This thought has occured to me of late as I pontificate upon the state of the world, why when the world is running down it's natural resources, food is becoming a more expensive commodity and inexpensive housing is more and more difficult to find are governments incentivising people to have more than one child through tax relief and increased benefits to those cynical enough to exploit children to gain more money.

This is of course somewhat based on a rather selfish viewpoint that I as a married man with no children and no job is entitled to no state assistance whatsoever. As a homeowner I would lose my home before I got any help and yet people keep dropping out sprogs they have no intention of caring correctly for and getting the council flat.

As I live in Britain I will use this place as an example, we are reaching a point where population density is getting too high, we have slack immigration controls which I am actually not that adverse to, however we should stop this incentivisation of birth. It is not everyones right to have kids, this is a stupid conceit based on the false idea of human rights. You are 45 and demand invitrofertilisation on the NHS? no deal Im afraid. You already have four poorly looked after kids already? Sorry were cutting you off.

This is going to sound horrendously right wing but only those with enough money and common sense to care for kids should be having them, there is a reason why child poverty is such a high percentage problem in the UK at the moment where we have malnurished kids seeking food on bird tables. If your not educated to spell children on a benefit form you shouldnt be allowed to have them.

We are heading for disaster as life expectancy rises so will over population, we cant have both high life expectancy and high pregnanacy, this way lies madness and the events of soilent green!

Discuss, I expect an awful lot of flak over this. But please let this stay civil. I warrant the OP may be inflammatory but I can change that if it offends.

Is it morally correct to make another thread about morals? Why yes of course it is.

Unfortunately a world like the one in V for Vendetta is becoming all the more realistic. There is really nothing we can do, no matter how many protests a person organizes or how many revolutionary political figures stand up against the wave of bigotry. Just hope that conscription will not become an issue for our home countries.

Technically I shouldn't have used the word moral as morality is a construct created by the state, anyhue thats beside the point.

Just thought I'd drop in to mention that I'm of the idea that a couple should under normal circumstances only be allowed to have two children, to keep the population stable. Perhaps a permit could be acquired (for a fee) to allow a third child, but no more than that.

I do think that it's especially horrible that families in poor countries actually make an effort to put as many children as possible into this world, because of their misguided belief that having more kids to help out will benefit them in the long run.

I like China's approach; one baby per household.

Keeps the population down, and by extension, the world is a better (and cheaper, I might say) place to live in.

As a fellow Brit, I can see where you're coming from. But ideas like China's population control just will never be implimented here because it is against human rights to limit choices for the people.

The issue is that Britain has a warped perception of reality. The Government are afraid that if we complain about something (e.g. I have been sleeping around since I was 14, I am now 19 and have 3 kids, please give me money/house/etc) then we will riot. Even though it was 20 years ago, the Thatcher years' riots are most likely fresh in their mind so they are trying to do whatever they can to stop similar incidents happening.

However, I completely agree with the original poster, I think it is wrong to reward these slags with money for their promiscuity I do not think that it is right to limit the amount of children. Otherwise we will get to the same situation that China faced a couple of years ago, children randomly being abandonned everywhere.

I honestly don't know but the way things are going now the world will over populate quickly.

JediMB:
Just thought I'd drop in to mention that I'm of the idea that a couple should under normal circumstances only be allowed to have two children, to keep the population stable. Perhaps a permit could be acquired (for a fee) to allow a third child, but no more than that.

Sounds good to me, especially when I don't like kids. But it would take awhile because there would be alot of people that would stir up alot of controversy over this.

electric discordian:
As I live in Britain I will use this place as an example, we are reaching a point where population density is getting too high, we have slack immigration controls which I am actually not that adverse to, however we should stop this incentivisation of birth. It is not everyones right to have kids, this is a stupid conceit based on the false idea of human rights. You are 45 and demand invitrofertilisation on the NHS? no deal Im afraid. You already have four poorly looked after kids already? Sorry were cutting you off.

I found this hilarious but it also made me start thinking. Maybe they should do some type of test or something to prove they are responsible before they can have kids and also to have a prepared plan for the next 10 years of their life. It's ridiculous here in Australia aswell, no different at all and probably even worse with immigrants. Sorry I couldn't think of the right words but I completely agree with you.

awww...you reproduction control types are just so precious...

You do realize you're arguing against at least 3.7x10^9 years (that's 3.7 Gigayears) of biological imperative...longer if you subscribe to something like Hoyle's Panspermia hypothesis which postulates an extraterrestrial source for the amino acids that form the building blocks of life on earth. Good luck with that.

