What's new

What is the optimal number of children for a family?

What is the optimal number of children for a family?

  • Total voters
    22
MenInG

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,958
A lot of one child couples in India I note but 2 is another number which is touted as 'good' size for a family - your opinion?
 
In overpopulated third world countries like India and Pakistan, zero or one. Two if you really want to push it. In places like Japan or Russia that are experiencing population decline and the associated negative economic effects, two or more makes sense. In Pakistan, the current household size of 6-7 along with our ridiculous fertility rates (~2.5% population growth rate, compared to 1.2-1.3% for Bangladesh and India, despite higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy is ridiculous).
 
According to the WHO, if a country's parents on average have 2.13 children, the population of the country will remain flat forever.

Just putting it out there. Obviously there will be minor changes to this number - higher or lower - for different countries, but 3 or more children is a no-no.
 
In countries like India , 2 should be the maximum.

If India can implement, a max 2 child policy (like china, but for 2 kids), with additional financial benefits for those with just 1 child, that would be the ideal scenario.
 
As a child, being the only one must be lonely so 2 would be great
 
I reckon that the average number of children in uneducated/poor families must be 5,here in Pakistan.After all,Allah de ga.
 
Sidilicious said:
In countries like India , 2 should be the maximum.

If India can implement, a max 2 child policy (like china, but for 2 kids), with additional financial benefits for those with just 1 child, that would be the ideal scenario.
Click to expand...

Easier said than done. Ever heard of the term “unintended consequences.” It would further aggravate India’s (already skewed) gender symmetry.
 
Have the amount of children which you can nourish and provide a good standard of living to... no point being super rich and having one bratty kid, or being poorer than a church rat but having 12 kids because "Allah deh ga".
 
Sidilicious said:
In countries like India , 2 should be the maximum.

If India can implement, a max 2 child policy (like china, but for 2 kids), with additional financial benefits for those with just 1 child, that would be the ideal scenario.
Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory but it would be disastrous for female children who are already feeling the brunt of 'meta son preference'.
 
That’s a very superficial reading of the issue. Why is it ridiculous? I find it rational. Pakistan is primarily an agrarian economy. The remaining sectors are in their infancy.

It makes perfect sense for parents to have more children to take advantage of increasing returns to scale.

The problem has never been overpopulation. We have had uneven and underdevelopment of certain sectors that fast-track urbanization and take the incentive away from parents to have more children.

Blame the upper-class in our country that has completely mismanaged our economic development.
 
DW44 said:
In overpopulated third world countries like India and Pakistan, zero or one. Two if you really want to push it. In places like Japan or Russia that are experiencing population decline and the associated negative economic effects, two or more makes sense. In Pakistan, the current household size of 6-7 along with our ridiculous fertility rates (~2.5% population growth rate, compared to 1.2-1.3% for Bangladesh and India, despite higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy is ridiculous).
Click to expand...

Zero?

Surely every couple wants a child. Just because their country is over populated, it's not their fault.

I believe people have a human right to have as many children as they want. The planet has plenty of resources to go around but politics and greed comes in the way , which needs to change.
 
Depends on the country. Actually the more advanced and educated a country gets the lower its reproduction rates. (Not counting America that much due to the hillbillies), This has actually become a very big problem in many developed countries especially here in Germany where they cannot replace the older generation fast enough, especially in the low income sectors, that is why they are letting so many refugees, east Europeans in. Romania has lost almost half of it's working populace due to moving to other much prosperous countries in the past 10 years. Heck even here in Germany apart from the million refugees (who are being based near industrial areas) the next biggest number is Romanians which is 300 thousand odd.

Anyway back on topic, people in overly populated countries should look to have 1 child or 2 at the most to replace themselves and people in sparsely populated countries should at least produce 2 children or more so that they don't have to depend on outside help.
 
DeadBall said:
Depends on the country. Actually the more advanced and educated a country gets the lower its reproduction rates. (Not counting America that much due to the hillbillies), This has actually become a very big problem in many developed countries especially here in Germany where they cannot replace the older generation fast enough, especially in the low income sectors, that is why they are letting so many refugees, east Europeans in. Romania has lost almost half of it's working populace due to moving to other much prosperous countries in the past 10 years. Heck even here in Germany apart from the million refugees (who are being based near industrial areas) the next biggest number is Romanians which is 300 thousand odd.

Anyway back on topic, people in overly populated countries should look to have 1 child or 2 at the most to replace themselves and people in sparsely populated countries should at least produce 2 children or more so that they don't have to depend on outside help.
Click to expand...

In America we have a high birth rate cause a lot of suburban people like the idea of having 2 to 4 kids. It's not cause of hillbillies. We also get a lot of immigrants.
 
HussainRx8 said:
That’s a very superficial reading of the issue. Why is it ridiculous? I find it rational. Pakistan is primarily an agrarian economy. The remaining sectors are in their infancy.

It makes perfect sense for parents to have more children to take advantage of increasing returns to scale.

The problem has never been overpopulation. We have had uneven and underdevelopment of certain sectors that fast-track urbanization and take the incentive away from parents to have more children.

Blame the upper-class in our country that has completely mismanaged our economic development.
Click to expand...

What an attitude to have. Speechless.

Agrarian economy does not mean you need 10 kids to till the land. There is modern technology available which needs no more than 2 people to cultivate 10 acres of land and yield far more output in less time.

When the 10 kids grow up, how are the parents going to distribute the 2 acres land they have? What will kids be left with?

Having 10 kids used to work when there was thousands of acres of land available to cultivate. Not anymore. There is scarcity of land and water.

Everything is Govt fault. Govt cannot magically create more land and water. There is a limit to natural resources.

With this attitude subcontinent is doomed and we rush to greener pastures (west) to escape the chaos and over populated countries of subcontinent.
 
troodon said:
What an attitude to have. Speechless.

Agrarian economy does not mean you need 10 kids to till the land. There is modern technology available which needs no more than 2 people to cultivate 10 acres of land and yield far more output in less time.

When the 10 kids grow up, how are the parents going to distribute the 2 acres land they have? What will kids be left with?

Having 10 kids used to work when there was thousands of acres of land available to cultivate. Not anymore. There is scarcity of land and water.

Everything is Govt fault. Govt cannot magically create more land and water. There is a limit to natural resources.

With this attitude subcontinent is doomed and we rush to greener pastures (west) to escape the chaos and over populated countries of subcontinent.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the 10 kids making another 10 kids each.
 
Between zero and unlimited. If a couple has the means to raise any amount of children so they have steady upbringings and go on to lead positive lives, let them go for it I say.
 
James said:
Between zero and unlimited. If a couple has the means to raise any amount of children so they have steady upbringings and go on to lead positive lives, let them go for it I say.
Click to expand...

Catch 22 being, most couples in this day and age having the means to spawn and support unlimited children, simply won't.
 
Some parents can have 10 kids, some parents zero.

Nature will find it's way to maintain the balance.
 
People talking here about having 10 children who lead on to live positive lives and let take nature take its course apparently have never had any. If they know about the time and effort it takes to bring up even one worthwhile child they would change their tune. Even rabbits, cats, dogs etc give birth to multiple kids and then let nature take it's course, but we all know how that ends up.
 
Last edited:
I'd say two would be ideal.

Three are manageable.

Anything above that and I feel parents go on autopilot despite their best intentions. You only have so much energy and time.
 
Slog said:
That course will most likely be hunger and malnutrition....
Click to expand...

Hmm disagree. Families have been figuring this one out since humans existed. It’s the instinct to not only survive but shape a steady standard of living.
 
James said:
Hmm disagree. Families have been figuring this one out since humans existed. It’s the instinct to not only survive but shape a steady standard of living.
Click to expand...

While I respect your opinion Jimmy but it's clear that you have never been to Subcontinent. Why do you think the IMR/MMR is so high in this part of the world? I was part of an NGO in college which worked towards teaching young kids of slum areas and I have seen people living in absolute appalling conditions in makeshift tents and extremely poor sanitation having 5-6 kids on an average.
Rampant diseases , poisonous flies and mosquitos everywhere and yet people keep on breeding like rabbits.
Parents would keep on having more children so that they can train them to become beggars when they grow up a little. It's a vicious cycle I'm telling ya.
 
Slog said:
That course will most likely be hunger and malnutrition....
Click to expand...

No offense to folks here but clearly they haven't seen what poverty looks like.
I have literally seen children die out of malnutrition because their families couldn't afford to provide two time a day food. And also people are forgetting that childhood stunting is widespread in slums where people have more children than average.
 
