ALFREDO: So we’ve just added our seven billionth person to the planet and Jim and Michelle Duggar of reality TV show “19 Kids and Counting” (formerly “18 Kids and Counting” and, before that, “17 Kids and Counting”) have announced they are expecting their 20th child.  Congratulations Duggars!

It’s all too much.  I can’t take it.  And I don’t think the planet can, either.

I think we should impose extra taxes for having too many kids.  I just don’t know what the magic number should be:  2?  3?  9? 14?   We already have sin taxes for cigarettes and booze.

Why not a sin tax for having babies?

JEROME: How about tax breaks for people who get their tubes tied or snipped? Because I don’t think that place on Flower wants any more of my semen and I gotta make ends meet somehow.

IRIS:  It’s a catch-22, because there are countries like Japan where decreasing birth rates and longer life spans means a smaller workforce to sustain retirees.  China’s one child policy also has backfired by causing a similar dilemma.  The apocalyptic movie solution would be to send the old people out to die on ice floes like in those Eskimo stories or out to the hills like in old-time Japan.  I’m not actually advocating this, just envisioning the movie.

ELAINE:  I wonder if the older kids will start a union and charge their parents for violating child labor laws.  It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to have learn how to change your sister’s diapers when you are just starting to potty train…

ANDERSON:  It’s time to start terra-farming Mars. This does freak me out a bit. With overcrowding, the depletion of resources, and yes, climate change, I think global leaders have to seriously talk about this issue. But worst of all, this planet is going to be crawling with mopey, entitled punk kids. Yuck.

JEROME: By employing the model shown in Battle Royale, we get the best of both worlds: population control and a hot new reality show. Take that, “19 Kids and Counting!”

Why is this not being seriously considered? I have my money on the kid with the weird hair.

EMMIE:  The carrot wins over the stick, so I say offer an incentive for having fewer/no kids.  Although . . I could be down with the taxes thing too.  Or maybe those with more kids could be required to implement green activities/community services in their lives.

Green measures should be applied to everyone, though – especially to businesses that squander resources (this includes my own), and on folks who produce excessive waste.  A small part of me thinks we need a Green Dictator who’ll raze the entire world and start us over with soft meadows, rainbows and drum circles.  Minus the drum circles.

ROGER:  I am alarmed by the tone of this thread – that procreation is bad and that having multiple children is something that needs to be managed either through politics, law, or the cowboy code.  This type of thinking is ridiculous, short-sighted, and offensive.  All I know is this – the more children I have, the more children I get to eat during the end of days.  And since our planet is wayyyyy past the tipping point anyway, we might as well go out with a belly-full-o-kiddies rather than an empty one.  Yes it’s inconvenient, but it’s the truth…

PHILIP: I will do my part by not having kids until someone invents babies that do not poop.

JEROME: Phil – I read that as “not having babies until someone invents a way to poop out babies.”

ANSON: Haven’t you realized its something in the water. Most places that don’t drink these overpriced bottled waters from the ice caps of Mount Rushmore have families with 10+ kids. India, China, the south. Hey, if its ok to have sex with your sister down there, then I guess its ok to have 15 kids with her too.

JUSTIN: the problem is that you’d be taxing the poor.  I thought you’re a bleeding heart liberal Alfredo.  With your suggestion I think you’d be the new front runner for the GOP nomination.  And Anson can be your VP.  Botello/Ho 2012!  Watch out Romney.