Global one child policy

[Stelio Kontos]

Absolutely not, how many children a couple has is up to the couple and no one else.

[Adam Jensen]

No.

It's not needed and it's bad policy. It hasn't worked for China at all.

If it's bad for a country with 1b people, it's bad for a planet of 7b.

[Amarys]

No and it's not needed. Overpopulation is only a problem in *ahem* developing countries.

Not to mention personally I would want Earth to be overpopulated as humans are a lazy, complacent species and I don't think currently the pressure for innovation isn't strong enough. We need more "problems" to go to Mars... or experiment with new technologies such as fusion power.

[PC2]

Capitalism and its need for constant growth on a planet with finite resources should be far more concerning.

Actually constant growth is a requirement for all systems and it's not specific to capitalism. For example let's say you have a communist system, it would start to decline almost immediately after growth stops and it would start prospering almost immediately after growth picks back up. There's no such thing as a system that can succeed while its economy stagnates.

[Elegiac]

Actually constant growth is a requirement for all systems and it's not specific to capitalism. For example let's say you have a communist system, it would start to decline almost immediately after growth stops and it would start prospering almost immediately after growth picks back up. There's no such thing as a system that can succeed while its economy stagnates.

This is using a definition of "decline" that is specific to capitalist societies, lol.

What a crock.

[Stelio Kontos]

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).

Not surprised someone like you could think that way, but regardless, it's a despicable view. You're no different than the governments in the US and Canada that forcefully sterilized Native women and girls.

[PC2]

Growth in a communist economic system is far more restrained and controlled.

Exactly that's why it'll never work because it's based on trying to restrain and control growth instead of maximizing growth.

Capitalism requires almost exponential growth because it derives a lot of its value from speculation and not material reality.

Besides I dont think communism is the dominant economic system so I mean it might be a concern if it was.

No, exponential growth isn't needed, linear is fine. Even if the economy only grows by a flat 1 unit per year it would still be fine as long as it doesn't go down to zero and below.

[Ooid]

Eat the bugs.
Live in the pod.
Get sterilized.
For the Greater Good™.

[Draco-Onis]

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.

But the problem with the global economy is not the amount of people being born but people living too long so if you are really concerned about this you should be advocating for killing the old at a certain age not a one child policy.

[GreenJesus]

No and it's not needed. Overpopulation is only a problem in *ahem* developing countries.

Not to mention personally I would want Earth to be overpopulated as humans are a lazy, complacent species and I don't think currently the pressure for innovation isn't strong enough. We need more "problems" to go to Mars... or experiment with new technologies such as fusion power.

Why do we need to go to Mars? It's just a big desert with nothing on it. I dont understand why people want to live on Mars. You'll be bored after 5 minutes. Why not just make Earth better? The effort to make Mars better would be much efficiently served on earth.

[PC2]

And maximising growth is the problem. I dont think you can really say it wont work because you believe maximising growth is the only way human beings can live fulfilling lives while providing the necessities of life.

I see you're selectively reading what I say, I'll be more literal and direct.

Nah how is maximizing the future size of the economy/resources a problem? It's like saying a person shouldn't maximize their physical healthiness, there's literally no reason whatsoever to not want to maximize things like resources & wealth, good health & long life.

[PC2]

Imagine prioritising your physical health to the point all the relationships in your life deteriorated and you died miserable and alone. Because that is how your metaphor ends.

Millions of people have died and will keep dying to feed the beast, so a few people can have fantastical amounts of wealth. Then when the resources of this planet are expended they'll probably flee to another and repeat the cycle.

I'd rather we ironed out the kinks in our power structures before we end up living in an even worse sci-fi dystopia

Nobody is asking anyone to prioritize physical health above everything else and all their relationships. Same with the size of the economy or the number of children you have, nobody is saying maximize them "at the cost of everything else". The point is to try and find the best combo that maximizes everything we care about, which isn't a big deal because maximizing these different factors tend to go together anyways. For example you can't grow the economy very well if everybody is in poor physical health and you can't afford to have more kids when you haven't grown the economy to be able to support those kids.

Then when the resources of this planet are expended

Except resources are never ultimately expended or depleted, it's just a matter of learning how to gain access to more and better resources, especially as it relates to energy/electricity. Since ultimately with enough energy production it's possible to transmute any number of simple and abundant resources into any number of complex and rare resources.

[Elegiac]

Nah how is maximizing the future size of the economy/resources a problem? It's like saying a person shouldn't maximize their physical healthiness, there's literally no reason whatsoever to not want to maximize things like resources & wealth, good health & long life.

Because it's not sustainable. This is a fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated by study after study on the subject, which you've conveniently chosen to ignore because of some nonsense "we can't predict the future" shtick that is quite clearly designed to shut down discussion rather than actually discern truth.

What white westerners think makes people happy really only makes a small number of white westerners happy. Who would have thought!

[PC2]

Because it's not sustainable. This is a fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated by study after study on the subject, which you've conveniently chosen to ignore because of some nonsense "we can't predict the future" shtick that is quite clearly designed to shut down discussion rather than actually discern truth.

What white westerners think makes people happy really only makes a small number of white westerners happy. Who would have thought!

Except no, growth is thee only sustainable strategy. Economic stagnation is the least sustainable strategy. The reality is that either you're growing or you're dying. There's no such thing is a sustainable third option.

You can rewind time?

Nah for anything sub-optimal that happened in the past just consider it similar to a "sunk cost". Never sit around worrying about sunk costs, only worry about the present and future.

Also I'm not a huge fan of planning things around other things being invented. Seems like a bad thing to plan your economy around

That's too bad because civilization will never ever be able to plan for the future in any reliable or deterministic way, especially not by trying to predict the future based on things that strictly exist in history. Solving the problems of the next century can't be done with the technology of the current century as we can always expect new problems to accompany the new ideas, tech, and happenings of each era. It would be great if civilization could "plan" success, unfortunately success cannot be planned ahead of time no matter how much resources is put into predicting the future.

[Elegiac]

Except no, growth is thee only sustainable strategy. Economic stagnation is the least sustainable strategy. The reality is that either you're growing or you're dying. There's no such thing is a sustainable third option.

Correction: growth is the only sustainable strategy in an unrestricted consumer economy.

Capitalism needs humans, humans don't need capitalism.

[Elegiac]

I get it. We are doomed.

Nah, we're not.

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings."

[PC2]

Correction: growth is the only sustainable strategy in an unrestricted consumer economy.

Capitalism needs humans, humans don't need capitalism.

No growth is the only sustainable strategy for any system. No matter what kind of system you think of, if you don't grow the scope of that system then it is inevitable that it will fail once a big enough problem comes along. Where as if you keep growing it bigger and bigger both in terms of there being more people(brain power) and material resources then you at least have a chance to keep it going in perpetuity.

[Elegiac]

No growth is the only sustainable strategy for any system. No matter what kind of system you think of, if you don't grow the scope of that system then it is inevitable that it will fail once a big enough problem comes along. Where as if you keep growing it bigger and bigger both in terms of people(brain power) and material resources then you at least have a chance to keep it going in perpetuity.

Lol, ten thousand years of human history begs to differ. The growth-only model is a relative novelty and something of an aberration given its unsustainability.

[PC2]

Lol, ten thousand years of human history begs to differ. The growth-only model is a relative novelty and something of an aberration given its unsustainability.

I mean all of human history shows that societies only thrive when growing and not when they shrink... However this point I just made doesn't matter at all because you should never ever used repeated historical observations to reason about anything, especially the future. For example capitalism could be system in which the most progress has happened for the last 300 years, or the last 3 million years, it makes zero difference since historical numbers mean nothing whatsoever and have no bearing on what causes things to fail or succeed.

[Zinstorm]

Pretty sure most of our overpopulation issues will go away once we advance most of the world to the first world.

Granted I'm sure the issue isn't as simple as that...but I imagine its a big part of it... people tend to have less children overall as living conditions improve. not to mention their is no way to enforce something like this without uniting the world under one nation... and that's not gonna happen.