Would you support a UN 1-child policy? Watch

JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 9 years ago
#61
(Original post by Illyria)
Why wouldn't the other way round prove a problem? I think it would be just as bad (unless you just like the idea of women outnumbering men because it would make it easier for you to get a girlfriend :p:)
Think about it, we are monogamous peoples, even the Chinese. Not only that it seems nature prefers to have slightly more women than men, or 50/50 as well given the way population dynamics works. Too many men, means too much fighting over women, too many women means threesome potential.

Let's just put it this way, evolution and more importantly society wise more women than men is more viable.

See here for more details though:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...mily-plan.html

Might need a uni connection or college to gain full access.

Resistance continued anyway, whether through collusion with local authorities, false reporting of statistics or, notoriously, through female infanticide, abandonment and, first legally and then illegally, through aborting fetuses that ultrasound scans indicated were female. The consequences for the demographics of China are huge. It is predicted there will be 40 million Chinese bachelors by 2020 with the associated problems of forced marriages, trafficking of women, surrogate motherhood and prostitution. The HIV/AIDS issue in China can hardly be irrelevant either.

White touches on an even bigger problem: the rural-urban divide. It is inevitable that a fast-developing country embracing market reforms will experience a two-speed economy to some degree, but China's birth control policy has meant a rural population fighting the government to have more children, while the urban demographic is content to have smaller, low-cost families. In this sense two Chinas are being created, and the fault line is growing. Add to this the spectre of an ageing population that, according to economist Helen Qiao at the investment bank Goldman Sachs, will mean that every 10 Chinese workers aged 15 to 64 will have to support seven younger or older dependants by 2050. This is happening in a country in which per capita income is still very low compared with other nations facing pension crises, and in which social services are paltry, especially in rural areas.
0
reply
jamessimth5
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#62
Report 9 years ago
#62
(Original post by joelio36)
The rate of population growth is dangerously high. Why don't we have a one child per family policy? 1 child= child benefits, but more than 1 gives heavy fines.

China did it and it worked.

If we did it I don't see the problem, and it would also deal with these horrible skanky chavs who have 14 kids and live off hard-working peoples taxes.
What about the declining population that is already occurring in Europe?
0
reply
mlo90
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#63
Report 9 years ago
#63
I dont think the policies good. I have 2 sisters and although they annoy the hell out of me (their older) and use the bathroom for hours doing unnecessary things (makeup, tweezing, etc..) I would change them for the world :yep:

If they put a cap on the amount of children then thats more reasonable (maybe like 6 max) but people with like 15 kids are bad (i know people in this category and im not saying they're bad people, im just saying thats just too many kids to have!)
0
reply
blaugrana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#64
Report 9 years ago
#64
Are we talking about Britain here?

The population growth is tiny in the UK, especially Scotland where it is dropping.
0
reply
Illyria
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 9 years ago
#65
(Original post by JMonkey)
Think about it, we are monogamous peoples, even the Chinese. Not only that it seems nature prefers to have slightly more women than men, or 50/50 as well given the way population dynamics works. Too many men, means too much fighting over women, too many women means threesome potential.

Let's just put it this way, evolution and more importantly society wise more women than men is more viable.
Hmm I concede that women outnumbering men may be preferable to men outnumbering women but I still think that either scenario would be bad.. let's keep it 50-50 shall we? :yep:
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 9 years ago
#66
(Original post by Illyria)
Hmm I concede that women outnumbering men may be preferable to men outnumbering women but I still think that either scenario would be bad.. let's keep it 50-50 shall we? :yep:
Ok Squire.
0
reply
Altocirrus
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#67
Report 9 years ago
#67
To all the people who are saying that we need a higher birth rate in order to fund the ageing population- is this really a sustainable solution?
0
reply
accelerator
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#68
Report 9 years ago
#68
It is necessary for some countries like India and Bangladesh, where excess population growth has resulted in severe depletion of economic resources, and many people suffer because of lack of jobs, schools, hospitals etc. However, it would not be good for European countries, where already -ve birth rates are causing headache. In a perfect world, the best solution would have been to migrate people from high growth areas to low growth areas (e.g. from India to Europe / China to Japan etc.).
0
reply
Collingwood
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#69
Report 9 years ago
#69
The Chinese '1 child policy' hasn't really been any more successful than their collectivised agriculture or their great leap forwards, the only difference being that because in a significant sense the success of the 1 child policy is measured in how many Chinese it manages to kill, its horrific failings contribute somewhat to the end goal. I certainly don't want mass infanticide, 'death orphanages' and imprisonment and beating of parents in Britain. If that happened it would be time to start throwing petrol bombs.
0
reply
Liquidus Zeromus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#70
Report 9 years ago
#70
Not in declining populations such as West European and East Asian ethnicities... besides, the fact that alot of those countries with high birth rates have high infant mortality rates and parents are often reliant on their large families when they grow sick early, they need large families to survive.

