Forums > Social Discussion > What's your share in/ solution to overpopulation?

Login/Join to Participate
Page:
FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
The usual Wiki-intro rolleyes



 Written by: Wiki



As of 2007, the world population reached 6.6 billion.[1] In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented prior to the 20th century, although the rate of increase has almost halved since growth rates reached their peak in 1963.









Or better asking: Where will you be, if by 2050 we will have reached 9.4 Billion? (Oh, wait - that's in 40years... *scratches head* I will be... 78 eek ) rolleyes meditate shrug



Wait, we also got the (actual) numbers about the population in a few cities worldwide:



Tokyo - 36.798.213

NYC - 22.531.069

Mexico City - 22.414.319

Seoul - 22.173.711

Mumbai - 19.944.372

Sao Paolo - 19.357.485

Jakarta - 17.928.968

Manila - 17.843.620

Los Angeles - 17.767.199

Delhi 17.753.087



These ten cities only host 2% of the worlds population, but generate 20% of the GDP.. and whilst about only 2% of the worlds population lived in cities by 1800 (1990 - 45%), this will definitely change over the coming years, where some 66% of the worlds population are predicted to live in cities.



The Ozzies are just ahead of the global trend.... wink



When is "the boat full"? (I use this here, but violently dislike the slogan of right wing parties in Germany and Austria otherwise - funny enough they use it in countries where the population is decreasing ubblol censored heads)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Rouge DragonBRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia


Posted:
I don't understand what you're asking confused

I'm yet to pop out any baby dragons so I'm not exactly contributing....

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...


Mr MajestikSILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,693 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia


Posted:
its pretty simple really, we'll keep going until the population harvests all the available resources and then we'll reduce in numbers back to a suitable population for our envirinment, didnt you study year 12 biology when they covered population trends?

i think one of our biggest mistakes is we think we can decide not to act like all other species.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Well I'm not really asking about anything, Rogue - but we're all contributing with our mere existence on this planet... wink

Yeah, I have participated in overpopulation trends... Infertility, paranoia, suicide, war and cannibalism were amongst the trends in reaction of overpop... is taht what will happen? help

I remember a sci-fi movie, where ppl. had to go into a killing machine, once they hit 30... *search* "Logan's Run" is the title of the movie...

Not that I fancy this solution... help

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


MynciBRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom


Posted:
I think we're a bit over populated as it is. measures need to be put in place to disuade people having more kids.. a child tax would be cool for each family groups 3rd child,

I have some harsh ideas for over population.

a better one is moving all commerce based in offices to desert areas like africa or Australia, and turning temperate arable areas like the UK and northern Europe into vast swathes of farming communities, then the poor areas get much needed cash and an influx of technology and wealth and the already wealthy areas get demolished for plant and animal life, creates many new jobs in construction / destruction and we would no longer need red nose day etc.

solved the worlds problems in a day biggrin

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.


GnorBRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia


Posted:
Not Soilant green?

What worries me here is that the most kids seem to be born to non affluent people who have no income. Not to say they make worse parents but that they cant provide for their offspring with significant government help.
Cases here recently where kids in Government care ....the government does not have to have 24hr knowledge of their whereabouts.
So these kids vandalised buildings to their hearts content.

Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?

Im in a lonely battle with the world with a fish to match the chip on my shoulder. Gnu in Binnu in a cnu


rainbowgirlmember
70 posts
Location: London/Southend-on-sea


Posted:
We studied this in evolutionary psychology - poorer people having more kids, theres a 'U' shaped graph with poor and rich people having more kids and middle classes having fewer (in developed countries, third world is a different case). This is because in the middle classes people have more oppotunities for education, career development, recreation etc so they delay having children to reap the maximum benefits of these opportunities. One solution could be to provide more opportunities to poorer communities so they want to make the most of these and thus delay having children. It is a cruel, politically incorrect and unwelcome observation but it really is the case that on british housing estates there really is little better for young people to do than to have offspring and destroy the place and the cycle just carries on. Many of the kids i was at school with are now parents many times over, while im still happy being a childless university student - im not saying everyone should go to uni (whole other argument) but there must be better things to do and these things should be made as appealling and accessible as possible, then people will have something better to do, so wont have as many kids so will slow down the population boom.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"


rainbowgirlmember
70 posts
Location: London/Southend-on-sea


Posted:
And ive always wondered how those child limiting policies work - in places like china where you can only have one kid - what happens if you naturally concieve twins? (about one in every 500 according to one of my lecturers) does that mean you have to abort or give away one? or are you punished somehow - taxes, social outrage and pariah status? Always bugged me

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"


DarkFyreBRONZE Member
HoP mage and keeper of the fireballs
1,965 posts
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand


Posted:
The world is seriously overpoulated already IMHO and with people living longer the only solution that i can think of is to reward the familys of suicides, limmit people to a maximum of 2 offspring and to abolish unnecesary areas of modern medicin (those conncering old age and and delaying death).
While this may seem harsh, and i won't argue that it is or isn't, it would cause the population problem to level out if not decrease.
I myself have one child and i have no intentions of that changing and the second that to doc says that i'm old enough to get the snip i'm geting it (doctors have serious objections to anybody under the age of 30 or those with less that 3 children getting the snip trust me i've asked already).
While i will admit my views are both harsh and extreme, can you think of a better solution.

May my balls of fire set your balls on fire devil


Mr MajestikSILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,693 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia


Posted:
abolish unneccessary medicine? hell, why not just close down all healthcare and declare anarchy?

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley


Rouge DragonBRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia


Posted:
Rainbow, I don't know about having twins, but as far as having more children go;
the chinese govermnent's definition of a "voluntary abortion" (which is allowed up until the child could almost be born) is one where the woman walks there on her own too feet. No mention of how they cut of the electricity to her entire family and extended family. Of how they make the husband lose his job. And his whole family lose theirs as a way of forcing her to get the abortion.

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...


LazyAngelGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,895 posts
Location: Cambridge UK


Posted:
Rouge: I don't know where you're getting all that from, I know a teacher here who has two children as his wife did not realise she was pregnant until it was too late to terminate, but she has no problems with getting a job and her husband is continuing to work as a teacher here.

As far as china goes, the countryside is pretty damn unregulated, so it is more common for people to have more than one child there, particularly as I believe they subscribe to the belief that the more children they have, the more pairs of hands around to help them when they get older.

Admittedly China has a greater problem with overpopulation than most due to Chairman Mao's exhortations to the people to have lots of children, in the belief that 'people are power', however, they may well be facing severe food shortages when peak oil prices happen, so there is a serious concern for the government.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, this sort of thing may have happened in the past, but now things are a lot more relaxed in China. I would have thought the cost of putting children through school, let alone feeding and clothing them, would be enough to dissuade most people in China from having children.

Because ActiveAngel sounds like a feminine deodorant

Like sex, I'm much more interesting in real life than online.

'Be the change you want to see in the world around you' - Ghandi


NYCNYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom



The usual Wiki-intro rolleyes



 Written by: Wiki



As of 2007, the world population reached 6.6 billion.[1] In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented prior to the 20th century, although the rate of increase has almost halved since growth rates reached their peak in 1963.









Or better asking: Where will you be, if by 2050 we will have reached 9.4 Billion? (Oh, wait - that's in 40years... *scratches head* I will be... 78 eek ) rolleyes meditate shrug



Wait, we also got the (actual) numbers about the population in a few cities worldwide:



Tokyo - 36.798.213

NYC - 22.531.069

Mexico City - 22.414.319

Seoul - 22.173.711

Mumbai - 19.944.372

Sao Paolo - 19.357.485

Jakarta - 17.928.968

Manila - 17.843.620

Los Angeles - 17.767.199

Delhi 17.753.087







Not sure what website you got "actual" figures for the year 2050 but I'm sure it's quite a reputable one. rolleyes



The population of New York has essentially leveled off since the 1950s. Even the wikipedia knows that.



In fact, if you look at "actual" data from years that have actually happened, you'll see that the city center of Manhattan peaked in 1910 and has fallen by about 25% of it's population since.



