I will admit that, in theory, I agree. I also think that, just as you need a license to get married, you should have to have a license for kids. A completely useless and impractical idea, but oh well. Some people should just not have children, or more than a couple. I’ve also heard of families who have more kids to milk the system. HOWEVER, this should not dictate how many children a stable, loving family should have. If such a family has two and stops, as does an unstable, abusive family, is that really even? I don’t think there’s any rule that fits across the board.

For those advocating adoption-alright, then make it a more affordable option. Insurance covers having a baby, but if you adopt you get to shell out all of that money out of pocket. I’ve known several families who have adopted, and it’s a struggle in all senses of the word.

Dude, the planet is not standing room only.

If I had my druthers, I would sterilize every man, woman and child on the planet and provided we dismantle all the toxic structures (factories, power plants, chemical dumps)all would be well with the earth in 60 to 100 years.

I understand and agree with the concept. We do need population control, yes. But I don’t think the ‘stop at two’ could work outside more than just a personal preference. And stop at two where? What about couples who get divorced and remarry someone else? If they already had two children from the previous marriage does that mean they can’t have any in this one? Or they allowed two more children? What about those who don’t get married and have multiple partners? Are they allowed two children with every partner? What about if a child passes away? Are they allowed another child?

I grew up with 3 other siblings, and I can’t imagine my life without them. When it comes to my personal preference, I would like to have 3 children. I don’t feel I have the right to say to someone. “You can’t have anymore kids, you have too many already.” But at the same time I look at someone who has 7 children, is pregnant with another and was struggling to take care of one… and can’t help but think, why are you having more?

I guess I’m just saying, it’s a lot more complicated than simply saying “Stop at two”. It’s a great suggestion that some people will follow.

And honestly, when this kind of thing comes up, all I can think of is “And remember folks, spay and neuter your pets.”

Captcha is fitting – sister essential

And America WAS prosperous, from the start. At the time of the Revolution, the economy of America rivaled that of England or France, and perhaps could have surpassed them, if England hadn’t limited manufactured goods from being made in America (They protected their own manufacturing industries by banning production in the colonies)

America was a money-making enterprise, and many of the colonies were if not founded as such, soon became that (ever hear of NY? Originally New Amsterdam, founded by the Dutch East India Company). Its a myth that all Americans came here fleeing persecution. Wikipedia says The Mayflower Compact was made because the original expedition was set for Virginia (by the London Virginia Company, a business enterprise), but the pilgrims decided not to go there. When the decision was made to go to MA, some “strangers” – people on the Mayflower WHO WERE NOT PART OF THE RELIGIOUS DISSENTERS (ie, NOT pilgrims, but people in it ONLY to make money) disagreed, and decided they would not be ruled by the Pilgrims. The Compact then set about rules that these two groups of people, Pilgrims, and “strangers” would make decisions for the good of the group.

But its not as good a story if some of the people on the Mayflower are just coming to America to make some money, so they’re included in the persecution myth and lose their original sin of greed for being principled people of God.

And give me a break about Africa being sparsely populated. Certain parts of Africa are…. LIKE THE SARAHA and KALAHARI DESERTS. But the rest of Africa is has some very huge populations. Kenya is 47th in land area, and 36th in population (ie, greater population density than the average country). Nairobi has at least 10% more people than Chicago.

Texas is a good analog. TX is 26th in population density in the US w/ 80 people/sq mi, Kenya has 153, nearly twice as dense as TX which is about average for US pop density. TX and Kenya are about the same size, TX about 15% bigger than Kenya, yet Kenya has 38 M people, and TX has only 24 M.

Adaptations to circumstances did not start the Industrial Revolution. The IR grew out of the Enlightenment, and people sought better ways of doing things, the printing press begat education and science, which led to the steam engine and steel, and other industrial processes.

Whether population controls are put in place (by govts) or are voluntary, or nature takes its course (pandemic, natural disaster, or climactic changes), THIS WORLD CANNOT CONTINUE ITS UNCHECKED GROWTH, in my opinion. No amount of innovation can prevent it, this world cannot support 7+ Billion people for long. Someday there will be a crash, and its not likely to be pleasant.

I suggest you read Collapse by Jared Diamond. Subtitle is How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

I guess what occured to me is that people spoke mainly about birth rates, but what about death rates? In the past it was ok to have lots of children since the infant/child mortality rate was high. However people are now living longer.

When my grandmother was born in 1915 the life expectancy was a lot shorter than it is today and I am sure people weren’t expected to live for 90+ years. For 92 years she has been using resources on this planet. Does that mean something should have been done to shorten her life expectancy? (e.g. Logan’s Run) Is having someone live for 90 years and using all those resources just as bad as people having more than 2 kids?

I am not suggesting any Logan’s Run program, I just wanted to present the thought.

I do subscribe to the “Stop at Two” idea, and believe that it would work well IF people will adhere to it.
But, as a citizen of a developing country, I know that when people are “idle”, they will have sex… and people from lower income (or no income) brackets who are having sex are not using protection often, if at all…so sex will most often result in pregnancy, and then birth…if not abortion. And then these children either are turned to the streets, or put into the adoption system.

For those of you who do not or cannot have children, I suggest going the adoption route (should you like to have children), rather than doing IVF etc.
Also, for those of you who have more than 4 kids, please do not say that you balance out with those who do not have any children…because, in a sense, those children are accounted for already in adoption centres!!! If you can follow my logic…