I say that we shouldn't have state birth control.
0
reply
Stomm
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#71
Report 9 years ago
#71
For the UK and other developed countries this sort of policy makes no sense and would in fact be very destructive indeed. In fact the problem in the UK is that too many of the wrong type of person are having large families, or just churning out babies that go straight into the care system.

So for the UK a parent licensing system would be more appropriate, with sterilisation for those who breech their license. That way at least you can prevent hordes of children being brought up by scum, or even worse dying of neglect and or abuse, or just plain put into the care system.


For countries outside of Europe and North America, sure, a 1 child policy might make sense, but more likely a 2 child policy. But that being said, you need to take into account the social repercussions, for example the female infanticide rate in India is pretty shocking as it is, add something like this to the mix and you've got the makings of real trouble... Likewise in some African countries the HIV epidemic is so bad that within twenty years or so they might start seeing the real effects of a population collapse.
0
reply
fran.ha
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#72
Report 9 years ago
#72
(Original post by JMonkey)
Don't talk nonsense, nothing like that would be passed except in a far right wing or far left wing country, and if it did the government would be kicked out at the next GE (assuming they have one ), people went mental over ID cards, and its vetoed off the planet every time the issue comes up, think how mental they would go over a eugenics style program? The analogies to Hitler would come thick and fast. In short if you think that is a viable system (in any European country for that matter) then you have no idea about politics socialist, pseudo-socialist or conservative or liberal.

Chinas population decrease is as much to do with becoming developed and thus having access to modern medicine and contraceptive methods as it is to do with the 1 child policy by the way. China now has a problem with having too many male children and not enough female (where as the other way round doesn't necessarily prove a problem, too many men competing for wombs does), so the 1 child policy may have lasting repercussions.

To be honest I said it would be good. I didn't say I thought it would happen.
0
reply
oscarwildelike
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 9 years ago
#73
Never, I have four brothers and wouldn't change it for the world. I believe that only children ten to have a worse childhood and that everyone should have at least two siblings.
0
reply
Age_of_Innocence
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 9 years ago
#74
(Original post by MewMachine)
In theory I suppose it's a good idea, but I think it'd have terrible consequences- I think you'll find China's didn't necessarily work. They have a disproportionate boy:girl ratio, and baby girls were often left or killed Not saying that would happen here, but it may in other places in the world. I think 2 is a much more sensible number personally.

Yer, this. The one child Chinese policy worked to an extent but at great cost, some effects won't be seen until later in life. Lot of psychological issues as well. It also effectively eradicates aunts and uncles. A lot less birthday money right there.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 9 years ago
#75
(Original post by fran.ha)
To be honest I said it would be good. I didn't say I thought it would happen.
Considering our birth rate is at 1.95? Why would it be good anyway? Sounds like someone is middle class or working class and a snob about the underclasses to me, rather than a reasoned idea. I could be wrong but it sure sounds like a pretty: fascist/rightwing/non-liberal/bigoted policy. It certainly is eugenics though.

Our population is declining (at least in birthrate terms not emigration-immigration, mostly Eastern European) because it is less than the magic ~2.02 mark and you want to restrict birth rates? Is this wise?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34

Women are now having 1.95 children each on average, the highest figure since 1973 when there was an average of two children per woman. In 2007, the figure was 1.92 children per woman.
0
reply
fran.ha
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#76
Report 9 years ago
#76
(Original post by JMonkey)
Considering our birth rate is at 1.95? Why would it be good anyway? Sounds like someone is middle class or working class and a snob about the underclasses to me, rather than a reasoned idea. I could be wrong but it sure sounds like a pretty: fascist/rightwing/non-liberal/bigoted policy. It certainly is eugenics though.

