The first step TOWARDS a solution is for there to be recognition among world leaders that this is a serious problem and then for them to have the courage impose counter-incentives. In US that could be tax credit for first 2 kids only then tax any above that, 1st two kids go to school for free but charge for schooling above 2; Family Medical coverage based on number of children so that it costs more to insure 3+ children than 1-2. Right now there are no economic disincentives for larger families.
I totally agree with you. The problem is, no one starts with themselves. It's always someone else that has to sacrifice. I never had children due to the environment and overpopulation. Did you? I bet you have grandchildren. How about the people commenting? Are you all planning on breeding yourselves?
I've had 2 children: a daughter when I was 32(retarded; a dead end lineage)and a 2nd when I was 42; she has heard me talk about overpopulation all her life. I hope she has one child so that I can be a grandmonther, but not more. My mother's 3 brothers each had 1 child and among them, 3 children (so below replacement rate). My father's whole family was exterminated in Poland, so no growth there. My only brother had no children. So bottom line, I am 62 and I do not have grandchildren.
There are several constructive and innovative thoughts on this thread. Far more than the total sum of ideas the feckless UN have ever produced in their entire history.
But in reality it seems to me we cannot and never will be able to stop certain continents from breeding like fruit flies, or impose the laws mooted above worldwide.
Definitely taboo subject - don't know why - it's the ONLY subject that matters a damn - this could be a paradise planet for everyone alive on it, if we could only just let numbers naturally re-balance to, say, 3 billion over the next 20 years by encouraging sensible birth control...instead we seem to have already 'accepted the inevitability' of a rise to 10-15 billion - madness!.
pehaps maybe you would have to be a permit that would allow you to have a child make it a resonable amount say 10,000 u.s.d. and the cost alone would slow population down and if they had no permit and had one they would get fined double the amount .and or prosecuted and child placed for adoption at a cost of 10,ooo if you want him or her . ha ha lol
The population problem is not just a US problem; It's a global problem. People redistribute themselves along the lines of available resources. US population growth is by immigration But there is no stopping it as long as there is extreme poverty in other parts of Earth. People will find their way to USA to find food and jobs. This is going to be an incredibly difficult problem to fix (experts report we need to go back to 1/2 the existing population so as not to totally exhaust the environment)
The US needs to decrease the amount of immigration to just replacement levels of about 250,000 per year. This would help the environment because the US culture is currently one of consumption. We need to increase the availability of contraception and educate as to its use and encourage its use. We need to increase the rights and education of women in the 3rd world so they can say no to having child after child and be more than a human factory.
I agree totally with her. She is right on except our population is more like 7.5 billion, not 6.5 billion. They are under reporting the numbers.
The only solution is a world wide birth stoppage for at least 7 years in every country. After 7 years, a 2 child max per household can be allowed but women must be 28 years old and men must be 30 to have them. This age limit will give each adult the time to learn and gain prominence in a career to support the children.
Worldwide birth stopage? But the majority of people aren't near finished having their children!
I agree that there may be reason to suspect undercounting of the now "huge" world population. They don't even bother to count all the millions of babies in the womb, who are already alive and quite likely to be born?
But powerful human reproductive urges+so many compelling reasons for parents to have as many children as they do = global goal to ENLARGE the entire human race for the many
People who have more than 2 children per family are selfish, THE PLAGUE OF HUMANS will get worse, rich people will eat poor people and insects cause animals will not exist, and you can blame religious and greedy people, but the planet will rebuild after humans are gone.
Perhaps you would like to bring back the Fuhrer. He had a great solution for over population, and he called it "The Final Solution." Somehow, I don't think that's what you have in mind. Perhaps we should consider euthanasia for all university professors over the age of 50. That would also reduce health care costs.
You are sick. What about family planning; good health care for children so that they don't die in infancy and women don't feel the need to be brood mares; how about education for women and educational and economic opportunities for them so they can get out from the control of brutish, drunkard husbands. Whoever you are, you should be sterilized so that your sick genes are not passed on to any future unfortunates.
It was a "sick joke"; I admit that and apologize. In your video, you raise the dire issue of "over population" and blame it for so many of the world's ills, but you don't prescribe what to do about it. In "sick" jest, I threw out a couple of quick ways to reduce the population you complain about. Obviously, your response is much healthier and more civil and caring than mine.
My video was made for the UTube Debate and had to be less than 30 sec long. It was a question to the candidates to see if they recognized the importance of this issue. Our foreign and domestic economic policies must deal with the issues of overconsumption by the few (US, Canada; Europe; India and China trying to catch up), and over-birth by the poorest nations that can't feed their people and have ruined environments. I recommend Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for those who are interested.
szmanta, great video. The candidates always dis this question or completely have no clue that overpopulation is the biggest issue facing the earth in the future. There must be a worldwide birth stoppage immediately and future restrictions must apply to keep it steady. We need to lower our population down to 1 billion or less in order to NOT hurt the environment, animal and plant life. The problem is getting the religious nuts in line with their leaders.
If we're speaking of a tax.... why not a tax on having children? Sort of like some communities impact fees? I am childless by choice - yet, I pay taxes for all the schools, busses, lunch programs for everybody elses kiddies. If people with kids had to pay their fair share perhaps they'd have less of them?
this is a tough one, its probably going to be a financial incentive (tax) whatever, to curb this, but i feel it will be too little too late before we see major enviromental implications.
humans are the nuisance on this planet driving all other species to extinction. I do not want to live in a world where there is nothing but humans, and only animals kept alive in factory farming for human consumption. To me, that is hell.
Well said, Alina! I wonder if you got an answer...
SPAnsw 2 years ago
The first step TOWARDS a solution is for there to be recognition among world leaders that this is a serious problem and then for them to have the courage impose counter-incentives. In US that could be tax credit for first 2 kids only then tax any above that, 1st two kids go to school for free but charge for schooling above 2; Family Medical coverage based on number of children so that it costs more to insure 3+ children than 1-2. Right now there are no economic disincentives for larger families.
szmanta 2 years ago
I totally agree with you. The problem is, no one starts with themselves. It's always someone else that has to sacrifice. I never had children due to the environment and overpopulation. Did you? I bet you have grandchildren. How about the people commenting? Are you all planning on breeding yourselves?
Squaremouth1 3 years ago
I've had 2 children: a daughter when I was 32(retarded; a dead end lineage)and a 2nd when I was 42; she has heard me talk about overpopulation all her life. I hope she has one child so that I can be a grandmonther, but not more. My mother's 3 brothers each had 1 child and among them, 3 children (so below replacement rate). My father's whole family was exterminated in Poland, so no growth there. My only brother had no children. So bottom line, I am 62 and I do not have grandchildren.
szmanta 3 years ago
There are several constructive and innovative thoughts on this thread. Far more than the total sum of ideas the feckless UN have ever produced in their entire history.
But in reality it seems to me we cannot and never will be able to stop certain continents from breeding like fruit flies, or impose the laws mooted above worldwide.
It wont ever happen im afraid.
rumbers 3 years ago
Definitely taboo subject - don't know why - it's the ONLY subject that matters a damn - this could be a paradise planet for everyone alive on it, if we could only just let numbers naturally re-balance to, say, 3 billion over the next 20 years by encouraging sensible birth control...instead we seem to have already 'accepted the inevitability' of a rise to 10-15 billion - madness!.
flynnstudio 3 years ago 2
Truly brilliant woman!!!
icetrout2 3 years ago
pehaps maybe you would have to be a permit that would allow you to have a child make it a resonable amount say 10,000 u.s.d. and the cost alone would slow population down and if they had no permit and had one they would get fined double the amount .and or prosecuted and child placed for adoption at a cost of 10,ooo if you want him or her . ha ha lol
neonman1995 4 years ago
The population problem is not just a US problem; It's a global problem. People redistribute themselves along the lines of available resources. US population growth is by immigration But there is no stopping it as long as there is extreme poverty in other parts of Earth. People will find their way to USA to find food and jobs. This is going to be an incredibly difficult problem to fix (experts report we need to go back to 1/2 the existing population so as not to totally exhaust the environment)
szmanta 4 years ago
The US needs to decrease the amount of immigration to just replacement levels of about 250,000 per year. This would help the environment because the US culture is currently one of consumption. We need to increase the availability of contraception and educate as to its use and encourage its use. We need to increase the rights and education of women in the 3rd world so they can say no to having child after child and be more than a human factory.
gtbmel 4 years ago
I agree totally with her. She is right on except our population is more like 7.5 billion, not 6.5 billion. They are under reporting the numbers.
