Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want

Our earth is crowded and we are living unsustainably. The world population is estimated to be 6.8billion and will rise to between 8 and 9 billion by 2050. The more people there are the more resources they will consume and the more emissions will be created. According to the Optimum Population Trust, we are already well above the sustainable world population of 3billion. So to prevent global warming we must first tackle population growth. To do this there must be birth controls in developing nations, especially in Africa, to first slow and then reverse the population explosion in these countries. However, this policy will create problems for ageing populations in countries that don’t have the welfare infrastructure to cope. Women have spent a century fighting for equality in areas like the workplace and voting, are we now to take away their right to decide the size of their own family?

Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
Yes because...

In the long run, freedom to have many children goes against the fundamental right to life

Yes, and finally this year people start talking about the 'taboo'. I wonder why it took us so long here in Europe, when actually this concerns mostly those we do not care about almost at all.

For the developed world, economic growth first brought decreased mortality rates leading to exponential rise in population. More resources were available, and further growth lead to lower birth rates -cost of bringing up children increased and time scarcity became a problem. On average, the developed world needs more births to ensure the replacement of its population over generations.

Meanwhile, developing countries cannot achieve even short-term economic growth per capita because of their rapid increase in population -and this puts even more pressure on possibilities for long-term growth. For the developing world, mortality rates are also declining now, thanks to advances in medicine rather than to economic growth. But environmental limits to growth threaten to keep the countries underdeveloped, with high birth rates and again increasing mortality. It is unlikely that Africa will follow the same path Europe did, for instance.

China did a smart thing -even though with cruelty- to limit the size of its population. Most importantly, because it allowed it to grow its economy also in per capita terms, delivering over 200 million people from poverty. Besides, one of their main arguments against large caps on its emissions now is that it has already avoided huge amounts of emissions over the past 3 decades (more than all the rest of the world combined) by preventing no less than 400 million births. Figures matter less, but the point is made.

Cynically, in this perspective, conflict is not so bad after all. Killing some millions offsets freedom to give birth to other millions. On the long run, many will get born exposed to conflict, especially in the developing world. The human right to have as many children as you want will be a direct threat to that to life.

I think it all boils down to human rights and the right to life in particular -one of the most sacred ones; not to conserving resources -those are means to make our life possible on Earth, not an end-. And freedoms need to be reasonably and fairly limited when exercising them threatens the freedoms of all.

Eventually, people from the developing countries, hit by climate change and entrenched in long bloody conflict for scarce resources, will overflow to the developed world where there is a need of workforce and adaptation is affordable. There will be increasingly severe clashes in 'North' because of migration, clashes of values and violent ones.

My point is that avoiding excess births in the developing countries (and in the developed ones also, but this is less of a problem there) is necessary for everybody's sake. The problem is how to sell and implement the idea in the South. Dialogue would help!

No because...

The fact that the higher the population, the higher is the resource consumption and the higher is the impact on the environment is a myth that is blown apart by simple data of per capita emmissions of a nation.

It can easily be deduced by referring to international reports of authentic organizations that developed nations such as the US consume far more resources than entire continents put together.

Now i agree to the extent that controlling the number of offsprings is essential for the family to allow itself a good standard of living, but saying that the government will decide how many children a family should have is slightly unfair.

The conditions governing these factors are far too many and complicated to pass a legislation on.

We also need to change the mindset that more people are more a liability on the nation. Why cant the nation invest in every child born and groom him to be an important member of the society so that he can contribute constructively to the development of the nation.

On another note, controlling the number of children one family can have delves into deeper issues like contraception, abortion and family dynamics which are not globally uniform.

Id rather that governments focus on equitable distribution of resources between the social classes and educate people about the advantages of small families rather than legislate on the right number of children.

Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
Yes because...

Exponential population growth on a finate planet is simply not sustainable.

We live on a finate planet, this much we can all agree on. The Earth has a very specific amount of resources, and an all too definate carrying capacity.