As for China's much vaunted example, if you take a closer look, you'll notice that it's not working as well as all that.

edit: changed 'population control' to 'reproduction control'

You sir, are correct.

Yesterday I popped down the local shops and say an 20-25 year old woman with 6 children. And she was a chav.

I wish you were wrong. I wish. But sadly, you are correct: contrary to the rights we've created for each other, not everyone is eligible for childcare. And it's our own fault, for abusing the system.

bkd69:
awww...you reproduction control types are just so precious...

You do realize you're arguing against at least 3.7x10^9 years (that's 3.7 Gigayears) of biological imperative...longer if you subscribe to something like Hoyle's Panspermia hypothesis which postulates an extraterrestrial source for the amino acids that form the building blocks of life on earth. Good luck with that.

There are so many things wrong with that...
1) '3.7x10^9 years of biological imperative' At what point during that time frame has this sort of situation ever occurred before?! (recent events withstanding, and ancient human civilisations are kinda extinct.. best not take advice from them)

2) In what way are amino acids, alien or not, an appropriate reference?

3) Simple population trends in animals show once a species gets too populated a whole load of death happens, still want to follow the 'natural' course? (before you bring me up on the conflict with point 1, these are simple species who cannot control population growth, we are, theres a difference)

4) If your going to draw conclusions from history on what to do, notice that an advancing civilization is normally a good thing, and that poverty and disease caused by overpopulation is not.

5) If your going to throw large numbers at us try the age of that empty bit of space a few million miles from us, its been there for waaaay longer, doesn’t mean its perfect. - Hell I can think of a few criticisms, its really damn cold over there, that should be sorted out.

6) Since when have animals ever been a perfect population like your we-shouldnt-bitch-its-been-there-longer argument suggests.

7) Humans as a species have no natural predator etc etc.. – We are outside the ‘normal’ cycle of nature so the VAST majority of the time frame you gave has no ecological validity. (big disclaimer – fine we are natural but the normal cycle of nature I talk about includes things like natural selection rather than.. well you get the point I hope)

... And so on and so forth.

It is immoral to limit the free will of another person to fill your own view on how the world should be. Tax Relief and benefits are for those who are legitimately raising the next generation, and stopping that for the sake of discouraging the people who exploit themselves (by having several childrean they cannot afford) or their children (by getting them diagnosed with a mental illness to receive additional welfare, claiming additional foodstamps based on their increased family size, yet having malnourished children, etc) is a bad as the orignal, vile behavior you would be trying to halt.

In the 60's, people would get themselves fixed because they thought the world would be overpopulated in 10 years. It's now nearly '09, and we're doin' just fine. Granted, tiny little England may have a bit of a skewed view about population size with your open-door policy towards poor, uneducated immigrants that have large numbers of children.

Lord Krunk:
I like China's approach; one baby per household.

Keeps the population down, and by extension, the world is a better (and cheaper, I might say) place to live in.

I like the idea but the practice is rather barbaric. Forced abortions, baby girls murdered, not good.

However I agree than the government should stop encouraging scroungers to have more children. But then they should be more restrictive on immigration too. There's no more room people.

Dommyboy:
Just hope that conscription will not become an issue for our home countries.

I'm beginning to think that the government has this as a long term plan; encouraging overpopulation means they have a massive pool to recruit from if they need to start conscription.

If I wanted to be really paranoid I would point out the fact the world seems to be a powder keg at the moment in certain places with arms running, non-aggression pacts and cultural ties meaning at some point in the future a small spark (read: assasination of a major figure a lá ww1) could ignite. Then again this is my hungover mind working its paranoid cycle so [/tinfoilhat].

isn't Europe's population on the decline or something like that? http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/1776/
So that would render this population control thing a mute point

Im surprised that so many actually agree with my world view! Its nice to see i have a small following at least!

sneakypenguin:
isn't Europe's population on the decline or something like that? http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/1776/
So that would render this population control thing a mute point

Maybe but that would not mean that Britain is going to get any less crowded just because the rest of europe has a falling birth rate.

galletea:

sneakypenguin:
isn't Europe's population on the decline or something like that? http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/1776/
So that would render this population control thing a mute point

Maybe but that would not mean that Britain is going to get any less crowded just because the rest of europe has a falling birth rate.

According to this UN data "The population of the United Kingdom is projected to increase gradually from 59.2 million in 1998 to
reach 63.6 million by 2021"

And that is due mainly due to projected increased lifespan not births. also half of that increase is supposed to be from immigration

So england may increase but only slightly.

sneakypenguin:

galletea:

Maybe but that would not mean that Britain is going to get any less crowded just because the rest of europe has a falling birth rate.

