Mika and Raiden, kudos for opening up the thinking on this.

Right now it usually takes more than one person at a time to raise our little one. I literally cannot fathom how a single mother can operate. Without help she could not even take a shower. I had no real comprehension of this before I, uh, procreated. For the first three months she basically has to be within arm's length of the baby at every moment; even getting something to eat or going to the toilet pose major challenges without assistance. I suppose there might be ways around that but like I said, outside my comprehension at the moment.

:)

Sempu I so can relate, when our granddaughter was born our daughter and son-in-law were living with us and it took All six of us (mom/dad grandma/grandpa aunti/uncle) living here at the time, it seemed and felt like to just meet the needs of one small baby. How nuclear parents, let alone single parents do it is beyond me, or why they would do it without supports :P

Which brings us back to the whole issue of outside 'western' thinking .. most places around the world DO NOT operate within a 'nuclear' context of only the couple by themselves with or without child. The majority of the world populations operates at least within the context of extended family, and those most traditional and in my opinion fortunated also have a whole community network involved in the child-rearing process .. (not to mention- probably the couple relationship as well).

Right. I don't think that the western setup was deliberately created as a way of increasing consumption through the sheer amount of extra products needed by nuclear families (let alone single parents) compared to extended families, communes, or tribes, but it sure is convenient for the corporations.

I would personally allow any type of marriages or romantic relationships, as long as those people involved actually love each other. I mean, that was the whole purpose of marriage and romance was it not?

And regarding children, while I have my own personal opinions, I believe they should be able to live with as many relatives as they want, be it 1, 2, or a dozen. However, only if they could live in relative comfort and safety, and have their most important needs fulfilled. No matter what beliefs are involved, the continued survival of the child is the largest issue.

No more in any other time in history than today.

And what do you mean by "allow"? How could you not "allow" relationships? And how would you even be able to tell if people were in "actually in love" or not?

Sorry, used an improper word. :P

What I meant to say is that, as long as they actually love each other, I've got no problem whatsoever. I support it, in fact. :)

To be honest, I'm not sure. But what's the point of a intimate relationship if they cant stand each other?
A child? Relationships aren't necessarily needed to care for a child.
Financial support? A horrible excuse. In fact, the other partner is likely to lose money.
Care? Many ways to care for people aside from that.

Ect.

My point is, an intimate relationship should be built on love, not on the lines of survival we have, as a species, conquered.

I disagree. I think the Chinese have the right idea. One child per family. If families have 5-10 children, then we're going to overpopulate in no time.

Battery farming is already becoming mandatory because of our overpopulation problem.

http://www.cosmosmith.com/images/graph.gif

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/worldfer.gif

Map Key
Color . . . Fertility rate . . . Long-term impact
Red . . . . less than 2 . . . . declining population
Yellow . . about 2 . . . . . . stable population
Green . . . 3 to 4 . . . . . . . growing population
Blue . . . . 4 or more . . . . . rapidly growing population
Gray . . . data not available

Most of the population growth occurs in undeveloped countries. In industrialized countries including the US and many European nations, the only reason that population decline isn't visible is due to immigration.

The biggest factor in determining is the general attitude towards children. In an impoverished country, large amounts of children are seen as a source of security. In a place where there are hardly any social programs (or sometimes barely any functioning government) you need a large amount of children to take care of you in old age. In developed countries children are see as a source of expenditure and likewise, childbearing is much less common.

Limiting the number of children you can have in the West isn't the solution as it would barely have a noticeable impact. You could say that developing nations should limit their citizen's childbearing but who are we to tell them that?

No no no, I was regarding on the issue of single or multiple parents. As long as the child survives, doesn't matter.

One child per family is a good idea, but in a few generations, we'll have a very small population.

Exactly.
One system I've said would be a good medium is to allow people to sell/give their rights to have a child to another - since there are some people who don't have children and don't intend to, they can use this, either to gain for themselves or just to help someone who wants more, while people can gain the rights to more, while ensuring that the population remains balanced (or, more ideally, in a gradual decline to perhaps 4 billion).

As for a small population within a few generations - the point is that if necessary, it might only become implemented when needed, if population begins to reach an unsustainable level.

As for families being involved in children and parents' lives: Only if the parent wants them to be. People do have some need for privacy and space, as well as independence.

If you would allow me, I would like to quote this for another crucial point.

Now, schools teach children, teens and some adults, all these things about Literacy, Maths, Science, etc. And while all these things are important, to be sure, something we should educate people about is the actual state of Humanity. Of Earth. Because no matter how intelligent you are, you won't know the facts until someone tells you. And by that time, bam! Next generation rolls up. And they're just as oblivious.

The reason we on ToS know this, is simple. We're smart. We look for the problems ourselves. And it's important that the population on a whole does as well.

I couldn't agree more with you on that. Well said. ;)

Wow, some debate!, I would like to remain nuteral, but alas cannot. I have never been married, nor do have any kids. This was my choice, as I have made many personal sacifices, in the area of relationships, for work and career. Was it a misstake, maybe, I follow on never looking back to your choices as it drive you crazy with the all WHAT IF I...... I beleive that you have to have your own house in order, before you invite someone in. Life will never be easy and will only become harder for the future generation to come, in this modern world. Thanks