• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Population Control

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 24.6%
  • No

    Votes: 43 75.4%

  • Total voters
    57
No there is no legal grounds to restrict procreation.

This will be a very typical solution in the United States politicians.

We will wait until Malibu looks like Bombay, and POTUS will say, "We must act immediately to deal with our overpopulation problem here in Republic Del Norte."

aztlan-new.jpg

According to a professor at the University of New Mexico this map is inevitable by 2080.
Wake up America this is a goal of La Raza, and they are doing this openly.
Why should I care, I'll be dead.​
 
Last edited:
This will be a very typical solution in the United States.

We will wait until Malibu looks like Bombay, and POTUS will say, "We must act immediately to deal with our overpopulation problem here in Mexico."

If you think that we need to restrict "overpopulation" maybe we should quit giving tax breaks for the number of kids a family has first.
 
If you think that we need to restrict "overpopulation" maybe we should quit giving tax breaks for the number of kids a family has first.

I am with you all the way.

It wouldn't hurt to put more teeth into protecting our culture.

Today, you can't tell a photo of Los Angeles from a photo of Mexico City. A slum is a slum is a slum.
 
Last edited:
Humanity could live in greater numbers than now and in better conditions, but the solutions and innovations needed to do so are being wilfully oppressed by the ruling class in order to sustain their need to dominate and control others.

As such, I do not believe that numbers much larger than now are sustainable, given the ecological burden. With non-technological human genius, we could really do a lot of good on this planet. But our focus right now is totally corrupt and degenerated, and is money based only.
 
I can't believe in 2011 anyone would even need to debate the question of overpopulation. Intellectuals and scientists proved overpopulation was a serious problem decades ago. Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. The term often refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth. Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now." The world’s population has significantly increased in the last 50 years, mainly due to medical advancements and substantial increases in agricultural productivity."

overpopulation.jpg
 
Last edited:
I can't believe in 2011 anyone would even need to debate the question of overpopulation. Intellectuals and scientists proved overpopulation was a serious problem decades ago. Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. The term often refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth. Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now." The world’s population has significantly increased in the last 50 years, mainly due to medical advancements and substantial increases in agricultural productivity."

overpopulation.jpg

So we should stop farming?

Malthusian Catastrophe was proven wrong decades ago.
Overpopulation concerns are largely for the ignorant, Y2K, Mayan end of the world myth types.
 
So we should stop farming?

Malthusian Catastrophe was proven wrong decades ago.
Overpopulation concerns are largely for the ignorant, Y2K, Mayan end of the world myth types.

And all indications are that human population will reach equilibrium. May even come down slightly from max numbers as well. I don't think there's much to worry about on that front. I did find the "we're too many because of agriculture" argument. No ****. There are also a lot more humans because of tools as well. It's what humans do. We learn and adapt and change our environment to best suit our proliferation. We will support what we can support and like all system eventually reach equilibrium.
 
If you think that we need to restrict "overpopulation" maybe we should quit giving tax breaks for the number of kids a family has first.

This is where guys like you miss the whole point. We are not talking about is there enough land to build homes for new people. What we are talking about we can not provide jobs for the people we have, (9.2% unemployment). We are talking about our overcrowded freeways. Traffic jams already waste two hours a day for the average American commuter.

Benedict.jpg

Benny 16, Con artist and thief - follow the money trail.​

When I hear remarks like yours I can see Benny 16 right behind you saying, "Make more Catholics." I say Benny "**** off" you ignorant piece or ****. Just what America needs more poor on welfare. Catholics are against a woman's right to choose, against the right to die, (which is legal in two States in spite of Benny). GLBT rights, (tough luck Benny the law over rides you, you ignorant idiot), providing safe houses for illegal immigrants, and priests playing with 12 year old boys. We need to dismantle the Roman Catholic Church, it is UnAmerican.
 
Last edited:
When I hear remarks like yours I can see Benny 16 right behind you saying, "Make more Catholics."

And as I already pointed out (and as you already ignored), the fertility rate statistics from Latin America and Southern Europe do not support this conclusion. Most of these countries are below the replacement rate, at the replacement rate, or just barely above it.

I say Benny "**** off" you ignorant piece or ****. Just what America needs more poor on welfare. Catholics are against a woman's right to choose, against the right to die, (which is legal in two States in spite of Benny). GLBT rights, (tough luck Benny the law over rides you, you ignorant idiot), providing safe houses for illegal immigrants, and priests playing with 12 year old boys. We need to dismantle the Roman Catholic Church, it is UnAmerican.

There's that "practical" side of you which you're so proud of. :lamo
 
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?

I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic

If you go by the Demographic Transition Model, then the USA is clearly in Stage 4. We have a declining birth rate and an increasing life expectancy.

India SERIOUSLY needs to have population control, but that will not happen.
 
If you go by the Demographic Transition Model, then the USA is clearly in Stage 4. We have a declining birth rate and an increasing life expectancy.

India SERIOUSLY needs to have population control, but that will not happen.

India is topping off, they and China are entering their periods of "fully industrialized."
That alone will encourage population control, no central controls are necessary.
 
I can't believe in 2011 anyone would even need to debate the question of overpopulation. Intellectuals and scientists proved overpopulation was a serious problem decades ago. Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. The term often refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth. Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now." The world’s population has significantly increased in the last 50 years, mainly due to medical advancements and substantial increases in agricultural productivity."

Technology has increased so dramatically that we could provide a better standard of living for more people than there are now quite easily. The issue is that this technology is not around in the places that need it most... India, China, South East Asia and much of Africa.
 
India is topping off, they and China are entering their periods of "fully industrialized."
That alone will encourage population control, no central controls are necessary.