According to this UN data "The population of the United Kingdom is projected to increase gradually from 59.2 million in 1998 to
reach 63.6 million by 2021"

And that is due mainly due to projected increased lifespan not births. also half of that increase is supposed to be from immigration

So england may increase but only slightly.

You fail to take into account the immigration we suffer from here. The actual population will increase a lot more than that, and while I appreciate the reason for the increase, that less people are dying to counteract those being born, the problem here is still going to get worse.

But like I said, I think immigration is more to blame than births, it's just that we shouldn't have financial incentives to have children.

galletea:
[quote="sneakypenguin" post="18.77109.930630"][quote="galletea" post="18.77109.930609"]
it's just that we shouldn't have financial incentives to have children.

That, for me, hits the nail right on the head.
"God I'm skint, can't find a job. F%*k it I'll have a bunch of kids then"

"Oh no! Immigrants are making our streets cluttered with people! I know how to solve this! Everyone - STOP HAVING BABIES!"

the government isn't sponsoring overpopulation, at least when it comes to birthrates. You can't make money by having babies, so the incentive isn't there in that way. If immigration is causing overpopulation, tighten immigration laws. You don't cast your leg when you break your arm.

Altorin:
"Oh no! Immigrants are making our streets cluttered with people! I know how to solve this! Everyone - STOP HAVING BABIES!"

the government isn't sponsoring overpopulation, at least when it comes to birthrates. You can't make money by having babies, so the incentive isn't there in that way. If immigration is causing overpopulation, tighten immigration laws. You don't cast your leg when you break your arm.

Come live in the U.K. Having kids can help with getting a house for sure. Infact, have a few, get a bigger house & free money. Well done for been irresponsible. To me, you have kids they are your responsibility, can't afford, don't have end of.

Why should the government have any say in the matter whatsoever? The government should not be in the business of providing incentives to do ANYTHING--and should only discourage activities that violate someone's rights.

Since children have rights, if the parents cannot/will not care for the child, then they should lose custody. No ifs, ands, or buts. No "a child should be with his parents". Children should be with someone who will actually take care of them.

In cases of rampant irresponsibility (i.e. a woman having more than one child she cannot care for), court-ordered birth control or sterilization may be a legitimate means to keep her from harming more children. Otherwise, the government needs to butt out.

That, and the idea that we're "running out" of space and/or food is just ridiculous--and mature societies tend to reach an apex population with very slow growth, anyway.

Is it morally correct to create a limit on how many children someone can have? Like they do in China? Yes I understand that a lot of people do not have the means to take care of Children and then they could give them up for adoption but the government should not force decisions onto people. That being said people should ony have kids when they are financially stable enough to provide for them

electric discordian:
Technically I shouldn't have used the word moral as morality is a construct created by the state, anyhue thats beside the point.

So you are a moral relativist then.
If that is the case than if someone's morality told them to kill you if you objected you would be going against their set of morals but if they killed you they would be going against your set of morals both of you cannot be right only one person can be right.

I think you're oversimplifying the situation massively. It's not "end of" because the kids that people can't afford to look after properly still remain in the society. Besides, I'm not entirely convinced that people go out of their way to have children as a means of making money.

I'm not saying that I agree with giving benefits to large families but I don't think that overpopulation has as easy a solution as removing them and that doing so would have other reprecussions.

I don't like the idea of punishing children because their parents decided they wanted more money from them (and it's not like kids are cheap in the first place ffs). China's method has been a disaster, and will soon be more disastrous. There are something like 30 million men, 1 in 10, that will be unable to find a woman. http://www.nowpublic.com/china_faces_population_imbalance_crisis
Any idea of the amount of trouble 30 million men with no access to tang can get in to? That being said, I would like to see something done to keep the population under control. China's problem is mostly cultural (daughters are a burden, you see).

As is stands, there could be a tipping point sometime. Think of the hunger that occurs in places like Sub-Saharan Africa. Now, think of that hunger attached to a nation with a huge army. Not good.

Is it morally correct to let children have to starve to death, because their mother cant pay for food?

You see, there's two sides to every moral question.

T'Generalissimo:
I think you're oversimplifying the situation massively. It's not "end of" because the kids that people can't afford to look after properly still remain in the society. Besides, I'm not entirely convinced that people go out of their way to have children as a means of making money.

