never met the right person, and didn't feel it fair for a child not to have two parents. If we follow the line that for every person 5 people are needed to take care of them, then like the infamous pyramid selling schemes, eventually they collapse or in the case of people resources run out. We cull animals for reasons of over population, at least we should be clever enough to start limiting the amount of children. It sounds drastic but most people who are having large families are on welfare, maybe we should limit the financial help after two children, so they won't have any more.
Will less people on the planet and more resources, poverty and sickness should start to decrease, and maybe if there was more space... wars might stop too.
Lets hope we find the solution before more drastic measures become necesary.
2006-08-24 03:27:33 · answer #2 · answered by Breeze 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It really IS a good idea, but to get everyone to actually apply it to their own lives is another thing. I don't think people should be able to have babies until they've reached a certain age (an age where they can actually work and take care of their children). There's nothing we can do about the population, unfortunately, but we can one by one, make small changes of our own to make the world a better place.
2006-08-24 03:26:46 · answer #3 · answered by Shining Ray of Light 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
actaully we would have more war all people would be heathly and want more as per the human condition. Therefore by wanting more and everyone being healthy the fights would be worse. Eventaully the well feed people would organize into political groups seeking ways to get a larger piece of the pie as it were.
Utopia does not exist, except in heaven.
2006-08-24 03:25:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ending poverty and sickness may actually decrease the growth of population, since more affluent people have fewer kids on average. Over-population is a huge problem and goes along with poverty and sickness. Cities in Asia, Africa, South America and even here in the US are the sickest and poorest where the most people are. So I would guess that in order to end poverty and sickness, you have to limit population growth. Which solves your problem right there.
2006-08-24 03:27:33 · answer #5 · answered by Big Momma Carnivore 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nature has a way of keeping the status quo. The more we breed, the more she weeds us out. This is pretty much due to the fact that we are symbiotic. What we do to our environment comes back to us like karma.
2006-08-24 03:28:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right now we do have to be careful but in the future the Lord has a plan and all those planets might be there for a reason.
2006-08-24 03:21:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
less people. china style population control (not gender selection - just 1 or 2 child per household limit). implemeted right now.
then for anyone who disgrees with this, kill them also. jk.
2006-08-24 03:23:56 · answer #8 · answered by illinois_guy06 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