Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
G Huxley

China's Ending One Child Per Plan Rule.

Recommended Posts

I think it's a disaster for the world environment and it will affect Canada as well.

Overpopulation is the single biggest problem on the planet right now and has caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it will have that big of an effect. China has entered the consumer phase, with a large number of the population moving into cities. Having a large family is no longer feasible. We will see a plateau, just like we are seeing in the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China's fertility rates won't increase much, it's already in the natural declining fertility phase of development anyway. Anyway, it will be a big benefit because it will likely mean a reduction in sex-selection in couples who do choose to have children. There is a huge lack of women in China right now because since 1980 parents have been aborting female embryos/fetuses since sons have been considered more valuable than daughters. The lack of women means a lot of males who end up unattached and with no hope of ever finding a wife or even a meaningful relationship, and that means social unrest. Getting rid of this policy means this unrest might only last one generation as opposed to even longer. And unrest in China is a bad thing, both because it is one of the world's largest economies and because it could mean confrontation with its neighbors or other countries.

As for the whole overpopulation argument... world population is naturally reaching a plateau anyway and anyone who supports a policy in another nation of forcefully preventing people from having children while continuing to enjoy that freedom themselves is a hypocrite and a cruel and terrible person.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I've heard this complaint before, but actually it is better if there are less females than males, because the more females the more children can be produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I've heard this complaint before, but actually it is better if there are less females than males, because the more females the more children can be produced.

So perhaps we should provide incentives in the West to reduce the number of females that exist as well. I'm sure that'll go over very well. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I've heard this complaint before, but actually it is better if there are less females than males, because the more females the more children can be produced.

If your #1 priority is reducing population, sure. War is very good for that too. As is disease and starvation. But while all those may sound like a good time to you, I would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all seems so obvious to me. Forced, reversible sterilization for all male children. Then, if you pass all the tests, it can be reversed. If it's also in the public good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BC that sounds very StalinHitlerMaoGermaineGreer like. Stay away from my pee pee.

They wouldn't even know it had been done. It would be like circumcision.

It beats the preferred methods of population control of those you mentioned. Not counting GG of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a disaster for the world environment and it will affect Canada as well.

Overpopulation is the single biggest problem on the planet right now and has caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died out.

Overpopulation is not the problem. But the means to this problem have included abortions (many forced by the state) abandoned children, and even infanticide. Boys were preferred over girls, and well, there is now the ratio between men and women are really messed up.

I would think that human lives matter, but maybe not.

But another strange thing is these large empty cities China has built but no one lives in them. That is also an environmental disaster. Even the dam that was build and put many villages under water is an environmental disaster. Heck, just look at Beijing on a nice 'sunny' day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your #1 priority is reducing population, sure. War is very good for that too. As is disease and starvation. But while all those may sound like a good time to you, I would disagree.

I'm a pacifist. Having restrictions on the number of children that can be produced is a method of reducing a population without disease, starvation and war. It is obviously the better solution. Or perhaps you would prefer disease, famine and war as a method of reducing the population?

Edited by G Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpopulation is not the problem. But the means to this problem have included abortions (many forced by the state) abandoned children, and even infanticide. Boys were preferred over girls, and well, there is now the ratio between men and women are really messed up.

I would think that human lives matter, but maybe not.

But another strange thing is these large empty cities China has built but no one lives in them. That is also an environmental disaster. Even the dam that was build and put many villages under water is an environmental disaster. Heck, just look at Beijing on a nice 'sunny' day.

Over population is the problem. It is in fact the #1 problem on this planet right now.

"I would think that human lives matter, but maybe not."

If our governments thought human lives mattered then we wouldn't be engaged in constant war.

When the world is over populated it will start to be obvious that we have over valued human life at the expense of all other life on the planet which shows how selfish humans really are, and that we are not half as great as we like to think.

"But another strange thing is these large empty cities China has built but no one lives in them. That is also an environmental disaster. Even the dam that was build and put many villages under water is an environmental disaster. Heck, just look at Beijing on a nice 'sunny' day."

Now they've built all those empty cities and now plan to fill them. Yep the world is screwed.

Edited by G Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pacifist. Having restrictions on the number of children that can be produced is a method of reducing a population without disease, starvation and war. It is obviously the better solution. Or perhaps you would prefer disease, famine and war as a method of reducing the population?

No, I prefer people to have individual freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 child policy would have lead to an insane population crash in a few decades. A 2 child policy is more sane, and I'm surprised they didn't change it sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

That's OK....as mass and background extinctions are natural events. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived went extinct long before any human "overpopulation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you apply the same logic to a serial killer?

Err... what? Is your implication that having children is the same thing as being a serial killer? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's OK....as mass and background extinctions are natural events. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived went extinct long before any human "overpopulation".

Go live on Mars then seeing as you prefer dead planets.

Edited by G Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpopulating the earth involves the serial murder of countless species.

Humankind has driven other species to extinction since there were only a few million of us. But at this point species extinction is on the radar and is almost universally regarded as something to be avoided. Humankind is the only species which now takes deliberate steps to try to prevent the extinction of other species. And, if we survive for the long term, then it is likely that many species that exist today will be preserved along with us due to our efforts, species that would otherwise have gone extinct by natural causes otherwise.

Go live on Mars then seeing as you prefer dead planets.

We'll get there, as well as other planets. Probably even other planets with indigenous lifeforms of some sort, some of which we'll possibly cause the extinction of too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But at this point species extinction is on the radar and is almost universally regarded as something to be avoided."

Hardly humans are continuing to drive species to extinction at an ever more alarming rate.

"Humankind is the only species which now takes deliberate steps to try to prevent the extinction of other species."

As a species we haven't done anything to stop our species from exterminating species.

"And, if we survive for the long term," Not at this rate.

"then it is likely that many species that exist today will be preserved along with us due to our efforts, species that would otherwise have gone extinct by natural causes otherwise."

The other species are losing the battle against us.

"We'll get there, as well as other planets."

How will we do that if we've wiped out life on earth?

Also why would we do that if we just destroy the life on other planets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...