We shouldn't have so many babies, so how do we support?

Question

I have heard people say that the worlds population is to great and we should not have as many babies anymore. Personally I do not agree, BUT please only answer my question. I do not wish to get into a debate about whether or not we have to many people in the world^_^. My question is, if hypothetically people WHERE to have less children, then how would we be able to support them when they got to old to make a living? We are already starting to struggle to support retired citizens as the baby boomers enter old age. So, if this generation enters old age, and there are even LESS young people, then how can they support those that cannot support themselves. Already China is struggling with this issue. While I do agree they have too many people, they are facing difficulties. millions of people are entering old age, but since the pop. has decreased, those who can work are struggling to support themselves, much less the older generation.

I fail to see how my question warrants me being called an idiot. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me with your vast knowledge and draw up the solution with how we can support them?

dear, contesma. I never SAID we should increase the population. Read my question more carefully before you attack people visciously ^_^

Answer 1

...this is not a question of too many in the world. The big problem is producing kids that you can't take care of. It angers me when i see babies and children, abandoned by their birth mother or father. Babies that need the closeness and warmth of a loving family and they are being denied that.

I have always said that, "i hope in the future when people decide to have children, they should be interviewed [by a selected committee] first to see if they are fit to be a parent".

I JUST HATE SEEING INNOCENT CHILDREN SUFFERER BECAUSE OF IRRESPONSIBLE ADULTS

IF YOU CAN'T CARE FOR A CHILD THEN DON'T HAVE ONE!

Answer 2

It's not just China that's dealing with this problem -- already I'm getting letters from Social Security telling me not to expect more than 70 something % of what I put in once I retire -- for the simple reason that there are less people in my generation than in the older, baby-boomer generation (my parents'). It's a bit like braking the car too quickly -- you might wreck your tires, but if you're heading for a brick wall it's the lesser of two evils. There are a myriad of theories about exactly how many people our world can support, and it is very dependent on technology. But I still can't shake the feeling that it's a bit irresponsible when I see people who have 7 or 8 children.

Answer 3

To supporting them, some of us are still in the farmer's mindset, which is the more people there are, the more hands to work the fields, but since machines take care of most those, we don't need that surplus of population. But these days, most babies come, as a surprise, and usually not an extremely welcome one for one of the parties involved.

But the other side of the spectrum is creeping up on us too, aged people who aren't strong enough or have disabled somehow and can't fully support themselves, these are kind of extra baby populous, which can get...Tiresome. Except these babies can only get worse as they age, which makes even more difficulty, especially with the near a century average lifespan of people.


The best course would is that we would have to reduce the population gradually, like going up a pyramid. Not in one sudden halt. That way there will be less of a strain on the next generation until it reaches the goal to where we can all be supported healthily.

Answer 4

In a world of rapidly declining resources, how do you think the aged would be able to get a fair share when they are fighting the young, you think are necessary, for what is left. The pie is getting smaller and that pie has to feed more and more people. The seas are dying from the waste we already flush into them and more people will only mean more to flush. Arable land is disappearing at 2% a year. How do we feed our aged and all the children you think are necessary to feed and take care of the old. The U.N. population study recommends reducing the world population to two billion so that everyone would have a chance to live at a level above the poverty level in a world that wouldn't be dying from our shear numbers.

Answer 5

I do believe that people have to resort to saving for retirement. I read somewhere that 401ks are going to be mandatory starting January 1st. In otherwords, forced savings for all employees.

It is sad that people will put money in 401ks or other types of retirement funds and not pay any attention to how much of a return, if any, they are getting.

By the way, I am the 3rd of 11 children, and my sister has 14 children. So there still are large families who do look out for each other and our parents......

Answer 6

well i guess the government would have to take that responsibility if it wants to limit the population. And with that the older generations would have to deplete less while the younger generation gave more to make up for the lack of population. obviously this would create more problems in that one would not have enough to live on. this would then demand the government to make necessary changes so that at least the majority can be satisfied, as callous as that sounds.

Answer 7

Perhaps people who have less children should be able to save more money than people who have lots of children - and therefore, will have more money when they retire to support themselves. Then after they die, all their money can go to their few children, who can repeat this cycle of self-supportiveness.

Just an idea.

Answer 8

idiot



EDIT: I dont have a sure fire solution because I dont just use my opinion and little facts to try and fix the world, i'm just saying that the correct solution most definately does NOT involve anything you're talking about. The population of humans on earth has in just the past few hundred years exploded and is pushing the limits, which has been successfully shown by global warming. Adding more people to earth to support the ones already here is just trying to put out a fire with gasoline. With your plan in action, we'll have so many people polluting the earth and overpopulating urban areas, that government services like social security would be bankrupt in a couple generations anyways, not to mention we'd be faced with much more AIDS and famine in many places of the world, which with the intense growth, would be impossible to support. Your logic just doesn't hold weight, period.