with all the talk about global warming and saving the planet does anyone think we should stop making babies?

Question

obviously if there were less people the impact on the environment would be less. so maybee we should stop making babies. because i dont know about you but i would rather live in a house not a cave and i would rather drive my car to work than walk so maybee this is the earths way of telling us it is full. Besides if its as bad as everybody is saying it is why would you want to bring a child into it.

Answer 1

i completely agree with you. In my opinion i think if yo want to have a child you should have to pass an exam of competancy because there are way to many homeless children and crack babies out there. It quite angers me with everyone trying to make abortion illeagal. But yes i agree.

Answer 2

This may be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.
Not that I disagree with the notion that the planet is overpopulated, but the arguement itself lacks a lot.
Lets say you nevr have a kid. Okay, you still concume resources by driving your car to work.
Even if no more kids are born, we would still consume all the natural resources of the planet.
You would be much better off by taking the bus to work. Unfortunately the auto inductry has spend millions of dollars to ensure that america doesn't have a great mass transportation system, so that we have to buy cars.
In one sense, it would be better to have a child, which at least gives the car a litle more use, because you are transporting 2 people at once.
Global warming is caused by the release of chemicals into the atmosphere.
The only way to stop that is to stop mass inductrialization of societies.
That won't happen. People care more about money than they do the planet.
The indians should have killed all of us off as we were getting off our ships when we first landed in north america.

Answer 3

It's not the amount of people that's the problem- it's how all those people choose to live. If we make simple changes (and some inconvenient ones, hence the title to An Inconvenient Truth), then we CAN turn things around. Besides, if you had any sort of sense about you, you'd know that making babies is something we're so good at, we do it accidentally all the time. There's no way we'd be able to control it, which in my opinion is irrelevant. If the people living on Earth now will make changes in their lives, the Earth will be able to sustain future life.

Answer 4

in 1998 Kissinger said at a closed bilderberg meeting that their Agenda demanded a decrease in the world population by 60%

the mind boggles at how this can be achieved
and many strange things are happening

many ¨natural ¨disasters,an posible impending nuclear war,

In the last 50 years world population has doubled a faster growth ever since we became homo sapian.
the effects on the environment are
,erosian,over pumping of carbon aquifiers(deep wells)
desertification,rising seas,land loss,deforrestation,watershort...
excess carbon emissions,mass extinction of species and global warming.

each year an extra 70 million people are washing and consuming water but this is ,but a small part of what agriculture uses.

the first thing we should do is go to town on education and birth control
most teenage pregnancies and families with many children is in very poor and uneducated regions .

here are some remedies to considder
population control in the past and present

War (past .present and future)
Natures way disease(today,past and future)
Manufactured disease(suspected today)
cures that kill(suspected today)
poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)
making children infertile or gay,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)
birth control,(in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )
education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )
laws that limit childbirth per family(China)

human sacrifice(Mayas ,Aztecs,druids),may be the best option ,it would remove the strain on Natural resources and make more available for survivers ,stop expanding populations from deforresting preciuous woods because of settlement and expanding farming
,take the pressure of drink water supplies ,there would be less need for Wars ,we could use the blood and remains to compost fields that were destroyed by irresponsible agriculture

and at the end of the day if we did it in a dignified manner we could have lots of religious parties ,better then bombing societies across the world making everybody angry ,and the Gods would be over the Moon

Answer 5

As cruel as this may sound, I agree! I think until things get under control with our world there should be a freaken cap on how many children people should be allowed to have! When I see the illegals walking around with 3 small ones and another on the way it just burns me! They aren't contributing to helping the problem, they are in fact contributing to the problem! If we didn't have to pay out so much in freaken welfare for these losers, we could put that money towards research on how to help the planet rather than continue to over populate it!

Answer 6

Gee, that isn't exactly a new idea. China has that draconian one child per family law for example. Feel free to give up having children yourself. I was not planning to have children, but as my parents got older and I had to face the fact that when they died I would be alone in the world, I changed my mind and had 2 children. Now my mother is dead and my children are a great comfort to me.

Answer 7

There is no proof that the global warming is not a natural phenomenon. That said, I agree that fewer people and less pollution is a good thing, so now that I have two children, I'll stop procreating.

If Al Gore is so concerned about the environment, maybe he should stop buying carbon credits so he can pollute more, and give up his personal jet.

Answer 8

a little population control would be good, i think
these suggestions does certainly sound controversial, but let me throw it out there:

1) taxing newborns' parents... or at least doing away with (or reducing) child tax credits... wealthier parents get taxed more

2) pro-death penalty and pro-choice... and lots of birth control

3) pollution-reduction strategies, no matter how costly (to a point)

4) and space programs...


i cant help but think back to agent smith from the matrix, comparing humans to a parasite that refuses to stop growing

Answer 9

in my view i think of you're finding to a techniques afield ... you will possibly be able to desire to narrate the subject count back on your interior of reach section. What are the aptitude unfavourable aspects and impacts on your interior of reach community? occasion: "the international's climate is changing, no count if we like it or no longer." (no longer arguing no count if organic or anthropogenically prompted). Then checklist variations that have been felt regionally (e.g. declining rainfall? warmer? possibly a warmth waves? much less frosts? much less snow? low mendacity land suspectible to sea upward thrust? and so on.) "So what does this recommend you, your loved ones, your friends, our interior of reach farmers and your community?" arise with some real examples. "What are you able to, your loved ones, your friends and your community do approximately this?" checklist some mitigation and administration concepts to counter the hazards. the entire factor is you're no longer arguing the technological know-how. you're making your scholars attentive to the hazards and impacts and what they are able to do to make a difference. no count if organic or human prompted is beside the point interior the tip, substitute is coming so which you will possibly be able to desire to nicely known a thank you to make it.

Answer 10

of course not. that's the selfish part of it. we all want to make babies......