• 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

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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
 
Why?
The U.S. population growth rate is slowing.

Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change,1 is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history.

Population Profile of the United States

There doesn't seem to be a need to control U.S. population growth.
 
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

I bet most rational people, no matter their political ideology, would not advocate allowing the government to dictate the number of children we would be "allowed" to have.
 
Why?


Population Profile of the United States

There doesn't seem to be a need to control U.S. population growth.

Yeah, I suppose you are right for now.

However, while it is currently slowing, it may not continue so. What about the future? Do you think there will be an equal (or close to equal) ratio of people dying to people being born? Studies have shown that when families are in times of hardship, they have more children. For example, countries that aren't developed have more children as do the poor in the U.S. and so on.

If things were to get worse financially speaking for the vast majority of the population, we may see a rise in birth rates again.

What would your position on it be if population proved to be a problem?
 
Essentially there are two things that cause population growth: Births and immigration.

The birth rate in the US is just barely above the replacement level, so it's highly unlikely that we could achieve significant results by limiting births. Even in China, with its draconian one-child policy, the ACTUAL fertility rate is 1.54 whereas ours is 2.06. So even if we believed that our overall population growth was a problem and imposing extreme birth control measures was the correct way to go about it, China's example suggests that it really wouldn't give us that much bang for our buck. To put this in perspective, Canada's fertility rate is about the same as China's, but without the one-child policy. Furthermore, China's one-child policy has had horrendous consequences: There are far more males than females who are born in China, due to the abortion of females. This is going to cause huge problems because all of these extra men are not going to be able to get married, which will have negative effects on China's social stability and the health of its citizens.

The other way we might control our population is through immigration. Most of our population growth comes from immigration, rather than births, and I'm strongly opposed to reducing it. For one thing, the economic costs of doing so would greatly outweigh the economic benefits. As it relates to this issue, shutting off immigration wouldn't even solve the "problem" (if it were a problem) anyway, it would just push it somewhere else.

Finally, I question why the size of our population is a problem in the first place. The United States spans an entire continent and has a mere 300 million people; if anything we are underpopulated. A larger population would allow for more economies of scale in terms of providing human services, would make public transportation much more cost-effective, and would offer additional manpower to solving the world's most pressing issues.

Overpopulation is not a problem globally, and certainly not in the United States. There are certain PARTS of the world that are overpopulated like South Asia, but even there the solution is not direct population controls: It's to reduce poverty, reduce infant mortality, improve women's rights, make birth control widely available, and increase education. Virtually every society that has taken these actions has seen its birth rate fall dramatically.
 
Last edited:
Studies have shown that when families are in times of hardship, they have more children. For example, countries that aren't developed have more children as do the poor in the U.S. and so on.

Those have different causes though. In developing countries, there are several reasons that a family might choose to have more kids: 1) Infant mortality is higher. Families have additional children to hedge against the tragic reality that some of them will not survive into adulthood. 2) The opportunity cost is lower. If families aren't able to earn high incomes anyway, then their time simply isn't that valuable and they aren't missing out on much by spending their time raising kids. 3) Among subsistence farmers, children are a financial asset rather than a financial liability as they are here. An extra child means an extra worker to bring in income for the family, rather than an extra mouth to feed. 4) In some societies, birth control is unavailable, unaffordable, socially taboo, and/or completely unknown. Additionally, women may not have the same freedom that men do to pursue a career, and are expected to raise kids.

Among the poor in the US, #1 and #3 don't really apply. #2 does in a way...the opportunity cost is lower for low-income people to raise extra kids, but it's still a lot higher than it is for a poor person in the developing world. I think the big issue among America's poor is #4 as it relates to birth control. Many people don't have birth control, don't really understand how it works or how effective it is, or simply choose not to use it for whatever reason.

If things were to get worse financially speaking for the vast majority of the population, we may see a rise in birth rates again.

I think that's questionable, at least as it relates to the US. Merely putting people in a worse financial situation would not make them unlearn what they know about birth control, or cause it to no longer be available. That's more of a cultural thing then anything else, stemming from long-term poverty. From a global perspective, another economic downturn might or might not cause an increase in birth rates, depending on what policies the governments in question pursued. There is no reason that a recession should inevitably result in higher birth rates.
 
