Highly Controversial Topic

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I have no kids at all, but I have had the same thoughts when I followed the news coverage. However, I'm not so sure birth control or a lack of it is the reason here, as several others have put it right, kids for these families are a great way of increasing the money granted by the welfare systems. But I have the strong haunch that as soon as someone ventilates the idea of birth control for poverty-stricken families, a lot of organizations will scream things of constitutional rights and so on. Not to forget probable riots, like back in the early 90s. It is a controversial topic, and one that is too hot for politicians to touch, one can easily burn his or her hands on this.

Population growth is a minor argument here. Overall, in 1st world nations, it may level off, but if you look at the matching demographic charts, you'll see that the birth rate in poorer areas is indeed higher than in areas with better income.
 

matt_1986

1st Like
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
146
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
We have a similar problem in Australia, The goverment has a very agressive expansion policy because australia has a population of 25 million but is only roughly 4% smaller than the USA if you exclude alaska. As such the goverment offers bonus's like a $4000 grant when you have a kid, as such young teens are getting pregnant to get at this 4000$ not really comprehending that having a kid will cost them alot more than that, one study showed in a small town all but 2 girls between 14 and 16 were pregnant. Another problem is our immigration policy we allow huge ammounts of immigrants into Aus and it causes a few cultural clashes and some agression, This isnt helped by the fact that our immigration policy is biased towards asia and other predominantly non english speaking countries.
 

findfirefox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Posts
2,014
Media
0
Likes
34
Points
183
Age
38
Location
Portland, OR
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
System- Gen 1 is born, Gen 1 grows up, Gen 1 has sex (Lets say that makes 2 kids), Gen 2 is born, Gen 1 grows older, Gen 2 grows up, Gen 1 is getting old, Gen 2 has sex (Makes 2 kids), Gen 3 is born, Gen 1 and 2 get older, Gen 3 grows up, Gen 1 Dies, Gen 2 grows older, Gen 3 has sex (makes 2 kids), Gen 4 is born....

Now lets say the Gen 1 starts as 100 people, if they each had two kids thats 200 Gen 2, making the total population 300. Lets simplify it, Gen 1 dies making the total population 200. (Twice as many people then what started) Gen three is started and if all of Gen 2 has 2 kids that makes 400 for Gen 3. Total pop. 500. Blah Blah, Gen 2 dies, gen 3 has kids, new Gen 4 is 800

Kids Birth-
Gen 1-100
Gen 2-200
Gen 3-400
Gen 4-800
Gen 5-1600
Gen 6-3200

Goes on forever...

In that that system, yes, someday there will be too many people, in order to prevent that nature should do something, what this is I'm not sure, being homosexual could be the result of that, who know?

Not me.
Gen 7
 

stud_hunter

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Posts
811
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Location
CA, USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
findfirefox said:
Now lets say the Gen 1 starts as 100 people, if they each had two kids thats 200 Gen 2, making the total population 300. Lets simplify it, Gen 1 dies making the total population 200. (Twice as many people then what started) Gen three is started and if all of Gen 2 has 2 kids that makes 400 for Gen 3. Total pop. 500. Blah Blah, Gen 2 dies, gen 3 has kids, new Gen 4 is 800

Your system doesn't quite work because it takes 2 people to have a child. So if you start with 100 people and everyone had 2 kids, you finish with 200, not 300. Then the original 100 dies and you're back where you started. If everyone had 2 kids the population wouldn't grow.
 

matt_1986

1st Like
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
146
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
your maths is a bit stuffed... 2 parents 2 kids... if 2 people have 2 kids thats not decreasing or increasing the population :p
 

BuddyBoy

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
243
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
matt_1986 said:
your maths is a bit stuffed... 2 parents 2 kids... if 2 people have 2 kids thats not decreasing or increasing the population :p
Not strictly true in the short term because the generational span - call it 20 years - is less than the lifespan - call it 80 years. That's why the population of China is still growing despite the 1 child family policy.

In the long term, the population will stabalize at a multiple of the base population, reflecting three or four living generations.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

We have the same welfare issue in the UK - but it's not PC to discuss it. On top of this we now burden our brighter kids (university grads) with a mountain of debt. Throw a few other things in and the bright kids get married late if at all and have trouble having kids. By the time they are trying to have kids, their less intelligent contempories are becoming Grandmas. The ones who have mastered the system can have a good 20 year career with a kid every 4 to 5 years.

