Global one child policy

[Elegiac]

No, you're a junkie for feeling good and virtue signalling. Your opinion is so worthless its about to implode on itself and create a black hole. I've seen this happen before, you should actually go outside or get a job.

I'm virtue signalling because I'm criticising a systemic practice it is literally impossible for me as an individual to solve under my own power, lol. Sure Jan.

Besides, even if I were currently hosting asylum seekers you'd doubtless find the number insufficient - which is the point. It's attempting to base the legitimacy of the point on the speaker's characteristics rather than assessing whether or not the point is actually valid.

In other words: an ad hominem fallacy.

[OriginalName]

I'm virtue signalling because I'm criticising a systemic practice it is literally impossible for me as an individual to solve under my own power, lol. Sure Jan.

Besides, even if I were currently hosting asylum seekers you'd doubtless find the number insufficient - which is the point. It's attempting to base the legitimacy of the point on the speaker's characteristics rather than assessing whether or not the point is actually valid.

In other words: an ad hominem fallacy.

Ah yes, the common defense. No, I have disregarded your stance outright, because you simply do not get a say outside your own border. You should be careful about stones in glass houses, given you started this by ascribing dishonorable characteristics to me initially; beneficiary of an exploitative system, implied I am partial to genocide - remember?

What is that, an ad hominem fallacy attack?

In the end, you're just a hypocrite, not a lone ranger on pursuit of global justice, you don't even practice what you preach, why should I give a shit about your opinion again?

[Elegiac]

Ah yes, the common defense.

A common defense for a very common fallacy.

Again, who would have thought.

No, I have disregarded your stance outright, because you simply do not get a say outside your own border. You should be careful about stones in glass houses, given you started this by ascribing dishonorable characteristics to me initially; beneficiary of an exploitative system, implied I am partial to genocide - remember?

What is that, an ad hominem fallacy attack?

There's a world of difference between claiming someone's arguments are illegitimate because they're a sociopath and claiming that someone's illegitimate arguments make them a sociopath, lol. I've been able to substantiate why such beliefs are loathsome, whereas the only rebuttal seems to have been "your arguments are meaningless if you personally aren't doing X", which is a fallacy.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with a global two child policy.

As a centrist, I believe the answer lies in the middle ground of a 1.5 Child Policy.

[OriginalName]

A common defense for a very common fallacy.

Again, who would have thought.



There's a world of difference between claiming someone's arguments are illegitimate because they're a sociopath and claiming that someone's illegitimate arguments make them a sociopath, lol. I've been able to substantiate why such beliefs are loathsome, whereas the only rebuttal seems to have been "your arguments are meaningless if you personally aren't doing X", which is a fallacy.

You don't even know who I am, but you are so sure to ascribe characteristics and terms onto me before this conversation began, you continue to do so. You're not arguing merits or arguments, you're flinging shit as per usual of your kind.

Get a job.

[Elegiac]

You don't even know who I am, but you are so sure to ascribe characteristics and terms onto me before this conversation began, you continue to do so.

Wow, it's almost as if expressing sociopathic opinions gets you labeled accordingly. Mon dieu, I think I have the vapours.

You're not arguing merits or arguments, you're flinging shit as per usual of your kind.

Hmmm...

You don't even know who I am, but you are so sure to ascribe characteristics

One of these things is not like the other.

Anyway, fairly sure that "Malthusianism was and continues to be bullshit, and opinions like this are directly responsible for several instances of what can be amounted to genocide. See: Ireland, Bengal, et cetera. Not sure how many times I have to remind y'all that Social Darwinism is like, actual pseudoscience. You might as well claim that your opinions are supported by phrenology or Mercury being dummy thicc in retrograde" is in fact a commentary on beliefs, not people.

[unbound]

Considering birthrates going down in developed countries posing a tangible threat, I'd say... No.

That's not quite accurate. Birth rates have lowered dramatically in some cases (depends on how rapidly the specific country developed a modern economy), but then levels off just fine. They are not remotely "posing a tangible threat".

What you most likely heard is that we need an even higher birthrate to support our current economic models which are highly dependent on cheap labor and high consumption. These models don't work well at all with a flat consumption trend and labor pool that doesn't grow (or even shrinks a bit).

Replacement birth rate is currently pegged at 2.1 births per woman under modern survival rates and life expectancy. Improving survival rates and life expectancy further will shrink this rate a slight amount.

The most recent birth rate (more accurately called fertility rate) is from 2017 and is at 2.432. While this sounds like only a tiny amount above replacement, it actually compounds quite dramatically and puts us at an expected population of nearly 10 billion people (about 2 billion more than we have today). Many scientists put this as the largest population the Earth should have...and that is really pushing limits as using current acreage for farming and cattle, everyone would have to be vegetarian.

In other words, continuing to grow the population continues to put more and more pressure on our environment such as fresh water which means more and more resources will have to be put into keeping the atmosphere breathable, water drinkable, and sufficient nutrition for our people. Not something that is going to work well when a relative handful of people are hoarding the wealth and are only interested in their personal pet projects.

[Kraenen]

I see the drop in birth rates as a natural process - people are better educated (mostly women) and society is more developed. Automation is taking place at a greater rate and this coincides with one of the purposes of having lots of people - to have hands and feet doing manual repetitive labour (e.g. agriculture). The need for large quantities of humans has decreased, and the focus is becoming on higher quality (through more education, healthcare, more attention to fewer children). It should be our goal to harness automation to supplement the economy's previous 'embedded growth obligation' and other systems like social security, rather than lag us behind with implanting external systems built on the assumptions of the previous century into our own. Policies that either increase birth rates or immigration therefore seem a bit backwards to a modern, high-tech civilization.