Last edited:
Overpopulation is not a problem globally, and certainly not in the United States.
I disagree, but I'm not gonna debate that now. I wanted to comment on the below.

the solution is not direct population controls: It's to reduce poverty, reduce infant mortality, improve women's rights, make birth control widely available, and increase education. Virtually every society that has taken these actions has seen its birth rate fall dramatically.

That's true.

Demographic transition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Essentially there are two things that cause population growth: Births and immigration.

The birth rate in the US is just barely above the replacement level, so it's highly unlikely that we could achieve significant results by limiting births. Even in China, with its draconian one-child policy, the ACTUAL fertility rate is 1.54 whereas ours is 2.06. So even if we believed that our overall population growth was a problem and imposing extreme birth control measures was the correct way to go about it, China's example suggests that it really wouldn't give us that much bang for our buck. To put this in perspective, Canada's fertility rate is about the same as China's, but without the one-child policy. Furthermore, China's one-child policy has had horrendous consequences: There are far more males than females who are born in China, due to the abortion of females. This is going to cause huge problems because all of these extra men are not going to be able to get married, which will have negative effects on China's social stability and the health of its citizens.

Point taken (not that population control may not be necessary at some point in the future though)

The other way we might control our population is through immigration. Most of our population growth comes from immigration, rather than births, and I'm strongly opposed to reducing it. For one thing, the economic costs of doing so would greatly outweigh the economic benefits. As it relates to this issue, shutting off immigration wouldn't even solve the "problem" (if it were a problem) anyway, it would just push it somewhere else.

Personally, if poverty levels were at all related to immigration, I would cut immigration off. The problem is that, in the U.S., people want equal opportunity and living wages. As I understand it, immigrants will usually work for less than a living wage as it would still be better than their country of origin and thus those without jobs that are taken, make it so that fewer American born citizens can find a job with a living wage. This is because, as long as there are people willing to work for less than a living wage, companies will not pay a living wage.

Instead of completely cutting off immigration, I could compromise at enforcing living wages and disallowing hiring immigrants under the table (this is of course only part of a much larger plan).

Finally, I question why the size of our population is a problem in the first place. The United States spans an entire continent and has a mere 300 million people; if anything we are underpopulated. A larger population would allow for more economies of scale in terms of providing human services, would make public transportation much more cost-effective, and would offer additional manpower to solving the world's most pressing issues.

I believe in the right to property at birth (without property tax if that person has no income) .. therefore, you would have to prove to me that there is enough land for every person in the U.S. to live on if they so chose.

Overpopulation is not a problem globally, and certainly not in the United States. There are certain PARTS of the world that are overpopulated like South Asia, but even there the solution is not direct population controls: It's to reduce poverty, reduce infant mortality, improve women's rights, make birth control widely available, and increase education. Virtually every society that has taken these actions has seen its birth rate fall dramatically.

Are you saying that overall, our world population is over 2 per family?

I agree that education is associated with an decrease in population (which is likely in some portion due to learning about birth control). However, as sited before, places that have education are likely to experience less hardship than those without and thus the simple fact that life is not as hard in areas with education could be a contributing factor to reduced birth rates. It makes biological sense and there are many articles and findings that support this idea. The idea is that instinctively, parents hedge their bets when times get tough by having more children in hopes (unconsciously) that they will have at least one child that bears a child that gives them grandchildren and so on. This is why improving infant immortality rates works as well.

I am for improving women's rights; we've made large strides in this, right now, the average single female in young adulthood makes more than the average young single male and as I understand it, most differences between male and female income are due to the most wealthy individuals being male. Therefore, many women make handsome incomes, many more than is suggested in some misleading statistical representations. I.E. The few extremely high income makers at the top (the top 5%) who are male, throw the statistics off because they make such a disproportionately higher wage. Another factor is that woman take pregnancy leaves which can throw off their career path (there are more factors of course bu I'm getting off topic). So things aren't perfect, but much much better; we have done a good job in this regard.

Still, if immigrants are allowed to take jobs that do not pay minimum wage, I do not see how an influx of immigrants is going to help us - it seems it may only increase our population and as a good portion of our big cities are overpopulated, I do not see how this would help .. ??
 
Last edited:
Without a doubt, YES.

