# Overpopulation isn't really much of an issue



## Seliph (Aug 10, 2017)

People make a big deal out of overpopulation but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge problem. First of all there is a lot of unused land that people could live on currently and second of all there's a pretty equal amount of people dying and being born so the population is pretty stable. The only way I can see this being an issue is in dense areas like India and (I think) New York.
Might be wrong, feel free to obliterate my opinion if you wish but this is how I see it.


----------



## pustal (Aug 10, 2017)

Problem is sustainability. As you reffered, India is one of them. Overpopulation drains resources and mantains poverty. That's why Melinda Gates sells the idea o contraception as a way to reduce poverty.

In modern countries where there is increase of population, there are also some problems associated with it, namely the collective ecological footprint and resource drainage, but population tend to decrease there.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 10, 2017)

If you have a free hour, watch this:


----------



## rileysrjay (Aug 10, 2017)

Also iirc (correct me if I'm wrong please) first world countries are having fewer and fewer babies. Japan is even having a issue with not having enough babies. The issue lies with third world countries that are already crowded where people are having more and more babies. Once again please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this since it's been a while since I've read up on this.


----------



## Alkéryn (Aug 10, 2017)

Seliph said:


> People make a big deal out of overpopulation but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge problem. First of all there is a lot of unused land that people could live on currently and second of all there's a pretty equal amount of people dying and being born so the population is pretty stable. The only way I can see this being an issue is in dense areas like India and (I think) New York.
> Might be wrong, feel free to obliterate my opinion if you wish but this is how I see it.


First the population isn't stable but ever growing we will soon reach 8billion

Secondly i don't like hoomans so the least the better


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 10, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Also iirc (correct me if I'm wrong please) first world countries are having fewer and fewer babies. Japan is even having a issue with not having enough babies. The issue lies with third world countries that are already crowded where people are having more and more babies. Once again please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this since it's been a while since I've read up on this.


Actually 3rd world countries are stabilizing, too


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 10, 2017)

Overpopulation will lead to a depeletion in livestock and resources, which will lead to famines and diseases.
The world has to many people.


----------



## LongDongSilver (Aug 10, 2017)

Currently its not that big of an issue except in very densely populated places. Eventually it can and will become an issue, but were in the future we'll invent something fucking cool


----------



## rileysrjay (Aug 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually 3rd world countries are stabilizing, too


Good to hear if it's true, I remember the big fear for a while being already overpopulated countries getting even more people crowded in


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 10, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Good to hear if it's true, I remember the big fear for a while being already overpopulated countries getting even more people crowded in


Yeah, watch the presentation I linked. The info is presented in a really fucking cool way and the guy has an adorable Swedish old man accent


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Aug 10, 2017)

There are ways we could be far more efficient to support an even greater population. I can imagine a future where agribusiness gets a huge boost with entrepreneurs offering better farming techniques to support a growing population. Same with real estate, the medical industry, and more. I see opportunity for smart engineers and moguls. A lot of people tend to think very pessimistically when it comes to issues like overpopulation, but I like to see the fantastic opportunities in solving such a problem. And it's definitely not as insidious as the eugenics that some people are proposing. Bill Nye Saves the World comes to mind, where he essentially suggests implementing population control policies akin to China's One-Child policy.


----------



## Anfroid (Aug 10, 2017)

Seliph said:


> People make a big deal out of overpopulation but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge problem. First of all there is a lot of unused land that people could live on currently and second of all there's a pretty equal amount of people dying and being born so the population is pretty stable. The only way I can see this being an issue is in dense areas like India and (I think) New York.
> Might be wrong, feel free to obliterate my opinion if you wish but this is how I see it.


Tl;dr 
Traffic is bad enough where I live. So more people would imply more traffic and I am against that.


----------



## proflayton123 (Aug 10, 2017)

We all die eventually though, right?


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Aug 10, 2017)

proflayton123 said:


> We all die eventually though, right?


