License to have children?

[Quintessence]

A couple of others have already pointed out the issue of enforceability.

To my mind, even if this was a good idea (and limiting birth rate is a good idea in the present era), it's not enforceable, similarly to why abortion bans are not enforceable. The reality of biology is too messy to be controlled by human rules and laws. It will do its own thing.

What you want to do instead is create the right environment so the need for a licensure is redundant and not worth entertaining to begin with. How does one do that?

Have a universally well-educated population with equal opportunities for furthering oneself and one's prospects. This can (and has) been created by laws that adequately fund education and equalize opportunities amongst historically oppressed groups.

Bestow full autonomy for all reproductive decisions to the people directly involved in them and their medical doctors. Unfortunately, we are moving away from that in my country which creates a hostile environment for having and raising children on the correct terms.

Create universal and adequate child support to assist parents and their families in caring for their children. This especially includes ensuring adequate nutrition, medical care, clothing, and shelter for all children and adults so they can have a healthy living environment. ​

All of these things can be created or incentivized by social programs and government spending. Human lots in life are all about the environment they live in. Where you live makes your destiny, as it has been in the past, and will be going forward. Smart policymaking shapes the environment to desired outcomes.

 

[Heyo]

Probably far more as they have a far higher chance of surviving their childhood in the west.

That's one thing but the western child also lives a western lifestyle from birth on. Tonnes of plastic will be thrown away, their room heated or cooled, a TV running, been driven to school, etc.

 

[Vinayaka]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

I would never agree to a law, but I would agree to a compulsory 'parenting' course in high school. I know they exist in some places now, and I think they can be effective tools for enabling people just to be smarter all around, both on deciding when to have kids, and what the heck to do when the children do come.

 

[paarsurrey]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

How could the "unlicensed" issue the license to have a child, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

Seeing there we would already have an issue

Being married doesn't make one a good parent unless you honestly believe that atheists who in many cases ain't married are worse than them? Also, married people get divorced for whatever reason, so wouldn't that be a demonstration of the failure of the initial assumption that being married ought to be a requirement?

What about a homosexual couple, is there any documentation that they are worse parents than a standard couple?

Something like this (the general idea) would end in complete chaos and civil war, with people disagreeing

Yes, I can certainly understand why having marriage as a requirement to have children could be a problem, and you have a point about how many people get divorced, so marriage is no guarantee of a lasting relationship. But at the very least I think that the couple should be in a committed relationship if they are going to have children together.

It is not only atheists who don't get married. Many heterosexual couples live together out of wedlock.

I think that a homosexual couple can be just as as good parents as anyone else. Good parenting has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

 

[Alien826]

Isaac Asimov wrote an article where he used simple math, based on the population growth rate of the time, and assuming that science could solve all problems associated with that growth, to show that by the year 8700 (as I recall) the entire universe would be converted to human flesh.

Obviously, science won't enable that, so it's up to us to do it ourselves, and if we don't do so then "nature" will do it for us. The problem seems to be that we have evolved abilities that allow us to overcome nature's mechanisms that would otherwise have limited our population. So far, at least.

Frankly, our short sighted reaction to the impending climate crisis gives me little hope that we will be able to do this.

On the subject of the OP, I don't support the social Darwinism that it seems to imply, but I strongly support some kind of limitation. China tried it, but underestimated our natural urge to reproduce. I'm very pessimistic, and am glad that I should be dead before the worst of it hits.

 

[Nimos]

I don't have the numbers but my guess is that one child in the western world has a bigger ecological footprint than 7 children in Niger.

I have no doubt that it is so, my brothers' kids are 10 and 11 and the amount of garbage these kids have gotten throughout their lives is insane, both when it comes to plastic toys, mobile phones, computers etc. And they are not spoiled, so I think they could easily make up for 30 Niger kids, to be honest.

 

[Koldo]

A couple of others have already pointed out the issue of enforceability.

To my mind, even if this was a good idea (and limiting birth rate is a good idea in the present era), it's not enforceable, similarly to why abortion bans are not enforceable. The reality of biology is too messy to be controlled by human rules and laws. It will do its own thing.

What you want to do instead is create the right environment so the need for a licensure is redundant and not worth entertaining to begin with. How does one do that?

Have a universally well-educated population with equal opportunities for furthering oneself and one's prospects. This can (and has) been created by laws that adequately fund education and equalize opportunities amongst historically oppressed groups.

Bestow full autonomy for all reproductive decisions to the people directly involved in them and their medical doctors. Unfortunately, we are moving away from that in my country which creates a hostile environment for having and raising children on the correct terms.

Create universal and adequate child support to assist parents and their families in caring for their children. This especially includes ensuring adequate nutrition, medical care, clothing, and shelter for all children and adults so they can have a healthy living environment. ​

All of these things can be created or incentivized by social programs and government spending. Human lots in life are all about the environment they live in. Where you live makes your destiny, as it has been in the past, and will be going forward. Smart policymaking shapes the environment to desired outcomes.

Your ideas are pretty fine for a developed country like the US, but not really feasible for everyone else... as in the countries where a ton of people are having way too many children in the first place...

No money for your first suggestion, and huge religious opposition for your second one.

As for your third suggestion, it may actually backfire. A better support net can actually make people less careful.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In most developed countries the populations are aging. With fewer and fewer people of working age.

This is especially true in China where the one child policy has resulted in a chronically unbalanced age mix. With an extremely large aged population supported by a minority of working aged people.
The same situation is all too apparent in Japan where the low birth rate is continuing.

 

[JDMS]

Your ideas are pretty fine for a developed country like the US, but not really feasible for everyone else... as in the countries where a ton of people are having way too many children in the first place...

No money for your first suggestion, and huge religious opposition for your second one.

As for your third suggestion, it may actually backfire. A better support net can actually make people less careful.

Yeah, several countries actually have a two-child policy that offers subsidies for the first two children (for poorer families), but not any children after that, and it didn't have a large effect on birthrates. Between 2015-2019 after the policy was instated, the birthrate only saw a 5% difference... aka only ~6,000 less babies were born a year. The US saw a similar decrease as well without that policy. So apparently it was not enough incentive.

EDIT: I'm realizing I'm kind of adding onto this despite the fact what I'm saying is not exactly related to your original post... forgive me lol.

 

[Koldo]

In most developed countries the populations are aging. With fewer and fewer people of working age.

This is especially true in China where the one child policy has resulted in a chronically unbalanced age mix. With an extremely large aged population supported by a minority of working aged people.
The same situation is all too apparent in Japan where the low birth rate is continuing.

The biggest issue is that social security, AFAIK, tends to be supported by a pyramid scheme. So either people have to wait longer to retire (which is not feasible in many lines of work) or contribute more (also not feasible to many),....or we are screwed...

Looking for alternatives to finance it became a must.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

Can you say: " dictatorship."?

 

[Brian2]

No, that is done because the fetus will die soon after being born and rather painfully usually. That is not eugenics. That is compassion.

Eugenics of course was not the correct word, as probably nobody these days is involved in the exact science of eugenics at least not with humans.
But getting rid of an unwanted fetus because of potential for disability is not always done because the fetus will die soon after being born and rather painfully usually.
Sometimes it is just that the new baby will probably be disabled which is the deciding factor in whether an abortion is obtained.
The Replaceable Fetus: A Reflection on Abortion and Disability | Disability Studies Quarterly

 

[Heyo]

Can you say: " dictatorship."?

Can you say "hard facts of life"?

Imagine you are on a spaceship together with a few other colonists en route to proxima centauri. The travel time will be another 30 years after the 10 you are already in space. Your recycling system works at full capacity but you realize that your CO2 level has gone from 200 ppm to over 500 ppm. You had planned the ship to be "generational" with new births replacing dead members but you had more births than deaths. What are you going to do?

Earth is in that situation. The resources are finite, the regeneration capacity is finite and we see the reserves dwindling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eugenics of course was not the correct word, as probably nobody these days is involved in the exact science of eugenics at least not with humans.
But getting rid of an unwanted fetus because of potential for disability is not always done because the fetus will die soon after being born and rather painfully usually.
Sometimes it is just that the new baby will probably be disabled which is the deciding factor in whether an abortion is obtained.
The Replaceable Fetus: A Reflection on Abortion and Disability | Disability Studies Quarterly

You have to cherry pick rather extreme cases to support your claim. That is not a good sign. Late term abortions are almost always against the mothers will to a large extent. She has already decided that she wants a baby. But when faced with the cold hard facts a mother may reasonable decide that an abortion is best.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Can't say I'm a big fan of eugenics, or creating a significant underclass of the 'unworthy' with no stake in the future of society.

You might not like it, but I'd probably argue that modern society is rather fiercely devoted to functionality and competition, and either calls you a whiner, or let's you become homeless if you cannot perform. We've been there for a long time. I'd argue that this attitude towards people was less prevalent, on some levels, in pre-modern societies, where one's utility and belonging seemed to be more explicitly carved out.

My delayed ability to learn, due to mental issues, has not benefited me in this high speed horse race. The focus needed for me to drive well, without messing up my left's and right's, or getting distracted, and the rather manual, as opposed to natural, way I had to learn to carry out a conversation, has caused me general misery, and delayed fortune.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you say "hard facts of life"?

Imagine you are on a spaceship together with a few other colonists en route to proxima centauri. The travel time will be another 30 years after the 10 you are already in space. Your recycling system works at full capacity but you realize that your CO2 level has gone from 200 ppm to over 500 ppm. You had planned the ship to be "generational" with new births replacing dead members but you had more births than deaths. What are you going to do?

Earth is in that situation. The resources are finite, the regeneration capacity is finite and we see the reserves dwindling.

Hogwash.
Scare tactics from the elites who want total control.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Just to focus on this one, this at least gives you more of a 'control group' in the equation. Just imagine how discouraged and depressed I was as a kid, when I heard my raging, nihilistic, drunken father arguing to himself while drinking alone in the basement, and yelling at my mother.

 

[Brian2]

You have to cherry pick rather extreme cases to support your claim. That is not a good sign. Late term abortions are almost always against the mothers will to a large extent. She has already decided that she wants a baby. But when faced with the cold hard facts a mother may reasonable decide that an abortion is best.

I did not cherry pick and did not even read the whole site. I was just showing that it happens.
I imagine when a fetus is not considered human that it is more common,,,,,,,,,,,,, easier to dehumanise a non human.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

This sounds horrible.

It's also bad being raised by a drunken, bitter, nihilistic father, in the middle of wisconsin, where there's often nowhere to escape because it's too cold outside. I feel fairly cheated, to be honest with you. Let me ask you something. In Israel, is the problem of alcoholism seen anywhere? If you've seen it get out of hand, you'd know. It's not good, harel