Updated date:

68 "Population; My Opinion"


Let's avoid more government control.

68 “Population; My Opinion”

I am going to write this hub about a very delicate and sensitive subject. This is a subject that no one really wants to talk about or even think about. Personally, I think about it a lot. It is about POPULATION.

There was a story on a show called “Body of Proof” not too long ago that faced this subject in a very serious way.

As the story went, there was an American terrorist that had taken it upon himself to do something about the population. He infected himself with a deadly virus that was spread by contact with blood and he started spreading the disease throughout the city. He had an anti-body that kept him alive to spread the disease but it was not a cure.

Anyway, what I am getting at is that we the people, not the government, have to start using common sense when it comes to raising a family and what size the family should be. I am not saying to stop raising families, but in this day and age we do not have to have large families.

I know that back 100 or so years ago, there were some families that had several children because as they grew up they were able to help on the farm, in the family business or even go out and work to help support the family. Those days are in the past and need to stay there.

Then there comes the more recent times when couples would have several children simply for the purpose of tax write-offs and there were the ones that had several children so that they could draw more welfare. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, these things were done by a lot of people, even though they don’t really make sense now. I guess they thought they did back then. Even though there are illegal immigrants that still do this today, and they aren’t the only ones, that is not what this article is about. This is strictly about the POPULATION and the fact that we the people need to start thinking about it.

I know that the stupidity of man with all of our past wars, some help from nature with past plagues and diseases, have helped the problem of over population to a point. But creating wars and diseases is not a way to control the population. I always wonder what the world would be like today had we not lost so many lives in past wars, dating back to before the Romans, and the black plague and such diseases that took so many lives in Europe. How many people would there be on this Earth today? China has always had a high population, maybe because they are one of the oldest and most successful civilizations ever, and they have started doing something about their over population. They are using government controlled birth control. Personally, I don’t even like the sound of that and I would never want to see that here.

I know that I am not the only one that thinks something needs to be done simply because of the show I spoke of earlier. I believe that story was trying to point out that over population will be a big problem in the not too distant future. There will become a time that even technology will not be able to supply enough food and water to accommodate the people of the world. And then there will be a need to create ways of disposing waste.

I am not even suggesting government intervention in this situation. There have been many movies made in the past that cover this problem, such as “Soylent Green”. That movie was a little far-fetched, but it makes one think. I haven’t seen very many in recent years because it is not a subject people like to talk about. I have heard things mentioned that that someone is going to decrease the population of the world with a nuclear bomb. Some say that’s why we create wars. That’s a terrible thought, isn’t it? Why kill people when we can avoid the problem by controlling the sizes of families now.

I just can’t see any reason for one couple to have 18 children, (maybe the extreme example) but why so many kids? And then chances are they will need help, (from welfare for example) to take care of them. Maybe it is a big loving family or maybe they just did it because they wanted attention, for whatever reason, why? Every family would be better off with 1 or 2, maybe 3, children.

I have pulled up some statistics from Wikipedia about population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

As of 2011;

North America is the 4th most populous continent in the world; with 528,720,588. The U.S. is the 4th most populous country in the world; with 308,745,538.

As of April 9, 2012;

The U.S. is 3rd largest in total population behind People’s Republic of China and India, in that order. U.S. 313,326,000, 4.47% of the world population.

With this kind of growth the world population is estimated to be between 7.5 and 10.5 BILLION by the year of 2050. I know, the year 2050 is so far away that we don’t need to worry. Well, I can remember in 1960 I couldn’t even imagine being alive in 2012 or what it would even be like. 2050 will be here before anyone even realizes it. Luckily the U.S. is not among the most densely populated areas. It isn’t yet anyway.

All I can say is that the way the government is trying to control our lives these days, we the people had better do something about this situation ourselves and quit having so many kids. With the economy the way it is now people should be concentrating on smaller families anyway.

Anyway, this is my opinion and I welcome all others whether you agree with me or not.



Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on May 14, 2014:

Thank you Larry for the visit and the comment. People really do need to become aware of the lurking disaster. Greg.

Larry Rankin from Oklahoma on May 14, 2014:

Over-population is a subject that has to be addressed one of these days because it won't go away unless we are proactive. If people would just take the necessary precautions to only have the number of children they wanted, we probably wouldn't just see a slow down in population growth but an actual reduction. Our environment would sure breathe a sigh of relief. Thought provoking stuff.

Max Peterson from Green Bay, WI on October 26, 2013:

I agree, if we the people don't decide to do something about the population issue, the government will soon make a decision for us, butting in to yet another aspect of our personal lives.

CraftytotheCore on September 20, 2013:

You know, you speak a lot of truth here! I came from a huge family. Even when I was growing up, I saw families struggling. Today it is so much worse. I have two children. I know of families that have a lot more than I do, and I imagine it can't be easy. At times, we are thankful just to have enough food to feed the whole family, I don't know how people with a lot of kids do it. I save money, clip coupons, watch for sales, and it still costs so much just to feed a family of 4. Times aren't getting easier, the grocery store prices are getting more expensive. At least where I live!

Resident from Crab Nebula on June 30, 2013:

Right on man, and amen!

Copper Man on June 22, 2013:

I remember reading (probably in Ripley's Believe It Or Not) that a line-up of Chinese people walking four abreast past a given point would never end. Now, it's just people in general and probably ten abreast. In the Bible, it says "Go forth and multiply." We need to read a bit further.

James E Cressler from Orlando, Florida on May 28, 2013:

Thanks for posting this interesting article and there are good points. Strange how both the government and the churches both support a rising population because an old population holds little possibility of significant future growth. Even if the nation has a poor economy, if the average age in in the twenties there's all sorts of good possibilities in the future. As verses an aging population, like ours, has huge income de-distribution problems like retirement and medical benefits.

William Kosko from Baltimore, Maryland on April 26, 2013:

Oh and another thing I thought of from reading some of the comments: People should also realize that the need for food only increases because we allow it to. There are people out there that have proven we do not need to eat as much as they say we do to live healthy. It is all about adaptation. Animals adapt to survive, but you have to be willing. So again, another issue that results from being selfish. What you eat is the result of habit. I never use to believe that until I started eating things I never use to eat when I was younger...then I thought about it and realize your subconscious mind has a huge control over the things you do. Once we realize that as people, we can change any aspect of the way we live our lives.

William Kosko from Baltimore, Maryland on April 26, 2013:

I am so glad someone else out there has similar beliefs on such a touchy subject ! The world really does need to wake up and realize that we are living very selfishly. I actually intend to adopt my first child. I mean, yes, I may have children, but there are so many kids out there that need families... so in a way it is selfish to have kids. There are many reasons to support either side of this argument, but sometimes you do have to stop letting your emotions dictate the things you do in life. And at the end of the day, the environment a child is in has been proven to have much more effect on how they grow than their genetics.

ryokowaren from USA on February 03, 2013:

This is a great article and you make valid points. I am 30 and do not feel the need to have any kids at the moment unlike others that I know that have become "baby factories" to obtain welfare and food stamps. This is definitely a problem that everyone needs to starts thinking about before Government intervenes. Voted up!

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on September 23, 2012:

Hi Elani, thank you and very well put. Greg

Elani-Lee from Los Angeles on September 23, 2012:

Good Hub. Very Important topic too. I agree that the global population is out of control. Another problem that goes hand and hand with it is that the "dumber" people are generally the ones who are having herds of children (at least in the US). I really fear that our society is heading closer and closer to Idiocracy. Then we will have two huge problems, and unsustainable population and a populus which is too dumb to do anything about it

Cynthia Taggart from New York, NY on July 29, 2012:

Whowas - How 'bout "individualism," rationality and equality? In that way the "collective" nature of securalism does not morf into Mao or Hitler-types of governing, which they inevitably do. I like your observation though that fascism is like religion, because I certainly agree that religion forms collective thought; however the hate of it also forms collective ideals. It nutures "collective" thought. But the moment we put a label on a group of people or even a "type" it is the beginning of collective thought and action. That is why I believe - as it was at least in the 18th century, "individualism" succeeds where other collective philosophies fail. Thanks for clarifying.

whowas on July 28, 2012:

Hi cynthtggt,

No I'm not being sarcastic at all.

I'm certainly not advocating a system that resembles communist China or fascist Germany, either. In the first instance, there is nothing rational about leader-worship - which both systems espoused. Those systems have been claimed by some to be secular but in reality they functioned very much as many religions do. I suspect that no one apart from your good self thinks that Maoist China or Hitler's Germany were thought to be committed to global equality. That's a bizarre statement.

I didn't even mention war!

Nor did I make any kind of comment on all religions. I was quite specific in criticising religious superstitions that forbid contraception.

