I wasn't sure where to put this topic because of the question I have about it. Is it very unlikely to expect any child-bearing limit for people in the USA anytime in the near future? Someone told me that it is not a possibility because of something in the Constitution. Is this true?

It is not directly addressed in the Constitution, but I find it highly unlikely that such a law would be passed. First, I doubt a majority of the people would agree to it, and second we should consider the fact that population growth in the U.S. is considerably lower than most countries in the world.

So it is more important to have extra bodies and hungry mouths that will go unfed, than it is to have some control before it's too late?
Do you(or anyone) if there is anything I could do, like get a petition or something? Any small steps, besides controlling how many babies I have myself?
Thank you.

Hi megan,

thank you for your post and i hope you are well.

please can you elaborate on this a bit as i am not sure where you are going with it at the moment

Well, I think something should be done about the population in the USA before the point of absolute necessity due to big problems. Maybe a limit of 10 children to start off. Maybe reduced prices on permanent contraception. Sorry if I'm coming off as stupid. I just want to do something about it, and I don't know whether or not I am able to.

hey megan

thank you for the clarification.

do you think therefore that a the population increase will cause big problems or that we already have big problems and a pupulation increase will add to this.

The reason people go unfed is not that there are too many people, the great plains grow all of our, and much of the world's grain. The USA is a net exporter of food.

Poverty is a different kind of problem.

I disagree, spidergoat. Although I don't think it is the only reason people go unfed. Zak, I think it is already a problem and will become more of a disaster if the whole world, not just the USA, doesn't slow down on the baby making. People who are already too poor to feed themselves definitely can't afford contraceptives, so they have a lot of hungry babies. What I can't understand is why nothing seems to be getting done about it except for places like China. I just don't understand. I'm not saying there is not a good explanation. I'd just like to know what it is. =D

The solution is economic success, with it's implications of female empowerment, education, access to contraception, and ecological management. In poor countries, having more children means having more labor for farming. The catch is when there is a drought, you still have to feed them.

There is a paradox here, which is that countries with low population growth also suffer from economic stagnation (Japan), and need to import labor. There is also the added burden of having too few children to take care of the elderly.

It doesn't seem like strong enough an argument for me. But I have virtually no background on this subject, so I'm probably wrong. =D

Hey, Megan, the world already has a pretty good population controls in place that seem to work quite well. Starvation and disease and war and murder and bombings and terrorism and....

Baron Max

I think you are right to be concerned, Megan. Certainly, when there were fewer people, we had less of a detrimental effect on the Earth's ecosystems.

Anyone checked the birth rate in the USA at the mo? I'm too lazy.

Anyone want to explain r- and k-selection, and reproductive demographics?
I feel like I explain this to some alarmist every week.

Here's a list from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate