General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPersonally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy
perhaps not the implementation or penalties associated with having more then 1 child but certainly the concept of social responsibility involved
I am worn out on seeing people bring 6 - 8 - even 10 children into the world with no means to support, educate, or even feed them.
Time after time a Crisis of epic proportion as starving masses of children are dying around the world because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. Wars being fought as people fighting over diminishing resources ensues.
I can think of another 20 or 30 countries that could use such policies
flame away as you wish
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's just another form of slavery.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)you have a choice - they don't
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what is that all about? are you watching the commercials on late night tv?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)your not being all that honest to say you know of no one
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)against communicable diseases prior to entering first grade?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Do we force vaccinations on those who refuse them for religious or health reasons?
No we do not.
GoneOffShore
(17,337 posts)Not the ones opting out for health reasons, of course. Though they should have to show valid scientific proof of same.
The religious are a completely different kettle of fish ( a kettle that will eventually boil over).
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)charges for more than one child. It doesn't seem fair a rich family can pay a tax and the middle class can't have but one child. That isn't fair.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and I beleive it is a fine as I've seen in the news reports. Also the Communist Party looks the other way as party officials have more then 1 child
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)have one because that is all I could afford. A family has a right to have 3 or 4 children I see nothing wrong with that. Now 19 or 20 kids that is another story.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Your Biological Clock, or Nurturing Instinct does not out weight the child's need to eat , or have a chance of a successful life
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)One thing I have learned to the years. I don't know what my mother would have done without me and my siblings taking care of her. All our lives my parents took care of us and in their old age I come from the old school where we take care of our parents when they no longer can. My mother worried we put her in a nursing home. She didn't want to go there. You be surprised how many people go to those places especially when they are poor and don't necessarily get the best care. That is also a Chinese tradition. Their children take care of them when they are old. I see nothing wrong with that. It's to bad in american many kids don't feel that way.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and me and my boys moved back there to take care of her in her final year of life.
But the problem still remains - with increasing population dependant upon deminishing resources, there exist now and there will come a time, when parents of ALL nations of earth will watch their children wither and die for lack of resources
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)What you did for your mother was wonderful. You made the adjustment for her. Do you have other siblings? That would of helped you. I was lucky I come from a family of 6 kids. Honestly its nice to grow old with your children around you. I have a son who lives in my old home right next door to me. I love him dearly but the only time I can depend on him if it is an emergency. His wife is better but what can you do. I have 2 grandkids that always come over and never want to leave. I don't know what I would do without them. I don't bother them. I don't go over their house. My daughter-in-law comes over to get on her computer because they don't have internet. But she does things I ask her to like picking up medicines. I love her alot. My son works long hours and what little time he does have he tries to get to the children's games. Am fine with that. We retired here because my husband's parents were elderly and he was a only child. It is alot for one child to handle. You do what you got to do.
bhikkhu
(10,713 posts)then 2 on average would be female, and you would have a doubling of the population each generation. In other words, 7 billion people now would increase to 14 billion in 25 years or so. Then to 28 billion by 2060. Then 56 billion by 2085. Then 112 billion by 2110. I trust you see the problem there.
On an infinitely large planet, no worries. On ours, there are many limits that we are up against even with 7 billion people - most notably a lack of fresh water. Something like 2 billion now have inadequate access to clean water and sanitary living conditions; the difficulty with improving that is the majority of the earth's fresh water already goes to human use - irrigation, industry and personal use. We could do a little better with efficiencies, but the problem is that the resource (as well as many others) is fundamentally limited. "Science will save us" isn't happening.
At a certain point (and good estimates are that the point is 2-5 billion people) the population comes up against the limits of the planet to sustain resource-intensive modern lifestyles, and everything goes into decline. Resources deplete, living standards fall, baselines shift, and prosperity becomes a figment of the collective imagination, that any new baby born will be increasingly unlikely to ever grasp.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)I don't want the government playing god. That is also why we have birth control.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Very Selfish to think ONLY of your Breeding Instinct
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)want people to have more children he would of never let that happen. You can't stop humanity.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Actually some weirdos who were really bad at having sex must have started that rumor.
God never intended it to be that way and as Jesus taught here on earth sharing ourselves in an unselfish manor with the one that loves us is an endearing and godly endevor
Doesn't mean you have to add another child to the world's population because you sought to fulfill your natural God given desires for the one you love
Just who was the "Sad Sack Bastard" that distorted the bible that way anyway
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)I just never believed in having sex without a relationship. I was brought up that way. I had a strick retired military father who was catholic. I respected my parents not to come home pregnant. But I never judged anyoneelse from enjoying sex. To me sex is a little part of our lives. I wouldn't put it in the top 5.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but even in the Catholic Faith "Lust for your Wife/Husband" is not a sin - not even close.
BTW: Me and my wife are life long Catholics too.
The original writings of the 7 Deadly Sins included "Lust" from the perspective of a Monk sworn to and practicing celibacy. In his perspective of practicing celibacy as a means to get closer to his maker, he was attempting to purge all thoughts of lust from his being.
Later writtings from the church on the subject elaborated better towards the lay person in which Lust - sexual desires, are God given and therefore Good. Its what you do with it that counts. The Jewish faith goes a little farther to say Lust for your spouce is good in the fact it aids your marrige.
Where it has been distorted is when some say "sex other then for the reason of procreation is a sin" is BS.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Today times have changed. I realize young people today are going to have sex even before marriage. I not stupid about that. I also have a granddaughter and when it comes time her mother should have the talk with her and birth control pills. I don't want her coming home pregnant. I seen her mother pregnant at 16 having a baby in high school. That runs in her family. Both her sister and her own mother were pregnant. In my family none of us did that. So my daughter-in-law came home pregnant the 2d time with my son. My son married her because he didn't want her child being called a bastard. Of course he loved her. So now I have a granddaughter and a step grandson who I love dearly. Sex is a beautiful thing. I just don't believe in bed hopping. Men and jump from bed to bed and the other guys say that a boy. But now women are called whores. Go figure. To me bed hopping on either side I consider whores. But that is me. I don't let guys off the hook. I believe if my granddaughter found the right person and then she decides to get married then let her get on the birth control pill. Simple and plan. I will tell you this much there are many women to hate having sex and only do it because they have to. I enjoy it with my husband but we don't do it as much because we both are older and have medical issues. Sometimes he isn't in the mood. Sometimes am not in the mood. But no where did I say Lust.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Glad to hear you and yours are doing so well.
No its not fair in regard to how women are treated in that respect and I agree with you. I've raised 3 boys and we have had those discussions. I come from a family of 10 children and my father spent 5 years in the Novicia at Layola before deciding he didn't want to be a priest.
I also remember during the 60s the UN and the USA sponsored programs in developing countries where starvation from over population was prevalent. Men who had fathered 2 or more children were offered $40 or a Transistor Radio to undergo a vasectomy. It was a good program and sorely needed in the countries it was offered in. Keeping them "Bare foot and Pregnant" is one of the oldest forms of oppression used against women through out the world and I see no need for starving children to be born so that some one can bolster their flailing ego.
Sadly Ronald Reagan and his Moral Majority (who later proved to be neither) put an end to such common sense. Now we have tele-evangelist preachers playing late night info-mmercials begging for money to feed the starving masses of children in some impoverished country and the preachers skimming 10% off the top for themselves.
Its a sad narrative of our society
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)me is instead of giving the chinese women the abortion why can't they give a vasectomy to the men. Why is it always on the woman's shoulders. She did her job having the baby. Yep women are second class citizens. Well I guess you have brothers and sisters. If some men would stop and think how would they want their mothers, sisters or wives or even their daughters be treated then they should help their love ones make their own decisions about their bodies. I don't like anyone in the bedroom making decisions for my family. My dad came from a large family of 10 kids also. I came from 6. Our youngest brother died at 39 yrs old of lung cancer. He never smoked.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)But the good news is this policy has created a shortage of workers, and thus people are now asking for higher wages. This is why there have been sporadic protests(though short lived) throughout the country on workers, and conditions. You should also know the culture has a belief to keep a family name for more than 1 generation. And if the parents are poor, they believe the siblings will bring greater wealth to the "family" if there are more offsprings to sustain the name, and bring a better future. This is the philosophy. I know. I used to live there.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)is not because I agree, but because the discussion is always interesting. I personally find myself pulled to both directions but I find such a policy inconsistent w/ American principles when it comes to freedom.
To your post, even if a rich family has 3 or 4 children. They're still draining the world of limited resources. I'm not sure what is an appropriate limit to ensure long-term viability so you could be correct w/ nothing wrong w/ 3 or 4 children. I'll have to research that.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)the state has no fucking business doing anything of the kind. And I guess you have NO fucking problem dear with rich folks having all the kids they want.
varelse
(4,062 posts)near this righteous flame. Keep it burning, because you are absolutely right about this.
There are so many better options to encourage and support family planning. Totalitarian family planning is not a progressive concept.
happerbolic
(140 posts)...at a child's birth, present or not. After recorded #2(successful births) .... clip-n-snip. I'm all for that.
Give the planet and the rest of the species that inhabit it a break from our destructive ways.
2 would be a much tolerable number than 1, though - not as much need for kids to support a family farm as much today.
varelse
(4,062 posts)There is no need for this, and it is not going to happen without a fight.
The birth rate can be brought down by supporting education and health care for mothers and young children, by improving the economic and social status of women, and by making voluntary family planning accessible and affordable to all.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)abort when desireable.
(sarcasmthingie)
happerbolic
(140 posts)Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)
...just sucks, when based in reality, especially pushed to the limit this planet has endured, that concept fails our continued existence...
I don't see this world as 'all' people centered as some may view it. i cherish more the diversity this world portrays in all species at any given time without any one tipping parasitic over the rest.
as i hit the still noticeably absent 'opinion' checkbox that some of us wish were available with a post.
'opinion' 'conjecture' or 'Fact' button, would still make a nice post feature...
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)will help educate our society..
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)In other words, only the rich should have kids. Well my parents were not rich, had 4 kids, and did just fine.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The planet doesn't have means to support them.
One or two per couple or per woman, rich or poor.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what does the government do? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? Prison? What's the plan here?
MH1
(17,573 posts)I don't think the op is saying that only the rich should have kids. But many people who have several kids really can't raise that many children adequately. And population-wide, it's a matter of resources.
THE most critical problem, which is driving all others (resource depletion, conflict, and the eventual exponential growth of both) is OVER POPULATION.
Society can come to agreements now on how to deal with it, or let nature take its course and have much harsher and more capricious justice meted out by Her later. (and yes, the despised rich will fare better then, too, because money buys resources for protection in many circumstances if not all).
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... tend to address the problem far better than state policies dictating the number of children a person may have.
randome
(34,845 posts)All throwing their waste into the ocean and requiring huge amounts of energy and housing and entertainment.
I am not an alarmist but we have to implement some sort of policy worldwide or there will be mass starvation and millions of people will die because of it.
Yes, the planet has enough resources to support many more people but the waste and pollution we generate will become too much.
It's either implement a policy or stand back and watch people die.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)Yours related to poor people who should be in effect sterilized (either physically or through political coercion of some sort, are there any other options?).