India is at 1.1/1.2 Billion and by 2050 they are projected to top 1.7 Billion.
They have more Untouchables and poor wandering gypsies in their Caste System nightmare than the population of North America.
India is barely a Stage 3 nation. They are developing, but not anywhere close to a fully industrialized nation.
There notion of birth control is almost non-existent. It is a culture difference. Indians vew a bigger family as a more successful family.

India is going to face some major issues in the next 50 years.

At the same time, China is industrializing at it's city centers and their population of 1.2 Billion is projected to slow down and only reach 1.4 billion by 2050.
 
Last edited:
India is at 1.1/1.2 Billion and by 2050 they are projected to top 1.7 Billion.
They have more Untouchables and poor wandering gypsies in their Caste System nightmare than the population of North America.
India is barely a Stage 3 nation. They are developing, but not anywhere close to a fully industrialized nation.
There notion of birth control is almost non-existent. It is a culture difference. Indians vew a bigger family as a more successful family.

India is going to face some major issues in the next 50 years.

At the same time, China is industrializing at it's city centers and their population of 1.2 Billion is projected to slow down and only reach 1.4 billion by 2050.

Could of swore I saw stats for population were leveling out.
In many of the city centers where their middle class is growing the population replacement rates have started to mimic other industrialized nations.

I do agree that their caste system is royally screwed up though.
Makes it harder for people to advance.
 
Could of swore I saw stats for population were leveling out.
In many of the city centers where their middle class is growing the population replacement rates have started to mimic other industrialized nations.

I do agree that their caste system is royally screwed up though.
Makes it harder for people to advance.

The middle class ARE mimicking more industrialized nations, you are correct.
The issue is that the middle class of India is only around 50 million of the 1.2 BILLION.

I think something like 45% of Indians live BELOW the international poverty line.
That is 500 or so million. Another 500 million are considered very poor to poor.

Something like 20-25% of the poorest people on Earth live in India.

It's just crazy...
 
The middle class ARE mimicking more industrialized nations, you are correct.
The issue is that the middle class of India is only around 50 million of the 1.2 BILLION.

I think something like 45% of Indians live BELOW the international poverty line.
That is 500 or so million. Another 500 million are considered very poor to poor.

Something like 20-25% of the poorest people on Earth live in India.

It's just crazy...

For a long time, the India government had some kind of Luddite cottage industry support system in place.
Basically, the subsidized old style industries because of the fear of loosing jobs, while also supporting older culture.

Even now the politics of the country are incredibly screwed up.
Their political parties routinely and openly bribe people to support them by promising stuff (tv's, toasters, etc).
 
For a long time, the India government had some kind of Luddite cottage industry support system in place.
Basically, the subsidized old style industries because of the fear of loosing jobs, while also supporting older culture.

Even now the politics of the country are incredibly screwed up.
Their political parties routinely and openly bribe people to support them by promising stuff (tv's, toasters, etc).

India is on my list of countries that I will not visit unless drastic change occurs... India actually had a Bubonic Plague outbreak in 1994!
 
Some interesting projections.
438 million in 2050 up from 296 million in 2005? Who knows? Immigration is the population control issue - can you protect the US quality of life with uncontrolled immigration? Population control from births has more to do with education than regulation.
 
This is where guys like you miss the whole point. We are not talking about is there enough land to build homes for new people. What we are talking about we can not provide jobs for the people we have, (9.2% unemployment). We are talking about our overcrowded freeways. Traffic jams already waste two hours a day for the average American commuter.

Benedict.jpg

Benny 16, Con artist and thief - follow the money trail.​

When I hear remarks like yours I can see Benny 16 right behind you saying, "Make more Catholics." I say Benny "**** off" you ignorant piece or ****. Just what America needs more poor on welfare. Catholics are against a woman's right to choose, against the right to die, (which is legal in two States in spite of Benny). GLBT rights, (tough luck Benny the law over rides you, you ignorant idiot), providing safe houses for illegal immigrants, and priests playing with 12 year old boys. We need to dismantle the Roman Catholic Church, it is UnAmerican.

First and foremost. I have none of those problems. No traffic jams, no long commutes, etc. If you don't like that, leave the city. They are one in the same. Secondly, we have 9.2% unemployment because we have an IDIOT in the white house. Talk about ignorance. And how about sticking to the topic instead of rambling off on your own asinine idealism.
 
Last edited:
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?

I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic

We need to limit the welfare parasites.

There is an easy way to do it without being like Hitler. Just eliminate all welfare programs that subsidize reckless childbearing--earned income credit, aid to mothers with dependent children, government-run education, public housing, EBT and food stamps, government-run health care, and ALL government benefits for illegal aliens.
 
We need to limit the welfare parasites.

There is an easy way to do it without being like Hitler. Just eliminate all welfare programs that subsidize reckless childbearing--earned income credit, aid to mothers with dependent children, government-run education, public housing, EBT and food stamps, government-run health care, and ALL government benefits for illegal aliens.

So you favor punishing children for the actions of their parents?
 
So you favor punishing children for the actions of their parents?

It isn't punishment, stop being dramatic. Parents and governments sometimes have to make decisions for the best and sometimes that means that people or children have to adjust.
 
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

We should definitely encourage welfare class women to receive regular shots of Depo or some other long-acting method of birth control.
 
Yes, but not dictating who can breed, but forcing those who cannot afford to breed to stop doing so. Can't feed 'em, don't breed ' em.
 
We should definitely encourage welfare class women to receive regular shots of Depo or some other long-acting method of birth control.

"Welfare class women."
 
Back
Top Bottom