Our population is declining (at least in birthrate terms not emigration-immigration, mostly Eastern European) because it is less than the magic ~2.02 mark and you want to restrict birth rates? Is this wise?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34
So you're calling me a middle class snob just because I don't agree with chavs having hundreds of kids and living off benefits? Do you know anything about me?
0
reply
eulerwaswrong
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#77
Report 9 years ago
#77
no - id agree with a uk 3 child policy. Where from the 4th child onwards you would receive n financial help from government.

I think 2/3 children is ok - thats fine - but as soon as it gets more than 4 - i think it can have detremental affect on the child, costs the government a hell of a lot of money - i know what you are going to say about its the parents choice - and i totally agree - it is the parents choice NOT THE GOVERNMENTS so the taxpayers shouldnt be forced to foot the bill the parent should. If she wants 4 kids, then let her - but we taxpayers arent going to be the *******s paying for it.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 9 years ago
#78
(Original post by fran.ha)
So you're calling me a middle class snob just because I don't agree with chavs having hundreds of kids and living off benefits? Do you know anything about me?
No but with an absurd and damaging attitude like yours I really don't want to, you obviously didn't read the thread before you posted, and believe in eugenics, sounds to me like you are perfect Daily Mail material. Not every person who is unemployed has hundreds of kids or chooses to live off benefits, in fact that is a tiny minority and is not class dependant anyway, the middle classes can be ruined and turn to income support, they can also be just as lazy or corrupt as the working or chav classes. Your attitude is blinkered and a little immature TBH. You certainly need to think and or read the thread before you post. Either that or vote BNP in the next election, they want what you want, clearly.
0
reply
fran.ha
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#79
Report 9 years ago
#79
(Original post by JMonkey)
No but with an absurd and damaging attitude like yours I really don't want to, you obviously didn't read the thread before you posted, and believe in eugenics, sounds to me like you are perfect Daily Mail material. Not every person who is unemployed has hundreds of kids or chooses to live off benefits, in fact that is a tiny minority and is not class dependant anyway, the middle classes can be ruined and turn to income support, they can also be just as lazy or corrupt as the working or chav classes. Your attitude is blinkered and a little immature TBH. You certainly need to think and or read the thread before you post. Either that or vote BNP in the next election, they want what you want, clearly.
This has nothing to do with eugenics? I'm not saying anything about genetics or saying that only beautiful people with lovely genetics should be allowed to have children. So this has nothing to do with eugenics. I also never mentioned class. 'Pikey' is not a class.

It may interest you to know that my family live off a lot of benefits, as a single parents with a low income we get a lot of benefits and without them we would not be able to afford much (we could live in a council house if we wanted but my Mum is determined we won't).

I did read the OP very well thank you. It asked if we should have a policy similar to that of China. I said no. I gave an alternative option. Are we not allowed to give alternative options in posts on discussions? Sorry then, maybe I should delete my entire post and replace it with just 'no' as opinions and other suggestions are obviously not allowed on this discussion forum according to you. Would you like me to do that?
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 9 years ago
#80
(Original post by fran.ha)
This has nothing to do with eugenics? I'm not saying anything about genetics or saying that only beautiful people with lovely genetics should be allowed to have children. So this has nothing to do with eugenics. I also never mentioned class. 'Pikey' is not a class.

I did read the OP very well thank you. It asked if we should have a policy similar to that of China. I said no. I gave an alternative option. Are we not allowed to give alternative options in posts on discussions? Sorry then, maybe I should delete my entire post and replace it with just 'no' as opinions and other suggestions are obviously not allowed on this discussion forum according to you. Would you like me to do that?
Pikeys is a slang term for Gypsies of the non-Romany variety, usually Irish, and yes it is Eugenics. At the very least it's ridding the population of the undesirable under classes, which is again a form of population control or Eugenics. Eugenics is a social movement not a genetic concern per se.

It may interest you to know that my family live off a lot of benefits, as a single parents with a low income we get a lot of benefits and without them we would not be able to afford much (we could live in a council house if we wanted but my Mum is determined we won't).
Then frankly you should know better than to generalise like that.

In any society there will be Rab C Nesbits. They are not class or race dependant either.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (377)
37.29%
No - but I will (77)
7.62%
No - I don't want to (71)
7.02%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (486)
48.07%

Watched Threads

View All