no thats stupid. many authors have written about this theme, and it only results in more problems. What would you do if someone had an extra child?? kill it? abandon it?

Think of china, where they used to kill baby girls, because they could only have one child, and wanted to carry on their family name.

Or the book "Among the Hidden" by Margaret Peterson Haddix. The parents that had third childs were forced to keep them in hidding or else they will be killed by the government. the children grow up living hidden in their house, never going outside. The government goes nuts and tries to exterminate all the third children ... for the same reason, to save the planet.

You cant control accidental birthes, there is no 100% safe sex. Meaning you cannot control the amount of babies born with out killing them. This is against nature and simply cruel.

Hrm...I knew this would be a good debate question...

an argument against your comment...

* Could we simply not allow people to have children? We could allow them to apply for a child and then do it artificially?

I think it was in a film (Demolition Man) I saw once or twice...

"John Spartan you are fined 2 credits for using bad language!"

I agree that overpopulation is diminishing the resources on our planet but limiting the number of children to be had is not the answer. What if someone has triplets when the limit is two children? What then?

Good question...

I did not even try to entertain a cap limit...voted yes to get the comments started...

Maybe 3/4 would be a good cap..

Whether or not you agree with the question; if it is humans that are creating the problem then we need to fix it and cutting the amount of humans in the future must help....

Mathematically not necessarily ethically..?

Rather than putting a limit on the amount of children, we should concentrate on educating people on using contraception. Make contraception free everywhere. There are a whole load of questions to be raised by this subject.

I think it's more a question of trying to lower the birth rate in countries with a high one. Which, of course, can only really be done by getting pension systems and improving medical care, to lessen the need for ten children.
I agree with you, alexmcneice.

Good points both :P

I agree with slytherin360 and yeahisawsparks.
That's an excellent idea alexmcneice. I've wanted the school systems/government to teach safe sex rather than abstience for years, but it would be especially helpful here.

I think it's a ridiculous suggestion, but on things like human rights, I'm rather left of centre. Surely the right to bear and have children is one of the basic, key, maybe singular most important reason for many people to live? Restricting that is just plain wrong, to put it bluntly and somewhat childishly. If saving the planet is such an issue, and people are apparently willing to put that much effort into enforcing such a scheme, I can't help but think there are other methods by which to do it which are not as invasive on human liberties.

I think we should stop forcing gay people to get married and reproduce and allow them to adopt. Homosexuality is a natural population control. ;o)

It's there choice. You can't force someone not to have a kid, and if you do, and they do, what does that mean? Do they kill the kid or something. Besides, if they have kids, they could force them to work in low populated areas, like Greenland, or Newfoundland, Canada.

But the day is coming that this happens if things are allowed to continue as they are in the English speaking countries. Freedom is an illusion.

You have cameras everywhere watching your every move... and no it is not just in London. Look around New York lately? I mean really look? And all these laws trying to make things so bloody sterile. Killing immune systems, it is. Man, go rent Gattaca and Logan's Run for a glimpse into your future. We are headed there. Make no mistake.

I have to agree with DrDevience...

It amazes me that we are all so happy to give away our liberties.

Or do we have a choice.

There are many occasions when we say no to things as a society but we are ignored (were not important enough I suppose)

I love Gattaca.

I'm not sure how I feel about a mandatory cap but I think things like fertility drugs should be banned. I understand that it might be heart-breaking for couple that really wants a child to discover that they're incapable of conceiving but, like homosexuality (thank you, Cinders), infertility is nature's population control.

The human race is moving backwards in terms of evolution and a large part of that is due to overpopulation. We are the only species that attempts to counter-act nature and we're paying the price for it.

"Could we simply not allow people to have children? We could allow them to apply for a child and then do it artificially?"

That would mean banning sex altogether! I don't know when the world is going to realise that condoms are not 100% protection. You can still get STDs and get pregnant if you are using one, but that's a truth that most people and institutions just seem to not want to hear any more. 'Safe sex' isn't safe, and it can hurt you in more ways than one, and I'm not talking about physically here. I've personally made the decision to wait until marriage - not just because of my religion but because I believe that it is the best thing to do for my own mental and physical wellbeing.

This suggestion also has another flaw: If people use artificial methods of conception, there is a greater chance that twins or triplets would be born. This could be problematic for a 'cap'.

To restrict childbirths is to restrict life itself. I completely agree with the comment posted by SKQ62. If people were that desperate to save the environment and our world maybe we could look at other things, like combating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

It would be more effecient and smart to restrict it. Resources and food only stretch so far, and It will become a crisis one day.

But such is nature. We are not unique in having this crisis. I do not believe we should take away freedom from something that defines Life itself: Reproduction.

Besides, there is no way to restrict when the population is already at 6 billion. People will still have children and get pregnant no matter how many laws there are agaisnt it. And there will be those who protect the women who become pregnant, because it goes agaisnt human nature to harm the innocent (usually).

Population control will come about in one way or another: Sickness, war, or hunger

This would be unfair. People might want to have more children. You can't stop population growth it's a part of life. What we need to do is however try to create societies on other worlds and not just on Earth. That is far beyond what we have now but still! By 2014 we are expected to have the first man on Mars.

An "Among the Hidden" question. I love the "Shadow Children" series but of course I pick no. If it was so, my family would be so small, I'd be devastated to lose so many cousins, aunts and uncles.

i STRONGLY think no because if a mother had her second baby then what kill it? i know that overpopulation is bad but killing or abandoning is NOT the answer!

firstly, i'm pretty sure no one is suggesting we kill babies. also, i don't really think a mass exodus to Mars is the answer either (but kudos for imagination). the point here is that humans have long been living under the misguided notion that their own liberties are more important than the health of the rest of the global ecosystem.
i agree that education is immeasurably important. free contraception is also a good place to start. i think what's needed most is for people to understand that the consequences of how they choose to live their lives affect much more than just themselves. no one *needs* to have 7 children, or 6 or 4, for that matter. if it happens by chance, that's one thing. but deliberately overpopulating the Earth because you think it's your right as a human being is ignorant and wrong.

people are making good and interesting arguments, but i think over all it will cause more problems than it solves...

ps. i agree...gattaca great movie

Hurray for sterilization!