I advocate real secularism, rationality and equality among persons. Seems quite good to me. :)

Cynthia Taggart from New York, NY on July 28, 2012:

whowas - what are you advocating? Are you being sarcastic? Do mean like China in the past? Or do you mean like Germany during World War II? Both were secular and thought to be rational and committed to global equality. If you're saying more died under religious war, you're wrong. More died under secular rulers.

whowas on July 28, 2012:

I agree with you, I think it is a case of individual responsibility. There are two main causes of over-population:

1. Underdeveloped nations with high mortality where a large family is still seen as the best security against age and infirmity.

2. Religious superstitions which forbid the use of contraception (the Pope has a lot to answer for - and he's not the only one)

The solution is simple in theory:

a secular, rational society committed to global equality.

Why do so few people want that?

Cynthia Taggart from New York, NY on June 12, 2012:

I think the future of employment via the Internet will expand our population into more non-urban areas; and I believe that less children will become the rule out of necessity rather than rule.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on June 03, 2012:

Hi Ann, thank you for the votes. My education was in the days of the dinaours too. It really isn't a matter of the government ruling the birth control for the sake of a better race like Hitler tried. The fact is taht at some point the government will be forced to control births, as they already do in China, due to food and water supplies. They are already facing water shortages in Colorado, forcing people to conserve more so than ever before.I'm not a big believer in "Conspiracy Theories", so that kind of stuff I don't believe. However, I do believe in facts and if people don't start facing them instead of coming up with all these CT's we will be in deep doodoo. Greg

Ann1Az2 from Orange, Texas on June 03, 2012:

Voted up and interesting, gregas. I must confess it is a subject that we discussed in school (for me, when dinosaurs roamed the earth). It seems like every city I've moved to since, the population grows while I'm there and the traffic gets worse. And it doesn't matter how small the town is when I move there, either. You know what I've done - I've put it all in God's hands. He always knows what's best. I do agree with you though, that we should not let our government dictate what size families we should have - that's what Hitler did when he tried to create his "master race." However, I believe that it may be too late to do anything about all of that. I heard recently that all the vaccines that schools require our children to have are slowly poisoning all of us. Maybe I'm paranoid, but some of the ingredients they use in them are not too healthy. Anyway, you handled a touchy subject very well.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on May 22, 2012:

Hi Bugg, Thank you. Yep, I have in the past known some of those people too. I love when some backs that I have made valid points and trust me I love to share my my feelings and thoughts, and what better place to do it but here on the hubs? Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on May 22, 2012:

Hi PHD, Thank you. As for the statement about "having children for the purpose of tax write-offs" I agree it is completely illogical. But, years ago people didn't consider the part about how much it cost to send the kids to school and clothe them and feed them. The only considered how much of a return that child would give them on their taxes. There was a time when they even planned having the kids close to the end of the year because they could still write them off for the entire year. Now that the tax laws have changed a lot of the deductions, that makes a lot less sense. There was a time when you could get a hefty return for each dependent chile and no limit to how many. Besides, who said everyone thinks logically? Even on welfare now, there is a limit to haw many can be claimed.

You have to remember too, not everyone uses commen sense, especially when it comes to having large families. There are "men" that have to show how much of a man they are by how many kids they can produce, and it doesn't always have to be with the "wife". No common sense there, but it is a common practice. Greg

Bugg Adventures from Arizona on May 17, 2012:

What an interesting discussion. I am sad to say that I know people who had additional children for tax break purposes. It is sadly true. Unfortunate because now there is little left for the people that truly need the help. You've made a great deal of valid points throughout. Thank you for sharing.

Theresa Ast from Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2012:

Excellent and thought-provoking article and we do need to be thinking about this, about how best to modify population increase without resorting to totalitarian tactics.

However, I was very surprised that you, and several other hubbers, mentioned people who have children for "tax write off" purposes. Not to be incredibly rude and offensive, but that sounds completely illogical!!

Who would be nuts enough to do that? The cost of raising a child far, far exceeds the equivalent annual tax write off. And children are a full-time physical and emotional responsibility.

I can't imagine any parents with IQ's above 75 actually thinking this would be a smart economic move. (Now single women on welfare may be a different situation....I do not know.)

I think people are careless, they get sloppy, they are in a hurry, and oops, another baby is on the way. But every study clearly shows, and common sense tells us, that adding additional children to a family does not increase income or the general standard of living for the family.