On the global scale, culture did not change with medical and agricultural development. In my own family in the nineteenth century you can see couples having 14 kids with only a couple surviving to have their own kids. However we stopped having so many kids when we didn't need to ensure we had a next generation or someone to look after us when we are old.

The emancipation of womer is also critical. So most "developed" countries now have a stable population.

I go to SE Asia a lot and I wonder what would happen if all the people become able to consume even half of that of your average westerner. The money makers certainly want them to. Consider one billion more cars on the planet - will your government forcibly intervene to keep the resources for yourself? or perhaps we all need to downsize a bit and that includes my favourite arrogant imperialist capitalist.
 

stud_hunter

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Posts
811
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Location
CA, USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
BuddyBoy said:
Not strictly true in the short term because the generational span - call it 20 years - is less than the lifespan - call it 80 years. That's why the population of China is still growing despite the 1 child family policy.

I can see how on the surface that seems like it's true but really it's not. As younger people have their children, older generations die. Then in 20 years the next generation has children, while the next oldest generation dies. There might be 3 generations separating the ones having kids and the ones dying, but the rate of birth and death is still equal if everyone has 2 kids. I don't know about China but I'm guessing if their population is still increasing it must be because a lot of people didn't follow the 1 child family policy.
 

ManiacalMadMan

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
1,073
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
183
Age
68
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
stud_hunter said:
... So my feeling is the world needs more birth control! And the controversial part is I have a hard time having too much sympathy for the Katrina refugees who are poor but have 7 children when they could have had 2. Thoughts?
so, you would or did have sympathy for the persons who only had 2 or 3 children? As to 'they could have had 2'...coulda, woulda, shoulda. Maybe at the time they had children they were of moderate affluence and could afford them. Things happen and finances take a tumble. What if the father of the children had an injury, ended up out of a job, without insurance and the life savings was used up? And all this while the wife was with child number 8. As to more about 'could have had 2', the condom is not 100%, nor are many other birth control methods. Maybe the 3rd and 4th were not expected or planned and neither parent believes in abortion. So many variables here. I myself have sympathy for all the people affected...rich,poor and in between...imagine having Ray 'The Idiot' Nagin as your mayor.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
This isn't just controversial, it's frightening.

When the levees broke in NO, (granted, 9th ward was not the most affluent) not every single person displaced was poor - at least not until they lost their homes and everything that they owned. The weather forecasters and the city, parish, state, and federal governments were waffling - "you should evacuate" and then "it's going to blow past us, it won't be a problem." By the time the "powers that be" started saying "get out NOW!!!" it was too late.

stud_hunter, I can understand a part of what you are saying, but even if "those people" were in shelters, you have no way of knowing whether or not the wage earners in the household were making it on their own or on welfare. I would bet the farm that there were families of both sorts who were stranded.

I disagree with our current welfare crisis, and I disagree that popping out babies should entitle a recipient to larger and larger checks.

Even if two parents who worked hard and supported their family DID round up the kids and get them in the car, there was such horrible gridlock that some of them may have had to abandon their car in rising flood waters.

Would it be better if 5 of Kloesha's 7 kids got swept away in the flood?
 

Gisella

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
4,822
Media
0
Likes
114
Points
193
Location
USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Well, about poor people having kids they cant afford there are lot of explanations: education, lack of birth control, abortions are illegals, and etc but those happens in 3rdworld realities. But 1st world have much more acess to know better and ways to prevent that to family plan to their realities. Plus unfortunaly people are just irresponsable and kids suffer and ends on the system of 'step families' (I forgot the name) waiting to be adopted and many keep changing families until they are old enough to take care of themselves. Its sad system and need to improve a lot too.

About wellfair situation is a mess...seems that people that really need just a push to stand and better their lives dont get any help and the ones that abuse the system drinks in full from the tits of the big cow....they learn the strings to pull and use what system have to offer...well, than we get the bill for their stuff.

And the most unbeliavable thing that gov. knows whats going on and do not cut milk flowing from the tits....