Humanity, on the other hand, at least, is capable of potentially infinate expantion. Human population has been expanding steadily, with a few exceptions, ever since we have first achived a certain standard of living, several thousand years ago. What is more, human expantion has become exponential, meaning that with each generation, the numrical value of population expantion increases. What this means, effectively, is that the human population expands at an ever-increasing rate. Unfortunately, our planet is not expanding to meet us, so this population growth will be checked, sooner or later, as we run out of the resources needed to sustain ourselves. Essentially, this means either mass starvation, or a war big enough to wipe out a really substantial percent of the population, or, the third option, the deliberate curbing of our insatiable appitite for reproduction.

The argument that a limit on population growth would be against the basic rights of life is a legitemate one. The reality, however, is that is we leave our population growth as unsustainably huge as it is currently, we must eventually come to a point when the carrying capacity of the earth will be outstripped, and mass deaths will follow. I think that we can all agree that this is not an appropriate option. Humanity must, in some way, prevent itself from growing much more, or face the concequences. Concequences which, realisticly, could include the destruction of civilization, nuclear war, complete economic breakdown, or any number of other nightmarish situations.

Population control does not necisarially have to entail completely forbididng any family from having a second or third child. Extra children could be offered up for adoption. Policies inacted in China, such as cheap health care and education, or tax reductions, for single-child families could encourage compliance without demanding it.

Problems do asise in developing countries, such as India, where populations are expanding rapidly, but regulation would be extremely difficult, but these are not insurmountable. However, it is the rich and developed countries, who, incidently consume by far the most resources, who should be leading the way on this initiative. Any regulation of family size is never going to be a popular, easy or even very moral expidenture, but it is, unfortunately, one which may be necisary to preserve humanity from its own virility.

No because...

It may not be sustainable but these population control programs are monumentally ineffective: In the stead of reducing poverty, the poor to rich ratio, they 'in practice' work to increase it, since:

a)ONLY/MAINLY literate/educated/relatively-well-off populations understand the literature/medium of these messages and start implementing population control in their homes(for example they won't have more than two kids, even though they can easily/loftily sustain/educate/train/rear ten very potentially productive young ones)

B)In homes where parents are barely feeding themselves(eg. living on subsistence) the presiding amalgamate idea:

1) That a child has one mouth to feed but two working hands
2) that children provide an entertaining relief from extreme boredom from a long day of assembly-line-type work
3)that sex and obstreperous progeny are both effective antidepressant/distractions from the woes of living on/off compounding credit because of a high marginal propensity to consume

stimulates reproductive activity,(I reiterate) in exactly the homes where abstinence should be practiced.

Therefore,
if there is a law against having more than a number of kids,then:
1) The people who need to abide by it, will(Just as they currently ignore population control programs) ignore it.

2)The people who should have kids because their potential progeny have a future will not have kids, because they understand and care for the law(are straight-laced law-abiding citizens).

Conclusively; the population control problem will continue to escalate.
the ratio of poor to rich increases
and we're all in one big mess.

Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
Yes because...

world population and the US DV lottery

year in, year out, the US admit thousands of people from around the world, through their US DV lottery. what implication would a reduction in world population have for countries like USA, CANADA, and AUSTRALIA who are in need of people to power their economies? Would these countries, for instance, support that view?

No because...
Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
No because...

Population explotion is the cause all miseries in the thrid world.

Dear brothers and Sisters of the world,
The increased population in the third world countries are becoming a serious threat to the world community! Today the world has become very small. The food shortage in one place affects in another part of the world so instantly. The climate plays an important role in the rate of population growth in third world countries. The lack of sufficient knowledge about life and its purpose in a wholesome way, it causes many miseries to the poor and the helpless. They are the people who are the end recievers of environmental sensitivities around the world.
The support of developed countries to the third world poor can also adversely affect, as they produce their children, expecting the government and the world gives them free food and supprting materials. This kind of support to the poor in the third world can bring more complications on the part of the poor and the government of third world. Their citizen gorws irresponsibly, without working hard and enjoying the free food and materials in some or the other way. The developed world should concentrate on bringing work for the third world poor and rehabilitate them through their own work and earning process. Do not help them simply by providing food. But provide work and feed them, with their own hard work and earnings. The WFPs process of work for Food also bring more problems to the poor than it really aims for, creating lazy food aiming citizens rather than ethically hard working communities.

Yes because...
Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
No because...

The conservation of resources does not depend on the control of the population growth

The conservation of resources does not depend on the control of the population growth.

The conservation of resources has to do with the form of development. If development is merely based on the economic profit for the few people only and against other priorities such as environmental, social and political values, then there is no respect of resources as well.

By intervening to the right of a family to have children is against any human freedom.
Was the Chinese example of strict birth control correct or successful? Never heard that.
Instead we hear about the psychological problems some children have in China. Cause they are they only child and parents put the whole burden on them. They press them to succeed in the school, in the University by engaging them in too many activities around it. They spoil them with everything cause it is their only child. Children get confused and stressed and feel that failure is not an option.
We have heard of the abortions some women do just because of the gender of the baby.
Also of the problems that some Chinese families face with the State cause they did not obey and had more than one child.
Is this the right way to combat global warming?

Yes because...

Dropping the argument that China was successful with its one-child policy, the way they implemented population control need not happen again.
The problem would actually be solved legally and morally, with support from the UN (which does say that population growth wipes out even the brink of hope for development in poor countries). Check the report released this week on Women and Climate Change from the UN Population Fund.
Gender equality, family planning, women empowerment... that is a viable though not readily solution to much of the problem of population growth, household violence etc.
The conservation of resources is related to population growth, more people use each more (we follow a self-defeating model of economic growth)... humans are incredibly primitive, and it will take much too long in Earth capacity limits for us to discover the key of unlimited clean energy and resources.

Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
No because...

This should not be used as an alibi.

population control or not, I don't think we should allow our attention to be shifted from the real deal. I believe that emissions reduction can be achieved without necessarily trying to curb world population. That world population needs to reduced to achieve reductions in emissions is divisive strategy. If this view were to have been echoed by, for instance, the Chines premier, I would immediately see it as a delaying tactics.

Yes because...
Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
No because...

most of these family planning programs do not work since they are designed so that educated/literate people understand them and the people they are really geared towards do not.

Thus the population explosion in the poorer strata of developing countries. If poor people have more poor kids then poverty exponentially spikes and we all have more problems.

Good intentions; horrible consequences.

IF these population control programs were not ubiquitously distributed in literature(mostly written in English) and instead distributed in the form of movies in local languages aired(with a handy-dandy projector) in poverty stricken overpopulated areas/regions then they might work:

However, it is absurd to think that this simple obvious solution will magically ever be implemented, since it hasn't already. :O

The practical solution to the problem therefore, is that people who are well-off/rich/affluent have as many children as they want(to even out; the rich to poor ratio), who will have(coming from privileged homes) bright futures.

Yes because...
Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want
No because...

Conservation in the stead of unchecked population growth

YES.

there's no doubt that population growth is grwoing at an alarming rate and we need no soothsayer to tell us that our natural resource are plunging deeper and becoming more scare although other may want to argue otherwise, there's a need for us to put a check on the rate at which human give birth. at the present rate of 6.5 billion and 8 billion in the nearest future, and with a continue progression along this lines, we would be unable to feed and cater forselves. already at this point species are loosing their natural habitat, dieing and becoming rare, to the extent that special legislations and conservative programmes are needed to save some of this dieing speicies that have become rare has a result of humans hunting them to feed.

if we decied to throw a blind eye to the population explotion and think that we should be free to give birth to as many children as we want, then i think we should have a rethink. looking around we cant deny the fact human population is puting an immense pressure in the enviromnment, pushin farmers to experiment with gentically mutated food, hoping to get an increase in yield which in return puts pressure in the soil. alhtough we do feel that the right to give birth to has many is an inalineable right of every man, we should take the effect that this has in the environment, because with an increase in population means in increase in the need for living space with can take the form of deforestation for more land or war (as it was the case with Germany and Japan during the second world war of 1945) which in return has an adverse effect on the environment.

Yes because...


Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want

What do you think?
(60%) (40%)

Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment on "Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want"

wpDiscuz
Category: