One Child Maximum

I've touched on this topic before, but I think it's even more relevant right now with food prices so high. I recently watched a programme that said in 30+ years there could be a major food shortage due to the amount of people on the planet. When I say food shortage I don't mean you might struggle to get that extra special chocolate cake that's made with unicorn milk and cocoa beans from a small island in the Carribean, I mean the basics like bread, sugar & Kitkats. Basically, we could all be starving.

Ok, it's probably not going to happen in our lifetime, but it's probably going to effect our kids and certainly our grandchildren. But what are the governments of the world doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They're more interested in the economy, war and football. They don't seem to get that when the world is starving none of that will matter, not even football.

There is only one way to avoid food shortages and that is to limit the number of people on the planet. Personally I'd put every single person aged between 14-21 on an island and nuke it but, unfortunately, it would only slow down our journey towards world starvation, it wouldn't prevent it.

The answer is harsh but it really is the only way. People should be limited to one child only. If they have a second child, that child should be removed and given to someone who is unable to have children. They should then be fined a huge amount so as to deter them and others from even thinking about it in the future.

Before all you bleeding heart liberals get on your high horses about human rights and all that sort of nonsense, if we don’t do something about the population explosion human rights will be the least of your worries. You’ll soon find yourself fighting to the death with your next door neighbour over an apple.

We really have made the world too free with way too much choice. It really needs some strong leadership now to save mankind, it astounds me this isn’t the number one story on the 6 o’clock news every single night.

As usual, it’s up to forward thinkers like myself to sort the future of mankind out. Surely you agree with me about this one child law?

Doesn't work too well in China, which try to implement that law!



Don't forget we are just animals, and part of our animal instinct is to procreate.



Think it would be VERY VERY VERY hard to enforce. And, to be fair, I actually agree with your theory on this subject.

bwfc71 wrote:

Think it would be VERY VERY VERY hard to enforce. And, to be fair, I actually agree with your theory on this subject.

It would be hard to enforce, but if we had strong leadership it could be achieved over time. It will save mankind.

It will probably have to happen at some stage, but one of the obvious problems it creates was revealed in China. Knowing that one's the limit, people will want to make it a good 'un so they'll be getting very selective and abortion will skyrocket. In china, the cultural preference was for male children which led to massive infanticide of female kids and a huge gender imbalance which has led to gazillions of blokes per girl - sad but potentially fun for the girls. But the biggest downside was a generation of spoiled brats with every kid being an only child doted upon by their loving parents.
When it arrives here, I hope to be long gone.

I am not too happy with the chinese, not very happy at all.

Why? Because they've taken unprecedented measures to reverse population growth at a time when the world is rushing headlong into the Malthusian doom scenario? No other country would even dare to tell their people to curb their spawning.

"Human Rights" will wipe out mankind within 200 years.

Natasha Whittam wrote:"Human Rights" will wipe out mankind within 200 years.

Is that a new disease?

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:"Human Rights" will wipe out mankind within 200 years.

Is that a new disease?

If you can't contribute, fuck off.

The demographic transition model tells us that when a country becomes fully developed, its population growth is static, or even slightly in decline.



The answer to the population problem is not forcing people to only have one child, it is the development of nations.

EDIT - before I get a load of smart arse comments from Shittam, I have a GCSE and an A level in geography, so that's how I know about it.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:"Human Rights" will wipe out mankind within 200 years.

Is that a new disease?

If you can't contribute, fuck off.

No need for abuse really.

largehat wrote:The demographic transition model tells us that when a country becomes fully developed, its population growth is static, or even slightly in decline.

What a load of bullshit. Don't you watch Jeremy Kyle? Every scrubber in the land has at least 5 kids so they can claim more benefits.

wanderlust wrote:Why? Because they've taken unprecedented measures to reverse population growth at a time when the world is rushing headlong into the Malthusian doom scenario? No other country would even dare to tell their people to curb their spawning.

No, because of the way the little shits treat animals.

People should only be allowed to have children if they can afford them. Why have loads of kids if you haven't got a pot to piss in ?

Natasha Whittam wrote:
What a load of bullshit. Don't you watch Jeremy Kyle? Every scrubber in the land has at least 5 kids so they can claim more benefits.

So lets see, decades of demographic research and peer reviewed evidence used to formulate a model which describes the causes of population growth on the one hand, or your empirical evidence based on daytime TV on the other.

I know you're trolling, and so it pains me to point out the obvious, but the whole premise of your thread was that the population of the planet could one day outstrip the planet's resources. Believe it or not, and someone else mentioned the Malthusian Doctrine above, but your opinion is 200 years out of date.

I should also point out that the number of poor people in the UK with children supported on benefits is a drop in the ocean compared to the rate at which the population is increasing in developing nations, but to be honest Natasha, trying to have a sensible discussion in one of your tiresome Daily Mailesque trolling threads is the very definition of a waste of time.

Unfortunately the country is run by ponces like you Largehat, who don't give a shit about the future because it's unlikely to have any impact on their own life.

You can stick your "research" up your very fat arse, if the country adopted a "one child law" tomorrow our future would be safe. As it stands, the human race will die out quicker than the dinosaurs.

I've had more sensible discussions with 5 year olds, Natasha. I think it might be time for you to consider adjusting your online persona a little.

largehat wrote:I've had more sensible discussions with 5 year olds, Natasha. I think it might be time for you to consider adjusting your online persona a little.

So let me get this straight, you think the population is in decline?

Angry Dad wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Why? Because they've taken unprecedented measures to reverse population growth at a time when the world is rushing headlong into the Malthusian doom scenario? No other country would even dare to tell their people to curb their spawning.

No, because of the way the little shits treat animals.

Oh - it's the culture you disapprove of. May I recommend a cracking book called "Lords of the Rim" (insert gay joke of your choice here) by Sterling Seagrave which catalogues the rise of the Hans and has some fantastic modern day conspiracy theories in amongst the unrelentingly sadistically cruel story of their rise to dominance. Great read even if you don't think the Hans are taking oer the world.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:I've had more sensible discussions with 5 year olds, Natasha. I think it might be time for you to consider adjusting your online persona a little.

So let me get this straight, you think the population is in decline?

For me, I do believe that nature will allow so much and will take control of sustainable population levels - how many disasters have taken place over last few years? How many young fit, and healthy, athletes have died from sudden heart attacks this year alone? How many food "mountains" still exist in Europe, America and even Oceania (Japan, Australia, New Zealand) because of too much food being produced but politics stops it from being shipped to areas of the globe where it is needed - politics is the problem and not animal instincts.