Adoption as an alternative to breeding

[Imperializt Russia]

Honestly, we should advocate all three. Women should be encouraged to have more children than they currently do (atleast 2 per woman on average to quarantee the population size, preferably a little more for some growth), while also making adoptions from foreign countries easier and establishing a responsible immigration programs. Incentivise skilled and relatively proggressive (for easier integration) immigration, and focusing on integration of those immigrants and the refugees that are taken in (as better off countries we should take in refugees, altough only in such numbers that we can succesfully integrate them without undue issues).

An average two children per woman (which would mean that many women would need to have three or more children, realistically) is wholly unsustainable and absurd.

This just means the existing problem of large number of elderly people requiring state support and medical resources will increase dramatically in the future. Birth rates are low in western developed countries because they don't need to be high.
Eventually, the baby boomer elderly will die off and the issue will be mostly resolved.

[Omega America II]

Taxed breeding? I think we should have kids if we want, or adopt kids if we want. It doesn't make much sense to tax breeding and get everyone to stick with just adoption.

[Imperializt Russia]

Taxed breeding? I think we should have kids if we want, or adopt kids if we want. It doesn't make much sense to tax breeding and get everyone to stick with just adoption.

Until, literally, the backstory of Firefly becomes real.

[Zeinbrad]

You guys do realize that have a lot of babies means that there will be a lot of sickly, unable to take care of themselves old people in the future? Not going into housing these large families and feeding them, providing medical care etc etc.

This seems to be a solutions that sounds nice until you think of the long term effects.

[Omega America II]

Taxed breeding? I think we should have kids if we want, or adopt kids if we want. It doesn't make much sense to tax breeding and get everyone to stick with just adoption.

Until, literally, the backstory of Firefly becomes real.

What a day that'll be.

[Zeinbrad]

Taxed breeding? I think we should have kids if we want, or adopt kids if we want. It doesn't make much sense to tax breeding and get everyone to stick with just adoption.

Until, literally, the backstory of Firefly becomes real.

Or Children of Men becomes a thing.

[Costa Fierro]

Forcing women to have kids if they don't want to seems a little rapey.

IVF doesn't suggest "rape" now does it?

This just means the existing problem of large number of elderly people requiring state support and medical resources will increase dramatically in the future.

Not really. The whole point of measuring birth rates and death rates is maintaining the former at or just above the latter which results in net population gains rather than net population losses.

If we're looking at countries like Japan, the birthrate is significantly lower than the death rate and the government is already starting to encounter problems that this creates.

Birth rates are low in western developed countries because they don't need to be high.

Birth rates are low not because they don't need to be high, but because healthcare and life expectancy are such that women have less children simply because they have a virtual guarantee of making it past their fifth birthday, something that doesn't happen in many poor countries.

Eventually, the baby boomer elderly will die off and the issue will be mostly resolved.

No it won't. It will see a short term drop in the total number of elderly but it won't stop the decreasing birthrates. Having less people being born than there are people dying is detrimental.

[Omega America II]

You guys do realize that have a lot of babies means that there will be a lot of sickly, unable to take care of themselves old people in the future? Not going into housing these large families and feeding them, providing medical care etc etc.

This seems to be a solutions that sounds nice until you think of the long term effects.

Right, until you think of the long term effects. I'm sure a lot of people aren't going to be happy if you just start tax breeding and just out adoption into the situation. Just seems like more of what a totatalitartian society might do.

[Jetan]

Honestly, we should advocate all three. Women should be encouraged to have more children than they currently do (atleast 2 per woman on average to quarantee the population size, preferably a little more for some growth), while also making adoptions from foreign countries easier and establishing a responsible immigration programs. Incentivise skilled and relatively proggressive (for easier integration) immigration, and focusing on integration of those immigrants and the refugees that are taken in (as better off countries we should take in refugees, altough only in such numbers that we can succesfully integrate them without undue issues).

An average two children per woman (which would mean that many women would need to have three or more children, realistically) is wholly unsustainable and absurd.

This just means the existing problem of large number of elderly people requiring state support and medical resources will increase dramatically in the future. Birth rates are low in western developed countries because they don't need to be high.
Eventually, the baby boomer elderly will die off and the issue will be mostly resolved.

The elderly demographic would not be the only one increasing. If the yearly birthrate falls beneath the yearly deathrate though, the elderly demigraphic will get proportionally bigger compared to the working age people.

[Costa Fierro]

You guys do realize that have a lot of babies means that there will be a lot of sickly, unable to take care of themselves old people in the future? Not going into housing these large families and feeding them, providing medical care etc etc.

This seems to be a solutions that sounds nice until you think of the long term effects.

Actually that's what happens when you don't have enough, or at least maintain the birthrate in proportion to the rate at which people shuffle off the mortal coil.

Having less children means less future workers. Having less future workers means there will be less people to look after the elderly.

[Imperializt Russia]

Forcing women to have kids if they don't want to seems a little rapey.

IVF doesn't suggest "rape" now does it?

This just means the existing problem of large number of elderly people requiring state support and medical resources will increase dramatically in the future.

Not really. The whole point of measuring birth rates and death rates is maintaining the former at or just above the latter which results in net population gains rather than net population losses.

If we're looking at countries like Japan, the birthrate is significantly lower than the death rate and the government is already starting to encounter problems that this creates.

Birth rates are low in western developed countries because they don't need to be high.

Birth rates are low not because they don't need to be high, but because healthcare and life expectancy are such that women have less children simply because they have a virtual guarantee of making it past their fifth birthday, something that doesn't happen in many poor countries.

Eventually, the baby boomer elderly will die off and the issue will be mostly resolved.

No it won't. It will see a short term drop in the total number of elderly but it won't stop the decreasing birthrates. Having less people being born than there are people dying is detrimental.

This is only true in countries that have negative or static population growth.

Most European countries, partly due to immigration, have low positive growth, and a positive birth/death rate to boot.

[Alvecia]

Forcing women to have kids if they don't want to seems a little rapey.

IVF doesn't suggest "rape" now does it?

Definitionally you could argue that forced insemination is not techically rape. But that doesn't preclude it seeming a little rapey.
I imagine it would fall under some kind of assault.

[Jetan]

You guys do realize that have a lot of babies means that there will be a lot of sickly, unable to take care of themselves old people in the future? Not going into housing these large families and feeding them, providing medical care etc etc.

This seems to be a solutions that sounds nice until you think of the long term effects.

Actually that's what happens when you don't have enough, or at least maintain the birthrate in proportion to the rate at which people shuffle off the mortal coil.

Having less children means less future workers. Having less future workers means there will be less people to look after the elderly.

While also having more elderly to take care off per people working.

[Costa Fierro]

This is only true in countries that have negative or static population growth.

Most European countries, partly due to immigration, have low positive growth, and a positive birth/death rate to boot.

Most of Europe is stagnant in terms of population growth and 19 countries have a negative growth rate. The European Union average is 0.22%.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

Government Breeding Programs are the way to go.

Though funny enough, it less about being civilized and having low birthrates and more about being irreligious and having low birthrates.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is only true in countries that have negative or static population growth.

Most European countries, partly due to immigration, have low positive growth, and a positive birth/death rate to boot.

Most of Europe is stagnant in terms of population growth and 19 countries have a negative growth rate. The European Union average is 0.22%.

I probably assumed the average to be representative. On the whole - the average for the EU is positive bordering static. Still not presently a problem.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

Most of Europe is stagnant in terms of population growth and 19 countries have a negative growth rate. The European Union average is 0.22%.

I probably assumed the average to be representative. On the whole - the average for the EU is positive bordering static. Still not presently a problem.

Plus increases in technology will likely allow production to continue at the same or higher growth rates without nearly as much labor.

[Rhyphix]

I breed my girl all the time... seriously, the OP could have used a much better term here. Child birth. And many people adopt, should we discount them? Many have children and adopt. While we all think adoption rates could be higher, child birth or "breeding" isn't going away anytime soon.

[Pope Joan]

We were in a park inNew Jersey, gazing at the Statue of Liberty across the water, Two guys were busily snogging each other; no one said anything about it.

But when a young couple pushed a baby carriage nearby, they took time out to sneer, spit, and shout: "BREEDERS! FILTHY BREEDERS!"

That was how I learned to hate that label.

[Rhyphix]

OR, what we could do is scare people of third world countries into building a border wall so that they come into the nation faster increasing our birthrate.

[Pope Joan]

OR, what we could do is scare people of third world countries into building a border wall so that they come into the nation faster increasing our birthrate.

Did you know that fewer people than ever are seeking to enter the USA?

Good decision.

[HMS Vanguard]

An average two children per woman (which would mean that many women would need to have three or more children, realistically) is wholly unsustainable and absurd.

An average of two children per women, or even more, is not just not absurd but inevitable. Think.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

An average two children per woman (which would mean that many women would need to have three or more children, realistically) is wholly unsustainable and absurd.

An average of two children per women, or even more, is not just not absurd but inevitable. Think.

Well the religious traditionalists in America are having between 3-7 children, while the left-wing have less than 1. So if anything, religion will win, simply because population rates. Yay.

[Hardknock]

Taxed breeding? I think we should have kids if we want, or adopt kids if we want. It doesn't make much sense to tax breeding and get everyone to stick with just adoption.

Until, literally, the backstory of Firefly becomes real.

"Earth that was could support us no more, we had adopted so many.
Does not have the same ring to it, but it is Joss style silly.

I am thinking more of an Ender's Game/Starship Troopers scenario where hostile ET's scare us into handing over the planet to the authoritarian globalists on a silver platter. Then we can have birth caps, mandatory sterilization, hell, bring back eugenics. We can recover some DNA from Margaret Sanger's corpse and clone her in perpetuity to be Minister of Human Resources. What could go wrong?

By the time you get to Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, there might be a couple of people for him to hang out with.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

Until, literally, the backstory of Firefly becomes real.

"Earth that was could support us no more, we had adopted so many.
Does not have the same ring to it, but it is Joss style silly.

I am thinking more of an Ender's Game/Starship Troopers scenario where hostile ET's scare us into handing over the planet to the authoritarian globalists on a silver platter. Then we can have birth caps, mandatory sterilization, hell, bring back eugenics. We can recover some DNA from Margaret Sanger's corpse and clone her in perpetuity to be Minister of Human Resources. What could go wrong?

By the time you get to Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, there might be a couple of people for him to hang out with.

We need breeding pits and birthing chambers!