Exemple, dont remember who were giving interview about polygamist situation in Utah (and really all over, but there is in everybodies faces...) about the polygamist kids are all on the welfair...:eek: and polygamist ladies moms know how to abuse the system and the males who empregnate them and fathers of that multitute of kids don take care $$$$ of theirs ofsprings....and their logics is that they are punish the evil government or something like that...

Makes no sense that Utah gov knows that those thing goes one and the illegality of polygamist life style and do nothing bcause they said is to many to be persecuted...:eek: :eek: :eek:

For sure that many reforms are in urgent need!

Its sucks to pay bills that i dont agree on to make in first place, they are not mine!:mad:

About Katrina situation is a shame that New Orleans never received the same construction care and respect as Holland people received...that bill was something worth to be paid off to construct long ago something efficient that would last...what Dutch who live near by their levees have different from Louisiana, New Orleans people?

Well...it sucks.
 

stud_hunter

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Posts
811
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Location
CA, USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
It's funny how I said perhaps we should hold people responsible for their choices to have so many kids, and some people have interpreted it as a call for genocide!:confused: Look, the program I was watching on TV was very clear that the people left behind in shelters were more likely to be poor and more likely to have many children, compared to those who left before the storm. No, we don't know the exact circumstances of every family, but the condom didn't fail 5 times. I think in today's world having 5, 6, 7 children is irresponsible for everyone but especially if you can't afford them.

DC_DEEP said:
This isn't just controversial, it's frightening.
DC_DEEP said:
When the levees broke in NO, (granted, 9th ward was not the most affluent) not every single person displaced was poor - at least not until they lost their homes and everything that they owned. The weather forecasters and the city, parish, state, and federal governments were waffling - "you should evacuate" and then "it's going to blow past us, it won't be a problem." By the time the "powers that be" started saying "get out NOW!!!" it was too late.

stud_hunter, I can understand a part of what you are saying, but even if "those people" were in shelters, you have no way of knowing whether or not the wage earners in the household were making it on their own or on welfare. I would bet the farm that there were families of both sorts who were stranded.

I disagree with our current welfare crisis, and I disagree that popping out babies should entitle a recipient to larger and larger checks.

Even if two parents who worked hard and supported their family DID round up the kids and get them in the car, there was such horrible gridlock that some of them may have had to abandon their car in rising flood waters.

Would it be better if 5 of Kloesha's 7 kids got swept away in the flood?[/quote]
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
stud hunter, I definitely agree that people should be held responsible and accountable for the children that they have. I also strongly agree that anyone on welfare should NOT be rewarded for having more children. And I really don't know what would be a workable solution.

Just please, do be careful (even quoting something you saw on television) about making sweeping generalizations, and especially careful not to let such generalizations put a callous edge on such a tragedy.

(For what it's worth, I'm inclined to think that those women who become welfare brood mares, with 6 kids by age 20, really have some mental dysfunction, but that's a whole other story.)
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
...Just please, do be careful (even quoting something you saw on television) about making sweeping generalizations, and especially careful not to let such generalizations put a callous edge on such a tragedy.

Yes, but you see, for some that's the easy thing to do, isn't it?

Rather than question the poor response on the part of emergency agencies, or the failure at all levels of government (local and national) in handling the aftermath of the disaster that occurred here, in this city, a year ago today, some apparently choose to conclude (by way of some half baked quasi-rationale) that "those people" got themselves in this situation by having too many children, or by choosing to live in the wrong place, etc. etc.

An excuseable leap of logic though for someone who "rarely" watches the news.
 

D_Elijah_MorganWood

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Posts
5,220
Media
0
Likes
127
Points
193
(Puts Social Worker hat back on)
Families of lower socioeconomic status generally have more children. This is due to several factors but mainly lack of health education, ignorance about access to free birth control, higher use of mind altering substances leading to decreased inhibitions, lack of parental supervision leading to pregnancies at early ages (setting up a cycle), men believing that siring as many children as possible shows their virility as well as religious and cultural differences. Regarding the last item, some cultures believe that the amount of children you have is a direct reflection upon the love for your spouse and your family. Obviously many religions prohibit or discourage the use of birth control. I worked primarily with poor Mexican and Central American families. The last 3 items I listed come into play heavily with this population.