Gregas, I really appreciated your hub, but I was rather shocked at the repeated mention on a "tax break" as a reason to have additional children. Theresa

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on May 04, 2012:

Hi Mama, Thank you. Hanson is correct, you do have the right idea. Greg

hansonarticles on May 04, 2012:

She has the right idea ^^

Catherine Taylor from Canada on May 04, 2012:

Such an important hub! We all need to do the math, the planet cannot possibly sustain a constant increase in population. This situation was a big part of my decision to adopt children rather then add to the population.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on May 04, 2012:

Hi Anjili, Thank you. I am glad you see humor in this article. There was a time when that was popular. That is why they finally put a limit on how many kids they will pay for. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on May 04, 2012:

Hi Hanson, Thank you. The food situation is not going to be the first problem. Even with the vast spaces left, not all are habitable. Not all areas will have the water needed, the most valuable commodity. There are places now that are facing shortages, Denver, CO being one locally. I do hope thigs will change before that time comes for you and my grandkids. Greg

Anjili from planet earth, a humanoid on May 03, 2012:

Hahahaha...More children in order to get more welfare. You are funny. Voted thus.

hansonarticles on May 03, 2012:

Hey Greg, not only is the population going to extremely high in 2050 but the food demand is suppose to double. With population on the rise and food supply dropping one could only expect a food war to come out of this. Being 19 (turning 20 in November) in 2050 i will be 57 (if i make it that far, i hope so). Being 57 at that time i will probably be capable of living to my 90s at least. I'm afraid of what is to come but am willing to accept that my future is in need of writes, theorists and social movements that we've been seeing in the past 3 years.

Cheers and good content.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 24, 2012:

Hi Express, Thank you. Yes, the fewer children in a family, the more of a positive difference the parents will make, if that parent cares enough. Greg

H C Palting from East Coast on April 21, 2012:

This is an interesting and timely hub! There are too many people who choose to have sex and not do any planning for birth control at the very least or marriage.

Change needs to come in the form of getting people more educated. There are some areas of the world where children as young as 10, 13, etc. out of need for help around the homestead or "tradition." There have been numerous studies that show many women who are more educated choose to have fewer children if they choose to have any at all.

There are too many people who are not informed about their contraception and the fact that their choices affect more people than just themselves. More people should adopt if they want tax breaks but preferably they would be adopting because they want to raise a bright child or make a positive difference in a child's life.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 18, 2012:

Hi Credence, Thank you. There is a lot of open space. But if those spaces start filling in, there is still a couple of things to consider. 1-Food supply, and yes, we do seem to have an abundance of that, NOW. More people means more livestock and more farms. Where are those going to be? 2- Water, there are already problems with shortages of fresh water and droughts. Then there is always waste. Just things that have to be considered. Greg

Credence2 from Florida (Space Coast) on April 18, 2012:

Great article, Gregas, it just seemed from my observation that much of population problem stems from the need of people to live in urban centers for jobs and such. Would things be so dire if people just spread out a little? Just try crossing Montana from one end to the other or any of Canadian provinces. I am renewed as to how much open land and space is there, but if you cannot live without a physical job you are prohibited from living there.

Fortunately, we all are not so restrained on a retirement income, I could get the pick of the litter, So who needs all these people anyway? I dunno, that area in the southwest of Colorado around Alamosa, that hugs the NM line, seems kind of nice.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 16, 2012:

Hi Jason, Thank you. This is a topic that does need attention sooner than people think. The government will intervine if they think they can profit from it, whether it be for votes or whatever. I would rather see the population balance out and not decline due to intervention, war, disasters, etc. Greg

JasonL99 on April 16, 2012:

Thank you for talking about this topic, many people are too afraid of other people's response, but it's an important topic that more people should be engaged in.

I don't think we need to worry too much about government control though - the evidence points to declining population growth rates in wealthy parts of the world, and as the developing world becomes wealthier their population growth rates are beginning to decline as well.

