I have heard that China will now only allow 1 child per family in order to slow down their population growth.?
599507
I Wouldnt Doubt It\n\nThe Population Of The Earth Is About 6 Billion Now\nIf 1/3 Of The Population (2 Billion) \nHave 2 Children In The Next 5 Years\nThat Will Add 4 Billion To The Population\nExponentially Incredible\nThere Are Only So Many Resources Available\nEventually\nWe Will End Up Procreating Ourselves Out Of Existence
820354
I'm in total agreement with you. it's the same for any country. over population will create problems with jobs. are system would not be able to support everyone in need of help.
174718
After China in population, I don't know how they can feed their citizens. So if hopeful, India will get No.1 in population in the world.
505324
The rate of child births will drop to O,as men do not have the stamina for child birth. It is not called labor for nothing,you know.
168109
I understand the logic behind it, but it is wrong to control how many children a couple can have.  I can imagine it shatters many couple's dreams and some kids may feel lonely as an only child.  \n\nBut the worse thing is that some people kill their kids!  Especially if it's a girl (because they feel a son is more valuable).  How sad.
907971
I feel your pain, however, you should familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution and learn that the pursuit of happiness is a very basic presumed right. High economical status is not a requirement for multiple children. Sorry grasshopper.
691862
less children to sacrifice.
787194
Of course not. China has. It has 1.3 Billion people to date. Second is India with about 1 Billion people to date.
589028
If it's 1 child, it's because there are 2 many people and too little money and food resources to feed so many. With no population control policies the government would have a disaster to manage
373246
Yes, i would adopt from China probably, (since they are a hard surpressive government and they are not too nice to female children.
323328
:}\nOur designed two parent family unit is obviously the best choice and should be strived for.\nHaving said that, It is not always possible. Sometime births happen out of wedlock, sometimes one parent or the other dies, some times one parent or the other is not fit to be a parent. Divorces, while lamentable also happen. Children living in safe loving homes and being provided for has to be the minimum standard. We should not condemn single parent families, in fact we should realize the difficulty they face and support and assist them when possible
179650
No, but I do think that people should RESTRICT the number of children they have. If most couples restricted themselves to only two children, the our population would go DOWN, because some of these children would die in birth or from disease before they reached reproductive age.\n\n"Do we need to keep adding people to the planet?" The word "need" is, in this instance, subjective. Economically, it would be a very bad idea to stop adding people to the planet. For our /species/, it would be a very bad idea to stop adding people to the planet.\n\nAs for the website you referenced, what good is it for the Earth's biosphere to return to "normal" (a very subjective condition anyway) if humans aren't around to enjoy it?\n\nWe should probably restrict ourselves in the number of children we have. It is crazy to have 10 children in an age where overpopulation is so prevalent. Of course, this might also depend on where you life. It would be worse to have so many children if you lived in India than if you lived in the U.S.
1064784
Yes, the birthrate of US citizens (as in most developed countries) has dropped below replacement level (2 children for every man and woman), thus if it weren't for immigration the US population would actually be decreasing.
351272
Overpopulation is a very serious problem. Populations grow exponentially and any environment eventually reaches its carrying capacity, the limit at which the available resources can sustain a population.  An artificially imposed limit is probably not the answer, as it can have destabilizing cultural affects, such as those seen in China where those limits have been tried.  Actually the best answer might be addressing poverty.  Wealthier populations actually tend to reproduce less.  There are many reason for this, including education and access to birth control methods.  Mostly, it is because children cease to be seen as an economic resource.  In agrarian cultures, children are basically cheap labor and so there is an economic incentive to procreate more.
287949
im not sure but have some information that might be helpful for u\n China , as everyone knows Chines r too fast in technolgy,so they must b using computers and thier populations is up to 1.1 billion\nand than INDIA,, indian r too fast in software,and whole the world knows about it.and they cant b doing software well without a computer, right,a nd Indian`s populations was very near to 1 billion in 1997,maybe now its 1 billion\nand the 3rd u can consider USA,,the whole states of america..:-? right
884679
You realize how grossly overpopulated China and Taiwan are, right...? Well, back then, they didn't exactly have a lot of money. Most were destitute families who had too many kids because they figured they'd get the extra hands for help. They obviously had to feed them, and that's where the importance on food is placed. They were always told to finish all their food... sometimes, they were told to not drink water at all so that they had enough room in their stomach for all the food. THEN, they could drink (what my mom told me... yes, I Asian if you can't tell from my avatar). Food wasted in that time was a really bad thing to them... and that's carried on for a long time, especially in places like China where there are still very poor people. \n\nYou may not get this because you grew up in the US (assuming) where you were adequately fed and didn't have to worry about such things. It may be unnecessary in your opinion, but for them, it was way different. \n\nBy the way, this whole placing importance on food is applicable mostly to the older generation, not usually the ones here. I was always fed properly, and I was born here, sooo...
1121394
It is difficult to say whether this policy is right or wrong: it has both positive and negative aspects. The one-child policy is a way to combat overpopulation and poverty. As such, I would say it is right.\n\nOn the other hand, it has some negative aspects too. For one, children without sibblings tend to be spoiled and traditional family values, like the care of the children for their parents, tend to disappear. Further, the Chinese preference for boys is causing some unwanted side effects too. Foetuses that will grow into girls are often aborted because there is no second chance.\n\nRight and wrong are not absolute values. It all depends on your frame of reference. In China's case, I do not believe the economic boom would have been possible or at least that strong without this policy.\n\nThus, in my opinion, the balance tends to go in favour of 'Right'.