Liberals are always complaining about poverty and wealth disparity. Well when real estate scarcity drives up prices for homes and rentals, who do you think gets hit the hardest? Where do you families go to get a foothold? Far away from city center and they trade commuting time for cheaper real estate. How are environmentalists liking that?
 
I agree with what Kandahar said. Population controls are never the answer. If you do that, you end up like China. The answer is reducing poverty and improving education. Anyway, we're nowhere near having a population problem in the US yet. We're up to our ears in food.
 
Those have different causes though. In developing countries, there are several reasons that a family might choose to have more kids: 1) Infant mortality is higher. Families have additional children to hedge against the tragic reality that some of them will not survive into adulthood. 2) The opportunity cost is lower. If families aren't able to earn high incomes anyway, then their time simply isn't that valuable and they aren't missing out on much by spending their time raising kids. 3) Among subsistence farmers, children are a financial asset rather than a financial liability as they are here. An extra child means an extra worker to bring in income for the family, rather than an extra mouth to feed. 4) In some societies, birth control is unavailable, unaffordable, socially taboo, and/or completely unknown. Additionally, women may not have the same freedom that men do to pursue a career, and are expected to raise kids.

I agree with this...

Among the poor in the US, #1 and #3 don't really apply. #2 does in a way...the opportunity cost is lower for low-income people to raise extra kids, but it's still a lot higher than it is for a poor person in the developing world. I think the big issue among America's poor is #4 as it relates to birth control. Many people don't have birth control, don't really understand how it works or how effective it is, or simply choose not to use it for whatever reason.

OK, I am going to need the studies that have shown this to be true - I'm not saying that its not a part of the problem, but that it's not the only part of the problem - as I stated in my other post, there is evidence that people (unconsciously) hedge their bets during hardship in order to increase their chances of having grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on.

I think that's questionable, at least as it relates to the US. Merely putting people in a worse financial situation would not make them unlearn what they know about birth control, or cause it to no longer be available. That's more of a cultural thing then anything else, stemming from long-term poverty. From a global perspective, another economic downturn might or might not cause an increase in birth rates, depending on what policies the governments in question pursued. There is no reason that a recession should inevitably result in higher birth rates.

You are right, it would not make them "unlearn" birth control - however our instincts are funny things (see above)
 
Yeah, I suppose you are right for now.

However, while it is currently slowing, it may not continue so. What about the future? Do you think there will be an equal (or close to equal) ratio of people dying to people being born? Studies have shown that when families are in times of hardship, they have more children. For example, countries that aren't developed have more children as do the poor in the U.S. and so on.

If things were to get worse financially speaking for the vast majority of the population, we may see a rise in birth rates again.

What would your position on it be if population proved to be a problem?

Were it to become a problem, though the reasons for families having more children in undeveloped countries has no application in the U.S., of course I couldn't sanction population control. Government control of who, when and how many children a U.S. couple could have, would and should be challenged in courts as an infringement on our rights. That's not even taking into account how such laws have a unintentional consequences, as in China. Their one-family, one-child law is a disaster.
 
I agree with what Kandahar said. Population controls are never the answer. If you do that, you end up like China. The answer is reducing poverty and improving education. Anyway, we're nowhere near having a population problem in the US yet. We're up to our ears in food.

Its more of a hypothetical question that I have found most people dodge by saying its not a problem now (which it may not be). However, I want to see what people actually think in terms of "what if" - what if it were to become a problem? What if immigration were to become a problem? We all know both are plausible .. so what would we do? There is nothing wrong with considering solutions to problems that have not already been realized. It shows good character to be able to face hard problems head on.
 
Were it to become a problem, though the reasons for families having more children in undeveloped countries has no application in the U.S., of course I couldn't sanction population control. Government control of who, when and how many children a U.S. couple could have, would and should be challenged in courts as an infringement on our rights. That's not even taking into account how such laws have a unintentional consequences, as in China. Their one-family, one-child law is a disaster.

I agree, not pretty ... but what if it were a problem, what if we had no other way? Do you think that we'll find a way to live on other planets? I am looking for "down to earth" solutions (forgive the pun).
 
Its more of a hypothetical question that I have found most people dodge by saying its not a problem now (which it may not be). However, I want to see what people actually think in terms of "what if" - what if it were to become a problem? What if immigration were to become a problem? We all know both are plausible .. so what would we do? There is nothing wrong with considering solutions to problems that have not already been realized. It shows good character to be able to face hard problems head on.

Well, I'll stick with my original answers as far as birthrates go. Education and eliminating poverty are always better than trying to legislate babies. If immigration were to become so high, it actually caused overpopulation? Well, it would have to get really high for that to happen. If we were really getting so many immigrants that we didn't have a place to put all of them, I guess we wouldn't have any option but to crack down on immigration. That would at least reduce it to somewhere around current levels. I don't think we'll ever be able to get much lower than current levels, though, not while the US-Mexico border is the most unequal in the world. We have a very long way to go before immigration becomes a problem in that way, though.
 
Well, I'll stick with my original answers as far as birthrates go. Education and eliminating poverty are always better than trying to legislate babies. If immigration were to become so high, it actually caused overpopulation? Well, it would have to get really high for that to happen. If we were really getting so many immigrants that we didn't have a place to put all of them, I guess we wouldn't have any option but to crack down on immigration. That would at least reduce it to somewhere around current levels. I don't think we'll ever be able to get much lower than current levels, though, not while the US-Mexico border is the most unequal in the world. We have a very long way to go before immigration becomes a problem in that way, though.

Do you believe in the right to land/property (enough that one person could live off) at birth or do you believe we humans can claim land in our own name (for the sake of argument lest just keep this within the United States)?

You also did not address my concern regarding living wages ... ?
 
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

No, there should be no population controls.

Now I believe in universal birth control for both men and women, and I believe that people should have to get a 2-year degree degree on parenting subsidized by the state before they're allowed to raise a child.

But that isn't the same thing since everybody will have the opportunity to get birth control and to be educated on parenting a child.
 
Do you believe in the right to land/property (enough that one person could live off) at birth or do you believe we humans can claim land in our own name (for the sake of argument lest just keep this within the United States)?

You also did not address my concern regarding living wages ... ?

I must have missed that bit. I do believe in private property. Giving people enough land to live off of isn't really practical, and it implies that people should be farmers. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to work for a good wage, enough to support a family on. How much work that actually is depends on how much work is needed to keep society running, and how many other workers there are available.
 
I must have missed that bit. I do believe in private property. Giving people enough land to live off of isn't really practical, and it implies that people should be farmers. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to work for a good wage, enough to support a family on. How much work that actually is depends on how much work is needed to keep society running, and how many other workers there are available.

OK, well there's no point in arguing more about population because we don't agree on that point and it is important in my mind. There should be enough land for all of us to live off .. this could mean through modern ways, no man/woman should be born without it. Ownership of land without allowing the government to own some chunk of it to pass on to new generations is immoral and only encourages hoarding. Similarly, I believe all people should have a right to equal education and equal wealth when they are born ... anything else would not be equal opportunity. This still allows for competition as whoever is the wisest with their wealth, does the best. I of course am also for social safety nets (which likely not be needed to the extent they are now if the above conditions were met).

I am sure you can see by now how this could affect one's view on population.
 
Last edited:
OK, well there's no point in arguing more about population because we don't agree on that point and it is important in my mind. There should be enough land for all of us to live off .. this could mean through modern ways, no man/woman should be born without it. Ownership of land without allowing the government to own some chunk of it to pass on to new generations is immoral and only encourages hoarding. Similarly, I believe all people should have a right to equal education and equal wealth when they are born ... anything else would not be equal opportunity. This still allows for competition as whoever is the wisest with their wealth, does the best. I of course am also for social safety nets (which likely not be needed to the extent they are now if the above conditions were met).

I am sure you can see by now how this could affect one's view on population.

Equal education, yes, absolutely. Health care should also be a guarantee. Wealth itself isn't going to be equal unless you either have an entirely communist state or you raise babies communally, neither of which I support. The thing with giving people land is that there isn't enough of it for what you have in mind. I'm a strong supporter of vertical urbanization as a solution to suburban sprawl, so that kind of makes giving people land impractical. In terms of social safety nets, I'm only in favor of traditional welfare for seniors and the disabled. We'll make sure you get a good job, but you actually need to work if you expect the government to support you. For people who manage to screw that up, I had an idea where people can basically voluntarily put themselves in prison, which would involved labor gangs, until they get their **** straightened out.
 