Hans Rosling did a great TED presentation on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 15, 2012:

Hi Daisy, Thank you. Yes the human population is rising and the rest of the animal world id vanishing. Religion plays a big roll in this problem because of the religions that preach "no birth control". Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 15, 2012:

Hi Exstatic, Thank you. I feel it is a matter that does need attention that people seem to not want to talk about. But, people talk about abortion all of the time and that is just as sensetive, especially when it comes to the women. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 15, 2012:

Hi Itakins, Thank you. Population control by war seems to be what has gone on for so many years. In fact a lot of countries prefered male children just for the purpose of war, know that wars are innevitable. Self control would be a lot better and keep people happier. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 15, 2012:

Hi Chuck, Thank you. I am sorry to hear about your son. do think 2 children is the ideal family, though we had 3. We would have been better off with only 2. We had 2 girls and then our son. We had them in the sixties and seventies. Life has so many different turns. At least you were blessed with a grandson. Take care. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 14, 2012:

Hi B, Thank you. Actually, it's not even about only having what you can afford. You might be well off and be able to support 10 children. Then after they are born, something may happen that you go broke. Then what? The whole idea of self control and limit, is to not have more than 2 or 3 children. And no, we don't want to let government to have to control how many chikdren we have. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 14, 2012:

Hi KJ, Thank you. Yes, the people do have to take responsibility for their actions. And we always told our children not to play with theie food and now the government allows people to play with our foods. We just really don't know what we are eating anymore. This what we will have to deal with in the future because they will eventually have to design artificial foods in order to feed all of the people. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 14, 2012:

Hi Jennifer, Thank you. It is good to have 1 child, but I believe 2 or maybe even 3 children would be OK. And yes, the ones that choose to have large families, for whatever reason, are being selfish. Maybe they feel that there is more love in large families, but in reality, they are depriving the children of a lot, especially their future education. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 14, 2012:

Hi Teach, Thank you. If people would just use self control and resist having large families, for whatever reason, that would be a solution that I believe the world could live with. Greg

daisyflowrs from Richmond, VA on April 14, 2012:

This is a good hub with a great debate. There are religious views to consider, cultural values, etc. Population is a serious topic and I am glad you have written a hub about it. It is interesting that the human population is rising while all other creature populations are dwindling. Sharks are starting to mix-breed creating new sharks. Great hub!

Jim Higgins from Eugene, Oregon on April 13, 2012:

Glad to see this. It is an urgent matter really, that gets little attention. Good writng too! UP

itakins from Irl on April 13, 2012:

And now China has 40 million males they reckon will not find wives - so they are luring Korean females across as a desperate measure.It's an interesting fact that the population has a way of righting itself,especially when the male pop. is top heavy -War !Population control, or perhaps more correctly, female population control,might yet prove to be China's nemesis.

Writer Chuck on April 13, 2012:


I wish I had more children. My wife and I were busy trying to start a business and buy a house and all that went along with a married couples dreams.

We had one child. He had just about anything he wanted, except a brother or sister. We never got around to having more children.

It's to bad, because not knowing the future we now have no children. You see our son died at the age of forty one. Had we have had the where with all to stop worrying about what was going to happen in the future maybe, just maybe we might have had another child.

Thank the Lord our son left us with a grandson. He lives in New York State, unfortunately we don't get to see him a lot.

b. Malin on April 13, 2012:

Interesting thoughts Gregas, and yes, you have chosen a very Controversial Subject. We need to raise children that WE can afford to take care of OURSELVES...Not the Government. Only have, what you can support. We also need to Educate them and hope we've done our Best, given our Time... so that they can make it in this Crazy world of ours. To sum it up, we would never want to be force to become like China...one child to a Family.

kjforce from Florida on April 13, 2012:

Enjoyed your hub as usual, you hit on a very contoversial subject of which I have been speaking of for years.When are we going to start taking responsibility for our actions, right or wrong? We bring children in the world and then ignore them, leaving them to the system.We are a culture of needless waste, instant everything without regard to anyone else. Yes I saw " Soylent Green" and it really doesn't sound so far fetched anymore..food additives have been used for years, to supplement more portions, possibly this is why so many "new" health issues? The government is controling behind the scenes of many issues and we are not aware of them.We need to stop taking everything for granted...Just my thoughts

Jennifer Essary from Idaho on April 13, 2012:

I think people have either forgotten or have never heard the tale of Easter Island. Eventually civilization will collapse because there won't be enough resources to support everyone. We've chosen to only have 1 child because we want to give him things we didn't have. I think those who have very large families purely for tax write offs and welfare handouts clearly don't have the children's best interest at heart. If people are going to be pro-life then stand up for a good life. I've written about the contraceptive coverage controversy and I found it ironic that those who opposed the coverage also oppose government assistance programs. I wholeheartedly agree that citizens should take control of the situation before the government gives us no choice in the matter. Voted up and interesting

Dianna Mendez on April 12, 2012:

