Should there be limits on breeding?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Although the space required just for human habitation and energy production is abundant, with the current need of food (and land and water for the plants, and if meat is added in, which uses more land and water, and food of their own) and the current population growth, standards of living will drop eventually unless someone makes more earths.

[Valrifell]

Although the space required just for human habitation and energy production is abundant, with the current need of food (and land and water for the plants, and if meat is added in, which uses more land and water, and food of their own) and the current population growth, standards of living will drop eventually unless someone makes more earths.

Or or or or oooorrrrr, we could just invest more energy, time, and money into evenly distributing the land and resources of the planet, since it's so unequally distributed.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Some have suggested that the alternative is to stop taking in Middle Eastern immigrants in the first place. But this would doom them to a life of poverty and war. Why not just place limits on the number of children you can have, regardless of race, so that the Middle Eastern immigrants can't outbreed the locals, and the environment will be better protected from us humans?

You're all f'd up. To put it simply: Europe for the Europeans, REMOVE KEBAB!!!

One cannot chose their birthplace or ancestry, so how is it fair to require that to determine where they must live?

[USS Monitor]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Some have suggested that the alternative is to stop taking in Middle Eastern immigrants in the first place. But this would doom them to a life of poverty and war. Why not just place limits on the number of children you can have, regardless of race, so that the Middle Eastern immigrants can't outbreed the locals, and the environment will be better protected from us humans?

You're all f'd up. To put it simply: Europe for the Europeans, REMOVE KEBAB!!!

*** Warned for flaming and trolling *** "You're all f'd up" is a pretty mild flame, and "REMOVE KEBAB" is mildly trolling, but neither one is really something we want on the forums. Please review the rules here.

[Sovaal]

Although the space required just for human habitation and energy production is abundant, with the current need of food (and land and water for the plants, and if meat is added in, which uses more land and water, and food of their own) and the current population growth, standards of living will drop eventually unless someone makes more earths.

Or or or or oooorrrrr, we could just invest more energy, time, and money into evenly distributing the land and resources of the planet, since it's so unequally distributed.

And how do you propose we do that?

Anyway, that’s not fixing the problem.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Wrong premise, clearly not based on facts, therefore the conclusion have to be necessarly faulted.

This is actual fertility rate, in 2015:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP ... desc=false
Replacement rate is at 2.1
The higher fertility rate among major western nations is France, at 2.0
All the others have a lower fertility rate:
USA and UK both 1.8, Germany 1.5, Spain 1.3

So, your premise is wrong: the western world is making babies at such rate that actually reduce its population, and such fertility rate is a national average, including even migrants.

Except that the environment could be even better protected by an even lower birthrate.

So my point still applies.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Under no circumstances. Encouraging contraception and sex education, though, may put some off of having children. Not even inbreeding should be banned, as it is up to the parents to take the risk of having an incestuous love-child.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Under no circumstances. Encouraging contraception and sex education, though, may put some off of having children. Not even inbreeding should be banned, as it is up to the parents to take the risk of having an incestuous love-child.

This is something I'm still iffy on, because it greatly increases the chance of your kids being fucked up

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Under no circumstances. Encouraging contraception and sex education, though, may put some off of having children. Not even inbreeding should be banned, as it is up to the parents to take the risk of having an incestuous love-child.

This is something I'm still iffy on, because it greatly increases the chance of your kids being fucked up

I'm iffy on incest as much as the next man, but at the end of the day, as long as a condom is used and the risk is known, I don't have a problem with it.

I by no means think it is a very smart thing to do. I doubt I'd give a Noble prize to the guy who thought that fornicating his sister was good for his health.

[The Conez Imperium]

This is something I'm still iffy on, because it greatly increases the chance of your kids being fucked up

I'm iffy on incest as much as the next man, but at the end of the day, as long as a condom is used and the risk is known, I don't have a problem with it.

I by no means think it is a very smart thing to do. I doubt I'd give a Noble prize to the guy who thought that fornicating his sister was good for his health.

The state has no business in legislating who you have consensual sex with and how you do it. Although, I'll let society dictate if incest is seen positively or negatively.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm iffy on incest as much as the next man, but at the end of the day, as long as a condom is used and the risk is known, I don't have a problem with it.

I by no means think it is a very smart thing to do. I doubt I'd give a Noble prize to the guy who thought that fornicating his sister was good for his health.

The state has no business in legislating who you have consensual sex with and how you do it. Although, I'll let society dictate if incest is seen positively or negatively.

Of course it's the state's business. Everything is the state's business. Moreover, the state decides what consent is.

[Novowarsawianka]

Wrong premise, clearly not based on facts, therefore the conclusion have to be necessarly faulted.

This is actual fertility rate, in 2015:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP ... desc=false
Replacement rate is at 2.1
The higher fertility rate among major western nations is France, at 2.0
All the others have a lower fertility rate:
USA and UK both 1.8, Germany 1.5, Spain 1.3

So, your premise is wrong: the western world is making babies at such rate that actually reduce its population, and such fertility rate is a national average, including even migrants.

Except that the environment could be even better protected by an even lower birthrate.

So my point still applies.

Why not tell that to countries with large birthrates. Why? Because they will one day hit an actual industrial level, and we know what overpopulated industrial nations are like and what an effect they have on environment.
Not to forget, while you measure the tiniest changes to the environment, overpopulation is a way worse problem for Africa than just a slightly bigger carbon emission. Resources are scarce enough there, they will only get worse if they keep up the trend. The climate isn't favouring them either, so you will see not just even less resources, especially food, but more conflict.

So tell me again, why do you focus so much on Western countries, because of a minor change in the environment, but not about actual human lives and suffering. We have to realize that the entire continent there is still mostly backwards in many social and scientific things.
Instead of being an authoritarian who wants to limit people from breeding, rather help those who truly need help and help protection and sexual education, or rather, education in general, to reach them.

Instead of going crazy over the sea levels rising for a milimeter, or so, rather worry that millions of children will grow up in even worse conditions than they do now in those places.
We need more children growing up in develop countries to continue development, while the underdeveloped world is stabilized. We can reach the technological level to reverse or adapt to any changes, or even begin space colonialization, what we can't do, not realistically, is bring dead people to life, nor reverse a life full of perpetual misery.

Your "point" is pointless. You help no one, you just get to violate people's privacy and make life choices for them.

[Genivaria]

The state has no business in legislating who you have consensual sex with and how you do it. Although, I'll let society dictate if incest is seen positively or negatively.

Of course it's the state's business. Everything is the state's business. Moreover, the state decides what consent is.

That....actually is a fair point.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Of course it's the state's business. Everything is the state's business. Moreover, the state decides what consent is.

That....actually is a fair point.

I mean, it just seems weird to, on one hand, say the state has no business deciding who can have consensual sex while simultaneously thinking the state is the body that should legislate who can and cannot consent to sexual activity. It just seems very contradictory; a person should either hold both of the viewpoints or neither.

[Asylheim]

You're all f'd up. To put it simply: Europe for the Europeans, REMOVE KEBAB!!!

> when you talk about being Aryan but don't like it when actual Aryans migrate to your continent.

You're the one who brought up the word 'Aryan'. Don't put words in my mouth. I just want the Europeans to have Europe and the Muslim invaders to leave.

[Asylheim]

You're all f'd up. To put it simply: Europe for the Europeans, REMOVE KEBAB!!!

Plenty of European Muslims.

Anyway, I prefer to not go the way that results in millions dead and fascists in power.

Europeans who convert to Islam are traitors and should also be expelled. You're the one who brought up "millions dead and fascists in power." Don't put words in my mouth. Expelled does not equal dead. It means going back to their countries of origin and if they actually come from a war-torn country, because many of them do not, then all those military age Muslim males who have invaded Europe should be fighting to take back their own countries. Also, the other Muslim countries can take them in but they are refusing.

[Arlenton]

No bad idea. Very bad idea.

[Asylheim]

You do realize that religion does not adhere to an ethnicity group, correct?

It's ironic that he uses the two as synonyms when the message that ANYONE can be saved was a core tenet of both Christianity and Islam.

I never equated Europeans with Christianity in my original post. Again, putting words in my mouth. I do agree with you on that point, however. As for Islam, the sick man who founded this sick ideology married his 9 year old niece, thought that something that was choking him was an angel from God, and founded a violent ideology that spreads through lies, misinformation, enslavement, terror, and violent conquest. Read history and also the news for at least the last 20 or 30 years. The Koran states that if there are disagreements between earlier parts and later parts of the book, that the later parts trump. The later parts of the Koran are more violent than the earlier parts and encourage Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to further the cause of Islam. With all that in mind, I don't care if the evil Koran states that "ANYONE can be saved" because what they really mean is that ANYONE can be enslaved to this wicked, violent, false religion.

[Asylheim]

You're all f'd up. To put it simply: Europe for the Europeans, REMOVE KEBAB!!!

One cannot chose their birthplace or ancestry, so how is it fair to require that to determine where they must live?

One CAN choose their ideology. I have no quarrel with ex-Muslims who realized that Islam is evil and must be renounced.

[United Imperial Systems]

One cannot chose their birthplace or ancestry, so how is it fair to require that to determine where they must live?

One CAN choose their ideology. I have no quarrel with ex-Muslims who realized that Islam is evil and must be renounced.

And yet people who convert to Islam don't deserve the same rights.
I am pretty sure that's called double think, no one is going to implant your dictatorial ideals, sorry.

[The Federation of Kendor]

No. We have an individual right to pollute the Earth if national governments and corporations can do it. Plus having children is a human right and human rights > Earth's rights. People first, babies first.

Corporations pollute precisely because they're competing to pander to customers. Same for governments, at least in democracies.

Also, pollution infringes on the rights of other humans anyway.

So you think that democracy is bad?

[Oil exporting People]

Although the space required just for human habitation and energy production is abundant, with the current need of food (and land and water for the plants, and if meat is added in, which uses more land and water, and food of their own) and the current population growth, standards of living will drop eventually unless someone makes more earths.

With current technology this would be true, but the fact technology is rapidly advancing to the point this won't be; we're literally on the verge of Post-Scarcity, or as close as we can be. This, however, doesn't mean that population booms are advisable, just that this particular point isn't valid.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Not to forget, while you measure the tiniest changes to the environment, overpopulation is a way worse problem for Africa than just a slightly bigger carbon emission. Resources are scarce enough there, they will only get worse if they keep up the trend. The climate isn't favouring them either, so you will see not just even less resources, especially food, but more conflict.

That's their business; only if they impact the climate will they be making it ours.

And I'm not going to condemn them for what they might do to the climate in the future.

Instead of being an authoritarian who wants to limit people from breeding, rather help those who truly need help and help protection and sexual education, or rather, education in general, to reach them.

Education doesn't always convince people to have fewer kids, as western couples with several children have demonstrated.

Instead of going crazy over the sea levels rising for a milimeter, or so, rather worry that millions of children will grow up in even worse conditions than they do now in those places.

They wouldn't have grown up in those conditions if they were never born.

Also, it's not just "sea levels rising for a milimeter," it's droughts and floods and hurricanes.

We need more children growing up in develop countries to continue development, while the underdeveloped world is stabilized. We can reach the technological level to reverse or adapt to any changes, or even begin space colonialization

We've been promised that for decades now, and still haven't gotten it.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Corporations pollute precisely because they're competing to pander to customers. Same for governments, at least in democracies.

Also, pollution infringes on the rights of other humans anyway.

So you think that democracy is bad?

In theory? Yeah. In practice, governments also pollute in dictatorships for reasons other than pandering to customers.

Note the context of my caveat.

[United Imperial Systems]

So you think that democracy is bad?

In theory? Yeah. In practice, governments also pollute in dictatorships for reasons other than pandering to customers.

Note the context of my caveat.

Democracy isn't the best, but it's the best we have and what we can manitain.
Also, FYI, the biggest polluter is China, NOT a democracy.