1 child per female for at least few generations.

[Bojo]

Well the gay families thread was interesting I think, and I would like to know what your opinion is on this.

I really think this is a good idea. This way couples can still experience bringing up a child and yet the population will start decreasing instead of increasing, meaning better quality of life.

I feel like humans are acting like a virus that is spreading and killing it's host. What will cap our expansion?


I heard that China has a one child per female law. Does anyone know what the social ramifications have been?

 

[StageLeft]

Humans ARE like a virus...I would think that 2 per family would be ok, some times people die anyway so we'd decrease...I see no problem with a < 10 billion population but the more we get the harder its going to be on everyone. I would love if the world hung around where it is now.

The problem isn't so simple though - North America has fewer people than, say, India, but then we produce so much more waste that a family of 4 here is worse on the earth itself than a family of 10 in India. So, we tell them to cut back having kids, but then we still consume and waste.

In short I believe that humanity will fvck itself over, because ultimately for every intelligent and thoughtful person we have we have another 100 who just go on everyday mindless and oblivious to anything but their only simple little lives. The only difference between humanity and any other species is that we actually have the intelligence to dominate our surroundings...all species try and expand; we do it best - too well in fact.

 

[kranky]

The transcript from testimony before a Congressional subcommittee on the subject of China's one-child-per-family policy is here.. Kind of dry, but the testimony of the Chinese witnesses is interesting.

 

[Stallion]

I agree with Skoorb. Over population is only half the problem, what to do with all our waste is the big one I would assume. Running out of water is going to be big also. I saw a show last week on the discovery channel and there were talking about Vegas as being a place where over 4000 people are moving to per month and that at that rate they will run out of water by 2006. They get 4 inches of rain fall a year and the colorado river cannot support them, Arizona and Cali. Some of the larger Hotels in Vegas with all the pools and water stuff like the treasure island hotel are using a ton of water. They talked about one place that had a big pool that over 1,000 gallons of water would evaporate out of every day. It was an intresting show..

 

[madthumbs]

The culture is different in China than here. It is more important for them to have male children than female. Ultimately females are killed or left for dead in &quot;death rooms&quot; in hospitals. Also, any birth defective babies are probably killed as well. Remember that Christianity is all but absent in China. In the long run we will be seeing a Humongous army of men who have no hope for a future with a wife and a religion and culture that has taught them they are destined to rule the world. They have the resources and technology. I have nothing against the Chinese people, but I think that their situation is dangerous for everyone on this planet.

 

[grifterspawn]

Overpopulation in China is still a rising problem, I'm not sure if it is still the case, but they used to employ Death Squads that just kind of randomly killed children to lower the population. ALso, unlike other countries, the more kids you have the more taxes you pay, where as in the states we get tax breaks.

 

[StageLeft]

I would think that the richest nations should be the first to act - because they can more easily afford to. That means the Western world...the only reason overpopulation is ever a concern is purely because of consumption - not real lack of room, and like I said Western world consumes so frigging much compared to other more populated countries that really we should make ourselves as an example. We cut our waste and use of the environment and perhaps then we can reasonably expect other nations to put in the effort. Crying about overpopulation seems pretty dumb as you cruise down the freeway at 70 mph in your 11 miles to the gallon SUV

 

[Shalmanese]

actually, because they seem to have the problem pretty much under control now, there is now a new law which says that if two children from (different) one-child families marry, they are now allowed to have two kids.

BTW: This sort of thing would never work in the US becuase it would automatically cause protests because everyone has a different mentality from in china. I live in Australia and we have a constant stream of new, chinese immigrants who come here to get a better education (China does not have the luxury of having a well established educational base since it has been developing so fast) since my dad is a uni professor for Comp Sci. None of them had any particular resentment towards the one child policy and it is far different from what is portrayed by (mostly) the media.

It's just that the US seems to have a tendancy to go for a humanistic approach to the answer whereas China seems to go for the cold hard analytical approach, neither is inherently &quot;better&quot;.

BTW: I've said it before but, On a free market, we are provided what we want not what we need.



<< and a religion and culture that has taught them they are destined to rule the world >>

uhh I think youve got them mixed up with the US

 

[fdiskboy]

The problem is not overpopulation, the problem is politics as usual.

The day the government tries to institute a one-child policy is the day I stock up on ammunition.

 

[Isla]

How about one child per male?

After a man has fathered a child, he could be required to get a vasectomy.

I just don't understand why the onus should be on the female.

In fact, considering issues of rape and incest, it seems to make a LOT more sense for men to be the ones 'limited' in reproductive activity. After all, men can make a LOT more babies in a lifetime than women can. Why not limit the source of baby making fuel, so to speak?

Just my .02... not looking to start a fight, just wondering why only one half of the reproductive team is singled out.



edit: Maybe I am not up on the subject, so forgive me. I don't know the details so I can't be sure, but it seems that it would be more effective to control male fertility/reproduction.

 

[Nick Stone]

Bojo
<<<< -- - yet the population will start decreasing instead of increasing, meaning better quality of life. >>>>

I'll assume that you live in the USA. (no profile available)
There are 2 ways that the quantity of people increase. One in birth and the other is imigration. In many areas, the increase from imigration exceeds the increase form birth/death.
People will still pack themselves into a metroplex whether there's 4 million of them or 3.9 million of them. 10 years from now, how is the quality of life going to change? Well in 10 years technological advances will affect the quality of life more than that small decrease or increase in population.
Why do people pack themselves together? There's plenty of room in the country where the population density is about 1 person per square mile.
Why don't people live there? Mainly because people want the technological conveniences available in cities. Not just electricy and cable TV but hospitals, jobs, schools, and shopping malls.

Stallion
Waste. The greatest waste is still the human mind.
Run an ecconomic evaluation on the cost of water and the cost of disposal of wastes/filling landfills for before forming an oppinion on any particular location. Both are simply market driven costs. Like oil or wheat. If people say, for example, that &quot;we are running out of landfills or water&quot;; they are really saying that they cost more than they used to and that we cannot take them for granted like we used to. Trust me, there are people willing to earn their living by providing these services.

How many of you have lived outside a metroplex? I'm amazed that most everyone who posts here has a mindset like the whole world lives in the center of Los Angeles.
I think the cost of properly raising children (often as single parents, these days) is of greater significance than the quanity of children allowed.
Maybe we should pass laws concerning the minimum standards required to raise a child?

 

[iamwiz82]

the problem with overpopulation is in 3rd world nations. These people dont have jobs, dont do anything for the world, all they do is have kids. We need to start sterilizing people in those coutnries after 1 child.

 

[sweetrobin]

I think if someone were to try to insist that happened in the US that would be a bad day ... I personally want atleast 2 or 3 children ...

 

[StageLeft]

iamwiz82 Yes, but the fact is you do worse for the environment than 4 of them. They don't drive to work, throw beer bottles into garbage cans, and replace their tires every couple of years.

Personally I plan to have 2 kids. 2 are better than one, and in single families when a kid dies its catastrophic on the family as opposed to only devestating when a kid dies in a 2 kid family (both suck, but running out of kids is very bad objectively)...I don't want 3, partly cause then I can say I'm not contributing to overpopulation but also because I like spending money and my parents have had superb incomes over the years but me and my two brothers have managed to suck them dry while they brought us up

 

[Eug]

<< The culture is different in China than here. It is more important for them to have male children than female. Ultimately females are killed or left for dead in &quot;death rooms&quot; in hospitals. Also, any birth defective babies are probably killed as well. >>

That does definitely occur in the countryside, although in the cities the parents usually not as concerned if it's a boy or a girl. In fact, either way, the city kids are spoiled rotten.


<< Remember that Christianity is all but absent in China. >>

??? Lack of Christianity has nothing to do with it. There have been entire wars fought specifically fought to promote Christianity. Gimme a break. Read your history books. Being Christian doesn't necessarily mean &quot;correct&quot; morals.


<< In the long run we will be seeing a Humongous army of men who have no hope for a future with a wife and a religion >>

That shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation there. If you look at the census numbers, males SLIGHTLY outnumber females, but this is trend is due to the horrible events in the countryside (which must be addressed). Now, if the fact that they have no religion means that they do not view the world with an extrememly poorly-informed point of view, then that's a good thing. (Unfortunately, religion does not mean either. Religious and non-religious people alike can be idiots.)

 

[Shalmanese]

<< the problem with overpopulation is in 3rd world nations. These people dont have jobs, dont do anything for the world, all they do is have kids. We need to start sterilizing people in those coutnries after 1 child. >>


The problem is not as simple as that, in 3rd world countries, they do not reproduce for enjoyment but rather for neccesity. Most children in 3rd world countrys die at birth so that they have 10+ children to ensure the survival of at least 4 of their kids, Also, children are percieved as an asset in 3rd world countries because they only need to be fed + minimal clothing and shelter and they can start work at nine bringing the family valuable income. In 1st world, children cost more that they can earn before they leave home (toys, computer, education, designer clother etc.) so that there is a financial incentive not to have children. In the 3rd world it is the other way around.



<< The day the government tries to institute a one-child policy is the day I stock up on ammunition. >>


This must be the typical american we-value-our-freedom-over-anything-else-because-we-are-narrowminded-and-selfish-people.
True, america does not yet need a 1 child policy yet but this kind of blatant refusal BEFORE looking properly into the situation simply because you see your &quot;freedom&quot; at stake is what is going to kill us in the end.



<< How about one child per male >>


this would work better that 1 per female because a vasectomy is a much less major surgury that a hystorectomy(is that the one where they snip the tubes or cut out the womb) Or, when they finally get that drug out on the market, females could get (voulantarily) a subdermal injection which acts like the pill but for 3-5years. It can be removed whenever you want and fertility returns after 6 months (i think)

BTW: If you want any more of my views on this subject, see this thread

 

[Eug]

<< Maybe I am not up on the subject, so forgive me. I don't know the details so I can't be sure, but it seems that it would be more effective to control male fertility/reproduction. >>

Maybe, but it's a helluvalot easier to know who the mother is than it is to know who the father is. For example. When genetic pedigrees are mapped out for families with genetic disorders, if the family is large enough inevitably a significant minority of the kids just &quot;don't make sense&quot; if scientific rules regarding genetic transmission are to be believed. Why? It's not because the kids genes are not reading the textbooks, but in fact it's usually because these kids are fathered by the mailman, the dad's best friend, the office fling, etc.

Scholars even thousands of years ago understood that infidelity is an evitable problem. For this reason, as I understand it a child of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish, but technically it doesn't matter who the father is. If the father is Jewish and the mother isn't, the child isn't technically considered Jewish (at least not by default) because there's no guarantee that the guy is actually the true biological father.

The argument can be made that the father is being robbed of his &quot;right&quot; to a child if the woman simply lies about who the father is. Vasectomies can be reversed, but that is not always successful.

Not that I necessarily support this 1-child concept at this point, or that necessarily the onus should fall only on the males or the females. I'm just pointing out a couple of points.

 

[iamwiz82]

The problem with the population in 3rd world countries is that we are paying for them. Check the aid going to african nation right now. Your tax dollar go there instead of to find an alternative to gas, or rubber, etc. That money could be better spent.

Another thing, i am totally against SUVs in general. I hate them. People who drive them think they are gods. Last week we got 4&quot; of snow where i live, i was doing ~30mph on a surface street, the speed limit was 40. There was no way in hell anyone should have been going over 35, the conditions were horrible. But in my rear view mirror, i see a woman in a jeep grand cherokee, with a cell phone, just tailgating me. She pulles over and passes me. The next interserction we come to, she skids on the snow, and plows right into a telephone pole. Not too much damage, and she wasnt hurt, but it was ironic. SUVs suck gas, blind cars at night cuz the headlights are so high, and cause people to have god-complexes.

 

[rahvin]

<<This must be the typical american we-value-our-freedom-over-anything-else-because-we-are-narrowminded-and-selfish-people.
True, america does not yet need a 1 child policy yet but this kind of blatant refusal BEFORE looking properly into the situation simply because you see your &quot;freedom&quot; at stake is what is going to kill us in the end.>>

America is at zero population growth if you neglect immigration. In 10 years we will be in negative population growth (neglecting immigration). Europe has been in negative population growth for 10 years, same with japan. In fact in countries like switzerland the average fecundity ratio is 1.1 (2.1 is needed for zero growth). This is true over most of europe and to prevent stagnant economies europe and japan must allow immigration on near the scale the US has (there is intense political pressure to prevent this).

The population problem in the 3rd world will be solved by industrialization, just as it solved it in the first world.

 

[Eug]

<< The problem with the population in 3rd world countries is that we are paying for them. Check the aid going to african nation right now. Your tax dollar go there instead of to find an alternative to gas, or rubber, etc. That money could be better spent. >>

It can be easily argued that the some of the western countries are far more wasteful than others. just the fact that you may live in a 2000 sq. ft. home and drive a 6-cylinder non-SUV type car, and take out burgers, may been a helluvalot more waste than a 3 person family in Bangladesh.

Until we clean up our act, it is difficult not to consider it hypocritical to tell other countries that they are suck.

 

[desy]

Yep
We won't run out of food ther is still lots of production capability.
Industialized countries consume 80% of the worlds resources and only make up 10-20% of the population.
Thats the real problem and when we run out of our own resources we go rob somebodies elses.
NOW that we are starting to have to pay the right price for the energy we CHOOSE to consume people b1tch. Funny . . . .

Back to topic
Two kids per family will decline world population due to accidents, disesase, and those who never procreate. So one would be a little extreme.

 

[Bojo]

Indeed the problem is of consumption, rather than population. But with more population comes more consumtion. If we had 1 child per female/male then the population would drasticly decrease in say 100 years. Can a math's whiz do the calculations please? (6 billion people, 20 years per average generation or something like that. Is it just 6 bill. divided by 2 five times? thats 187,500,000 million!!!!! is that right? if so maybe only do it for 50 years or something).

Also it is a good point that 1st world pollutes more than 3rd world. But I think the 1 child policy should be started in all countries.


Top marks for Kranky's info.

Isla good point, I guess a vasectomy on men would work too. (on a related not, doesn't a vasectomy stop ejaculation? doesn't the sperm ejaculating create the pleasure sensation in a male orgasm? I guess it mustn't because no guy would get one!)

grifterspawn your &quot;death squads&quot; theory sounds bullsh!t BTW

Nick Stone: I'm Australian. Also I don't understand what you mean by immigration increasing population. This is not logical. Am I missing something?


I'm going to read Kranky's info indepth now...

 

[Nick Stone]

Isla

<<<<<< How about one child per male?
After a man has fathered a child, he could be required to get a vasectomy.
I just don't understand why the onus should be on the female. >>>>>

How much longer do you have to watch those 6 kids?

 

[fallenoncrack]

0 child per gay family.

Lets think about it, the whole purpose of being gay is NOT to pro-create.

It is GOD's LAW.

hi

 

[DanC]

Some of us are doing our part by having none, zero, zip, nada, yok, tipota...

Can't think of anything worthwhile about having kids in this world, at this time...
Just a personal decision - not suggesting this course is for everyone.