T Nation

No New Kids?

A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic :wink:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

A. I think there should be no limits as long as you can fully support them. If you are having kid after kid and living on welfare/WIC it has to be stopped.

B. I do not see it happening. Short of sterilization how can it?

I think the over-population issue is overblown.

Right now there are predicted labor shortages for many countries in Europe.

And even still, technology allows more productivity (and therefore consumption) with less resources.

As far as limiting the number of children per family that would be a tough issue to decide.

How will a family be defined? Is it per man and woman? Could a man have multiple children with different women or will it be limited to only one woman and vice versa?

What is the optimal number of children per family? Who should be allowed to decided this and based on what?

What about alternative solutions to “population control”? instead of limiting number of children, for example, limit how often a baby can be born per family.

Besides the distaste I get in my mouth thinking about how such tyrannical decrees would be enforced I can see the unintended consequence of certain groups being favored over others and it will set off a whole mew class warfare.

Over all, not a good idea. I cannot imagine the typical American would give up their reproductive rights - but I am sure Monsanto is working on a corn-based solution to this problem. :wink:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

A. I think there should be no limits as long as you can fully support them. If you are having kid after kid and living on welfare/WIC it has to be stopped.
[/quote]

Eh-hem…

[quote]I wrote:
Besides the distaste I get in my mouth thinking about how such tyrannical decrees would be enforced I can see the unintended consequence of certain groups being favored over others and it will set off a whole mew class warfare.[/quote]


WTF :open_mouth:

don’t mind me, bored. It may seem crazy, but at some point it may not.

Hell, when you have people debating if eating a certain way is sustainable, we have issues.

It’s the biggest issue there is.
In a sense, it always was.

A one child limit per family or one child per person would be not just a boon for mankind, it will soon be a necessity.
But at this stage of our development, it is just not possible since we are bad at governing ourselves and pretty good at quarreling over bullshit.
We’ll also need to make some technological leaps beforehand, cheap, clean energy for instance.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer? [/quote]

To what? A hypothetical crises that has been pushed back, pushed back, and pushed back? Folks, do a google search on the world population shrinking.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer? [/quote]

To what? A hypothetical crises that has been pushed back, pushed back, and pushed back? Folks, do a google search on the world population shrinking.[/quote]

To getting people in the west to have more kids?

Newsflash, you’ll just be replaced by folks not concerned with voluntary extinction. Move in, be fruitful and multiply.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Newsflash, you’ll just be replaced by folks not concerned with voluntary extinction. Move in, be fruitful and multiply. [/quote]

That’s good, nothing to worry about then.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer? [/quote]

To what? A hypothetical crises that has been pushed back, pushed back, and pushed back? Folks, do a google search on the world population shrinking.[/quote]

To getting people in the west to have more kids?
[/quote]

One person at a time, put the traditional family back up on it’s exclusive pedestal.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Newsflash, you’ll just be replaced by folks not concerned with voluntary extinction. Move in, be fruitful and multiply. [/quote]

That’s good, nothing to worry about then.
[/quote]

Then what’s the point…Especially when all you’ve done is replaced yourselves and your culture?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer? [/quote]

To what? A hypothetical crises that has been pushed back, pushed back, and pushed back? Folks, do a google search on the world population shrinking.[/quote]

To getting people in the west to have more kids?
[/quote]

One person at a time, put the traditional family back up on it’s exclusive pedestal.
[/quote]

How do you do that ?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer? [/quote]

To what? A hypothetical crises that has been pushed back, pushed back, and pushed back? Folks, do a google search on the world population shrinking.[/quote]

To getting people in the west to have more kids?
[/quote]

One person at a time, put the traditional family back up on it’s exclusive pedestal.
[/quote]

How do you do that ?
[/quote]

Guys like me not letting go of the issue.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
A. At what point should limits be set on how many kids people can have?

B. Do you ever see it happening?

Obviously, I’m thinking most will say never to ‘A’, but just curious at what point can our country not support more people.

Also, for anyone that has ever complained about being stuck in traffic, if you answer “never”, you can no longer bitch about traffic ;)[/quote]

The rate of child-bearing today can’t provide enough tax-payers to keep up with entitlement spending, and you want to cut it more? And free markets aren’t healthy in a society of octogenarians ruling by demographic dominance, bending the backs of the few young (through the tyranny of the ballot box) to the task of somehow funding their newest joint replacement. How about trying not to live to be 100+ years old on the tax payers dime? We die, others replace us.

Is there some kind of emo fascination Westerners have with going the way of the dinosaur? Very well, go extinct. Those who’ll replace you will laugh at you.
[/quote]

Do you have a solution to offer? [/quote]

To what? A hypothetical crises that has been pushed back, pushed back, and pushed back? Folks, do a google search on the world population shrinking.[/quote]

To getting people in the west to have more kids?
[/quote]

One person at a time, put the traditional family back up on it’s exclusive pedestal.
[/quote]

How do you do that ?
[/quote]

Guys like me not letting go of the issue.
[/quote]

Sloth/Clinton 2016

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Guys like me not letting go of the issue. >>>[/quote]I’m gonna just go ahead and say that the Holy Spirit will be required for anything like a return to faithful new testament families in this croaking nation. You might even agree if you didn’t have me on ignore and could see this.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Guys like me not letting go of the issue. >>>[/quote]I’m gonna just go ahead and say that the Holy Spirit will be required for anything like a return to faithful new testament families in this croaking nation. You might even agree if you didn’t have me on ignore and could see this.
[/quote]

Now he sees it.