2007-01-15 02:57:25 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
In cities across the globe the population is declining, it is only in the countryside that having extra hands to work, rather than just extra mouths to feed increases population. These folk frequently move to cities, and are the only reason cities increase in number of people.
As massive numbers of people do go to cities (passing half of the world population just recently) the total population will peak and start to decline, even now the rate of growth is dropping.
2007-01-15 03:11:25 · answer #1 · answered by No Bushrons 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The rest of the industrialized world is in negative population growth, and if not for immigration, the US would be there very soon. The problem isn't too many children. It is too few; whether states will have to "pay" couples to have children, not restrict them from having them.
In countries that have that kind of policy, there is an entire generation that is now becoming adults with a massive shortage of women. I worry what will happen because of this. Will women become property to be auctioned to the highest bidder? Or will we see huge armies of men killing each other to obtain a scare resource -- wives -- because, hey they got nothing to lose by dying (evolution wise) - so why not?
2007-01-15 11:13:16 · answer #2 · answered by David E 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow that would violate the freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment. Jews are required to multiply. That means that not only are they required to have enough children to replace themselves when they die but add at least one. Thus every Jew is required to have at least 3 kids.
If chirsitans truly follow the same G-d they are required the same. The Catholics are not allowed to use birth control.
But do not worry Abortion kills 4 million babies every year world wide. There is a negative population growth in the indutrialized world, and with all the current birth control pills and shots there and the females of our species taking them younger and younger they will become sterile and not have to worry about it any more anyway.
2007-01-15 11:09:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably not but they should do something about some women having 3 or 4 kids to different people and being on welfare it's ridiculous after the 2nd child to different fathers they should have to be fixed
2007-01-15 11:06:37 · answer #4 · answered by malone1423 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would NEVER happen in the midwest. I could assume some over crowded parts of the country may benefit from this but we are still in America.
I would love to see which Senator or Congressman would introduce that legislation. It would be polictical suicide.
2007-01-15 11:03:08 · answer #5 · answered by Culture Warrior 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not in our lifetime. That would be a violation of our civil rights and VERY politically incorrect.
2007-01-15 11:25:40 · answer #6 · answered by JESSIE James 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It passed in communists China so I'm sure it could pass in the US at least in the Blue states.
2007-01-15 11:03:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well, I WOULD say all the blue states would pass it, but they don't have to worry anyway... they're too busy committing infanticide and calling it "choice" to affect birth rates much.
Yeah, keep giving me thumbs-down, baby killers! Woo hoo!
.
2007-01-15 11:02:38 · answer #8 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I would think not, to many Americans would be against it.
2007-01-15 11:05:50 · answer #9 · answered by Captivated 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not a chance.
2007-01-15 11:00:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