The only solution is a world wide birth stoppage for at least 7 years in every country. After 7 years, a 2 child max per household can be allowed but women must be 28 years old and men must be 30 to have them. This age limit will give each adult the time to learn and gain prominence in a career to support the children.
mgilbo1 4 years ago 5
To mgilbo1:
Worldwide birth stopage? But the majority of people aren't near finished having their children!
I agree that there may be reason to suspect undercounting of the now "huge" world population. They don't even bother to count all the millions of babies in the womb, who are already alive and quite likely to be born?
But powerful human reproductive urges+so many compelling reasons for parents to have as many children as they do = global goal to ENLARGE the entire human race for the many
pronatalist 3 years ago
People who have more than 2 children per family are selfish, THE PLAGUE OF HUMANS will get worse, rich people will eat poor people and insects cause animals will not exist, and you can blame religious and greedy people, but the planet will rebuild after humans are gone.
bts71 4 years ago 3
Perhaps you would like to bring back the Fuhrer. He had a great solution for over population, and he called it "The Final Solution." Somehow, I don't think that's what you have in mind. Perhaps we should consider euthanasia for all university professors over the age of 50. That would also reduce health care costs.
AlShaddai 4 years ago
You are sick. What about family planning; good health care for children so that they don't die in infancy and women don't feel the need to be brood mares; how about education for women and educational and economic opportunities for them so they can get out from the control of brutish, drunkard husbands. Whoever you are, you should be sterilized so that your sick genes are not passed on to any future unfortunates.
szmanta 4 years ago
It was a "sick joke"; I admit that and apologize. In your video, you raise the dire issue of "over population" and blame it for so many of the world's ills, but you don't prescribe what to do about it. In "sick" jest, I threw out a couple of quick ways to reduce the population you complain about. Obviously, your response is much healthier and more civil and caring than mine.
AlShaddai 4 years ago
My video was made for the UTube Debate and had to be less than 30 sec long. It was a question to the candidates to see if they recognized the importance of this issue. Our foreign and domestic economic policies must deal with the issues of overconsumption by the few (US, Canada; Europe; India and China trying to catch up), and over-birth by the poorest nations that can't feed their people and have ruined environments. I recommend Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for those who are interested.
szmanta 4 years ago
szmanta, great video. The candidates always dis this question or completely have no clue that overpopulation is the biggest issue facing the earth in the future. There must be a worldwide birth stoppage immediately and future restrictions must apply to keep it steady. We need to lower our population down to 1 billion or less in order to NOT hurt the environment, animal and plant life. The problem is getting the religious nuts in line with their leaders.
mgilbo1 4 years ago
Why yes, her response was more civil.
dianaandjackiejfk 3 years ago
My my....that was intelligent. WOW....
dianaandjackiejfk 3 years ago 2
If we're speaking of a tax.... why not a tax on having children? Sort of like some communities impact fees? I am childless by choice - yet, I pay taxes for all the schools, busses, lunch programs for everybody elses kiddies. If people with kids had to pay their fair share perhaps they'd have less of them?
beaelliott 4 years ago 4
Thank goodness someone said it!
dianaandjackiejfk 3 years ago
@beaelliott because what you propose is logical and the average citizen can't handle logic. He understands only brute force.
batmanpronz 1 year ago
this is a tough one, its probably going to be a financial incentive (tax) whatever, to curb this, but i feel it will be too little too late before we see major enviromental implications.
felixclithero 4 years ago 4
It is a tabu subject in Washington, because of the Christian religion.
nicolatwo 4 years ago 2
humans are the nuisance on this planet driving all other species to extinction. I do not want to live in a world where there is nothing but humans, and only animals kept alive in factory farming for human consumption. To me, that is hell.
soonthedestroyer 4 years ago 6
awesome questions it most certainly is taboo but it MUST be talked about. keep speaking. people will hear.
leiapeison 4 years ago 4
I'm with you 100%
Something I would like to see done the U.S.
is something like a free healthcare package with other benifits to people who voluntary limit themselfs to 1 child.
A larger package for those who have none,
this might include free college or something else.
Kinda like (China population control).
But all in all I expect nature to take care of this, through Disease, natural disasters, and the Human helping hand in this through war and violence.
Terk80 4 years ago 4