DW44 said:
In overpopulated third world countries like India and Pakistan, zero or one. Two if you really want to push it. In places like Japan or Russia that are experiencing population decline and the associated negative economic effects, two or more makes sense. In Pakistan, the current household size of 6-7 along with our ridiculous fertility rates (~2.5% population growth rate, compared to 1.2-1.3% for Bangladesh and India, despite higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy is ridiculous).
Click to expand...

Is the average number of children per family really 6-7? I doubt that, where did you get that stat from?

Plus there is no such thing as overpopulation. There is more than enough space on this planet and more than enough resources, the distribution of it all is the problem, not innocent children or parents wishing to have a family.

we're seeing the disastrous push for smaller families in Japan, an overly ageing population, a lack of children, lack of families and men and women now no longer partaking in sexual relationships. Women in particular feel uncomfortable with intimacy. Its a society on the verge of complete breakdown.

In fact, the Japanes PM last year released a new policy encouraging people to get together and have children, even if they are only friends. Imagine that.
 
barah_admi said:
Is the average number of children per family really 6-7? I doubt that, where did you get that stat from?

Plus there is no such thing as overpopulation. There is more than enough space on this planet and more than enough resources, the distribution of it all is the problem, not innocent children or parents wishing to have a family.

we're seeing the disastrous push for smaller families in Japan, an overly ageing population, a lack of children, lack of families and men and women now no longer partaking in sexual relationships. Women in particular feel uncomfortable with intimacy. Its a society on the verge of complete breakdown.

In fact, the Japanes PM last year released a new policy encouraging people to get together and have children, even if they are only friends. Imagine that.
Click to expand...
Please explain the bolded part. And this time do try to engage instead of running away with tail between legs like you usually do.
 
barah_admi said:
Is the average number of children per family really 6-7? I doubt that, where did you get that stat from?

Plus there is no such thing as overpopulation. There is more than enough space on this planet and more than enough resources, the distribution of it all is the problem, not innocent children or parents wishing to have a family.

we're seeing the disastrous push for smaller families in Japan, an overly ageing population, a lack of children, lack of families and men and women now no longer partaking in sexual relationships. Women in particular feel uncomfortable with intimacy. Its a society on the verge of complete breakdown.

In fact, the Japanes PM last year released a new policy encouraging people to get together and have children, even if they are only friends. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Places with over population will encourage less reproduction and dangerously under populated places will encourage more reproduction. It's common sense. Just because Japan has a population problem doesn't mean India/Pakistan should continue to breed like rabbits.
 
James said:
Hmm disagree. Families have been figuring this one out since humans existed. It’s the instinct to not only survive but shape a steady standard of living.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have lived all your life in the UK
 
There are far too many children in orphanages for us to be having children of our own to begin with. This is not a dictatorship, but if it were, the Govt. should make it a compulsion for couples to only adopt if they want a child.
 
Me and my wife both desire 2 kids, first baby boy and a girl. Perfect family.

Boy already born. Now we need a girl. No pressure cricketworm, no pressure. :23:
 
TM Riddle said:
While I respect your opinion Jimmy but it's clear that you have never been to Subcontinent. Why do you think the IMR/MMR is so high in this part of the world? I was part of an NGO in college which worked towards teaching young kids of slum areas and I have seen people living in absolute appalling conditions in makeshift tents and extremely poor sanitation having 5-6 kids on an average.
Rampant diseases , poisonous flies and mosquitos everywhere and yet people keep on breeding like rabbits.
Parents would keep on having more children so that they can train them to become beggars when they grow up a little. It's a vicious cycle I'm telling ya.
Click to expand...

So, part of vaccination program run by help of Indian government and Gates foundation, key is to save as many kids when they are infant and toddlers. If you save, parents will automatically have less.

One of the reason very poor ppl have multiple kids is also because they weren't surviving in the long run, so they tend to have more.
 
cricketworm said:
So, part of vaccination program run by help of Indian government and Gates foundation, key is to save as many kids when they are infant and toddlers. If you save, parents will automatically have less.

One of the reason very poor ppl have multiple kids is also because they weren't surviving in the long run, so they tend to have more.
Click to expand...

That's just one way of looking at things. I have been through quite a few reports on this issue esp in context of India and some of them suggests having more kids = more income since then parents can send their children to work as child labourers.
 