Well, I'll stick with my original answers as far as birthrates go. Education and eliminating poverty are always better than trying to legislate babies. If immigration were to become so high, it actually caused overpopulation? Well, it would have to get really high for that to happen. If we were really getting so many immigrants that we didn't have a place to put all of them, I guess we wouldn't have any option but to crack down on immigration.

The image that comes to mind when I read your comment is one of a lobster slowly being boiled to death and not realizing it. There is data online which can show you how much of our population today is the result of immigrants who've arrived in the last, say, 20 years plus their progeny.

There is also data online which shows how commute times are increasing for people. For instance, between 1990 and 2000 there was a 50% increase in the number of people who commuted more than 60 minutes to their job.

Stressed city infrastructure, water restrictions, overcrowded public schools, skyrocketing property taxes, are all related to increased population use of the social infrastructure. City boundaries extending into wildlife areas, increased forest fire risk to homes .

When you have a stable social foundation and you add more people to that foundation, the new additions have to be positive economic contributors in order to keep the systems functioning as they are or improving them via more funding. When the newcomers are not carrying their weight, then they have to be subsidized and that reduces the quality of the public sphere.

What exactly do you see as trigger points for there being too many people in the US? How about sprinkler bans for outdoor watering? They used to be unheard of in non-desert areas 40 years ago.
 
The image that comes to mind when I read your comment is one of a lobster slowly being boiled to death and not realizing it. There is data online which can show you how much of our population today is the result of immigrants who've arrived in the last, say, 20 years plus their progeny.

There is also data online which shows how commute times are increasing for people. For instance, between 1990 and 2000 there was a 50% increase in the number of people who commuted more than 60 minutes to their job.

Stressed city infrastructure, water restrictions, overcrowded public schools, skyrocketing property taxes, are all related to increased population use of the social infrastructure. City boundaries extending into wildlife areas, increased forest fire risk to homes .

When you have a stable social foundation and you add more people to that foundation, the new additions have to be positive economic contributors in order to keep the systems functioning as they are or improving them via more funding. When the newcomers are not carrying their weight, then they have to be subsidized and that reduces the quality of the public sphere.

What exactly do you see as trigger points for there being too many people in the US? How about sprinkler bans for outdoor watering? They used to be unheard of in non-desert areas 40 years ago.

Honestly, I think a lot of those problems could be solved if we just made immigration easier. It would let immigrants get real jobs and spread out more. It's not like they're not willing to work hard, after all. Our infrastructure is in serious need of an upgrade anyway. That's one thing you could set them to work doing.
 
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

Great scott, if anything, we need to encourage more children, not less.
 
Equal education, yes, absolutely. Health care should also be a guarantee. Wealth itself isn't going to be equal unless you either have an entirely communist state or you raise babies communally, neither of which I support. The thing with giving people land is that there isn't enough of it for what you have in mind. I'm a strong supporter of vertical urbanization as a solution to suburban sprawl, so that kind of makes giving people land impractical. In terms of social safety nets, I'm only in favor of traditional welfare for seniors and the disabled. We'll make sure you get a good job, but you actually need to work if you expect the government to support you. For people who manage to screw that up, I had an idea where people can basically voluntarily put themselves in prison, which would involved labor gangs, until they get their **** straightened out.

Actually, all babies could easily be only given a certain amount of money and be allowed the same level of education; they could easily be given some partition of land or something equivalent to it (in terms of value) in order to make up for our folly of not thinking about land/property rights sooner.

So under your form of safety net .. will that job be a paying wage?

If so, I believe we are on the same page (almost .. I don't think your on the property/land rights bandwagon)
 
Actually, all babies could easily be only given a certain amount of money and be allowed the same level of education; they could easily be given some partition of land or something equivalent to it (in terms of value) in order to make up for our folly of not thinking about land/property rights sooner.

So under your form of safety net .. will that job be a paying wage?

If so, I believe we are on the same page (almost .. I don't think your on the property/land rights bandwagon)

Well, there's sort of two levels. First, there's the normal public jobs which pay a good wage, have good hours, and are easy to get. Second, if you somehow screw that up, there's the crappy job where you get quarters and food provided for you, and you basically spend most of your time working. It could probably pay a little bit to help people get straightened out, but the main purpose is to give people an incentive to not screw up at the first level. It would also serve as a prison, for when that's needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom