The 6 Craziest People Who Are Overpopulating the World
By: E. Reid Ross, Meg Anastasia May 11, 2012

Millions of us are so terrified of or disinterested in having kids that we'll literally never do it. But the world's population keeps inflating like a balloon because there are plenty of people at the opposite end of that spectrum. Way, way at the opposite end.

Like ...

Read more: The 6 Craziest People Who Are Overpopulating the World |

I thought this was an interesting article.

Views: 736

Replies to This Discussion

We did yes! However, the article left them out.

This is true in a puritanical society which has devalued sex, but not in a libertarian society which cheriches free love and sexual pleasures. There is much sex in the monkeying world that does not lead to breeding.

I've had sex with males and females from different societies, and the post-event happiness factor varies greatly between cultures.

Man who fathered 30 kids says he needs a break—on child support
By Pueng Vongs

And you thought Octomom had her hands full—a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV.

The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn't amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old.

Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice.

Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.

The state cannot order Hatchett to stop making babies. He hasn't broken any laws, according to the report.

You all know Octomom. I wonder why she was left out. I can think of many people they could add.

If a state (California) court can order a woman to have a 5-year sub-Q contraceptive for abusing her children, why can't a man be ordered to have a vasectomy for the same reason? Isn't making more babies than you can possibly support, or care for a form of abuse?  (Did all those women that Hatchett knocked up know about each other?  And all the other kids?  After almost 50 years, haven't these women heard of The its various types?  Or are they illegal in Tennessee?  Wouldn't surprise me....the whole thing is disgusting.)

Famous overpopulators in history:

Joseph Smith
Brigham Young (Why did the LDS name their university after him, instead of Smith?)
The Borgia popes

Oh yeah thanks for adding to the list! We could all think of many we could add.
I wonder about that myself. Why aren't the women on the pill or something?

Sensational cases make for entertaining news stories (which sell advertising space!).  But their overall impact to population growth is minor.  Let's instead focus on the typical middle-class American couple.  If such a couple can be persuaded to have 2 kids instead of 3, or 1 kid instead of 2, and if that happens in 10s of millions of cases, then we have a genuine impact. 

The real problem is not with outlying cases with demonstrable abuse, but "regular folk" whose behavior, if changed ever so slightly, adds up to huge changes.

Absolutely, sensationalism doesn't help.

I forgot to add something way back in this discussion...INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS! 

If I were in charge of the IRS, I would limit the number of offspring a couple could claim as dependents to 2.  UNLESS ... any additional children are adopted.

And, this may sound silly, but I think a smaller "dependedent deduction" should be allowed for a pet or two. Every mental health study ever done on the subject has shown that having a dog or a cat, or a pair of either, or one of each improves human mental and physical health...which, logically, reduces medical expenses.  And if the pets are adopted from a shelter or a rescue organization, so much the better; it gives one the satisfaction of knowing you've saved a life. Or two.

But NOHHHHH....people-breeders can keep on squirting out babies, claiming them as dependents, and (if possible) collectiing welfare and Aid to Dependent Children checks, forever.  Or until they finally reach menopause.

Another silly thought: some cultures have a celebration when a girl has her first period.  Why not have a real whoop-de-doo when a woman reaches menopause?  Sort of an "I Survived!" kind of party.

I know I wanted to celebrate when that happy day finally arrived! (My mother was still bugging me about giving her some grandchildren, so I laughed in her face, and told her, "No way!")

There should be no "dependent deduction", no partner, no babies, no pets. People should be taught by parents/educators to make the decisions in life they can actually afford!

Sometimes you don't have a choice.  When my parents died I was stuck with supporting my autistic/Asperger's sister till I finally got some help in getting her on SSI.  I still pay most of the household bills, but I'm retired and trying to make do on Social Security, so I no longer have to file income tax returns.

BUT my thought was/is that if there was a limit on the number of allowable dependents, some people would think twice about how many children they would have.

The biggest problem is that too many people don't think.  Period.

Yeah a limit on deductions instead of just saying none at all. I think that would be a fair compromise. Yes, people do need to think about the number of children they have.

SSI is not a breeding subsidy as far as I can tell...

I just don't see who society at large needs to subsidize breeding. Governments may subsidise things that are NEEDED and/or are in SHORT SUPPLY, but we certainly do not NEED more Homo sapiens on this planet. On top of that, if the present trend continues... half of all society will have some sort of mental disorder diagnosis within a couple of decades. Surely enough is enough?

It's not a matter of "a little breeding is better than a lot". We are at the point on earth where NO breeding, for a limited duration, would be needed. Subsidising breeding accomplishes the reverse.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service