Oh, come on! This is a serious discussion, not, as someone has already mentioned, a place for straw man arguments.
First of all, I think most posters so far at least primarily support a program to educate people about it. Secondly, no one is advocating the elimination of those who have already been born. I’m pretty sure everybody here is against killing people for this, so it’s not really an issue.
Exactly. I am from a family of nine. My parents make enough money not only to feed and clothe us, but also to send all of us to private schools (including college).
I think as long as all the kids are provided for and well taken care of, people should be allowed to have as many children as they want.
The above is another thing you can’t regulate, or (in my opinion), accurately judge. And unfortunately, statistically poorer families tend to have MORE children than wealthier ones, not less. How do you decide who has the financial capability to raise kids? A formula of some sort? Average net income over the last five years divided by average cost of raising a kid in current dollars = the number of kids you’re allowed? Gah.
Kids born in poverty are at huge disadvantages, but we’re still looking at what I consider a major dilemma: we’re creating authorities who are supposedly more knowledgeable about how people should lead their lives than the people themselves. That’s crazy and scary, to me. If a government agency is allowed to get involved in people’s sex lives and in reproduction and tell them how many children they can have, is there anything the government can’t regulate?
Most people don’t think the government can run the POST OFFICE properly. Are we arguing that they’re capable of running the most complicated aspects of life? 
I guess I better clarify my position here. My “claim” was that I think that if we apply a little creative ingenuity, that we could sustain a population 10 times what we have now. Do you link some website to justify every opinion you have? Do you understand—opinion? My opinion is based on how abundant natural resources are on this planet how poorly we have tended to manage those resources. I am not using stats of any kind—I am just using a general view of the global picture as I see it.
My “putting words in another poster’s mouth” with a stupid request was meant to express how stupid it was to request a cite for an opinion concerning such a vastly broad subject as “what the human race may be able to do to manage its natural resources as it expands.” The subject has infinite possibilities and you want details on how this could be done? My opinion is that it can be done. I’m not sure how many people took what I said literally, but I hope this clarifies it a little.
Using parody and analogy is often prone to being taken literally. It seems to me to be more appropriate when addressing a subject as ridiculous as curbing or limiting population. As for a coherent argument, when I see one that argues for the reasons why we need to curb population, I’ll counter that. Is that fair? The topic here is whether or not population control should be implemented in North America, right? I think that the logical question to ask would be: “Why would that be necessary?”
A serious discussion? Curb the population in North America—a serious discussion? I’m sorry, I’m having a bit of a hard time taking it seriously.
Alright, I’ll take this seriously. When either you, sleeping, or Freyr, or anyone else comes up with any reasons why we should curb population in the North America, I promise to take it seriously and debate those specific points raised. Fair enough?
no, I am not.
I said firstly, that such a thing cannot be imposed on people, that is why I stressed the “education” part of my post. Each should make personal decisions about the size of their family. (and I’m with you on that one, I’ll never have kids).
But the government could make it more difficult for people to have kids. Maybe difficult is the wrong word. What I mean is, that maybe there should be a system that makes parenting classes mandatory for every pregnant couple, maybe parents should have to prove first they’re able to finance a baby. I’m only thinking of the kids here, how many people have is their own business. As long as you realize that that kid is here solely because you have brought it here, and therefor are utterly responsible for that child’s care and happiness. Not easy. Not many people are prepared to make the sacrifices required, even though they want the baby. They treat kids as an addition to their lives, whereas in fact, the child should become the focus of their lives.
Something some people tend to forget.
I’ve known plenty of peole that get pregnant because:
-it’s the done thing
-their friends are pregnant
-they got married and isn’t this what happens?
-they want somebody to love that’s all their own
-baby’s are cute (and oh look at the cute clothes :rolleyes: )
-…
the list of irresponsible reasons for having a child is near endless
the fact that you’re a parent forever after should be stressed more
Good point. I hardly think the government is a good judge of how good compentently people can do things. Look at the people they give driver’s licenses to…
Which is fine, and I’m happy for the government to fund ‘education programs’ for whatever they consider important for the country. It’s also a strawman, since “education” doesn’t “restrict family size”. It can influence the size that people choose to have, but the OP specifically mentioned “restricting”.
To clarify : When I said “remove ‘extra’ children” I was thinking of taking them from the families which were ‘too large’ and placing them with those who didn’t have their quota, or to be raised by the government, not killing them, though I can see why you thought that.
Education, tax incentives, advertising, etc are a completely different kettle of fish to “restricting family size”. One is influencing, a government policy and encouragement. The other is limiting people’s reproductive choices, something I strenuously disagree with.
Until the OP comes back to clarify, I will assume he/she meant what he/she wrote and chose the term “restricting” rather then “encouraging” for a reason. Whether or not he/she comes back remains to be seen 