DeadBall said:
Places with over population will encourage less reproduction and dangerously under populated places will encourage more reproduction. It's common sense. Just because Japan has a population problem doesn't mean India/Pakistan should continue to breed like rabbits.
Click to expand...

If you can show me facts that the planet/country does not have enough land to support the number of people on it and not enough food, i.e. overpopulation, I'd be glad to agree.
 
TM Riddle said:
Please explain the bolded part. And this time do try to engage instead of running away with tail between legs like you usually do.
Click to expand...

Run away? From what?

I stated a simple fact. MOst countries have enough place for people. Pakistan is vast and could accommodate many millions more. There is enough food produced, the problem is how all of that is distributed, so over population is not a real issue. It is a myth.
 
barah_admi said:
Run away? From what?

I stated a simple fact. MOst countries have enough place for people. Pakistan is vast and could accommodate many millions more. There is enough food produced, the problem is how all of that is distributed, so over population is not a real issue. It is a myth.
Click to expand...

How did you arrive at this conclusion? What makes you think that we have plenty of resources and scientists and policy makers around the world are just conning everyone with their sustainable use of natural resources talks? Kindly provide a study or data from a authentic neutral source which supports your views.
 
TM Riddle said:
How did you arrive at this conclusion? What makes you think that we have plenty of resources and scientists and policy makers around the world are just conning everyone with their sustainable use of natural resources talks? Kindly provide a study or data from a authentic neutral source which supports your views.
Click to expand...

You have google? Look up food production. Everything from the WHO to the UN has stated many times that enough food is produced but it is not properly distributed. The wealthiest nations on this planet waste hundreds of thousands of TONNES of food every year. Imagine if that was redistributed to other nations, to the poor within those same countries and so on.

Just a few experts -

"We have two or three times the amount of food right now that is needed to feed the number of people in the world," said Joshua Muldavin, a geography professor at Sarah Lawrence College who focuses on food and agricultural instruction.

"We don't have food shortage problem," said Emelie Peine, a professor of international politics and economy at the University of Puget Sound.

"What we have is a distribution problem and an income problem," Peine said. "People aren't getting the food, ... and even if [they] did, they don't have enough money to buy it."

If there is enough food, a major problem causing scarcity is what we do with it, said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, an advocacy group for U.S. farmers.

"In the undeveloped world, the waste happens before the food gets to people, from lack of roads and proper storage facilities, and the food rots," Johnson said. "In the developed world, it's the staggering amount of food that's thrown out after it gets to our plates."

I could go on and on but this should be enough for anyone with zero bias/intelligence.
 
barah_admi said:
You have google? Look up food production. Everything from the WHO to the UN has stated many times that enough food is produced but it is not properly distributed. The wealthiest nations on this planet waste hundreds of thousands of TONNES of food every year. Imagine if that was redistributed to other nations, to the poor within those same countries and so on.

Just a few experts -

"We have two or three times the amount of food right now that is needed to feed the number of people in the world," said Joshua Muldavin, a geography professor at Sarah Lawrence College who focuses on food and agricultural instruction.

"We don't have food shortage problem," said Emelie Peine, a professor of international politics and economy at the University of Puget Sound.

"What we have is a distribution problem and an income problem," Peine said. "People aren't getting the food, ... and even if [they] did, they don't have enough money to buy it."

If there is enough food, a major problem causing scarcity is what we do with it, said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, an advocacy group for U.S. farmers.

"In the undeveloped world, the waste happens before the food gets to people, from lack of roads and proper storage facilities, and the food rots," Johnson said. "In the developed world, it's the staggering amount of food that's thrown out after it gets to our plates."

I could go on and on but this should be enough for anyone with zero bias/intelligence.
Click to expand...
But I thought we were talking about resources in entirety and not just food production?
And why should I Google it? You were the one who came up with the outrageous claim , the onus lies on you to prove it.
 
For Pakistan, it is zero.The country is suffering from disgusting overpopulation where everyone is hellbent on reproducing more and more and even more Momins.There is no concept of family planning.
 
saeedhk said:
For Pakistan, it is zero.The country is suffering from disgusting overpopulation where everyone is hellbent on reproducing more and more and even more Momins.There is no concept of family planning.
Click to expand...

2 kids per family is fine to ensure the population doesn't grow further. To combat too much stress on populated areas, people need to be given incentives to move to underpopulated areas like Balochistan, and some new cities need to be developed, mainly along the coast.
 
hussain.r97 said:
2 kids per family is fine to ensure the population doesn't grow further. To combat too much stress on populated areas, people need to be given incentives to move to underpopulated areas like Balochistan, and some new cities need to be developed, mainly along the coast.
Click to expand...
Even two is too much.You just need to go to Pakistan to see the disastrous impacts of overpopulation. There is no employment, electricty, food, water, schools and so on to support 210 Pakistanis.


Pakistan needs to find ways to halt population increase.The country needs to find ways to halve its population to 100 million.
 
TM Riddle said:
But I thought we were talking about resources in entirety and not just food production?
And why should I Google it? You were the one who came up with the outrageous claim , the onus lies on you to prove it.
Click to expand...

Food is a resource and in my posts I mentioned everything from space to food to other things. Plus, if you read, I did the hard work for you and quoted several experts. Before I move on you have to acknowledge what was shown to you. Do you acknowledge it? If so, do you retract your point?

I dislike discussions where people try and sidetrack when they dont have any points and facts to stand on.
 
saeedhk said:
Even two is too much.You just need to go to Pakistan to see the disastrous impacts of overpopulation. There is no employment, electricty, food, water, schools and so on to support 210 Pakistanis.


Pakistan needs to find ways to halt population increase.The country needs to find ways to halve its population to 100 million.
Click to expand...

You want 107 million people to be killed?
 
saeedhk said:
Where did I say that?

Government needs to reduce population growth through education and increasing access to contraceptives.
Click to expand...

You said the population should be halved to 100 million. The current population is roughly 207 million, where should the remaining 107 million go?

And why is 100 million such a good number, how did you come up with it?
 
barah_admi said:
Food is a resource and in my posts I mentioned everything from space to food to other things. Plus, if you read, I did the hard work for you and quoted several experts. Before I move on you have to acknowledge what was shown to you. Do you acknowledge it? If so, do you retract your point?

I dislike discussions where people try and sidetrack when they dont have any points and facts to stand on.
Click to expand...
You went from natural resources to only food resource. It's clear to everyone here who's sidetracking. Now answer me again why do you think we have unlimited amount of natural resources with us?
 
Far better than worrying about the number of offspring is to reflect upon what kind of attitude towards life are we going to pass onto to our children. What kind of qualities do we want them to have and what their world view should be. How can we make our children to grow up with a critical mindset and the ability to think rationaly and logically.

A lot of South Asians are young parents often with no clue about how to raise a child and what it means to be a parent. At the most they know how their parents raised them and try the same approach. Their parents however had no clue about raising children themselves and did what their elders did.

Raising a child involves more than just giving them new clothes, good food to eat and sending them to the best schools.
 
barah_admi said:
You said the population should be halved to 100 million. The current population is roughly 207 million, where should the remaining 107 million go?

And why is 100 million such a good number, how did you come up with it?
Click to expand...

Natural decrease in population due to aggressive awareness campaigns and increasing access to contraceptives.
 
TM Riddle said:
You went from natural resources to only food resource. It's clear to everyone here who's sidetracking. Now answer me again why do you think we have unlimited amount of natural resources with us?
Click to expand...

No I never, I mentioned food going all the way to my first post here and have continued to do so. You claimed it wasnt true, so I backed that up. Before we get onto o other resource s, do you agree that there is more than enough food on this planet to feed any number of people?
 
barah_admi said:
No I never, I mentioned food going all the way to my first post here and have continued to do so. You claimed it wasnt true, so I backed that up. Before we get onto o other resource s, do you agree that there is more than enough food on this planet to feed any number of people?
Click to expand...

I agree that proper distribution of food is the key here. But with the climate change we would see the productivity go down in the coming decades.
 
saeedhk said:
Natural decrease in population due to aggressive awareness campaigns and increasing access to contraceptives.
Click to expand...

What? How can a 107 million people decrease? Unless from now till some point in the future there are no more children born?

Unless you kill people the number can never that drastically decrease. What governments have done is slow growth, not stop it completely lol
 
TM Riddle said:
I agree that proper distribution of food is the key here. But with the climate change we would see the productivity go down in the coming decades.
Click to expand...

Don't go into hypotheticals because I guarantee you I know more about the science of climate change than you do. So, you agree you were wrong about food shortages.