The post you're responding to has to do with the effect of overpopulation on the larger environment. The people who have the most negative impact on the planet are the rich, not the poor. That's who is using the most resources and creating the most pollution and long term damage.
The unstated implications in your post are that primarily nonwhite (i.e. poorest) nations need to impose population control (and eventually die out if they can't support themselves). That doesn't address that the reason many times that they can't support themselves are that the primarily white rich nations have used that power to gut their resources. Maybe the rich mainly white nations need population control more than the poor nations, since the only way we know to feed our children and get them fancy cars with the corresponding fuel is to steal resources from others through war.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The US birthrate is below replacement levels and declining.
The crass consumption by developed nations is a far greater problem than our birthrates. A family of three (two parents and one child) living in the US consumes a far larger percent of resources than a significantly larger family living in emerging nations.
Pointing to families (especially infamous families) with large amounts of children in the US is not statistically or realistically significant, as they are simply aberrations.
Highest rates of population growth are in "non-white" regions, as the poster I responded to indicates.
The greatest factor in reducing birthrates is to educate and empower women and to provided adequate health care. This appears to be the most significant factor in birthrates.
Cutting global birthrates (I believe through the empowerment of women) is a good idea and will help in the reduction of over consumption of the earths resources. A much larger impact can only be realized by dramatics cuts in consumption by the worlds wealthier nations.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Personally my beleifs also apply to quite a few folks here in the USA
And never did I propose a means of enforcement of said policies.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I'm having a difficult time envisioning that.
and yes, I have no doubt your beliefs would apply to folks in the US who are poor, but again they are disproportionately nonwhite, and the rich are the ones who are disproportionately causing the most damage to the planet. Which group is causing the most damage? Why do population control advocates seem to so readily jump to the victims rather than the perpetrators when they decide whose population needs to be reduced?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I've made no such reference no do I believe the planet and it's capacity makes such distinctions
noamnety
(20,234 posts)that there's a link between race, oppression and poverty. We can pretend that policies directed at the poor are colorblind, but that doesn't change who is disproportionately affected by them.
See the war on drugs, welfare reform, exclusion from well funded so-called public schools based on neighborhood boundaries, etc. for reference. Population control of the "poor" in the real world boils down to "less black people should be born." If you find a way to make that less true - in the real world - let me know.
randome
(34,845 posts)There are too many freaking people on this planet. That's the reality and that's the only thing that should be focused on.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I'm all for free distribution of birth control of any type for men and women, free abortions (only) if women want them, subsidies to people living in poverty so they can survive without having to produce children to help hunt/farm/work/take care of the elderly to support the family.
It was the OP's focus on the poor needing to have their reproduction controlled that I took issue with.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but for conversations sake - let the scenerio play out
World population continues to grow exponetially. World Oil production deminishes to 1/4 of current production effecting food and energy production. Resources such as Food, Water, Medicine become scarce.
Who do you think would suffer more
noamnety
(20,234 posts)If you are asking whether oppressed people suffer more, I'm not going to argue that point with you.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Cars, computers, cellphones, fashions. We live in an ocean of unnecessary things. That's just the way we are, I guess.
Logical
(22,457 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)without oppression writ large?
I'm for education and easy access to bc and family planning.
randome
(34,845 posts)If you can truly convince people that it's either this or watch our species slowly disintegrate -no, they'd never go for that, would they? If it's not something immediate, it doesn't exist.
I don't know. But I do believe we're getting closer to when natural selection will take care of this 'problem' for us.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)A population control measure would, by definition, involve limiting women's choices because I don't see how you can enforce that from a man's perspective other than to say 'Don't'.
If it's a choice between the survival of our species and moderating population growth, I don't see that it's as simple a question as you pose.
Sure, you might say 'Freedom of choice no matter the cost' but I don't think I could support that.
On edit:
Actually, you could enforce that on a man. After the birth of one child, forced sterilization. Sorry, I should have seen that a mile away.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)that everyone could agree on. A 1 child policy is one I don't think would ever work even in the best of circumstances. Educating about delying pregnancy and spacing between children is a good alternative.
I do agree that overpopulation is a major problem, but the China policy is abhorrent to me.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)unless they all chose not to reproduce.
You are arguing for limiting freedoms, so instead you need to make the argument that it's "for the greater good".
Also why is it horrific to limit a womans freedom but acceptable to sterilize the man? It makes far more sense biologically to sterilize women if your goal is population limits. Sterilize the man in a relationship and the woman can still become pregnant (sperm banks, neighbors, divorce and new husband, etc). Sterilize the woman and that's it.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm only postulating about what possibilities to avoid natural selection in the event that the Earth truly starts winding down because of our greedy habits.
You're right, though, sterilization should not be a men versus women issue. I don't have a perfect answer for overpopulation. It doesn't seem like anyone does. Maybe increased education and awareness will be enough? Somehow I doubt it. Human beings don't look to the long term, as a matter of course.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)People had large families for financial security. All the other stuff (the religious or cultural reasons) built up around that initial justification.
Put in place a decent retirement system and provide people with BC and the problem will largely disappear.
Add a disincentive to having kids (say taxes to cover education, healthcare, environmental costs, etc of more children on parents) and the problem will disappear faster.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And... forced sterilization of men? Are you CRAZY???
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)form of an OP. It's not just a China issue. A global conversation about the limits of growth, the virtues of planning (family and economic), equity and justice (developed vs. developing) and policies adopted as a result.
Such a conversation and policies stemming from it would signal a major step forward in the evolution of the species.
In all my time at Occupy Los Angeles, l never heard any discussion of a need for population planning, although there were many discussions around related environmental issues such as global warming.
Cursed typos!
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)trap them at random and forcibly sterilize them. Whenever large litters are found they can be euthanized and so on.