If you can't survive in society (aka- get a job, support yourself) then you shouldn't be sitting around having sex and reproducing like bloody rabbits! It's ridiculous that the majority of the population is coming from the weaker gene pool, born into disadvantage!

We're not in the middle ages anymore people, where we had to pop out kids as often as we could because half of them would die before hitting puberty, or the plague would wipe the rest of them out! It's pure selfish egotism that drives people to have lots of kids, as they want their offspring to "continue their legacy".

Don't go killing children because you've hit the limit... just, don't be a selfish person who needs to have 3+ kids!

oh my god are you serious ^^ 3+ children is selfish!? i'm literally shocked that some people chose yes!

It's like your all asking or praying for your basic freedoms to be taken away - then again they might be gone already.

There is no overpopulation. We are not having enough children. In Europe, the population is getting shockingly low and is only kept up by immigration. American is going the same way.

for a population to regenerate itself - one must have 2.1 children per female having reached the ages of sexual maturity ( ie between 15 and 50)- in developped countries we are below this margin - So you are all right in saying we ( as westerners) are not procreating as much as we should be. however developping countries are grossly over this margin sometimes this figure is up to 5 children per woman. I think the intresting question that arises from this debate is : Is it az cause or a consequence of developpement?

By the way the one child policy in china had disastours effects that are still visible to day as women are hugely outnumbered by men...

I have numerous points on this, and I'll summarize my two main ones.

1) The number of children a couple has is simply none of our business. Unless the parents are not abusive, neglectful, irresponsible etc. and the children are emotionally and mentally stable and happy, then let people do what they wish to do when it comes to how many kids they want to have.
2) This brings me back to something I researched one time. It is exceedingly well-known that there is a law in China stating each couple can only have one child (if this law was changed - though I doubt it was - I was unaware of that and I apologize). At some point after this law was established, it became highly important for Chinese families to produce sons rather than daughters. This led to the horrific murder/abandonment/abuse/mistreatment of China's female infants, because some families were deranged enough to kill or get rid of their first offspring in order to be able to have a second child and a second chance to produce a boy.
I'm not saying that the whole world will go to such extremities as that, but that does prove that capping the number of children a family has can leave drastic consequences.

only in Africa, india and any other place where they have way to many children

Americans take way to many reasourses than they return, so I'm gonna have to say other wise... we ALL die of hunger

LostKid shut up

Our 'freedoms' and 'liberties' are what put us in the position where the planet is being destroyed. 'Freedoms' and 'liberties' are what put countries into an over-populated state. Do we really need to worry more about our 'freedoms'? As someone said above, "the point here is that humans have long been living under the misguided notion that their own liberties are more important than the health of the rest of the global ecosystem."

I think education is important, and we should look for other alternatives before we resort to something like this, but, if nothing else worked, I wouldn't say no to a cap on how many children we have.

this is a free country and as a free country we are alowed to have as many children as we want. i dont know bout the rest of ya'll but i certanly would not want any limit on having children. i dont want our country to end up like china where they kill or abandon the "extra" children thats cruel and sick. and in the "among the hidden" books the children have to hide away from any civilization what so ever. the number of children doesnt effect the enviornment if you recycle thn ur kids will simple as that.

Unless we find another planet to colonize, stop fucking around "literally". If you do get an "accident" use abortion.

I agree with Bri-marie, at least to a point. Liberties and freedoms may very well destroy this planet... It is all very well to say that humans have rights, but we should also be entertaining the notion that the Earth and the other organisms have rights, too. It is unfair that we get to decide whether the planet lives, or dies, all due to our 'liberties and freedoms'. Anyhow, while I have said that much, I don't believe that a 'cap' on children is going to help in any way. If we want to save resources, then we have to become more sustainable, rather than entertaining ridiculous notions of 'capping', or 'killing' children, simply to cover for our own mistakes. As a human being, I realise just how many mistakes we've made and how we could have avoided them - the way we treat our planet is one of those and it needs to be dealt with - if humans want to survive through the ages, then we have to 'cap' our use of resources, not our children.

So I thought a while about my answer here, and came down on the yes side. There is certainly an argument to be made about freedoms, and I understand that the freedom to have children is fundamental. However, I think it can no longer be assumed that we can continue to increase the population of this planet with abandon. I'd we haven't overpopulated the planet, we soon will, and that should be a concern because it affects all of us. So the question isn't so much "should we address it" as "how should we address it." This is the most humane way available, not sacrificing lives in any way, just reducing the number of overall pregnancies to manageable levels. That's worth it, and I say that after having read "Welcome to the Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut, a chilling, dark tale about a similar situation.

I agree with you BP that we should be looking to improve our access to resources and increase our usage of renewable resources, but I'd say both are necessary. Eventually, the population problem will outstrip any measures to improve our resources, and we have to be prepared for it.

@Whiteflame. Indeed, we do have to be prepared for it... I wonder, though, how will we, as a people, conquer that when it comes down to it. It will be a tough issue...
Oh yeah, I have read something by Kurt Vonnegut before... It wasn't the one you mentioned, though... An ex-girlfriend showed me a piece of writing by you, once. It was very interesting.

I feel like that's getting into some dystopian novel shit right there.