So lets move onto other resources, which resources do you think the planet does not have enough of? For human beings to survive, we need food and water which we have more than enough of. What else do you want to know about?
 
barah_admi said:
Don't go into hypotheticals because I guarantee you I know more about the science of climate change than you do. So, you agree you were wrong about food shortages.

So lets move onto other resources, which resources do you think the planet does not have enough of? For human beings to survive, we need food and water which we have more than enough of. What else do you want to know about?
Click to expand...
No you don't.

So human beings only need food and water to survive? Are we still living in Paleolithic era or what?

97 percent of water on the planet is unfit for drinking. Groundwater is depleting at a faster rate. Where do you think we are gonna get enough drinking water from?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
barah_admi said:
What? How can a 107 million people decrease? Unless from now till some point in the future there are no more children born?

Unless you kill people the number can never that drastically decrease. What governments have done is slow growth, not stop it completely stop lol
Click to expand...

Not talking about days.

This will happen in a few centuries if the government starts doing its share.
 
barah_admi said:
You have google? Look up food production. Everything from the WHO to the UN has stated many times that enough food is produced but it is not properly distributed. The wealthiest nations on this planet waste hundreds of thousands of TONNES of food every year. Imagine if that was redistributed to other nations, to the poor within those same countries and so on.

Just a few experts -

"We have two or three times the amount of food right now that is needed to feed the number of people in the world," said Joshua Muldavin, a geography professor at Sarah Lawrence College who focuses on food and agricultural instruction.

"We don't have food shortage problem," said Emelie Peine, a professor of international politics and economy at the University of Puget Sound.

"What we have is a distribution problem and an income problem," Peine said. "People aren't getting the food, ... and even if [they] did, they don't have enough money to buy it."

If there is enough food, a major problem causing scarcity is what we do with it, said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, an advocacy group for U.S. farmers.

"In the undeveloped world, the waste happens before the food gets to people, from lack of roads and proper storage facilities, and the food rots," Johnson said. "In the developed world, it's the staggering amount of food that's thrown out after it gets to our plates."

I could go on and on but this should be enough for anyone with zero bias/intelligence.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Food distribution and efficiency is pretty weak.

Plus, most populations are concentrated within main cites and benefit the respective economy. For example, reduce the population in India, then India doesn't have an economy simply because less population means less demand/less market. This is a fact. But no, lets wipe OUT over 50% of the Indian population because innocent people do not deserve children.

Also, the fact that 70% of the Earth is water, is a good start when realising the population of humans on land doesn’t even come close to saturating the planets resources.

These people who wish to control the population, or MOAN about population, are proponents of war, because through war, population is destroyed; war mongering peasants the lot of them.
 
First and foremost, men should never have the right to decide how many children should the family have.

That;s where i stand on this topic as a proud feminist man.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
First and foremost, men should never have the right to decide how many children should the family have.

That;s where i stand on this topic as a proud feminist man.
Click to expand...

I thought equal rights means 50% in each matter.

But let's apply your childish logic. Since men are the ones who have to sacrifice their LIVES to protect the country/house/ family I guess it's alright if women have no say in how a country/house/family should be run?

It is not as if men chose to not have children, it's biologically not possible. So go ahead and say biology is misogynistic.

Thanks for making the case of how dumb feminist logic can be.
 
Sirris said:
Far better than worrying about the number of offspring is to reflect upon what kind of attitude towards life are we going to pass onto to our children. What kind of qualities do we want them to have and what their world view should be. How can we make our children to grow up with a critical mindset and the ability to think rationaly and logically.

A lot of South Asians are young parents often with no clue about how to raise a child and what it means to be a parent. At the most they know how their parents raised them and try the same approach. Their parents however had no clue about raising children themselves and did what their elders did.

Raising a child involves more than just giving them new clothes, good food to eat and sending them to the best schools.
Click to expand...

Most of the people advocating an unlimited amount of offspring are mostly children themselves. Let them go through the process of actually raising a well functioning human being and they shall immediately change their tune.
 
R3verse Swing said:
Spot on. Food distribution and efficiency is pretty weak.

Plus, most populations are concentrated within main cites and benefit the respective economy. For example, reduce the population in India, then India doesn't have an economy simply because less population means less demand/less market. This is a fact. But no, lets wipe OUT over 50% of the Indian population because innocent people do not deserve children.

Also, the fact that 70% of the Earth is water, is a good start when realising the population of humans on land doesn’t even come close to saturating the planets resources.

These people who wish to control the population, or MOAN about population, are proponents of war, because through war, population is destroyed; war mongering peasants the lot of them.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

The worst part is, we have pseudo-intellectuals on here who think by saying "oh we don't have enough resources" they sound smart, not realising what they have been told is a lie.
 
TM Riddle said:
No you don't.

So human beings only need food and water to survive? Are we still living in Paleolithic era or what?

97 percent of water on the planet is unfit for drinking. Groundwater is depleting at a faster rate. Where do you think we are gonna get enough drinking water from?
Click to expand...

For essential needs, yes we only need food and water. What else does the body ingest?

But I have already disproved you on the food bit so let's move on. I asked you, what other resources do you want to talk about? This is the 3rd time now and you have no progressed the converstaion.

IF you want to stay on the topic of food and water then disprove the experts I quoted, disprove the WFO, WHO, UN and OECD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everybody needs to watch this video:


To claim that overpopulation isn't an issue at all or that those who point out this problematic are war mongers, is nothing but deluding yourself. We won't see the direct consequences of our destructive way of living but two or three generations after us most certainly will!
 
saeedhk said:
Not talking about days.

This will happen in a few centuries if the government starts doing its share.
Click to expand...

The amount of time is irrelevant, you could be talking about 500 million years for all I care, unless theer is a major cull of people, either human made or natural, a 107 million people will not disappear. So I ask you again, propose a plan how Pakistan is supposed to lose 107 million people? And then explain why 100 million is the best number?
 
Sirris said:
Everybody needs to watch this video:


To claim that overpopulation isn't an issue at all or that those who point out this problematic are war mongers, is nothing but deluding yourself. We won't see the direct consequences of our destructive way of living but two or three generations after us most certainly will!
Click to expand...

Why should this video be nay different to the other lies propagating by organisations on this planet?

Let me guess (I won't watch it but tell me if I'm wrong), it will talk about how humans are damaging the environment, taking up too much food, water etc etc etc and that a decrease in population is the only thing that will save the planet.


Yet, in my posts, which you are alluding too, I have already quoted several experts, in fact I could quote pages and pages of data and experts on the fact that the human population is nowhere near high enough to affect food production, the issue is food distribution. There is also enough space for billions more people on this planet before we get to the point of over crowding. How the land is distributed is another problem.
 
saeedhk said:
Even two is too much.You just need to go to Pakistan to see the disastrous impacts of overpopulation. There is no employment, electricty, food, water, schools and so on to support 210 Pakistanis.


Pakistan needs to find ways to halt population increase.The country needs to find ways to halve its population to 100 million.
Click to expand...

The issue I see with that is it will introduce a radical 'contraceptive culture', and we will be unable to stop the population from decreasing. It would take decades to get to 100 million, and it would take decades after that to change the culture again.

I have been to Pakistan multiple times, and I have seen things with my own eyes, but I feel like the issue also revolves around the fact that many ares of Pakistan are over stressed, and a large part of Pakistan's land is not really populated. There are 3-4 areas on the southern coast that can easily be turned into large cities (Gwadar, Pasni, Ormara). Settling these areas will take a lot of load off many other areas of the country.

Pakistan also needs clean up it's water supplies, and find better methods of farming. We can irrigate parts of the desert areas in Pakistan, we can look at undersea farming, vertical farming, and lab grown meat. There are many things that can be done to sustain the current population without reducing too drastically, just as long as we don't grow much more than this. From what I know, 2 kids per family is actually the number of kids that keeps the population stable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhaag Viru Bhaag
Indian couples in US rush for C-section to beat Trump's citizenship deadline
2
Replies
93
Views
2K
JaDed
JaDed
L
UK child poverty numbers reach a record high
Replies
2
Views
157
aboveandbeyond
A
IAJ
[PICTURE] What is your favourite fast food dish?
Replies
9
Views
192
Suleiman
Suleiman
BouncerGuy
Four children injured as car hits Liverpool crowd
Replies
13
Views
294
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
FearlessRoar
Are family dynasties in political parties a hidden form of kingdom rule in modern democracies? This is a long-standing issue in Pakistan
Replies
4
Views
413
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Back
Top