But that's no reason to disregard the present as if it's all in vain!
If we're all gonna die anyways, then why not live while you can? Pop a cold one or something.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 10, 2017)

proflayton123 said:


> We all die eventually though, right?


Speak for yourself.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 10, 2017)

This video is very informative :ok_hand:


proflayton123 said:


> We all die eventually though, right?


While your statement is true, you have to keep mind that the more people are being born than people who are dying.


----------



## CMDreamer (Aug 10, 2017)

Check this video, it resumes all I've would say about this (duration 8:22):


----------



## Lacius (Aug 10, 2017)

GhostLatte said:


> This video is very informative :ok_hand:
> 
> While your statement is true, you have to keep mind that the more people are being born than people who are dying.



This video pretty much sums up anything I had to say on the topic, although I was going to focus more on the role of giving women in third-world countries more control over their lives.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 10, 2017)

Lacius said:


> This video pretty much sums up anything I had to say on the topic, although I was going to focus more on the role of giving women in third-world countries more control over their lives.


Exactly, that's what feminism should be focusing on!


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 10, 2017)

this map is people per unit of farmable land (arable).

As you can see, we are fairly OK at the moment. However, the truth is that we also have the problem of farmers per arable.

If all unit of arable land were being farmed, then the world would be fine. But that isn't the case.


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you have a free hour, watch this:



Thanks for sharing that, it really was a good resource. While he doesn't say so directly, he seems to imply that action doesn't need to be taken because it seems like the rate of population growth is predicted to slow down and perhaps peak at 11 billion. The problem with that admittedly cozy idea is that it's ignoring how already strained the human race is currently at 7 billion. Reducing our population right now would be excellent for humanity's overall health, so the thought that we "only" need to figure out how to support 11 billion is not exactly ideal. If reducing the population will benefit humanity, and I'm fairly sure it will, then I think it would be a good idea to work directly towards that.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 10, 2017)

Realistically it is a problem but there is nothing that can be forcibly done without major rights violations.


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 10, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> Realistically it is a problem but there is nothing that can be forcibly done without major rights violations.


Seriously. It either comes from grassroots social reform, or we have a pseudo-dictatorship.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 10, 2017)

GhostLatte said:


> This video is very informative :ok_hand:
> 
> While your statement is true, you have to keep mind that the more people are being born than people who are dying.




More people > More resources > Food, energy, land > Depletion > :goodbye_humans:

Also, eventually, a mortal disease will rise and stabilize earth again.


----------



## V0ltr0n (Aug 10, 2017)

If there was no issue, nobody in the world would be starving. You suggest to just tear up what little undefiled land there is left to make room for more cancer...i mean ppl? Theoretically, what about a large scale EMP? Then it's an immediate calculation of population over sustenance. As it stands, there is obviously not enough food in certain places. Things aren't as stable as the common first-worlder thinks. Think of the countries that don't have landfills. Trash and literally shit in the streets. Take away our ability to produce artificial products, especially food, and you will see the population drop dramatically and almost instantly. The world is extremely unbalanced and overpopulated. I'm in no way a leftist "green" freak, but can we please stop reproducing and focus on taking care of what is already here and quality of life?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 10, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> Seriously. It either comes from grassroots social reform, or we have a pseudo-dictatorship.


I would argue as always the individual rights trump any social good. Plus I see no moral or legal standing with birth limits like the one child policy.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 10, 2017)

V0ltr0n said:


> If there was no issue, nobody in the world would be starving


This is incorrect.

There would be people starving regardless. The fact is, large corporations are ignoring the *most populous* continent in the world. If they took advantage and helped build the economies in some of those countries they wouldn't be starving.

Population has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 10, 2017)

blujay said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> There would be people starving regardless. The fact is, large corporations are ignoring the *most populous* continent in the world. If they took advantage and helped build the economies in some of those countries they wouldn't be starving.
> 
> Population has nothing to do with it.


I definitely wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it, but that issue in particular is a product of many economic and political factors, of which what you mentioned is one.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 10, 2017)

blujay said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> There would be people starving regardless. The fact is, large corporations are ignoring the *most populous* continent in the world. If they took advantage and helped build the economies in some of those countries they wouldn't be starving.
> 
> Population has nothing to do with it.


That and for profit corporations that throw food away existing in general inflates starvation drastically


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Aug 10, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> Seriously. It either comes from grassroots social reform, or we have a pseudo-dictatorship.


I would actually try to foster a marketplace where different population capacity-increasing ideas are thrown around, with healthy competition to ensure good solutions come about as a result of natural demand for better methods of sustaining growth. So long as you keep away monopolization, I believe this is the best solution to tackle overpopulation. The free market is much better equipped to come up with creative solutions and implement them rapidly than a bureaucratic process or "social reform." Those are too slow and imo ineffective.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That and for profit corporations that throw food away existing in general inflates starvation drastically


Quite often regulations prevent them from doing so



HaloEliteLegend said:


> I would actually try to foster a marketplace where different population capacity-increasing ideas are thrown around, with healthy competition to ensure good solutions come about as a result of natural demand for better methods of sustaining growth. So long as you keep away monopolization, I believe this is the best solution to tackle overpopulation. The free market is much better equipped to come up with creative solutions and implement them rapidly than a bureaucratic process or "social reform." Those are too slow and imo ineffective.


But at the end of the day the only ethical action is to suggest ,but not force, to have less kids


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Aug 10, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> But at the end of the day the only ethical action is to suggest ,but not force, to have less kids


Force would be very, very bad. As a baseline, personal liberties cannot be infringed. I mean, imagine if population really got out of hand, there was tension everywhere, and they started forcing things. I could imagine a lot of civil unrest.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 10, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> Quite often regulations prevent them from doing so


You say that like they follow them. I've heard a lot of stories about restaurants that over-report the amount of food donated


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You say that like they follow them. I've heard a lot of stories about restaurants that over-report the amount of food donated


I was referring to certain regulations that prevent places from donating certain food items.


----------



## Youkai (Aug 10, 2017)

I think the main problem is that especially the people in poor countrys who can hardly survive make a lot of children ... 
in most 1st World countrys everyone is scared about the Problem that there are more and more elderly people and less people who can work.
If it would not be for the Refugees (which sadly are not allowed to work even if they wanted) and other foreigners, here in Germany we have only ~1,5 kids for each family which means a slighty decrease on population and on possible workers !

Many Companys are already saying they can not find any suitible candidate for their training offers (but than again they usualy want full fledged professionals that work for nothing)



RevPokemon said:


> Quite often regulations prevent them from doing so



No idea about America but here in Germany it is busines as usual throwing away food that is not perfect anymore. And there are less people taking it out of the trash because many big stores actually try their best to hinder them or even sue them ! (even though later is done not often as usualy only the poor do it) a few supermarkets started puting up stuff that is only good for a short time anymore for very cheap or they give it to some organisations. Still think the majority goes to waste here.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 10, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> I was referring to certain regulations that prevent places from donating certain food items.


Oh. Well that's also dumb


----------



## sansnumen (Aug 10, 2017)

Overpopulation is an issue that grows worse every year due to high fertility rates in 3rd world countries. We will be able to stabilize human populations if we empower women. But, that still leaves the issue of feeding, housing, educating everyone on Earth without depleting our resources. There really is only so much to go around after all.


----------



## Quantumcat (Aug 11, 2017)

Slowing down population growth comes with a lot of problems - average age goes up and there are fewer young people who can work and produce goods, and more older people who need to be supported.


----------



## DarthDub (Aug 11, 2017)

It depends on where you live really.


----------



## linuxares (Aug 11, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Slowing down population growth comes with a lot of problems - average age goes up and there are fewer young people who can work and produce goods, and more older people who need to be supported.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 11, 2017)

I'd consider the extinction of several species, the ever growing list of endangered ones, continued loss of natural habitats, global climate change due to pollution, and ever dwindling resources all pretty good signs of overpopulation. Just because we'll be OK for a while doesn't mean it's not a problem. People seem to think we're the only species that matters. I'll argue that human beings aren't that important.