Currently this socioeconomic group (not just the people I mentioned) is experiencing a population explosion. It's a gargantuan problem. It overstretches the resources of our already taxed social programs. The upper middle class as well as the rich put this problem back on the shoulders poor and continue to vote against (and loudly protest to their congressman). Unfortunately this places the responsibility upon the shoulders of a population unable to fix the problem. They need help. As we stand, my former clients are averaging 5-6 children per family. Each of those children was raised with the same values and will continue the overpopulation cycle. The so-called Middle Class and up are having less children than ever. This is our recipie for overpopulation disaster.

I admit I felt the same way as Studhunter before I got into social work. On my worst days I go back to that way of thinking. I had little or no sympathy for a population that continues shooting babies out at an alarming rate and committing a disproportionate amount of crimes. Living in a "good zipcode", I was insulated and segregated. Once I started working with this population and got to know them, it was a different story. They were a stubborn bunch but I managed to help some. As many of you know, my area was (and is) Substance Abuse, specifically working with adolescents and their families. I also worked with adults but not in this population. Substance abuse is completely relevant to the topic of overpopulation. I hoped to head this off at the pass by working with them. With a few I managed to help them get straightened up and get outside their neighborhood and learn about the rest of the world.

This isn't an us versus them problem. It's gotten bigger. Now it belongs to all of us. Social programs are not a waste of money. They are way cheaper than dealing with the consequences of not having it. Seeing thousands of people suddenly homeless was awful. Many of these people were on the edge of homelessness already. I could write volumes on the subsequent fraud following Katrina and the hearding out of the poor en masse in hopes of gentrifying the city. It doesn't take more to add to an already frustrating problem: Presto! More homelessness.
 

B_Spladle

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Posts
3,159
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Age
37
Location
Dallas, Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I strongly suggest that those of you intrigued by what you read here go out and buy this book. Or any other book by Daniel Quinn, really. In fact, I so badly want some of you to do this that I just took the time to transcribe this entire section from the book in order to entice you. Don't let my effort go to waste, please.

:heart:


Population: A Systems Approach
21 May, Stuttgart

Because the ideas I'm going to be presenting here have proved to be so unsettling for people, I've learned to approach them cautiously, from a good, safe distance—a good, safe distance being in this case about two hundred thousand years. Two hundred thousand years ago is when a new species called Homo sapiens first began to be seen on this planet.

As with any young species, there were not many members of it to begin with. Since our subject is population, I'd better clarify what I mean by that. We have an approximate date for the emergence of Homo sapiens because we have fossil remains—and we have fossil remains because a sufficient number of this species lived around this time to provide those fossil remains. In other words, when I say that Homo sapiens appeared about two hundred thousand years ago, I'm not talking about the first two of them or the first hundred of them. But neither am I talking about the first million of them.

Two hundred thousand years ago, there was a bunch. Let's say ten thousand. Over the next hundred ninety thousand years, Homo sapiens grew in numbers and migrated to every continent of the world.
The passage of these hundred ninety thousand years brings us to the opening of the historical era on this planet. It brings us to the beginning of the agricultural revolution that stands at the foundation of our civilization. This is about ten thousand years ago, and the human population at that time is estimated to have been around ten million.

I want to spend a couple minutes now just looking at that period of growth from ten thousand people to ten million people. As it happens, what this period of growth represents is ten doublings. From ten thousand to twenty thousand, from twenty thousand to forty thousand, from forty thousand to eighty thousand, and so on. Start with ten thousand, double it ten times, and you wind up with about ten million.

So: Our population doubled ten times in a hundred ninety thousand years. Went from about ten thousand to ten million. That's growth. Undeniable growth, definite growth, even substantial growth . . . but growth at an infinitesimal rate. Here's how infinitesimal it was: On the average, our population was doubling every nineteen thousand years. That's slow—glacially slow.

At the end of this period, which is to say ten thousand years ago, this began to change very dramatically. Growth at an infinitesimal rate became growth at a rapid rate. Starting at ten million, our populations doubled not in nineteen thousand years but in five thousand years, bringing it to twenty million. The next doubling—doubling and a bit—took only two thousand years, bringing us to fifty million. The next doubling took only sixteen hundred years, bringing us to one hundred million. The next doubling took only fourteen hundred years—bringing us to two hundred million at the zero point of our calendar. The next doubling took only twelve hundred years, bringing us to four hundred million. The year was 1200 A.D. The next doubling took only five hundred years, bringing us to eight hundred million in 1700. The next doubling took only two hundred years, bringing us to a billion and a half in 1900. The next doubling took only sixty years, bringing us to three billion in 1960. The next doubling will take only thirty-seven years or so. Within ten or twenty months we’ll reach six billion, and if this growth trend continues unchecked, many of us in this room will live long enough to see us reach twelve billion. I won’t attempt to imagine for you what that will mean. At a rough guess, my personal guess, take everything bad that you see going on now—environmental destruction, terrorism, crime, drugs, corruption, suicide, mental illness—violence of every kind—and multiply by four . . . at least. But, believe it or not, I’m not here to depress you with gloomy pictures of the future.

__________________________________________________


We have a population problem. There are a few people around who think that everything is fine, and we don’t have a population problem at all, but I’m not here to change their minds. I’m here to suggest that the angle of attack we’ve traditionally taken on this problem is ineffective and can never be anything but ineffective. After that, I want to show you a more promising angle of attack. But right now I'd like to read you a fable that I think you'll find relevant. It's about some people with a population problem of their own and the way they go about attacking it. It's called "Blessing: A Fable About Population."
 

AndrewEndowed24

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Posts
169
Media
8
Likes
59
Points
238
Age
34
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Some promising answers to your queries can be found in the pages of this much maligned (by non-statisticians and those outside of the intelligence research field), though never refuted, classic : The Bell Curve

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029146739/102-4482221-7729735?v=glance&n=283155


'The ability to manipulate information has become the single most important element of success. High intelligence is an increasingly precious raw material. But despite decades of fashionable denial, the overriding and insistent truth about intellectual ability is that it is endowed unequally. In The Bell Curve, author Charles Murray explores the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic, or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. He also discusses another taboo subject: that intelligence levels differ among ethnic groups. According to the authors, only by facing up to these differences can we accurately assess the nation's problems and make realistic plans to address them. However, if we accept that there are intelligence differences among groups, we must learn to avoid prejudicial assumptions about any individual of a given group whose intelligence level may be anywhere under the bell curve.'
 

B_Spladle

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Posts
3,159
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Age
37
Location
Dallas, Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
AndrewEndowed24 said:
Some promising answers to your queries can be found in the pages of this much maligned (by non-statisticians and those outside of the intelligence research field), though never refuted, classic : The Bell Curve

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029146739/102-4482221-7729735?v=glance&n=283155


'The ability to manipulate information has become the single most important element of success. High intelligence is an increasingly precious raw material. But despite decades of fashionable denial, the overriding and insistent truth about intellectual ability is that it is endowed unequally. In The Bell Curve, author Charles Murray explores the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic, or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. He also discusses another taboo subject: that intelligence levels differ among ethnic groups. According to the authors, only by facing up to these differences can we accurately assess the nation's problems and make realistic plans to address them. However, if we accept that there are intelligence differences among groups, we must learn to avoid prejudicial assumptions about any individual of a given group whose intelligence level may be anywhere under the bell curve.'
Name me a question you think I have that this book would answer.
 

SurferGirlCA

Cherished Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Posts
1,242
Media
0
Likes
478
Points
303
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Gisella said:
Well, about poor people having kids they cant afford there are lot of explanations: education, lack of birth control, abortions are illegals, and etc but those happens in 3rdworld realities. But 1st world have much more acess to know better and ways to prevent that to family plan to their realities...
You're right, Gisella, but actually the federal government in the U.S. (at least in its current incarnation) is not a big fan of even publicizing birth control, much less advocating it. We've also been exporting that "abstinence only" policy to some of those 3rd World countries you mention. In terms of the original question, I myself don't feel comfortable passing judgment on people whose lives I haven't led.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
It's a universal, the poor have more kids.

And as for population growth, well if Bushy starts a nuclear war with Russia and China that should decrease the population (and most of the arable land and drinking water, mind).