Should we implement the One-Child Policy in Certain Countries?

Born from this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13132149830A76813600&page=1#14

Should some other countries have a One-Child-Policy, similar to that of China?

If you are a Chinese spin-doctor, can you please reiterate the Party Line?

Didn't China's One-Child policy lead to a really fucked up population with a huge number of elderly, but not enough young people to replace them? In addition to having a skewed gender split what with males being considered more useful?

Yep.

Will lead, however. Population curves for the 2050s show India's population demographics similar to that of Europe today, with China's looking like an inverted pyramid.

edited 12th Aug '11 11:46:39 PM by Inhopelessguy

Apparently it also lead to infanticide of female babies.

Maybe a One-child policy would work a bit better if we got rid of the idea of males 'carrying on the family name' as well as the idea that girls are useless.

But then again, maybe it wouldn't. How would you enforce it? Mandatory abortions are not going to find favour with anybody. If you confiscate the kids, where are you going to put them?

S'what I thought. In that respect, I can't think of anywhere offhand a one-child policy would be hugely beneficial. On the other hand, I suppose if you allow a generation or two to die off without enough people to replace them, then remove the policy, you could deal with your population size issue in around a century, though there are probably better ways to handle it.

Most laws like this are not meant to be permanent, they're meant to decrease population for a small amount of time, insuring that the country doesn't expand too quickly.

Plus, the "male dominance" thing is, I believe, a cultural issue of China, not something intrinsic to One-Child Policies.

I suppose we could tax people more for having more children, but it seems kind of heartless to take extra tax money from somebody who has to feed and clothe six kids.

It probably wouldn't be as much of an issue elsewhere, but it still could be, if males are considered more useful just for that whole "won't ever be pregnant and unable to work and eating for two" thing.

edited 12th Aug '11 11:56:46 PM by Wulf

one-child policy is too radical.

two child policy (Indonesia) or one boy policy will be easier to implement and beneficial to India and other developing states.

The problem is all excess population (well, most) is in the 3rd world countries with issues enforcing this, as they "need" the extra kids in the first place because the instability of the region makes industrialization impossible.

I'm sure most non-OECD nations aren't in uproar everyday. I went to Bangladesh recently, and there was not a coup d'etat or a gang war outside my house.

For most of these nations, the fertility rate is dropping (note: not birth rate) nonetheless.

I couldn't see it working in poor countries and that is basically how it works in developed nations so what's the point?

Utterly opposed to it. Even ruling out my religious objections, the reason people have more children in these places is that often they need the extra pair of hands to provide extra income. You're basically asking poor farmers to limit their crop yields and by extension the income on which they subsist. Not to mention the problem in a lot of cases is that an elite puts in place economic restrictions that prohibits the formation of a proper bourgoisie and industralization in effect (see the License-Permit Raj in India as an example par excellence). Do that, you get industralization. Industrialize, and even without a one-child policy or subsidizing a single condom, most populations undergo some form of demographic transition.

edited 13th Aug '11 12:36:42 AM by Cojuanco

There is a vast difference between the one child policy and the situation in most western nations. Rather than jump the whole way, just offer some tax breaks for the childless and less tax incentives to spawn.

Well, most developed nations tend to have lower fertility rates anyway, with the United States being a minor exception.

We are speaking fertility rates, not birth rates?

Fertility rates: The amount of children per woman

Birth rates: The amount of children per 1000 population.

I think the FR average in the EU is about 1.5, with that of Asia about 1.8. However, the 'thinking' FR (how many children women think they should have) is about 1.3 in the EU and 2.1 in Asia.

I'm not sure on those figures, but its somewhere close to that.

I'd prefer a "no child" policy by any country that has single payer systems. Why? Having a child is an easily prevented medical condition that costs significantly more the longer it occurs.

Great, Deboss. Humanity is the #1 STD, yeah, yeah.

But how will we replenish society? Cloning isn't reliable.

And how would you replace the old geezers who die? Immigration can't provide the entire answer.

Fuck - ninja'd.

edited 13th Aug '11 12:46:06 AM by Cojuanco

I'm not sure what your point is. Why would we want to replace dead people with something that isn't a robot.

Yeah, because a society of non-sentient robots run by aging humans is plausible.

1) you mean sapient, not sentient

2) who said anything about "run by aging humans"?

I suspect India would have been a nicer place to live if they had implemented some kind of population control some decades ago (I think they tried, but quickly gave up - Democracy isn't very compatible with unpopular policies that have long-term benefits).

It's still too early to tell whether China will run into some long-term demographic problems like Japan. I think they did the right choice; we'll see.

There is a little thing call 'human rights' that means I'm going to have to say no.

No. It violates the rights of the parents.

This one has no desire to have state dictate whether she will have children, with whom, and how many. So this one is not comfortable with enforcing it upon anyone else.

Economic incentives, such as no money from the state for a child after the first, are fine.