I think those that have experienced the cost of living do consider having smaller families. Others, just love big families and kids. And still others, just have kids. Anyways, I believe the population is growing and that there is a need to prepare for the ramifications of this increase. Just not sure how to solve the issue... Ethics, what would do the least harm in society? Great topic and should be a matter taken into consideration.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

Hi Rebecca, Thank you. Actually, let's hope we can be smarter than nature for a change and she doesn't sneak up and bite us on the butt on this one. Greg

Rebecca Mealey from Northeastern Georgia, USA on April 12, 2012:

This is a scary and controversial subject and you addressed it well. Let's hope nature is kinder to us than we have been to nature! I vote this up and interesting!

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

Hi Melis, Thank you. If we the people can slow down the over population problem ourselves, wouldn't that be better than letting disease or wars decide or settle that for us. We are supposed to be the smart ones. I know others are thinking about it besides me, but they don't seem to want to discus the problem. Greg

Melis Ann from Mom On A Health Hunt on April 12, 2012:

I can be somewhat of a doomsdayer ~ the unfortunate truth is that overpopulation will correct itself at some point ~ either by disease or by people over utilizing the planet's resources. You're not the only one thinking about it.

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

Hi again Jama, I know what you mean. With the elk, they have the choice to fight and with our men, they fight because they have to. The women get stuck with the weaker or the older bulls (like me). Greg

Joanna McKenna from Central Oklahoma on April 12, 2012:

But it's the "weaker bulls" left behind who sire the next generation when the majority of the "best and brightest" don't return from war. That should give us all a chill. ;D

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

Hi Jama, Thank you. It isn't just the "anti" groups, look at the many religions that don't believe in birth control. They encourage large families in order to keep their churches full.

And what you are talking about sending our best men off to war makes sense too. But just think, we may never have won a war if we sent our weaker/dumber ones instead. But, that is fighting the nature of selectivity where the strong survive. That goes with any breed of animal. The stronger bull elk wins to mate with his cows. Just think what would become of the heard if the weaker bulls would breed those cows. The species would would more than likely vanish. I'm getting off track, but that's the idea you were getting at. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

HI joe, Thank you. The birthrate is supposed to be dropping but that is only now and mainly because of the economy. But what happens IF the economy gets better, the first thing people are going to do is feel confident enough to start having large families again. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

Hi Mary, Thank you. It is a touchy subject. The thing is, if people don't start doing something about, the government will decide they have too at some point, like China. Greg

Greg Schweizer (author) from Corona, California. on April 12, 2012:

Hi Josak, Thank you. Yes, the poverty stricken areas would be the place to start. I'm not saying to do a drastic cut in birthrates, I just can't see where people have to have the large families. Cutting back on birthrates can cause a problem as you say, but if that isn't something that is considered now, imagine what it just might be like in the future. Did you ever see the movie "Soylent Green"? Greg

Joanna McKenna from Central Oklahoma on April 12, 2012:

In any over-populated country where women have finally gained the power to decide for themselves how many children they will have - even none at all - the birthrate decreases.

That the U.S. is near the top of the "highest population" list makes one wonder how anti-choice and anti-birth control groups and their paid lackeys can keep promoting agendas that would force ALL women of child-bearing age to have as many babies as possible.

The other thing that has always puzzled me is the practice of sending our best and brightest male citizens to fight a war. To me, this is akin to leaving one's 10-year-old car at home and sending the brand-new luxury car to the Demolition Derby instead. Just sayin'...

Voted up and awesome! ;D

Joel from Ohio on April 12, 2012:

I actually heard some reports on this lately that surprised me. They are starting to predict a decrease in population for the first time ever. It has not started to take place quite yet, but it will in the future. These worse economic times have supposidly caused a lot of people to have fewer children or none at all. We shall see if this comes true.

Mary Craig from New York on April 12, 2012:

Such a touchy subject with no really viable answers at the moment. Josak makes a good point bringing up our aging population (of which I am one). How do you manage the population without government control...and who wants government control a total Catch22 situaion? Very thought provoking. Voted up an interesting.

Josak from variable on April 12, 2012:

It is an interesting discussion, cutting down on our birthrate is really the only solution but that comes at a massive economic cost (the aging population being sustained by a small number of young people, this is currently happening in Japan) I think the best response is to minimize poverty (the fastest growing populations are in the poorest areas) and empower women to have control over their own reproductive process especially in terms of contraception.

Related Articles