I'm not saying that I agree with giving benefits to large families but I don't think that overpopulation has as easy a solution as removing them and that doing so would have other reprecussions.

If you took my full sentence into account the "can't afford, don't have" came before the "end of". So strictly speaking there would be no children in the equation. I do see what you are saying though. I am just living in my own lil perfect world, where people realise that children are expensive & time consuming & make sure they can look after themselves before taking on another life. I mean, look at the amount of pets that get abandoned & the people that abandon them have kids! That scares me.

electric discordian:
This thought has occured to me of late as I pontificate upon the state of the world, why when the world is running down it's natural resources, food is becoming a more expensive commodity and inexpensive housing is more and more difficult to find are governments incentivising people to have more than one child through tax relief and increased benefits to those cynical enough to exploit children to gain more money.

This is of course somewhat based on a rather selfish viewpoint that I as a married man with no children and no job is entitled to no state assistance whatsoever. As a homeowner I would lose my home before I got any help and yet people keep dropping out sprogs they have no intention of caring correctly for and getting the council flat.

As I live in Britain I will use this place as an example, we are reaching a point where population density is getting too high, we have slack immigration controls which I am actually not that adverse to, however we should stop this incentivisation of birth. It is not everyones right to have kids, this is a stupid conceit based on the false idea of human rights. You are 45 and demand invitrofertilisation on the NHS? no deal Im afraid. You already have four poorly looked after kids already? Sorry were cutting you off.

This is going to sound horrendously right wing but only those with enough money and common sense to care for kids should be having them, there is a reason why child poverty is such a high percentage problem in the UK at the moment where we have malnurished kids seeking food on bird tables. If your not educated to spell children on a benefit form you shouldnt be allowed to have them.

We are heading for disaster as life expectancy rises so will over population, we cant have both high life expectancy and high pregnanacy, this way lies madness and the events of soilent green!

Discuss, I expect an awful lot of flak over this. But please let this stay civil. I warrant the OP may be inflammatory but I can change that if it offends.

I believe you are correct in your worries sir, I think that international law should prohibit a family after a certain date from giving birth to more than two children, they should only be allowed to have more if one of the original children dies.
On another note; this is why I believe war is important. (sounds messed up I suppose) War is the fire to our forest, it helpes to keep our population from truly exploding. Unfortunately as modern medical science progresses life spans increase, which in turn allows people to consume more resources. This leads to an ever expanding population which puts massive strain on resources like clean water and available cropland. It causes encroachment on forests and land that could have been otherwise used for agriculture, thus leading to less food at higher prices. plus the massive population growth in developing countries like China and India leads to a large demographic of new drivers that swallow up large percentages of the World Oil Supply, leading to spiked fuel prices and increasing pollution. once overpopulation reaches its peak, massive waves of famine and disease will wipe out huge numbers of people, leading to unimaginable suffering. Just so you all know what is in store in the next century or two.

1 word for you

Idiocracy

Watch it.
I fear that is where we are heading.

SinisterDeath:
1 word for you

Idiocracy

Watch it.
I fear that is where we are heading.

Oh I have referenced that movie several times yes it does seem the less intelligent have children more. However I still don't think it's the government's place to enforce population control. We need to encourage education courses for parents to be.

Phillosophic:

If you took my full sentence into account the "can't afford, don't have" came before the "end of". So strictly speaking there would be no children in the equation. I do see what you are saying though. I am just living in my own lil perfect world, where people realise that children are expensive & time consuming & make sure they can look after themselves before taking on another life. I mean, look at the amount of pets that get abandoned & the people that abandon them have kids! That scares me.

I wish I could live in that perfect world. Unfortunately the root of the problem is not just government policy, it's do with individuals' actions too.

How about, only college/university graduates are allowed to reproduce? I like that idea actually, a lot.

cainx10a:
How about, only college/university graduates are allowed to reproduce? I like that idea actually, a lot.

I graduated from neither College nor University & I think your idea sounds preposterous. Don't tell me you assume graduates are more intelligent? Educating yourself, without need for tutors or pieces of paper with qualifications written on them can go a long way to making you a better individual. I have met plenty of useless fools who have degrees because they were fortunate enough to have Mummy & Daddy pay for their education. Again, I ask you are you so naive to think a degree = intelligence? According to you half the slackers that I know, who have admitted going to Uni just to avoid work & get pissed would make better parents than me. Hard work & hard lessons learned in life make you a more rounded, well adjusted individual than any classroom ever could. A well rounded, well adjusted person makes a good parent, regardless of education.