Do You Think All Countries Should Work With The UN To Set A Two Child Birthrate To Save The Earth?

Question

I must point out that this Q is not about having enough money to feed X number of kids. That does not natter at all. Its about the general population. They are expanding generally and the planet is being used up and sorting your tins from your fishbones will not be enough to save it.

Answer 1

Yes. The biggest problem is overpopulation and diminishing resources.

Answer 2

I understand why you would suggest such an idea. But nature already takes care of that problem. What happens when resources dry up for animals? Many die or starvation, dehydration, low food supply etc. Then the population levels and then at some point the species thrive again when the resources become avaliable again. Same exact thing will happen to humans. We're no different than animals no control of nature neither do we. If we set a 2 child per family limit. All that will do is post pone then inevitable.

Answer 3

Limiting the child birthrate is a great way in theory to slow down overpopulation, but there is a big problem with implementing such law. It would be a huge infraction on our Civil Liberties as citizens of the United States.

The benefits to lower birthrate are without question. Health care costs, welfare, social programs, could all decrease if people had less children. But, we are going to have to find a different way of doing it. One that doesn't force people to be compliant.

Peace!

Answer 4

The Earth is going to be okay whether or not we kill ourselves off.

Okay, back to the question.

No, and how would they mandate that anyhow without overstepping cultural or religious values? Or to those that still need large families to continue their land cultivation or to support the elderly - some areas have higher disease death rates and more children increase the odds that someone will be around to care for grandma.

China is a great example because they didn't see the unintended consequences of the one baby policy. Now 20 years later they are dealing with a gender imbalance (fewer girls), which has in part created the industry of kidnapping young girls in China and in neighboring countries. These women and girls are sold to families because buying a kidnapped bride is much cheaper than paying for a legit wedding and "bride fees". All this from the seemingly innocent idea of curbing population by restricting births.

Answer 5

no your wa off there buddy alot of people on the earth but in no way are we over populated , for starters there are so many cows on the planet that they create more co2 than anything else this is one example .

at no point is it right to tell people they cant have more than 2 children do you sugest women are steralised like in china ??? .

the global elites end bame is a population reduction of 80% so you may get what you wont if they have there way .

Answer 6

Yes..Great Idea.
Save the British taxpayer a fortune not having to pay for the upkeep of someone else's large family.
No more 10 kid families raking in £30,000 a year in hand outs at the expense of the hard working taxpayer.

Answer 7

Well, in some countries, such as Italy, the birth rate is less than 2 anyway. Contraceptive education and acceptance by the Catholic church would make it far more achievable. There are too many unwanted pregnancies in this world

Answer 8

Reading about the poverty faced by children in South America and parts of Africa, yes, birth control should be freely available, it is the right of the unborn child.

Answer 9

The problem with that is who takes any notice of the UN anymore?

They are a spent liberal organisation that has to many left wing agendas to be taken seriously.

Answer 10

No. Why would I want to start a world wide dictatorship.

The earth does not need saving. What you really mean is you are afraid people need saving. The solution you have outlined is to tell people how to live. This is a called a dictator.

Answer 11

Are you talking about a two-child minimum or maximum? (Like it matters; either one sounds reprehensible to me). My guess is you're talking about a maximum. In that case, bear in mind that the more people there are the more minds there are and the more brainpower we collectively have to solve problems that come along the way. People have been predicting mass starvation for centuries now, and it hasn't happened (just the opposite in fact), mainly due to improvements in technology and procedures that've come about from additional people. The evidence is crystal clear on this one. So if the UN wants to "Destroy the Earth", it should do what you suggest.