Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, here's teh thing folks. Alot of people are having too many children. Mainly in india, african nations, and other developing nations. Also, on the news it said that on average republicans are popping out more babies than democrates. Which mabey I should make a topic called "More Children" and adress the democrates and tell them they need to have more kids.

But all jokes aside, it's mianly the uneducated and poor in india, african nations, and other devlping nations. This huge increase in population is devestating. Espesially in india. They use up so many trees there. And they are just keeping on having more kids. In china they're fixing the problem. One child per couple. That means that their population will be halved. So good for china. But they aren't the subjects here. The subject here is:

*What can we do to stop this?
*Should we spend more money on teaching not to have kids over there, along with certain other stuff. (Keep in mind this isn't sex ED. They are having these kids on popose.) And less money on certain things that we teach over there.

And btw, all the republican families I can think of consist of over 3 kids. One contains 6 kids. anouther 4. And one has over ten. (She adopted alot of kids, and then had like 4 kids naturaly.)

Over-population is a huge problem. Leads to starvation, over-crowdedness, and, since kids are really expensive to take care of, increases poverty.

I agree with Swordmaster's plan for how to handle this. What I dissagree with is limiting how many children a family should have. You shouldn't force people to have fewer (or more, for that matter) kids, just because in the big picture it helps the country. Many people are happier having a large family, why should the government have such a power to take that away?

I'm not quite sure how China enforces their "one child per family" law, but I can't see a real way to control birth, except forcing abortions or something inhumane like that. I don't like the idea of a fine for having too many kids either, it takes money away that could be used to raise said children.

Well, some study I cannot fully remember talked about the effects of population density on the rate of homosexuality. I don't remember the exact source, but the study showed that when rats had a higher population or less space, there was a rise in homosexuality. Why is this? Simple. It is because if you prefer relationships with your own gender, then you won't procreate and increase the population.

That's why I don't much care if someone is homosexual, they're not reproducing so that my children (when/if I ever have any) can have more space.

Well, there's also colinization of other planets...but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Education truly is still the best way to deal with the situation. That I can see, anyway.

(we could kill them all, but that wouldn't be very nice.)
((That was a joke))

It will take both education and underlying economic change, to be sure. But which comes first? That is to say, where is the beginning of the causal relationship?

Does poor education imply low social status and thus more children?
Does more children imply low social status and thus lower education?
Does low social status imply less education and thus more children?

All three are true, unfortunately. So we have to improve education, economic stability, and social status all in one coherent system aimed at lowering birth rate. Fun times.

It's Mobius strip. Not only does it not have a beginning or end (or front or back), it is the only path-connected non-orientable surface in Euclidean 3-space, and has a conjugate in all vector-based metric spaces of rank 3. (Sorry, math major).

You'd think education is where it starts, no? Frankly, who'll clean up the trash is the least of the problems. But to educate, you have to have people who have the time to learn, and therefore be in a social rank where they can take time away from their jobs. You also need ways to fund the education, which requires an already-stable economy. And then you also have to make sure that the education is getting to the people who need it, i.e. those in low socioeconomic status. And after they get an education, there needs to be a pre-existing job market for them to put it in use, which requires a substantial middle class and stable economy.

So again, there is no beginning or end.

Ah. I came from an Italian family; my greatgrandmother had 7 kids, and my mom and grandma had 2 each. My mom wants me to have at least 2 kids; I don't want any. I especially don't want any biological children. Besides the sense that intelligence isn't necessarily genetic (nature vs. nurture, I support the nurture side) my family has a loooong history of severe mental disorders, of which I have several. I'd be destroying the earth by having kids of my own.

This is one of the few places where I will say there are absolutes. There is no doubt in my mind that by reducing the average national family size of any country - down to between 2 and 3 children per family - it will benefit the entire nation. I have no intention of, and see no reason to, hide that bias when it's blatantly obvious and supported by almost a half-century of dedicated sociological research.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say "I don't believe you *can* teach a course in home economics (financial preparation) without displaying that bias." It's as natural as preferring logical analysis as opposed to intuitive analysis in school. Pressuring them...encouraging them...showing them why it's better this way...there are no differences, save connotation. There is a bias; it is a bias that is backed by research and experience; it is a bias that we shouldn't hold back. Forcing them is another matter entirely.

I'm sure you understand the over-population issue, but it's especially bad in the US. In the States, the top 20% control 60% of the States' resources. In the entire world, the top 5% control 80% of the world's resources; that includes America, and if you have a computer, that means you. It also means that your kid uses ~16x as many resources as a children in the third world, probably even more. In terms of resource use, you're not having 3 kids; you're having closer to 60.

It's true that home economics or financial preparation would probably be dissuading towards having a huge family, and that is basically the aim. But it should really be made to make people aware of how big a step and how hard parenting can me, make sure that they are prepared. That's the main goal. I'm not against people having large families if they are good parents and able to provide for their kids. But most people that have large families (ie lower-income people in the mindset that more babies = more workers) are not prepared at all.

Yeah, I understand how expensive kids can be, and that over-population is a huge deal. However, I don't think three kids is a really large family, and I don't plan on having any until I'm financially stable (probably a few years after college).