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

@major Tom: I agree man needs not limit himself, it over population ever becomes a big problem we can just invent some science to fix things.

*throws another koala onto barbecue*

edited 13th Aug '11 8:51:09 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

The problem is science has already invented an overpopulation fix. The problem is convincing people to fund schools for people in 3rd world countries. because research shows over and over again that people with a decent education and access to affordable birth control will choose to have less kids.

Joeyjojo, I'm pretty sure you meant that first part sarcastically (about the second I have no doubt that you did ), but that is kind of how things have generally tended to go, throughout human history. An issue comes up, and people start looking for ways to work around or fix the problem. The worse it gets, the harder people work on it, until something comes up that addresses the issue in question.

To borrow from Samuel Johnson: "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

(Granted, for a lot of people, it concentrates their mind on their impending hanging... )

All your safe space are belong to Trump

Ah, but that requires that the governments and authorities actually do more work instead of just laying down a law and fining (or worse) everyone who breaks it.

Why go for the more effective long-term solution that requires major planning and structural change to society when they can go for an easy instant fix (that doesn't work as well).

edited 13th Aug '11 8:52:39 AM by Drakyndra

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

Regardless, i don't believe we are heading towards mass starvation any time soon.

edited 13th Aug '11 9:04:28 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

^ We never have been. All the claims that food production linearly increase while population quadratically increases are regularly broken by advances in farming techniques and technology. A hundred years ago, not a single scientist would believe that obesity because of overabundance of food would exist outside the rich. Today, that's the reality of our time.

overabundance isnt the main issue causing obesity. Its shit like corn subsidies making HFCS ridiculously cheap.

^ Logistically speaking, there is more than enough food production to feed the world. Hell, some countries like the US actually keep a lid on how much it can do so there's room to grow.

The only thing the subsidies do is kill off the incompetent farmers on poor quality land in Africa.

Or..prop up uncompetitive shit so that america can win at farming at the cost of driving even small american farmers out of business,.

The obesity epdiemic is due to lifestyle, not the food.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Thread Hop:

No we should not.

But we should begin subsidising contraceptives and educating the poor specially in India, China, Indonesia, Philipines, and Africa about sexual health and how to best avoid pregnancies.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:42:01 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

@OP,

No, because to enforce it will require systematic abortion.

I would prefer the general proliferation of birth control, which is probably easier to implement, likely cheaper, and generally less morally dubious...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Technically it might not require systematic abortion..it'd just mean orphanages would flood with girls.

Right...

Because that's so much better...

I am now known as Flyboy.

never said it was a GOOD thing :D

Touche.

Well, I would say that even if we wanted to implement it, we couldn't, because it would be 1) unethical to a large number of people, and democratic law requires majority ruling, so it would be fought constantly and/or 2) so crushingly expensive (the aforementioned orphanages) as to be impossible to sustain.

Birth control sounds much easier, and the moral opposition to that is much more lacking in common sense and much more possessing of religious fanaticism...

I am now known as Flyboy.

The obvious problem with birth control with regards to this problem is that...many people have multiple children on purpose, so many do not care about avoiding pregnancy.

Have many children so you have more sons. More sons=more helping hands. More sons=higher chance you have leave behind a larger legacy. If you have few sons, you risk a higher chance of them dying off due to diseases, living conditions, or starvation, and your family leaving behind no legacy. Daughters are worthless in this area.

In this case, the bigger problem is unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Make healthier lifestyles, safer infrastructures, medicine, and food more available. Take out the need for having more helping hands, and reduce the risk of all your sons dying off and ending your legacy due to poor living conditions.

edited 13th Aug '11 3:46:53 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

At what point does that approach border on child abuse though?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Depends on the culture. Is getting your own kids to help out in desperately needed housework is child abuse? And for those who don't desperately need the extra hand, many kids are made to do this to train them to be hardworking for when they grow up themselves.

By whose standards?

edited 15th Aug '11 11:25:48 AM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

It's not about farmhands. Women are useful on farms. It's about cultural preference of males to keep wealth/status to an heir.

But you know, education is a much better answer to high child rates, that and eliminating poverty. Educating females nets you the most bang for buck, since they're the ones that get pregnant, so if they force condom use on any male that wishes intercourse with them, it would substantially reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Also as a double bonus, education eliminates the male over female preference. It's mostly (unfortunately not all) the uneducated red necks in China that still believe in males being superior. However, I think that if you installed one-child rule, it might inflame sexism in all countries and reveal an underside you didn't want to see.

Physically males are still more useful than females once they reach a certain age. Females on the other hand are more costly to maintain due to pregnancy, dowries, etc.

But as I mentioned before, the main reason to have a male is legacy. To have as many male children as possible is so you could have a higher chance of leaving behind a legacy and not have your family die off if an accident happens.

It sounds indirect, but improving living conditions, wages, and quality of life with government money can go a long way to solving this problem. Education sounds useful, but what use is offering schools to children when the families can barely survive even with their kids helping out at home, and now you want the added stress of them going off and getting an education? Nearly all of them will be busy doing chores and other duties rather than actually studying.

edited 15th Aug '11 1:08:07 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

This costs money. In a country that would need this kind of policy, a lot of money.

Specifically, money those governments probably don't have—or in the case of China, aren't willing to spend on their people.

edited 15th Aug '11 1:15:48 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Hmm? Almost the entire Chinese budget is spent on social programs and wealth redistribution. Unless you're talking corruption, then okay.

I would argue against the assumption that males are more useful for farming than females. Firstly, a village needs a new generation of people, so women getting pregnant is kinda necessary for your tribe to survive as a whole. The only fair thing to do is to spread the number of females evenly across each family. Secondly, anthropological studies show that women produce upwards to 70% of the calories in agrarian societies compared to more modern societies. So I would disagree on even any physical attribute because it is simply untrue.

Yeah, on paper, they probably spend plenty on people.

How much do you honestly think helps anyone, though?

I am now known as Flyboy.

I have no idea really and that's the problem with lack of transparency. You might think "hah, only 5% help people", but it could be 99%. If they spent their whole budget on their people, it'd still be very little money once you convert it to USD, so it's not like everyone would be driving in Ferraris or something.

edited 15th Aug '11 1:30:24 PM by breadloaf