----------



## Vipera (Aug 11, 2017)

_This post has been removed due to the staff's corruption to money and other people._


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 11, 2017)

Vipera said:


> We do have a lot of space, but our technology is making a lot of work unnecessary. If you keep producing people we will all end up like India.
> 
> 
> Cool, if you don't value your life that much no one is stopping you from killing yourself.


Not at all what I was saying.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 11, 2017)

Seliph said:


> People make a big deal out of overpopulation but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge problem. First of all there is a lot of unused land that people could live on currently and second of all there's a pretty equal amount of people dying and being born so the population is pretty stable. The only way I can see this being an issue is in dense areas like India and (I think) New York.
> Might be wrong, feel free to obliterate my opinion if you wish but this is how I see it.


Erm...I'm afraid that's a pretty oversimplification of the problem (seriously? Three pages and no direct quote on this?).

Keeping people fed isn't exactly the problem. Food production has increased in efficiency so much that ending world hunger is well within our grasp. As said by blujay: this isn't a problem of population but of capitalism. There's simply put more profit to be made if food is scarcely divided.
There IS however, a problem if everyone is going to adopt a Western diet. Cattle production actually has a far larger ecologic impact than I originally anticipated. All those animals we eat need to eat themselves as well (hopefully _before _they're killed  ), and that stacks up if everyone (especially large and currently relatively undeveloped countries like India and China) decides that meat is the way to go.

The problem with this "pretty equal amount of people dying and being born" is with the 'pretty equal' not actually being equal. Even with trends like aging population in quite some countries, the total number is still rising. That ceiling of 11 billion may be a correct estimate, but the problem is that the earth's capacity to regenerate resources does so at a slower pace than we consume them (in fact, we've passed this so-called line of "what does the earth provide for us in 2017" line about a week ago). This means that as a species and in general, we're no longer living off the land but rather plundering the land. And even with a small rise in overpopulation, this means that every 'new' human cannot but live off resources that won't be regenerated.

The first sentence in your post is something I'd agree to, but probably not how you mean it: there's also climate change that plays into that "grand scheme of things". The effects are already here, but not yet to a degree that they can no longer be denied (okay, unless you're a scientist. But quite some people assume that as long as they can ignore bad news, it'll go away somehow). Places like India will work out the overpopulation. If not by humans, then by the consequences of heat waves or tropical storms.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 11, 2017)

Anyone who thinks there's a problem with how many people are alive in the world should go kill themselves. No joke.


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 11, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Anyone who thinks there's a problem with how many people are alive in the world should go kill themselves. No joke.


If the goal is to improve people's quality of life, going around killing people/encouraging suicide is counterproductive. The problem can be solved without any early deaths at all as long as it's given enough time, and awareness of the issue is spread to enough people.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 11, 2017)

All we need are FTL drives and we will need more people than we have now, will be weird to see a shortage of people.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Aug 11, 2017)

i'll give the best solution
*use fucking condoms*


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 11, 2017)

Vipera said:


> Cool, if you don't value your life that much no one is stopping you from killing yourself.





comput3rus3r said:


> Anyone who thinks there's a problem with how many people are alive in the world should go kill themselves. No joke.


Wow, just.... wow

Ok


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 11, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Anyone who thinks there's a problem with how many people are alive in the world should go kill themselves. No joke.


Don't worry, we all will when the planet becomes uninhabitable from the consequences of overpopulation


----------



## V0ltr0n (Aug 13, 2017)

Please N. Korea set off an emp so we can watch all the blind "there's plenty for everyone. Poulation is no problem" people just cower and wither away when they realize there indeed isn't enough to go around in the most real and crude way.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 13, 2017)

I feel like @puss2puss would like this thread. Where the hell are you?


----------



## Viri (Aug 13, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Anyone who thinks there's a problem with how many people are alive in the world should go kill themselves. No joke.


Yeah, go take a trip to any major city in India or China, and you'll change your mind. If you give a damn about the planet, then you'd be concerned with over population.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 13, 2017)

V0ltr0n said:


> Please N. Korea set off an emp so we can watch all the blind "there's plenty for everyone. Poulation is no problem" people just cower and wither away when they realize there indeed isn't enough to go around in the most real and crude way.


?? I don't get what you're trying to say


----------



## tetrabrik (Aug 14, 2017)

generally it's been the case that the problem is not the capacity for production, but the means of distribution that limits people's access to resources. in other words, we have the technology to produce food and shelter for everyone, but there's not much sustainable monetary incentive to do so.


----------



## V0ltr0n (Aug 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ?? I don't get what you're trying to say



Basically, all these ppl that are saying that overpopulation isn't a problem will get a rude awakening if a large scale emp happens. 3 properly detonated nukes could take out the entire united states. With no power, perishable goods will all quickly spoil. Animals will be slaughtered and eaten quickly with no thought of how long it will take to recover. In a year, the population could be reduced by 80% if we are lucky. If not, then total extinction. Add to that the ppl that rely on electricity and/or cooled medications to stay alive. Then the increase of common ailments becoming a serious threat. 

Only ppl who live in 1st world countries and are oblivious to very real threats think population is no problem. Kill electricity and everything will deteriorate in 2 weeks or less. While all that is going on, it leaves your country open for other countries to easily overtake. Sustainability being an issue could be displayed with one catastrophic event. There isn't enough food for everyone as it is, let alone if the population grows.

But nobody will think a threat like that is realistic. Then you get shit like 9/11.
Complacency breeds weakness. Nobody would be unaffected if a large scale event such as i explained went down, and it's more possible than you would think.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 14, 2017)

V0ltr0n said:


> Basically, all these ppl that are saying that overpopulation isn't a problem will get a rude awakening if a large scale emp happens. 3 properly detonated nukes could take out the entire united states. With no power, perishable goods will all quickly spoil. Animals will be slaughtered and eaten quickly with no thought of how long it will take to recover. In a year, the population could be reduced by 80% if we are lucky. If not, then total extinction. Add to that the ppl that rely on electricity and/or cooled medications to stay alive. Then the increase of common ailments becoming a serious threat.
> 
> Only ppl who live in 1st world countries and are oblivious to very real threats think population is no problem. Kill electricity and everything will deteriorate in 2 weeks or less. While all that is going on, it leaves your country open for other countries to easily overtake. Sustainability being an issue could be displayed with one catastrophic event. There isn't enough food for everyone as it is, let alone if the population grows.
> 
> ...


A nuke isn't an EMP though... and yes, a crisis situation would drastically affect global supply, but as it currently stands there actually are enough resources (at least in the US) for us to sustainably feed and house our entire population


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Aug 14, 2017)

Unused land?
Excuse but since when are we the owners of the Earth and it's lands?
It's otherwise, the Earth owns us, and nature by itself has shown us that.
The fauna and flora of our planet also needs its own space, nature itself does.
Ecosystems are essential to the planet, and overpopulation is killing this.

Overpopulation is a problem, as it creates the need more resources, economy per family, more food, more space, more jobs, more pollution and contamination, etc.
With the increase of technology, jobs are getting scarce by the day, and no, technology is not to blame, it's humankind by itself who is to blame.

People fuck left and right without a care in the world if they have 3,4,5 or whatever kids.

Also, take into consideration that the standard life-span of most countries is now above 70 years old.
That means there are a lot more generations alive living with each other than ever before.

This extends the meaning of overpopulation.

My suggestion to counter this kind of issue would be to make laws that limit how many children a married couple can have.
Similar to that of China, you can take China as a clear example of overpopulation.

Makes sense.
How many people are usually involved in a marriage? Two right?
Then let's set the limit of children to 2 per married couple.
Two for two, makes sense.
Once the elderly couple dies, only the two children are left.

Of course doesn't take into account the increase in life quality we are getting, but would be a huge improvement.
I can also guarantee you, that most families would have a better economy.


----------



## cvskid (Aug 14, 2017)

Too many people having unplanned children instead of taking care of the children that are already on this planet that don't have a family.


----------



## V0ltr0n (Aug 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> A nuke isn't an EMP though... and yes, a crisis situation would drastically affect global supply, but as it currently stands there actually are enough resources (at least in the US) for us to sustainably feed and house our entire population



Guess i should've explained more thoroughy? 

A nuke detonated above the earth's atmosphere causes no fallout, or radiation threat for ppl on earth. What it does create is a massive emp.

And no, there is definitely not enough food and other supplies to sustain life for everyone on the planet. If that's not fact, and we have ppl dying of starvation every day....then that means we have the means to feed everyone but ignore them...which is more cruel then? The human race would see drastic population reduction by the end of 2 weeks, let alone a year.
We are for damn sure overpopulated. But, ppl will continue to keep their blinders on.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 14, 2017)

V0ltr0n said:


> If that's not fact, and we have ppl dying of starvation every day....then that means we have the means to feed everyone but ignore them...


It's that one


----------



## DarthDub (Aug 14, 2017)

Instead of getting your gf pregnant, adopt a child!


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 15, 2017)

cvskid said:


> Too many people having unplanned children instead of taking care of the children that are already on this planet that don't have a family.


You do that. The kids I want will be my own.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 15, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> You do that. The kids I want will be my own.


Why, if I might ask?


----------



## gameboy (Aug 15, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why, if I might ask?



dont be a simp


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 15, 2017)

gameboy said:


> dont be a simp


No, I'm legit curious. As someone who would personally rather adopt a kid that faces being stuck in "the system," I just want to understand why someone would exclusively want a biological child


----------



## Dork (Aug 15, 2017)

lol


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 15, 2017)

Honestly, because of overpopulation, the fact that I probably can't properly handle the responsibility of having a child/children, and the fact that I have shitty, annoying disorders that more than likely would be passed on to my children, I refuse to have any children when I'm old enough to do so.


----------



## gameboy (Aug 15, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> No, I'm legit curious. As someone who would personally rather adopt a kid that faces being stuck in "the system," I just want to understand why someone would exclusively want a biological child



its like having to pick up and throw someone random's dog poop all the time, everyday for the rest of your life


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 15, 2017)

gameboy said:


> its like having to pick up and throw someone random's dog poop all the time, everyday for the rest of your life


Are you really comparing a human child to dog shit


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 15, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Are you really comparing a human child to dog shit


I think what he's trying to say is that his satisfaction in caring for a child comes from feeling like he's propagating his own genetic line, and that helping someone else's child feels like taking care of someone else's problems. That impulse seems to make sense, at least from an evolutionary standpoint, even if I happen to feel otherwise. That being said, choosing to satisfy that impulse at the cost of everyone else's well-being is something I'd find distasteful.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 15, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> No, I'm legit curious. As someone who would personally rather adopt a kid that faces being stuck in "the system," I just want to understand why someone would exclusively want a biological child


Already did.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The kids I want will be my own.



You know, I wouldn't mind having an adopted son or daughter but ultimately I'd rather have a little me, with my blood, my heritage, my surname and that I could call him truly, my son. Not an adopted son, _my_ son.

I cherish these values very much and am not going to give them up.

Coincidentally, the fictional Saiyan (I pronounce it as sah·yun rather than the American say·un) race from _Dragon Ball Z_ are alike.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 15, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Already did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's fair, but... I mean, would it really be any different in practice adopting an infant and raising them as you would your own child?


----------



## Beerus (Aug 15, 2017)

we need that china rule only 1 kid life will be good


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 17, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's fair, but... I mean, would it really be any different in practice adopting an infant and raising them as you would your own child?



The spreading of their genes. 

While I myself think ideals are more important that is the main reason.

Anyways OP isn't a real issue. The planet can handle more people we just need to feed them all. (we could have ended world hunger a long time ago if we weren't suck dicks to one another.)


----------