In other words, continuing to grow the population continues to put more and more pressure on our environment such as fresh water which means more and more resources will have to be put into keeping the atmosphere breathable, water drinkable, and sufficient nutrition for our people. Not something that is going to work well when a relative handful of people are hoarding the wealth and are only interested in their personal pet projects.

Additionally, climate change will make many of the current sources of food/water unworkable/unusable.

[Puzzlesocks]

IF we were to do some sort of population control like this, a couple things would need to be changed.

1- It's not a single child policy, but instead, a single 'litter" policy. We can't punish people for having twins/triplets, it's beyond their control.
2- This kind of policy should be used as an incentive and not a punishable law. In other words, if you were to have a second round of kids, you would forsake government assistance for you and your partner. Putting people in jail for having too many kids is overkill. That said, if someone is too poor to have 8 kids and decides to anyways, they should fall under child abuse laws.

Ideally we should not be giving tax breaks to people having more kids. However, because there is an economic motive for the USA as a country to populate, children being just like an investment/more people=more tax income and ideally more manpower, the ideal goal is to move from human labor to machine labor. As machine advancements happen and people are worth less to the economy per person, our goal as a planet should really be to start using a different measurement for success instead of money as a measure of value to society. Money does not create prosperity, it's the other way around, that money is a measuring tool for prosperity just like meters is for distance.

So slightly off track, but yes, this will ideally be a good thing overall in the long run. Not only because of the problems having an exorbitant population causes on the environment, but because even looking only at ourselves and ignoring the planet, the more people there are and the greater technology becomes, the less each individual human life is worth.

[ParanoiD84]

100% agree though bump it up to a 2 child policy.

[GreenJesus]

We are. I don't plan on having any kids.

Thank you for your service! Stunning and brave!

[Vash The Stampede]

I'm 100% in favor of this and would take it one step further and have forced sterilization on people upon puberty unless/until they can prove they can support their ONE child on their own without the aid of the government or anyone outside of the two parents (or one parent if a woman so elects to be a single mom).

I can't see that ending badly what so ever.

So, basically forced sterilization of the poor.

I didn't even think we needed this reminder but apparently we do, so: eugenics are a bad thing based on shitty pseudoscience, people.

Punish poor people for being poor by not having kids. Everyone grows old and not enough young people to pay for society security and pensions. Capitalism collapses because everyone is poor and nobody is able to have children.

Stop giving old people medicine.

Once you hit 70 you're on your own. The fuck is a generation supporting a bunch of vegetables.

Some of you people are cold.

[Yadryonych]

Thank you for your service! Stunning and brave!

It's a gaming forum, 90% of people can relate. Not sure if it was possible to begin with

[Dezerte]

Stop giving old people medicine.

Once you hit 70 you're on your own. The fuck is a generation supporting a bunch of vegetables.

Ättestupa perhaps?

[Aurgjelme]

Ättestupa perhaps?

[Shadowferal]

Some of you people are cold.

Only until the person in question reaches that age.

[markos82]

80% of the planets landmass is used for agraculture to provide for food or food for animals we eat. I call that overpopulation.

LOL, that is not true. Percentage is about 10%...

[Masark]

Nope. Just offer everyone long-acting reversible contraceptives for free and they'll have fewer children of their own volition.

[Zython]

With overpopulation and everything that comes with it, one of the solutions that comes to mind is a 1 child policy, globally, for the next somewhat years. Would you be in favour of this or not? Why?

Personally id say this is a pretty big infringement on our autonomy, on the other hand, its needed. So if not for life, id say its cool.

We don't have a population crisis, we have a resource allocation crisis.

[gaymer77]

You are either a Russian troll account or a truly despicable human.

There is only one proper answer, and it is to empower women who live in the third world, religious nations and places like Russia where they are beaten and treated worse than a dog.

They should receive a proper education, knowledge and rights to birth control. Anyone trying to control women through religion or "culture" should be removed.

Where in my post did I specify sterilization of women? I think women AND men should get sterilized once they reach puberty and can have it reversed when they can prove they can provide for their planned child without the government paying one cent towards raising said lone child. No more unplanned pregnancies. No more welfare parents. It would solve overpopulation. Its a win all around!

- - - Updated - - -

So as a liberal you're ok with eugenics and forced sterilization of the poor.

As a liberal I'm fine with ANYONE showing they can support the child they want to raise. Showing you can support the child yourself doesn't mean rich mommy & daddy paying the bills for it. It means YOU are showing YOU can provide for said child.

[PC2]

Where in my post did I specify sterilization of women? I think women AND men should get sterilized once they reach puberty and can have it reversed when they can prove they can provide for their planned child without the government paying one cent towards raising said lone child. No more unplanned pregnancies. No more welfare parents. It would solve overpopulation. Its a win all around!

- - - Updated - - -

As a liberal I'm fine with ANYONE showing they can support the child they want to raise. Showing you can support the child yourself doesn't mean rich mommy & daddy paying the bills for it. It means YOU are showing YOU can provide for said child.

You support coercion and involuntary sterilization... So if that's "liberal" then liberal is bad...

Sterilization is not okay unless it's based on the consent of the subject.