in nature the cycle of life goes: .prey thrives on vegetation .more prey to eat, so the predetereats more .more predeters, so less prey .less prey, so predetor population goes down .more vegetation because of less prey
and it goes on. populations naturally flux and waver.
Pretty much. There are far too many people who are convinced that once the human population reaches a certain point, the world will turn into Mad Max overnight. In reality, once our population reaches its upper limit, it'll more likely just stop growing and maybe shrink a little bit.
well I do think population control, at some point, could be a possibility. the thought of what method would be used is a little scary, lol. whether or not it is moral or immoral...I have no idea. I suppose even if it were immoral, it still may be the right thing to do for overall good and survival of our species and our home.
I think that if they do a one-child law, they should apply it equally to everyone - as it says that only 35% have the strict limit. It's also pretty retarded that some people can apply for a second child if they get a girl. Yeah, because a population of 100 males to every female is totally healthy. Maybe China's going to try to create a means for male-male reproduction just so they can remove their entire female population I don't know, I feel like the good of the rest of the population kinda outweighs the right for choice in family size considering there is a high demand for resources.
GalacticGoatFeatured By OwnerNov 8, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
No. we shouldn't have such laws. Education works wonders, with one child laws you get parents murdering a child and making it look like an accident because the child had the horrible audacity of being born with a disability or having a vagina!
The best way and despite what we would want to believe the way that's proven to work throughout the first world is education. Unwanted pregnancy rates keep going down and down because of a mix of education, easy access to birth control and when needed abortion. With these tool we can easily ensure the population stays stable but without trying to enforce massively dictative laws onto our countries.
Considering the fact that they abort female children as a direct cause of this, I think that the Chinese population is about to drop quite a lot more than the government is prepared to accept. At least if they want to keep at least 10% of their population Chinese by lineage, which as far as I'm aware is something they are also somewhat strict about.
I think that it is overall a good thing for a country as overpopulated as China, as long as it isn't done via forced abortions. Such policies are unnecessary in much of the Western world now, as several countries have dropped below a sustainable birth rate. The United states, although to some it might seem like there's idiots popping out 5 kids left and right, only has a fertility rate of about 2.06 children per woman. Our population is growing more than that would suggest though because of immigration, which accounts for most of the US population growth.
I think it's really the only way the human race is going to survive for longer then another few hundred years. We're running out of room and resources, and don't really have anywhere else to go. I'm inclined to agree that there should be some enforcement on how many children people have, especially in what conditions they raise them in. And like some people have said already, it's really just a matter of time until these rules become reality, because we just can't keep growing.
My dad and I were talking about it the other night actually. He basically likened it to the suffering we're going through with the fuel crisis, a result of the 1950's excess use. Maybe if someone had the forethought then to see what we do now with fuel, how damaging and how expensive, and how much we rely on it, maybe rules would have been put in place to slow the use and find alternatives sooner. Maybe 50 or 60 years down the track they'll look back on our population and reliance on resources we won't always have, when they have population rules and clean energy, and wonder why we did things the way we did.
Most developed western nations have a birth rate of two. Many European countries actually have a negative birthrate.
Yes, large nations like India and China do well under these sorts of laws because of their MASSIVE populations, but one of the biggest misconceptions about those nations is that they are NOT developed nations, they are developing nations, they've just grown in such awkward ways, or in such a prescribed manner as to have certain aspects that they can use to pretend they are developed nations.
Overpopulation is a serious issue for the planet as a whole, but the burden falls unequally on certain nations as compared to others.
America and other first-world countries by and large don't need this policy. The populations of most industrialized nation would actually be decreasing were it not for immigration. In Japan the population actually *is* decreasing due to their very low immigration rate. The US is unusual in that its population would be slightly increasing even without immigration, but even here immigration drives the bulk of population growth.
It seems that among the most effective methods of birth control is industrialization and prosperity. Poor countries are the ones with the biggest population problems; rich countries have none.
As to whether China ought to have, they probably didn't have a choice, but now they've created another problem for themselves: the age distribution will mean that supporting the aged will become increasingly burdensome for those of productive age.
Well, if we continue as we do, we're going to run out of resources, then people will start killing each other, and then the population will decrease on its own. So no matter what happens, the population will somehow be controlled. Adopting the policy just stretches it out.
ummm China is kinda strict but they do have like a very big freaking military look at this video it is insane [link] but at the same time they have little resources. So it should be strict unless they want to have children that are always poor and hungry. But in America we have a different government and if it becomes too much government control then it will no longer be a democracy that was built off of our founding fathers even though it kinda is far from their ideals. Plus since people are more independent minded here people will do what they want to do no matter the law. Go to China that is a major disrepect and not only will they kill the child they might kill you for disobeying the emperor. Now do i think its moral....as a child of God no i dont think it is at all but all we can do is pray
Immoral, and I hope we never adopt a similar policy. Although, as mandated population control goes, a limit on how many children / person is the most potentially humane option. I don't think it should ever be mandated though, what we need is better education.
It's never a debate on whether China has moral rights to enforce their strict policies. If you proposed this idea on their soil publicly, you could be killed.
I personally think that one shouldn't have a child that they can't take care of, but that apparently is something that'll never happen. People around these parts either can't figure out how birth control works, or don't care about the consequences of unprotected sex (Orgasms>everything else)
I think if china wanted to enforce it then making doctors give automatic sterilizations to people after they have a child would be slightly more moral than having police literally arrest them and give them forced abortions. In fact, the first one isn't even that hard to fly if you declare that it counts as a criminal activity to put kids in bad situations, with poverty counting as the main one. Societal attitudes could easily have a better time accepting something like that eventually.
Also, they need to change their societal attitudes so that they aren't out to get rid of all females.