Big Families - Bad for the Environment?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by pit, Aug 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pit

    pit Well-Known Member

    Yes. Thinking about dumbass shows like 18 kids and counting, Jon & Kate plus 8 -- don't you think it's selfish as hell to have a big family now? It's bad for the planet because of overpopulation and there are way too many people on earth anyway. In fact, I'll be so bold as to say that Death needs to get busier.
     
  2. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Western countries are shrinking due to low fertility rates. Maybe it's not better to waste away as a civilization?
     
  3. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    It all depends on where and how. At least 50 countries have below normal fertility rates, and 24 of them are actually shrinking in population (most notability Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia). Even China, in it's attempt to reduce overpopulation, over did it - it's citizen's average age will be around 50 in about 40 years.

    Family planning is the best way to go. Ideally parents should only have 2 kids, so that each replaces them in the long run and maintains the population's stability. Too many kids means more people than there are jobs and resources available, and too few puts us in the predicament of Western Europe and East Asia.

    The only problem: the idea of telling people how many kids to have is a tad too Big Brother for most people, understandably.
     
  4. triggs

    triggs Account Closed

    i'm a bit hypocritical when it comes to this
    sure the world is over populated
    that's what AIDS and mosquitos and swine flue and all that is for
    the world is trying to fight against the human population
    but we have the means to fight back and we're winning - unfortunately.
    i guess my point is a bit odd, because on the one hand, the world would probably be a better place without so many people, however, think of all the people who have to die, and all the families and friends that would be devistated...
    and who would be 'privelidged' enough to be able to live, huh?

    yes, big families may be bad for the world (perhaps not the environment, that's a whole different debate)
    but i'd rather not see my family die just to prove a point

    :/
     
  5. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    The widely accepted theories of Thomas Malthus in the scientific community will take care of over population. Specifically via disease and famine.

    As far as whether humans are bad for the environment, based on various statistics regarding consumption and available information regarding our "carbon footprint" I would say yes.
     
  6. reefer madness

    reefer madness Account Closed

    By the time we kill off Earth we'll have the means to take over another planet, so whatev.
     
  7. Tray

    Tray Well-Known Member

    Whats so selfish about it. Not like we are running out of room or anything.

    You sound like your all for China's one child policy.
     
  8. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    To those of you that saw the move "Independence Day"
    there are aliens in it that move from planet to planet
    consumes everything and then just move on...
    Ironically this IS the feature of humanity, to be like those aliens
     
  9. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    That is the feature of everything on earth, just.me. Every animal has a goal of taking over. Most are unsuccessful. It's a kill-or-be-killed world... We do the former.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.