I mean, if you're really that concerned.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)that is the sane solution to overpopulation.
Put family planning firmly in the hands of the individual. By "individual" I mostly mean each woman, herself. Trust women (and parental couples) to be responsible about their number of offspring. Give them all the birth control they want and/or need.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And that fucked up idea is held by people across the political spectrum.
Sooner or later, though, people will see the light.
Too many fucking people on this planet.
End of story.
Only a freeper or fundy would argue with that against all scientific reason.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Back on DU2, years ago, I got my ASS flamed for pointing out that overpopluation is killing the planet, that having more than one is selfish.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)biased in favor of their personal preferences.
sigh
hack89
(39,171 posts)you are smart to not suggest a real solution - it would not reflect well on you.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)One has to control people's bodies or reproductive behavior to actually prevent child birth.
And I thought we were against that. Well, Democrats at least.
By the way, you are returning a portion of your Medicare and Social Security, correct? Because the children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for a part of it and I suggest giving that portion back.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You wrote:
"By the way, you are returning a portion of your Medicare and Social Security, correct? Because the children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for a part of it and I suggest giving that portion back."
Which is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme; that payments to early adopters are paid with (and in fact depend upon) new enrollment, as opposed to being paid back original investments plus interest.
I paid into Social Security, I don't need new babies to come into this world to be covered in my retirement.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i could argue with you, but i make it a point not to waste time arguing with Republican talking points here. instead, i simply point out when i see one.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)your payments in don't equal your payments out.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You said if babies aren't born then I won't get my SS check.
I say my funds are intact and waiting for me.
Disability and Medicare, which you bring up for some unknown reason, do not enter into the equation.
The Ponzi-esque description was yours, I just applied the label to it.
Your description, not mine.
ciao.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I won't accept a lecture from someone who doesn't understand the program they're lecturing about.
And I don't cede the moral high ground to you snd your anti helpng children, selfish politics.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Hmmm?
DCKit
(18,541 posts)There has to be balance. The U.S. gets that balance from immigration, something which will never happen in China or Japan.
Any real solution is going to encompass far more issues than population growth. If it's flaming you desire, then here I go: Your stance is simplistic.
MH1
(17,573 posts)If a person is still healthy and can do the job they're trained for - or retrain for one they can do - why not pay them for their wisdom and let them continue to work?
I'm not suggesting that people who are physically worn out shouldn't be able to retire according to current guidelines. Just that people who enjoy working continue to do it, and that we try to keep people healthier longer and reward continued work.
I agree that the economic factor needs to be considered, but to simply write off a proposal as "that will never work" rather than exploring possible solutions, is also simplistic.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)You would need a one world government or maybe a supreme ruler of earth and then they decree to all you can only have one child. And what would happen to those who didn't adhere to the law, imprisonment or would they be forced to be sterilized after having one child? This sounds like a nightmare-ish scenario to me. Not to mention shades of "1984" in terms of the kind of total control of the population that would require.
randome
(34,845 posts)Sadly, it will take a mass die-off in some part of the world to wake up the rest of the world.
Glorfindel
(9,720 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Roger Dittman, an emeritus professor of physics at California State University, believes that Agenda 21 policies should be implemented in the United States. Dittman is the American representative to the UN.
In his 2004 talk entitled Sustainable Development, the New International Scientific Order, and UN Reform, Dittman defines sustainable development in a unique way. He states:
Economic (and other) development that leads to reduction in population toward an optimum level for maximization of the quality of life, i.e. environmentally benign development that reduces the birth rate.
Dittmans professional history includes, among other notations, his affiliation with UNESCO.
UNESCO, in 1974, was integral in using clever mind-control and brainwashing techniques in all facets of societal controls; including mass media, public and private school programs to steer the public perception about depopulation.
By the hand of the then Director General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, popularized the scientific dictatorship with a speech at a dinner for the International Coordinating Council of Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsberg.
The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.
Maheu asserts that the planet will be destroyed unless a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert.
This international community he references is the UN. He goes on to say, I wish to reiterate my firm conviction - together with my hope - that a new world order - political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established.
Dittman believes that in order to bring about the events necessary for depopulation, there must be a global governance to oversee all directives and make sure they are carried out. Since this is a global effort, it requires global organization, both governmental and popular.
Under the rule of an international scientific order Dittman asserts that not only do people require organization about their (multiple) identities (including professional, scholarly, and scientific), they need international, even supranational affiliation, facing a common adversary.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/american-representative-to-un-calls-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29&utm_content=FaceBook
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)I believe trying to keep population numbers down, but I have a problem with messing with reproductive freedoms. Something though, must be done... this is a tough one.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I wish there was a less intrusive way to reduce our global population, but providing incentives for only having 1 kid per couple may be the least intrusive option out there. (Better than more wars over diminishing resources or mass starvation down the road.)
It's a pickle, no doubt about it.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)When women have education, opportunity and reproductive freedom, birth rates go down.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)
and the consequences of large population go far beyond, familial ability to feed, support, and educate. Because env. problems are considered to be human caused, every environmental problem is a per capita based problem. Defining the problem of over-population in terms of family wealth is at best a very limited perspective.
Unfortunately for all of us the problem is much more complicated than it appears at first view. Life-history traits represent evolved biological capacities to long-term species survival problems and are hardly independent of other human characteristics some of which are psychological and sociological. Important among those human characteristics is the drive to reproduce and to care for not only ourselves but also members of our social groups.
