mandatory sterilization after second child

Hello sorry for the late response I didn't have time to write too busy with work and school anyways lets begin. You say that this concept only applies to poor people yet what happens when we reach the 10 billion limit? Should we just put off the inevitable until it's too late? Even so, that 10 billion only exists because we are over-exausting resources. we are overgrowing crops to the point where we need to put non-organic chemicals in the soil, we are over fishing fish, over hunting game, sharks are almost extinct because of it etc. It's completely illogical to think that we can infinitely grow when not only are our resources exhausted, but even if they weren't there is still a limit. " Humans have exhausted a year"s supply of natural resources in less than eight months, according to an analysis of the demands the world"s population are placing on the planet." I don't need to prove that hungry people are hungry because of overpopulation I only need to prove that reducing population will increase the amount of food each person has. example, if one family of 4 can only support 2 people they will go hungry but say that same family didn't have 2 kids, they would be able to feed themselves. Your only example of unsafe sterilization is in the case of india, but theoretically if applied to american standards of health, the risks are greatly reduced. You are assuming that sterilization would only apply to women where this concept should also apply to men. My argument is that it should be mandatory for all people to have second child sterilization because it is the responsible thing to do and quite inevitable. Eventually we will reach our population limit and people all over the world will go hungry even in countries with political stability. If you are concerned with matters of morality, perhaps you should consider this, in the future when we reach our limit would you rather have a child you can't feed who will die hungry and miserable or never have the child in the first place? Personal autonomy and rights are irrelevant to the big picture. If a car is moving in your direction, would you stand there and let it hit you? no because that's illogical; on that same note would you let someone else get hit because it's their problem? If you have a limit on the amount of food you can produce, does it make sense to have more kids that you can't feed? no it's illogical; on that same note, should we allow other people to do the same? By the time we reach our limit, and people finally realize the necessity of mandatory sterilization, we will have to wait years for due process during which time all countries will have the number of starving people go up including middle class americans. If we hold the wealthier countries responsible for all living people on this earth, then the food we produce could be distributed in accordance to the people who need it around the world. This could end starvation. I should let you know that when people are starving, they are still starving even when you're not watching. Most people see ads to donate money to starving children around the world and think "oh that's so sad" then flip the channel. You're lucky that they don't show what these people do for food. Some kill, some steal, and some resort to prostitution. by ignoring this, you are allowing these things to happen and don't ever forget it. when you don't speak up, you're part of the problem. One might argue that it's not our responsibility, does that make it any less unethical? If we can, we must because it's the right thing to do. If you don't, then how can you live with yourself? http://www.theguardian.com...