Why don't we control the population growth?

Question

Wouldn't that solve fuel needs, food, and over all demand on the earth? its just a thought and it may be heartless but it is just a thought. there must be some one out there that can figure out what a good balance of people to supplies would be.

food for thought: Health tech has improved leaps and bounds and people stick around alot longer.

Answer 1

If you consider all the methods possible, you should understand why we don't.  China has a one child policy with very severe punishment for those that have more.  But you can only do that in a totalitarian society.  I agree that the earth is over populated  but as is obvious from the answers you received, few are willing to give up their right to have as many children as they want.  The only solution I have come up with is to drop the dependent income tax deduction for more than 2 children.  But that is even too much for many.

Nature will have a solution if we don't, a disease or disaster will eliminate the surplus population.

Answer 2

Because cultures that tamper with reproduction go extinct.

The Shakers were celibate, and there are no more Shakers.

Catholics and Mormons encourage large families.  There are lots of Catholics and Mormons.

Germans don't make enough babies to replace their population, let along grow, so they are going extinct.

Liberals approve of abortion, and there are fewer liberals because of that belief.

There are more than enough resources to accommodate a larger world population.  There are not enough to support everyone in a large city of their choosing in the lifestyle they would like to live.

Every species undergoes population crashes periodically, including humans.

The bird flu looks like an ideal candidate to wipe out hundreds of millions.

Would that be enough for you?

Answer 3

Unfortunately, our government is predicated on having a rising population. Social Security would work nicely with either a rapidly-increasing work force or congress keeping their sticky hands off the fund. We have neither situation. Our population is approaching the limit and leveling off just as the baby boomers will be looking to collect what they have paid into Social Security over the years.

Saying we have plenty of land for each person is a red herring. Not everyone is capable of raising his own food. Nor would spreading out the population evenly be a good thing. People who are farming require a lot more than a "football-field-sized" patch of land; people who work in other places have to be close to their places of work or they would spend all their time commuting. The more they travel, the more air pollution they create. The more people, the more water pollution, solid waste pollution, and such. Malthus had the right general idea, even if some of the details have been modified. The more crowding, the more crime, the more disease, and the more war. Cheer up, though. Mother Nature always bats last.

Answer 4

freedom

Answer 5

because there are still lots of couples out there who dony believe in planning how many children to have in the family

Answer 6

and how would you propose we do that kill off the first born male in each house hold oh wait I think that was done seen it on a movie last weekend

Answer 7

I'll help.  You're first.  Don't worry.  It will be painless.

Answer 8

obviously you need to do more research.

There is more than enough resources to support the population.

Farmers are actually paid to NOT farm their land.

If you gave everyone in the USA one football field of land you wouldn't fill the northeast usa.  

Fuel needs?  We have fuel here.  We just don't want to tap into it.  Alaska!!!!  I would rather get it over there than destory Alaska.  The government has large fuel reserves that we have not tapped into!!!!

USA has the largest population of obesity.  That doesn't happen when there aren't enough resources.  And it's not the rich getting fat.  It's the poor! Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers have never done so well!  Also,  If there weren't enough resources, then Walmart, Sam's Club, and Costco wouldn't survive.  

do your research before making stupid comments.

Answer 9

It would be very hard to convince some people, particularly farmers, to limit their number of children.  Often the children help work the farm and with only a child or two, the farm wouldn't function.  Also, having children is a personal choice and a cultural tradition.  I'm not saying it's not a good idea but it would be very difficult to change people's habits either here or in other countries.