The advance of our social evolution has gifted us with the capacity to remove or overcome many mortality risks that only 10,000 years ago (not terribly long ago in terms of the generation time that paces out evolutionary response) were mostly balanced by fecundity. We are strongly addicted to those recent risk reductions and trapped by the slowness of evolutionary change in our characters.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)unless they're being "socially responsible". Yes, having basic rights is all good and fine, but their has to be a mechanism for the government to take away those rights when they "know better than us" what is socially responsible. Thankfully, we continue to elect intelligent, trustworthy and fair-minded public officials who can tell us what's best for us.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)People now live incredibly longer than ever before. Why not a euthanasia policy to control population, eliminating the sick and old, who use up a lot of resources.
Of course, I condone neither mandatory birth policies nor what I've shockingly suggested above. Governments should not be in the business of telling people how or when to procreate or how long to live.
Your intentions I'm sure are sincere, but they have consequences: you need to think about where the line can be drawn in using policy to control population. And of course, you can't draw a line. The moral implications are huge.
There are options to consider other than restricting people's private reproductive rights. Education is one; scientific research and policy efforts to find ways to sustain and spread resources is another.
I think your post is paternalistic, judgmental, ethnocentric, and frankly scary. And also sexist: China's one-child policy has led to the extermination or export of female children. Yes, if people can have only one child in China they want a boy. Girls are aborted, abandoned, given up for adoption to foreigners (Jeebus, how many people do you know who have Chinese daughters: I know at least five). And now China has an extremely skewed population of males, creating other social problems.
It's a terrible policy, and one you'd never accept in a Western country like ours. Yet you advocate it for the poor breeding natives.
randome
(34,845 posts)You're right, the insistence on boys over girls is abominable. The government could do more to reverse that.
But if nothing is done to put this planet on a sustainable course, we will see millions of people die in our lifetimes. I think we're that close to seeing it happen.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)"Western country like ours" with unattended children joining gangs and taking to the streets dealing drugs and committing murder or engaging in childhood prostitution - Oh yes we are so much better then those "Evolving Societies".
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I suppose you want to sterilize all those irresponsible poor (black and Hispanic) people who have too many children.
You and Barbara Bush, who used to be a great proponent of eugenics, as I recall.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)btw: Alert Sent
randome
(34,845 posts)You opened up a great discussion. Let's see where it goes.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)its just that their working 50 - 60 hrs a week career obsessed parents spend their life savings hiring good lawyers to gain them a lesser sentance - doesn't mean the kids don't go bad or end up seeking negative attention
randome
(34,845 posts)We have to do something about the number of people on this planet. It could be an international treaty for each country to act to reduce its population by three percent a year or something like that.
We could try the education and maybe financial incentive way first and see if that works. For every couple that has more than 1 child, they get hit with a tax.
Maybe that would work?
On edit:
What am I thinking? No, financial de-incentives will only mean the rich will win out again. Sorry, I'm posting while at the same time talking to my daughters about the Avengers movie (awesome!) and whether or not Shia Labouef is an actual cannibal or not.
And they will not stop talking!
Talk about multi-tasking.
MH1
(17,573 posts)just because they don't like a political position which has ZERO natural association to race or eugenics. (and could be in fact a race-neutral alternative to a eugenics approach. Not that eugenics was even under discussion until that poster raised it as an attack.)
MH1
(17,573 posts)because I spent some time on writing it, and while I am sure other alerters could have easily made the case as well, in case they got there first and didn't make the case, here's mine:
Calling the poster a "eugenicist" and implying the poster is racist, is extremely over the top. They imply racism in asserting that the targeted poster wants to "sterilize all those irresponsible poor (black and Hispanic) people". Nowhere did the targeted poster remotely make any statements like that. Suggesting that a "one child" policy might be a good thing, and that population needs to be limited in some way does not in ANY way propose a racist or genetic based policy. To accuse the poster of that is an extreme personal attack. I have checked TOS violation on this because it is bigoted to impose a racist view on another person based on an expressed opinion which itself has nothing to do with race.
Edited to add: I'm posting this because currently only the text of the first alert is considered, as I understand it. It would be nice to have the system show other alert comments that come in during the jury consideration of the first alert.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)of spot reducing the populations of specific countries (20-30 countries), what are we to conclude?
MH1
(17,573 posts)(except for the many valid oppositions to a one-child policy raised in this discussion, which are race-neutral.)
noamnety
(20,234 posts)if you interpreted this as referring to the US: " because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. "
MH1
(17,573 posts)why are we all over the globe trying to control resources if we have enough here at home for the population we want to sustain?
noamnety
(20,234 posts)But looking at the OP's phrasing, I maintain that it's disingenuous to claim that's what they were referring to when they wrote:
"Time after time a Crisis of epic proportion as starving masses of children are dying around the world because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. Wars being fought as people fighting over diminishing resources ensues.
I can think of another 20 or 30 countries that could use such policies "
Honest answer please - which countries do you think they had in mind when they wrote that? Countries like the US? Or ones like Ethiopia?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Perhaps I should have taken the "Jeopardy" approach and stated my objection as a question: "Are you advocating eugenics"?
The OPs response to my post was shocking, and in my opinion deserved a shocking response. If it gets hidden (my first hidden post on DU3), I will consider it well worth the effort.
MH1
(17,573 posts)I don't know where you are getting those things from that post, or anything else by that poster in this thread.
In any case, why think the worst of someone? If there was any question that the person was implying race or gene components to be included in the policy, why not ask before accusing? You might also, instead of name-calling, if the poster confirms that is what they are thinking, explain why that approach would be immoral.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Eugenics is the controlled breeding of people to advance a goal. There are many ways to get there but the one child policy is one of them. The goal - reduce the population. It need not be race-based. Remember "three generations of imbeciles are enough"? Carrie Buck was white. The eugenics board determined that her genes were unfit to move forward.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)because You forgot to add 'social Darwinist' and 'anti-Choice'.
If I get a jury decision to hide my post then oh well. It's the truth. FreakinDJ's comments are anti-choice, and identical to what social Darwinists AND Eugenists would say to justify their war of population control.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Win-Win
Igel
(35,282 posts)Fewer deaths due to disease (hence longer lives), higher infant survival rate, better nutrition, fewer wars.
Heck, even in vitro fertilization adds more to the population than folks like Octomom. Octomom must cause some special kind of revulsion and feeling-based thinking.
Why privilege the living over the non-living? (I had this dispute with students who wanted all kind of perks regardless of what it did to the college in 5 years--after all, they had rights that those who would come later couldn't possibly have.)
Want population reduction? Dispose of all the things that produce larger populations. High birth rates preceded all these later perks.
It's one solution. Just not one that makes life convenient for those living in the West, so the OP wouldn't like it.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)That includes all water
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12286090
Until the economic system is changed there will be no change, There is enough food on the planet to feed 10 billion right now, but education and awareness is lacking on how to take care of this planet and its people and resources.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Forget what it's called.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A classic.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)don't really get the metaphor, picture etc.
The Sea and lower animals on that spectrum?..
Don't get it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Chinese_Brothers
When one of the brothers, a somehow very successful fisherman, agrees to let a young boy accompany him on his fishing trip, trouble results. This brother holds the entire sea in his mouth so that the boy can retrieve fish and treasures. When the man can no longer hold in the sea, he frantically signals to the boy, but the boy ignores him and drowns when the man releases the water.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)They outlawed forced abortions in 2002, but there are still reports of local governments in China forcing them on women.
I've read articles that have said the policy has problems. They are faced with a large aging population. The single sibling generation will have to carry the burden of not just caring for their parents, but also potentially 4 grandparents as well.
They could have done a better job with this by teaching about spacing children between births and delaying pregnancy.
Overall, I find the policy offensive. To enforce this kind of control over a woman's body is no different than the anti-choicers forcing their beliefs.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... but without enforcing rules on the selection of gender it is a disaster.
Now quadrillions of Chinese men have no chance of ever finding a wife. Sucks to be them.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)now I'll never get laid
LOL
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)educate women. How much they are tracks directly with how many children they have.
It just comes naturally, as it were.
It is long term better, and actually less expensive.
One or two kids are quite dandy, thank you.
And I can think of more than twenty or thirty countries that need similar policies, because of global climactic change... we will be forced into dramatic ways of doing things, I am afraid
But the thing that has to go with education are vaccination campaigns, because one reason for that is the utter lack of survival early in life if you don't have those.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This is not the place for logic or reasoning. We're in the middle of an all-out assault on reproductive freedom. Anti-choicers are okay if we're anti-choice for population control reasons!
Seriously, though, well said. It saddens me to see no one else had anything to say to your wise counsel.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)but since it's implemented over time, and doesn't give instant-gratification results, no one seems to like it.
tnvoter
(257 posts)Take India as a counterpoint. It also has a population growth problem. While it calls itself a "democracy," its society is far from utopian. If India had followed "communist" China's one-child policy, it would still have a poverty problem. But it's poverty problem would not be exacerbated by an overpopulation that overwhelms its social safety nets. I think China has largely averted the oppressive poverty that burdens India. And though both countries have advanced industrially, China has is a bigger middle class and far better safety net for its poor.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)History has shown that this ratio creates warlike states and cultures. The world may end up paying for their policy.
MH1
(17,573 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Maybe not so far off...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's called a "Youth bulge" and it coincidentally precedes a GREAT DEAL of wars in history.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)have learned many tales from them.
drm604
(16,230 posts)and to make the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies easily and freely available.
Give people easy alternatives to birthing and rearing large numbers of children and they will, for the most part, pursue those alternatives.
MH1
(17,573 posts)However, if too much time passes without this happening (and we are regressing from it here in the US), draconian policies like "one child", with their attendant downsides, may become the lesser of evils.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Governments should not have to legislate such a policy. People should limit their reproduction on their own. But they are not.
So we are faced with an overpopulation problem.
What government has done--- give taxbreaks to reproductioners, can and should be undone. Government should levy a tax on every new child.
That would in essence not be telling them what they should do, just stating the fact that doing so creates an impact that must have a balance and a tax would help to balance that impact..
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)How responsible a program is it when this policy causes FAR MORE FEMALE fetuses to be aborted than males?
Just wait a few years until the wave of Chinese males caused by this policy hits puberty...
Then tell me if it's responsible.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Alex Trebek: It's one of the most common causes of wars in human history, possibly even more fundamental than religion or ideology.
Player: What is a youth bulge?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)The human cost of such an involuntary population rebalancing is, of course, horrific. Based on this model we would experience an average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to achieve our target population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, and would be about 200 million that year. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for only six years.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It means that when you have a large number of young men without hopes for marriage or success, wars will happen.
This means that pollution, resource usage and downright environmental destruction will SKYROCKET - accelerating the likelihood of a huge crash.
Your study also ignores the fact that we have nuclear weapons that can be put into play this time.
That is what will happen under your anti-choice population control system, in which boys will be heavily favored over girls.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And after all this time has it ever occurred to you that education, free access to birth control and opportunities for women has done more to curb population growth than your fascist dreams of an anti-choice, social Darwinist utopia?
Outliers besides the Duggars notwithstanding, prosperity and education are the best form of population control.
You're hell bent upon using force, to the point of glorifying China. Nothing else seems to even computer with you.
Please move to China if you think China is so socially responsible. There is no country for you here.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)If people can afford it and they want more children, they should adopt. It's not like China has a shortage of beautiful babies in desperate need of homes or an overabundance of natural resources.
Skelly
(238 posts)as administered by any government, would have to definitely include the sterilization of 'x' percentage of men (1/2? 1/3?). A female can only have 'x' number of children in a lifetime. Men, an infinite number. A lottery should do it. Problem solved. You're welcome.
randome
(34,845 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Yes the approach of sterilizing men as will as women would be best. Once a man or woman fulfilled their quota of species replenishment then they could/would voluntarily submit. Given the propensity of changing lovers/bed-partners as frequently as we do this would be the preferred method
But a lottery systematically sterilize males could would lead to "Selection"
Skelly
(238 posts)than that against families who CHOOSE to have more than one child. Women would not need to be sterilized. In fact, it would be quite detrimental to the species to do so.
Seems like a simple solution to me. At least as simplistic as 1 child per family law.
Nolimit
(142 posts)That sounds pretty dystopian to me.
I thought that was what we were discussing...dystopian ideas for population control...China's one child law, forced sterilization, etc. I was merely cutting to the chase.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)It's about a civilization where one person draws the unlucky number and gets stoned to death.
Maybe off topic, maybe not.
randome
(34,845 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Skelly
(238 posts)who has to bring up that pesky little liberty idea. Next you'll be spouting about the need for education, family planning and access to safe, affordable birth control.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)ignore for the moment the sexist approach that it is ok to take away men's reproductive abilities but not women's.
If you have a population of 100 men and 100 women and you sterilize 90 men and 0 women how many potential pregancies could you have that year? 100.
Now flip it, sterilize 90 women and 0 men. How many pregnancies? At most 10.
Which is lower?
You're assuming people are monogamous and won't find other mates if they want kids (or sperm banks). That isn't the case. Sterile males work in certain populations. Those that mate only once then lay eggs and die. Like some mosquitoes. Not so much in people that are capable of mating several times a year (even dozens of times in some aberrant individuals!).
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Mr. Swift would be proud.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)I'm always stunned how many responses posts like this get from people so pissed off at the suggestion that we should manage our numbers. The planet cannot sustain 7+ billion people, all trying to attain as close to an American life style as possible. Add to that, the fact that we treat our home like a garbage dump, I don't see a good outcome for billions of people.
~Agent Smith
on edit:
I agree with the posters who say education, family planning & birth control are key. It would help if organized religion would renounce that 'go forth & populate' bullshit.
7 Billion Miracles is Enough!
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)I too am sick of many progressives who turn a blind eye to the fact we are destroying our home on planet Earth. How bad does it have to get before we wake up?
randome
(34,845 posts)Nicely put. But that number is much, MUCH higher when you consider all who have come before.
bhikkhu
(10,713 posts)...so if our species is about 200k years old, then out of all humans who ever existed, one in 8 is still alive today.
randome
(34,845 posts)It puts things in a different perspective.
prefunk
(157 posts)We need to get PEOPLE to see that having only one child is the socially responsible thing to do. Until we change minds...
Rex
(65,616 posts)That is a staggering number considering the size of China. I won't flame you, I am just not to excited about any country that culls the herd of humans through social engineering.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's like down-sizing a company through attrition. No one currently at the company is hurt and the employees who remain are more secure.
In concept, anyways.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)when describing what is happening in China.
Being a herd and being treated as one are 2 different things.
I did not make that distinction in my post and I should since it is important.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]But I strongly oppose the means by which it's being done in China.
It's a dilemma -- how to achieve the right outcome without using a very wrong policy -- but not an unsolvable one.
Government should play a key role, but not an invasive/oppressive one.
cabot
(724 posts)I think better education in overpopulated countries is the key to controlling the world's number of people. I don't like it when the government tries to restrict abortion access and I don't like it when the government tells someone how many children they can have. Why do you think there are so many murders of baby girls in China? Because of the one child law.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)The world needs women need to take full control of reproduction (in accordance with their male partners, of course). This is something women must be in charge of, and of course with input from their male partners.
Your post is absolutely correct, and is backed by masses of evidence. When women are educated, have adequate financial opportunities, and have full access to family planning, birth rates go down to a sustainable number.
That is sanity.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)No one needs to do anything really, mother nature will eventually solve the problem for us with disease, wars and famine, so we can just keep on popping them out knowing that someday the planet will do a "correction" just as the stock markets does now and then...So we can all stick our heads back into the sand and ignore the possibilities.
Take the nuclear option of the OP.
I love a pendulum.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But not legally determined and forced. I respect the good intentions behind your suggestion, but we have seen this before.
The eugenics movement was a partnership of people who did not want to see children born into suffering, and people who wanted to create a master race. Forced sterilization was where it stopped for the people with good intentions. It has been expanded beyond that and the mindset of the self identified superior "races" continues.
While that is not the goal of China's policy, it's not hard to see how ugly it could get in a more heterogenous country.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)to heavily fine people for having more than 1 kid. Offer no benefits for having 1 child. And paying people to become sterilized after one child (and paying them more to be sterilized with no kids).
And of course provide all forms of birth control freely and readily.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I believe forcing a woman to give birth or have an abortion are both reprehensible.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Follow that up with a massive education program. We know from experience all over the world that as a population is elevated out of ignorance, birth rates plummet.
We really need to get the population down to about 2 billion. Do that, and your descendants will inherit a world of infinite possibility.
Of course this will never be done as we are overrun with egotistical morons that are certain that the human race will disappear without the contribution of their superior genetics, reinforced by religious delusion.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)former9thward
(31,949 posts)You are not much for women's rights are you? Do you think having a country totally unbalanced men/women is a good thing? Because that is what China has now and whatever other country would have if they wanted to deny women's rights like you do.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)World War III is coming. There won't be many people left after that.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)1/3 of earth's inhabitants will be killed off
as seen with most of the replies a "Mass Kill Off" is the population control means of preference
chrisa
(4,524 posts)here.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Half of all pregnancies are unplanned. That number could be drastically reduced if our society would change its attitudes about sex.
The Duggars and all of the other batshit people can have 20 kids, for all I care. This problem can be solved on the macro level without having to implement any such policy.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)and people who are unable to care for a child or children which then become a burden up society as whole, is not acceptable to me. People that are mentally unstable, should not be running around and having children and Rapist should be chemically castrated, as well as child molesters...People that are clearly socially unfit to have children.
Seeing that mentally handicapped people are more often then not left in the care of others, should not be able to reproduce for their own safety.
I am not at all ashamed to vote for population controls, you should even need to apply for a license to have children which would require IQ testing and mental evaluations.
Skelly
(238 posts)alcoholics, drug addicts, those who are obese? Can we add them to the list? Also maybe the disabled in general. Oh, and just the down right stupid. Stupid people really bother me.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)Is an issue that is having a negative envrionm ental and social impact. Your condensending remarks shows you don't understand the issue nor its consequences.
Skelly
(238 posts)However, I DO understand the consequences of the one child law.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I have a huge problem with government regulating reproductive rights, but at the same time, in places where famine and death by starvation could be eliminated by such regulations...it almost seems inhumane not to support it.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see any reason anyone should flame you for offering the topic by stating your view. In fact, I applaud you for speaking your mind on a forum where I get the growing sense that many censor themselves for fear of crossing some ever-encroaching boundary of what is and is not acceptable.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)They also rarely have birth control.
musical_soul
(775 posts)without the dumb consequences and/or coercion that goes with it.
It has been said before that we have enough resources to feed everybody on this planet. We don't do so because of selfishness. We actually give farmers subsidies to throw out food. We need to put the human race before profit.
Fort Minor
(3 posts)As someone who wants to have four children I find all these measures ridiculous. Who are you to tell people they can't have more than one child if they wish?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Do you really not think we are over-populating this world as it is?
Granted, there's still lots of open land here in America, but do we really want to see it become as populated as parts of Asia?
There is something called QUALITY of life, you know. It's not just about bringing in as much new life as one can by "procreating like bunnies", you know.
There IS going to come a point where this planet simply can't sustain any more people. Unless we finally figure a way to branch out and start colonizing other planets, we're pushing this planet to its limits.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Because that's exactly what China's despicable one-child policy is. Once you give a govt. that amount of power, there is no going back. If they can tell you how many kids you are "allowed" to have, there is no limit. Notice how that whole human rights thing means jack shit to the thugs running Beijing.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Ewald further projected, If we run out of fossil fuels, we cannot continue the intensive farming to feed an already overcrowded earth. We are seeing this form of starvation in many places in the world now, without even taking into consideration the additional increasing problems of drought and famine produced by global warming. Oil industry executives have projected perhaps 40 more years of oil remaining on which to base a hydrocarbon economy say Peter Davies, chief economist at BP (Conway, 2004).
http://karen-hansen.suite101.com/activists-endorse-global-sexual-reproductive-health-act-of-2010-a272184
I guess you must have missed the memo
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Inexcusable.
And I wonder of the nabobs nodding their heads "yeses, yeses" would still agree if you went and LISTED those 20 or 30 countries... by name.
Ter
(4,281 posts)You're a Communist, and I don't use that word loosely.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)in 30 to 40 years from now there is going to be serious famine for the majority of the world's inhabitants.
You may think it is "Fine and dandy" to bequeath that inheritance to you off spring. I on the other hand find it reprehensible
BTW: here is the food for thought - http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Whether you feel that your views are beneficial or not, you are anti-choice, by the logical definition of the word.
Anti-Choice.
Anti-Choice.
Anti Freedom Of Choice.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #186)
Post removed
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The folks there can have 2 children. But, most of the time, in most provinces, they are taxed for having the 2nd child.
The problem is worse in the rural areas of China, so it is hard for the government to get a handle on how sidespread the problem really is.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)When government does it, it's repression.
Bill McBlueState
(8,216 posts)In China there is apparently a tax penalty after the first child.
If you think people are having too many children, it seems like it would be simple and unintrusive just to change the tax-credit-vs-number-of children curve.
Maybe $1000 for the first and second, $500 for the third, $0 for the fourth, etc. Whatever. The point is that, in keeping with our 100-year tradition of social engineering through the tax code, there are plenty of tweaks one could enact without being super-authoritarian.
raccoon
(31,105 posts)uses up about 30% of resources being used?
IOW, the first world countries that are way into overconsuming are a big part of the problem.
MissHoneychurch
(33,600 posts)(and it will be a very big problem for China) is that most of the children born are boys. Girls aren't worth as much as boys there and the families are trying to get rid of the girls and try again to get a boy. Esp. in the rural areas. At one point there won't be enough women for all those men. And that calls for trouble. Big trouble.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Or they'll leave China.
Some men who can't afford to do either will be SOL.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)be implemented world-wide:
1. Mandatory abortions performed upon women who are impregnated after already having had one child.
2. Mandatory sterilization of the men who do said impregnating.
3. A combination of both.
That's going to be a tough sell in countries that respect reproductive autonomy and the right of men and women to control their own sexual behavior within the bounds of mutual consent.
The better idea is actually three-fold:
1. Provide wide-spread access to birth control along with education on how to use it.
2. Continue to strive for gender equity worldwide - societies that strive and have achieved some degree of equality between men and women have lower birthrates for all sorts of reasons, and is the right thing to be working toward in any event.
3. Don't have kids yourself.