The current population of NYC is 100,000 people more than it was in 1950. That's nothing in a city of 8 mil. especially since it dropped considerably from 1950 to 1980. Not sure what idiot figured that if it rose by 100,000 in the last 50 years that would justify it rising by 16 MILLION over the next 50 years.



There are certainly a few nooks and crannies of the outerburroughs that aren't full yet, but I wouldn't expect Manhattan to grow much at all in the next 50 years.



Then again, I don't have "actual" data from 2050.



With that said, your point is well taken.



Sorry for the tangent but whomever decided to use New York City as an example knows nothing of New York City's urban planning and population history.



I'd expect the suburbs to grow. There's tons of places to grow here in the US.



Personally, I think there will be a typical ebb and flow of cost/benefit for having a child. I think as we reach the carrying capacity of the planet things will level off quite naturally. I don't see many manhattanites with 12 kids. Though I know a few rural families who have huge families. If you can't afford a 3 bedroom house, MOST people might not have a 12th kid.



But again, point well taken.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]


PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
I've stopped with one. That's my contribution. wink

I have some strong opinions (I know, such a shock!:p ) about this but won't go into all that.

However, here in the US there's been alot of publicity lately on the "large" families. There is one called the Duggars who are currently up to 16 or 17 kids. They home school them all and literally have started their own church out of their home with another family of 8+ children.

There is no reason for it. Even if you can support all those kids (and they do) there is no reason for it. There was a guy that I grew up with who honestly believed he would populate the earth with his offspring. He had 3 boys with one girl and 2 with another before he was 25. Thank goodness he's in prison now, or I'd hate to see how many kids he'd have now.
Sometimes I think people need to be fixed like pets.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


DarkFyreBRONZE Member
HoP mage and keeper of the fireballs
1,965 posts
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand


Posted:
good on you pele
And Mr Majestic i never said that my views where politicly correct i just said that it would be a soultion to the population crisis.
Anyhow with modern medicine incresing everybodys life exspectancy do you really want to be 120 years old and trying to afford bithday presents for 50+ children / granchildren / great granchildren while living on a pension.
Hell I know that I don't

May my balls of fire set your balls on fire devil


flixfyrePLATINUM Member
Member
9 posts
Location: New Zealand


Posted:
...hmmm... some interesting points raised.

Could talk of licenses to breed.....but it all restricts rights and freedoms. Im a firm believer, that mother nature will sort out the balance.....through plague, disease or famine. Yeah, im putting money on a big case of rapid natural selection!
:P

Though easier to walk in the footsteps of others in soft sand - making your own path does become easier - and at least when you look back you know how far you have come...


MynciBRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom


Posted:
I just watched the 300, with the Spartans puting the small, deformed, or weak on a mountain to die to maintain an optimal population, are we heading that way? a bit gattaca almost.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.


rainbowgirlmember
70 posts
Location: London/Southend-on-sea


Posted:
Licences to breed is a dodgy area - you get into eugenics and hitleresque ideas about getting rid of certain groups of people, forced sterilisation was around in the first few decades of the 20th century for the 'mad, bad and feebleminded' on the flimsiest of grounds - fail one test because you dont sepak the language so cannot possibly answer the questions and you are labelled as a morally corrupt drain on society and prevented from passing this on (to give natural selection a hand) even though in a language you can speak you are actually an intelligent, responsible and productive member of society.

I like the idea of the unnecessary medicine - there comes a point when you are no longer preserving life but just delaying death. I'll admit there are a lot of people alive now who wouldnt have been even fifty years ago but for the advances in modern medicine and in most of these cases its right - an allergy, blood clot, limited mobility due to disability, thyroid malfunction or complexly broken bone should not be a death sentence in a young, otherwise healthy individual (thats not an exhaustive list btw, just examples from my family!) But there are many cases of people who are seriously ill, or just natuarally expiring through old age and the body wearing out (senescence or something like that it's called) but they still hang around for half of forever on a machine which is essentially doing all the living for them!

And I saw some programmes about the Duggars - they built their massive house and they went on a road trip and got loads of free stuff cos they are some kind of celebrities. My mum and i just could not understand how they could possibly support them all or why they had to have that many! We also felt sorry for the kids - they are essentially looked after by older siblings - although there is plenty of quality family time and lots of nurturing and love we did wonder about exactly how much individual attention each child got - they all seemed to be treated the same they were dressed very similiarly, they acted very similiarly and they all learnt the same things, believed the same things, the same things were expected of all of them. Ok, fair enough you should expect all your kids to be polite and able to look after themselves, and expect them to try hard in things they want to do and not go around murdering people or being cruel to animals or whatever, but it is taking it a bit far when you expect them all to have the same religious views, the same perchant for education and all be happy to learn the violin! I would really like to see another programme in a few years where one of them has run away with the circus, one has become a stoner hippie art student, one has more piercings than face and green hair and one is gloomy goth - it's petty and vindictive but i think it would serve the parents right for trying to brainwash their kids that much! (im also trying to corrupt my niece and nephew to serve my sister and brother in law right for the same reason!)

I dont see why people have that many kids - i'll accpet some religious types have problems with contraception (now have the monty python song 'every sperm is sacred' in my head!) but there is still an easy solution - stop having sex! Or at least work out when you can have sex without also having a child!

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"


alien_oddityCarpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees


Posted:
 Written by: Beeswax


Im a firm believer, that mother nature will sort out the balance.....through plague, disease or famine. Yeah, im putting money on a big case of rapid natural selection!
:P



i'm with you on that concept, one way or another mother nature will sort it's own balance out and we have no controll over it.

one way of life that is nearly lost is that we live in the environment around us and take care of it because it provides for out way of life.

instead we are so obsessed with comfort and gaining matterial posessions and wealth that we create an environment that acts to the detremant of our surroundings.

rainbowgirlmember
70 posts
Location: London/Southend-on-sea


Posted:
Actually, if (from certain religious viewpoints) its wrong to use contraception because it means the sex could not result in a child (reproduction being the only point of sex in these views) surely it is also wrong to have sex at the times of the month when the couple is least fertile? These are also unlikely to result in a child, surely to be right, from the religious, reproducing standpoint, you should only be having sex when it is most likely to result conception and avoided when it is less likely. It cant even be said that at least sex at the least fertile time might still end in a pregnancy whereas contraception definitely wont because no contraception (except abstinence) is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy - it just significantly reduces the odds! Or is god that bothered about statistical significance?!

Another thing i've often wondered. If religions say that guys shouldnt masturbate because it means those sperm cannot then go on and create life (their sole purpose) surely it means that girls are just as wrong for menstruating because that means those eggs did not go on to create life - perhaps the girl should have tried harder to get pregnant and not waste that egg!

These are the sorts of points i have always wanted to bring up with a religious official - just to be awkward!

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"


The Tea FairySILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...


Posted:
Rainbowgirl, can I just say I'm really glad you mentioned Eugenics when you did and the, er, considerable drawbacks to the 'license to breed' idea. I was about to construct a massive rant but I think you've probably said it better and more politely!

I agree that a simple solution would be to stop having sex (especially without contraception), but I think we might be able to go a bit deeper if we start to question WHY so many people choose to have so many kids? There are lots of reasons. If we knew why, we could come up with suitable arguments against those reasons and perhaps get people to question their own behaviours and ideals about the number of kids they should have.

I find it hard to understand when someone says to me 'I want a big family' or 'I've always wanted six kids' - WHY??? I have actually asked a few people this and they don't really seem to have thought it through very well.

I know SOME (not all) cultures in the developing world do see having more children as an economic positive (more little hands to help out with the elders and more workers to bring money in), but equally I think there are some subcultures in the developed world who have unrealistic ideals attached to the importance of family and children, who view parentage as perhaps the most important role a person can ever fill in their life.

Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Data verification:

 Written by: NYC


Not sure what website you got "actual" figures for the year 2050 but I'm sure it's quite a reputable one. rolleyes




ubblol It should read "actual prediction", not "... figures" wink Thank you so much for making me aware.

 Written by: NYC


The population of New York has essentially leveled off since the 1950s. Even the wikipedia knows that.

In fact, if you look at "actual" data from years that have actually happened, you'll see that the city center of Manhattan peaked in 1910 and has fallen by about 25% of it's population since.

The current population of NYC is 100,000 people more than it was in 1950. That's nothing in a city of 8 mil. especially since it dropped considerably from 1950 to 1980. Not sure what idiot figured that if it rose by 100,000 in the last 50 years that would justify it rising by 16 MILLION over the next 50 years.

There are certainly a few nooks and crannies of the outerburroughs that aren't full yet, but I wouldn't expect Manhattan to grow much at all in the next 50 years.



ubblol ... and how could that possibly be happening, without cutting trees in Central and Washington Park? umm wink

Now, Wiki does sometimes confuse me. Whilst they are talking about 8M on the English website, they do talk about 18M on the German one. shrug This includes (of course) the districts of Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island... rolleyes ... for obvious reasons... but might exclude all the illegal immigrants, those who are long term residents - but are still registered under a different address - and it might also NOT include all the troubled citizens of New York who do have their address "under the Brooklyn Bridge"...

Reference 1

Reference 2

The other sources I can't reveal here and now, as they fear assassination from intelligence agencies wink

Wiki on world cities (english)

 Written by: Wiki on Tokyo

About 12 million people, 10 percent of Japan's population, live within Tokyo's prefectural boundaries.



 Written by: Wiki

About 35 million people live in the Greater Tokyo Area[2] which encompasses Tokyo and surrounding prefectures, making it the world's most populous metropolitan area.



Meaning that Tokyo holds 10%, plus suburbia another 20% = in greater Tokyo live about 30% of Japans population umm

WOW!

Again, NYC thanks so much for pointing that out, I have no idea who excludes the suburbs in his figures. Good and valid point. smile

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


NYCNYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA


Posted:
The suburbs are growing at an amazing rate.

My point is that things DO hit a maximum population here in America. Manhattan has hit that population. Actually, it came down considerably from that popluation and settled somewhere comfortable. I'm sure many other city centers have hit that population despite the fact that some grad student decided to draw a line graph without a limit. wink

If you look at Manhattanites, I think you'll find the answer to "what happens when you run out of room?" You make different decisions. Most notibly, you either move OR have many kids unless you are extremely rich. That's the common flight to the suburbs. As the suburbs fill, I'm sure most people will simply opt to have less children.

I really think everything will balance. Food prices will rise, housing prices will rise, so people won't have 4 kids. If things happen suddenly, there might have to be some government intervention or incentives such as China.

Just as gasoline won't run out on some random Tuesday, the world won't fill on some random Tuesday. There will be a smooth curve of cost/benifit to breeding. Like any population, there will be ebb and flow with disease and famine and cures and surplus.

And then a sharp decline when the robots take over.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
"As the suburbs fill, I'm sure most people will simply opt to have less children." (NYC)

Or build more/ bigger suburbs... rolleyes

Certainly I doubt that a (western, democratic and CHRISTIAN) government will be able to (lawfully) "limit birthrates"... but then again, everything seems to be possible in the US, or maybe our governments aren't halfway as "democratic" as my definition goes wink

I'm quite uncertain whether.... no, I'm quite certain that you haven't stated what YOUR share in/ solution to overpopulation is... other than self regulation of other families... wink

My personal share to overpopulation is my mere existence and having one offspring. Even though I wouldn't mind at all to have another one (depending on circumstances) I think that "having our OWN child" is highly overrated... There are enough orphans on the world and there really ain't any necessity to BYO child into this world.

So - IMO - adoption IS an option.

Second I have been and am continuously narrowing my choice of a girlfriend as to: If it is (very) unlikely to work out, why start it in the first place? wink

I too think everything will balance (as balance is natural) - if prices rise, people will demand more money - has been a proven fact (recently by the MTA) ubblol but whether this, as a further effect, leads to self afflicted birth control - I really doubt it.

Someone stated it previously: Higher education and opportunities will lead people to make different choices in family planning. Having said this, I really have no clue whether deciding to become a mother after age 35+ is such a healthy one (for her)... but that's a different topic.

IMO - if prices rise (in the cities) people will simply move to the countryside and commute (creating all kinds of other problems).

These days I am likely to sense a trend to "who dies last is right" - because it's not simply about overpopulation, but about an over-ageing population. Genetically our body (correct me, if I'm wrong), is designed to experience it's physical peak around 20-30. Now this is physical.

Psychologically I guess we are still trying to figure, what the "peak" is and whether it's got anything to do with "age". I guess not... talking from experience wink ubblol

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Doubled:

 Written by: Wiki

Overpopulation is the condition of any organism's numbers exceeding the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. In common parlance, the term usually refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth.

Overpopulation is not simply a function of the size or density of the population, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources (for example, food production or water resources) needed for survival or well-being. Overpopulation can be determined using the ratio of population to available resources. If a given environment has a population of ten, but there is food or drinking water enough for only nine, then that environment is overpopulated; if the population is 100 individuals but there is food, shelter or water enough for 200, then it is not. Overpopulation can result from increases in births, a decline in mortality rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration, a decrease in emigration, or from an unsustainable use and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely-populated areas to be "overpopulated", as the area in question may have a very meager or non-existent capability to sustain human life (e.g. the middle of the Sahara desert or Antarctica).

The resources to be considered when evaluating whether an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, clean air, food, shelter, warmth, and other resources necessary to sustain life. If the quality of human life is addressed as well, there are then additional resources to be considered, such medical care, employment, money, education, fuel, electricity, proper sewage treatment, waste management, and transportation. Negative impacts should also be considered including crowding stress and increased pollution. If addressing the environment as a whole, the survival and well-being of species other than humans must also be considered.

Overpopulation is also related to issues of birth control, with some nations like China using strict measures in order to reduce birth rates, while religious and ideological opposition to birth control has been cited as a factor contributing to overpopulation and poverty.



I personally can relate to that definition...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Rouge DragonBRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia


Posted:
Lazy Angel: I honestly cant tell you what my sources were other than my scrawled notes in my international studies book from when we did a semester on china (not a clue anymore what my textbook was and i got rid of it ages ago)

yes, people in the countryside do have more kids because its harder to reguate, and what the often do is just fail to register any kids after the birth of the first one. Because its a culture of ancestor worship, they like lots of kids to prey for them when they pass on. Now, in the cities, yes cos life is easier and education is expensive, having one child is normally enough, but in the country where they like to have a lot of hands to help them out, thats where theyre more likely to have more than one.

On saying that, my info is about 3 years out of date (2004)

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...


Groovy_DreamSILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom



So - IMO - adoption IS an option.







Adoption isn't really better than having another kid of your own. If lots of people adopt, this would encourage mothers who don't want kids to give away their babies, because it'll be easier and they'll have more options.... meaning that people would be more careless with unprotected sex because they can just give their baby away; eventually resulting in more babies.

rainbowgirlmember
70 posts
Location: London/Southend-on-sea


Posted:
There are often many valid reasons for a child to need adopting - orphans, children who have been removed from abusive parents or children who are abandoned because they have a 'defect' (ie downs syndrome) - which is then giving that child a second (and presumably better) chance.

I would like to adopt when i ever get round to having a family, but i would also like to have child of my own creation - although i'll be the first to admit not all of my genes are that brilliant, there are plenty that are.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
I dislike the term "my/ our own child(ren)"... sounds possessive, but I guess I get what you're trying to say wink

So the solution (as to your fancy) would then look like... ???

wink

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Rouge DragonBRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia


Posted:
i dont think it sounds possessive. I think it sounds like pride. And considering how much i wish my parents to be proud of me, i dont think there is anything wrong in taking pride in your own flesh and blood.

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
wow - I used to get a bad feeling in my groin when listening to sentences like that.

Funny enough I experience most (young) parents repeating the same stuff they heard (and disliked) from theirs...

Wonder how Mr. and Mrs. Schicklgruber would have felt, if they would have lived and seen their son put all of Europe into ashes... dunno about "pride" and whether it's not simply a mind generation ("positive involvement" comes to mind)...

But having said this, I guess you have full compassion for wo(men) who reject the previous offspring of their partners? wink

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Page:
HOP Newsletter
Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...