Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy

[FreakinDJ]

perhaps not the implementation or penalties associated with having more then 1 child but certainly the concept of social responsibility involved

I am worn out on seeing people bring 6 - 8 - even 10 children into the world with no means to support, educate, or even feed them.

Time after time a Crisis of epic proportion as starving masses of children are dying around the world because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. Wars being fought as people fighting over diminishing resources ensues.

I can think of another 20 or 30 countries that could use such policies

flame away as you wish

[baldguy]

1. Forcing people to do the right thing is not the right thing to do.

It's just another form of slavery.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Forcing Children to be born into deplorable conditions is not the right thing to do

you have a choice - they don't

[CreekDog]

119. where do you see this "6,7, 10 children" being born with no means?

what is that all about? are you watching the commercials on late night tv?

[FreakinDJ]

144. Either you are living an extremely sheltered life or .....

your not being all that honest to say you know of no one

[CreekDog]

150. I'm asking you to say where you see it --I didn't post it in AN OP

[JDPriestly]

8. Do you think that people should be required to vaccinate their children

against communicable diseases prior to entering first grade?

[baldguy]

21. Do we levy fines against & imprison those who don't?

Do we force vaccinations on those who refuse them for religious or health reasons?

No we do not.

[GoneOffShore]

136. Don't imprison them but certainly fine them.

Not the ones opting out for health reasons, of course. Though they should have to show valid scientific proof of same.

The religious are a completely different kettle of fish ( a kettle that will eventually boil over).

[ZombieHorde]

140. What about taxes? Isn't that forcing people to do the "right thing" and help the country? nt

[southernyankeebelle]

2. I read somewhere that a wealthy Chinese family had several children. China supposedly

charges for more than one child. It doesn't seem fair a rich family can pay a tax and the middle class can't have but one child. That isn't fair.

[FreakinDJ]

5. As I said I don't agree with the implementation of the policy

and I beleive it is a fine as I've seen in the news reports. Also the Communist Party looks the other way as party officials have more then 1 child

[southernyankeebelle]

7. I don't think anyone has a right to tell people how many children they should have. I only

have one because that is all I could afford. A family has a right to have 3 or 4 children I see nothing wrong with that. Now 19 or 20 kids that is another story.

[FreakinDJ]

11. I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to have children just so they can Starve to Death

Your Biological Clock, or Nurturing Instinct does not out weight the child's need to eat , or have a chance of a successful life

[southernyankeebelle]

90. Good for you

One thing I have learned to the years. I don't know what my mother would have done without me and my siblings taking care of her. All our lives my parents took care of us and in their old age I come from the old school where we take care of our parents when they no longer can. My mother worried we put her in a nursing home. She didn't want to go there. You be surprised how many people go to those places especially when they are poor and don't necessarily get the best care. That is also a Chinese tradition. Their children take care of them when they are old. I see nothing wrong with that. It's to bad in american many kids don't feel that way.

[FreakinDJ]

97. Just my mother wished to remain in her home

and me and my boys moved back there to take care of her in her final year of life.

But the problem still remains - with increasing population dependant upon deminishing resources, there exist now and there will come a time, when parents of ALL nations of earth will watch their children wither and die for lack of resources

[southernyankeebelle]

99. Your right. But a one child solution isn't it. People should have if they want at least 4 children

What you did for your mother was wonderful. You made the adjustment for her. Do you have other siblings? That would of helped you. I was lucky I come from a family of 6 kids. Honestly its nice to grow old with your children around you. I have a son who lives in my old home right next door to me. I love him dearly but the only time I can depend on him if it is an emergency. His wife is better but what can you do. I have 2 grandkids that always come over and never want to leave. I don't know what I would do without them. I don't bother them. I don't go over their house. My daughter-in-law comes over to get on her computer because they don't have internet. But she does things I ask her to like picking up medicines. I love her alot. My son works long hours and what little time he does have he tries to get to the children's games. Am fine with that. We retired here because my husband's parents were elderly and he was a only child. It is alot for one child to handle. You do what you got to do.

[bhikkhu]

120. Math lesson: if everyone has 4 kids -

then 2 on average would be female, and you would have a doubling of the population each generation. In other words, 7 billion people now would increase to 14 billion in 25 years or so. Then to 28 billion by 2060. Then 56 billion by 2085. Then 112 billion by 2110. I trust you see the problem there.

On an infinitely large planet, no worries. On ours, there are many limits that we are up against even with 7 billion people - most notably a lack of fresh water. Something like 2 billion now have inadequate access to clean water and sanitary living conditions; the difficulty with improving that is the majority of the earth's fresh water already goes to human use - irrigation, industry and personal use. We could do a little better with efficiencies, but the problem is that the resource (as well as many others) is fundamentally limited. "Science will save us" isn't happening.

At a certain point (and good estimates are that the point is 2-5 billion people) the population comes up against the limits of the planet to sustain resource-intensive modern lifestyles, and everything goes into decline. Resources deplete, living standards fall, baselines shift, and prosperity becomes a figment of the collective imagination, that any new baby born will be increasingly unlikely to ever grasp.

[southernyankeebelle]

143. Simple for me. I have what I could afford. I don't think people should have 10 kids. But

I don't want the government playing god. That is also why we have birth control.

[FreakinDJ]

145. Listen to God some time - he is telling you act responsibly

Very Selfish to think ONLY of your Breeding Instinct

[southernyankeebelle]

149. Who are you to judge? I only have one child. That was all I ever wanted. If god didn't

want people to have more children he would of never let that happen. You can't stop humanity.

[FreakinDJ]

157. Sad thing when people believe sex is only for procreation

Actually some weirdos who were really bad at having sex must have started that rumor.

God never intended it to be that way and as Jesus taught here on earth sharing ourselves in an unselfish manor with the one that loves us is an endearing and godly endevor

Doesn't mean you have to add another child to the world's population because you sought to fulfill your natural God given desires for the one you love

Just who was the "Sad Sack Bastard" that distorted the bible that way anyway

[southernyankeebelle]

158. I have to say am different for sure. I never had sex before marriage and I married at 29.

I just never believed in having sex without a relationship. I was brought up that way. I had a strick retired military father who was catholic. I respected my parents not to come home pregnant. But I never judged anyoneelse from enjoying sex. To me sex is a little part of our lives. I wouldn't put it in the top 5.

[FreakinDJ]

163. I don't know why "Lust" became so distorted

but even in the Catholic Faith "Lust for your Wife/Husband" is not a sin - not even close.

BTW: Me and my wife are life long Catholics too.

The original writings of the 7 Deadly Sins included "Lust" from the perspective of a Monk sworn to and practicing celibacy. In his perspective of practicing celibacy as a means to get closer to his maker, he was attempting to purge all thoughts of lust from his being.

Later writtings from the church on the subject elaborated better towards the lay person in which Lust - sexual desires, are God given and therefore Good. Its what you do with it that counts. The Jewish faith goes a little farther to say Lust for your spouce is good in the fact it aids your marrige.

Where it has been distorted is when some say "sex other then for the reason of procreation is a sin" is BS.

[southernyankeebelle]

166. I never said lust. I think when your married you should have sex as often as you want.

Today times have changed. I realize young people today are going to have sex even before marriage. I not stupid about that. I also have a granddaughter and when it comes time her mother should have the talk with her and birth control pills. I don't want her coming home pregnant. I seen her mother pregnant at 16 having a baby in high school. That runs in her family. Both her sister and her own mother were pregnant. In my family none of us did that. So my daughter-in-law came home pregnant the 2d time with my son. My son married her because he didn't want her child being called a bastard. Of course he loved her. So now I have a granddaughter and a step grandson who I love dearly. Sex is a beautiful thing. I just don't believe in bed hopping. Men and jump from bed to bed and the other guys say that a boy. But now women are called whores. Go figure. To me bed hopping on either side I consider whores. But that is me. I don't let guys off the hook. I believe if my granddaughter found the right person and then she decides to get married then let her get on the birth control pill. Simple and plan. I will tell you this much there are many women to hate having sex and only do it because they have to. I enjoy it with my husband but we don't do it as much because we both are older and have medical issues. Sometimes he isn't in the mood. Sometimes am not in the mood. But no where did I say Lust.

[FreakinDJ]

174. You sound so ... so ... normal

Glad to hear you and yours are doing so well.

No its not fair in regard to how women are treated in that respect and I agree with you. I've raised 3 boys and we have had those discussions. I come from a family of 10 children and my father spent 5 years in the Novicia at Layola before deciding he didn't want to be a priest.

I also remember during the 60s the UN and the USA sponsored programs in developing countries where starvation from over population was prevalent. Men who had fathered 2 or more children were offered $40 or a Transistor Radio to undergo a vasectomy. It was a good program and sorely needed in the countries it was offered in. Keeping them "Bare foot and Pregnant" is one of the oldest forms of oppression used against women through out the world and I see no need for starving children to be born so that some one can bolster their flailing ego.

Sadly Ronald Reagan and his Moral Majority (who later proved to be neither) put an end to such common sense. Now we have tele-evangelist preachers playing late night info-mmercials begging for money to feed the starving masses of children in some impoverished country and the preachers skimming 10% off the top for themselves.

Its a sad narrative of our society

[southernyankeebelle]

177. Saint Reagan ruined this country. I totally agree with everything you said. What bothers

me is instead of giving the chinese women the abortion why can't they give a vasectomy to the men. Why is it always on the woman's shoulders. She did her job having the baby. Yep women are second class citizens. Well I guess you have brothers and sisters. If some men would stop and think how would they want their mothers, sisters or wives or even their daughters be treated then they should help their love ones make their own decisions about their bodies. I don't like anyone in the bedroom making decisions for my family. My dad came from a large family of 10 kids also. I came from 6. Our youngest brother died at 39 yrs old of lung cancer. He never smoked.

[Zalatix]

171. Your arguments are right in line with anti-choice rhetoric. Way to go!

[Left Coast2020]

194. I don't either. But its an authoritian government.

But the good news is this policy has created a shortage of workers, and thus people are now asking for higher wages. This is why there have been sporadic protests(though short lived) throughout the country on workers, and conditions. You should also know the culture has a belief to keep a family name for more than 1 generation. And if the parents are poor, they believe the siblings will bring greater wealth to the "family" if there are more offsprings to sustain the name, and bring a better future. This is the philosophy. I know. I used to live there.

[JonLP24]

216. The reason why I recommended this OP

is not because I agree, but because the discussion is always interesting. I personally find myself pulled to both directions but I find such a policy inconsistent w/ American principles when it comes to freedom.

To your post, even if a rich family has 3 or 4 children. They're still draining the world of limited resources. I'm not sure what is an appropriate limit to ensure long-term viability so you could be correct w/ nothing wrong w/ 3 or 4 children. I'll have to research that.

[southernyankeebelle]

217. Well I can't disagree with you. But you can't legislate some things in life.

[cali]

3. I'll flame. It'll burn hot so stand back:

the state has no fucking business doing anything of the kind. And I guess you have NO fucking problem dear with rich folks having all the kids they want.

[varelse]

65. I'll stand right here and warm my hands

near this righteous flame. Keep it burning, because you are absolutely right about this.

There are so many better options to encourage and support family planning. Totalitarian family planning is not a progressive concept.

[happerbolic]

79. both parents go on record...

...at a child's birth, present or not. After recorded #2(successful births) .... clip-n-snip. I'm all for that.

Give the planet and the rest of the species that inhabit it a break from our destructive ways.

2 would be a much tolerable number than 1, though - not as much need for kids to support a family farm as much today.

[varelse]

98. Absolutely not!

There is no need for this, and it is not going to happen without a fight.

The birth rate can be brought down by supporting education and health care for mothers and young children, by improving the economic and social status of women, and by making voluntary family planning accessible and affordable to all.

[elehhhhna]

141. Oh fuk that. Way cheaper to just be a dictatorship and

abort when desireable.


(sarcasmthingie)

[happerbolic]

153. 100% Free will is a novel idea...

Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

...just sucks, when based in reality, especially pushed to the limit this planet has endured, that concept fails our continued existence...

I don't see this world as 'all' people centered as some may view it. i cherish more the diversity this world portrays in all species at any given time without any one tipping parasitic over the rest.

as i hit the still noticeably absent 'opinion' checkbox that some of us wish were available with a post.

'opinion' 'conjecture' or 'Fact' button, would still make a nice post feature...

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Octomom and the Duggars

will help educate our society..

[Nye Bevan]

9. "People with no means to support them".

In other words, only the rich should have kids. Well my parents were not rich, had 4 kids, and did just fine.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Not the parents. The planet.

The planet doesn't have means to support them.

One or two per couple or per woman, rich or poor.

[hack89]

181. And if they refuse?

what does the government do? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? Prison? What's the plan here?

[MH1]

38. there's a big difference between "NO means to support" and people who can but aren't rich

I don't think the op is saying that only the rich should have kids. But many people who have several kids really can't raise that many children adequately. And population-wide, it's a matter of resources.

THE most critical problem, which is driving all others (resource depletion, conflict, and the eventual exponential growth of both) is OVER POPULATION.

Society can come to agreements now on how to deal with it, or let nature take its course and have much harsher and more capricious justice meted out by Her later. (and yes, the despised rich will fare better then, too, because money buys resources for protection in many circumstances if not all).

[etherealtruth]

10. Providing freedom, education and healthcare to woman ....

... tend to address the problem far better than state policies dictating the number of children a person may have.

[randome]

12. 7 billion people on the planet.

All throwing their waste into the ocean and requiring huge amounts of energy and housing and entertainment.

I am not an alarmist but we have to implement some sort of policy worldwide or there will be mass starvation and millions of people will die because of it.

Yes, the planet has enough resources to support many more people but the waste and pollution we generate will become too much.

It's either implement a policy or stand back and watch people die.

[FreakinDJ]

15. Finally - some one who gets it

[noamnety]

22. Frankly, their post was very much the opposite of yours.

Yours related to poor people who should be in effect sterilized (either physically or through political coercion of some sort, are there any other options?).

The post you're responding to has to do with the effect of overpopulation on the larger environment. The people who have the most negative impact on the planet are the rich, not the poor. That's who is using the most resources and creating the most pollution and long term damage.

The unstated implications in your post are that primarily nonwhite (i.e. poorest) nations need to impose population control (and eventually die out if they can't support themselves). That doesn't address that the reason many times that they can't support themselves are that the primarily white rich nations have used that power to gut their resources. Maybe the rich mainly white nations need population control more than the poor nations, since the only way we know to feed our children and get them fancy cars with the corresponding fuel is to steal resources from others through war.

[etherealtruth]

24. +1

[FreakinDJ]

28. see post No. 14

[etherealtruth]

87. I don't think that really refutes the assertion

The US birthrate is below replacement levels and declining.

The crass consumption by developed nations is a far greater problem than our birthrates. A family of three (two parents and one child) living in the US consumes a far larger percent of resources than a significantly larger family living in emerging nations.

Pointing to families (especially infamous families) with large amounts of children in the US is not statistically or realistically significant, as they are simply aberrations.

Highest rates of population growth are in "non-white" regions, as the poster I responded to indicates.

The greatest factor in reducing birthrates is to educate and empower women and to provided adequate health care. This appears to be the most significant factor in birthrates.

Cutting global birthrates (I believe through the empowerment of women) is a good idea and will help in the reduction of over consumption of the earths resources. A much larger impact can only be realized by dramatics cuts in consumption by the worlds wealthier nations.

[FreakinDJ]

25. You've made quite a lot of assumptions on my behalf

Personally my beleifs also apply to quite a few folks here in the USA

And never did I propose a means of enforcement of said policies.

[noamnety]

36. Are you suggesting a policy with no means of enforcement?

I'm having a difficult time envisioning that.

and yes, I have no doubt your beliefs would apply to folks in the US who are poor, but again they are disproportionately nonwhite, and the rich are the ones who are disproportionately causing the most damage to the planet. Which group is causing the most damage? Why do population control advocates seem to so readily jump to the victims rather than the perpetrators when they decide whose population needs to be reduced?

[FreakinDJ]

39. You are the only one distinguishing between "White and Nonwhite"

I've made no such reference no do I believe the planet and it's capacity makes such distinctions

[noamnety]

45. I'm just the only one stating the obvious:

that there's a link between race, oppression and poverty. We can pretend that policies directed at the poor are colorblind, but that doesn't change who is disproportionately affected by them.

See the war on drugs, welfare reform, exclusion from well funded so-called public schools based on neighborhood boundaries, etc. for reference. Population control of the "poor" in the real world boils down to "less black people should be born." If you find a way to make that less true - in the real world - let me know.

[randome]

49. It doesn't have to be about 'poor versus rich'.

There are too many freaking people on this planet. That's the reality and that's the only thing that should be focused on.

[noamnety]

56. I completely agree with that.

I'm all for free distribution of birth control of any type for men and women, free abortions (only) if women want them, subsidies to people living in poverty so they can survive without having to produce children to help hunt/farm/work/take care of the elderly to support the family.

It was the OP's focus on the poor needing to have their reproduction controlled that I took issue with.

[FreakinDJ]

52. I made no such reference

but for conversations sake - let the scenerio play out

World population continues to grow exponetially. World Oil production deminishes to 1/4 of current production effecting food and energy production. Resources such as Food, Water, Medicine become scarce.

Who do you think would suffer more

[noamnety]

58. Who do you think is to blame more?

If you are asking whether oppressed people suffer more, I'm not going to argue that point with you.

[FreakinDJ]

64. Mr Ignorance

[hughee99]

27. Is there a concern that we will run out of "entertainment" due to overpopulation? n/t

[randome]

116. No, I meant our entertainment demands.

Cars, computers, cellphones, fashions. We live in an ocean of unnecessary things. That's just the way we are, I guess.

[Logical]

29. You are using logic. Stop that! No one here wants logic. They just want to complain!! n-t

[cali]

31. People will die regardless. How do you implement such a policy

without oppression writ large?

I'm for education and easy access to bc and family planning.

[randome]

42. Maybe it depends on how it's framed.

If you can truly convince people that it's either this or watch our species slowly disintegrate -no, they'd never go for that, would they? If it's not something immediate, it doesn't exist.

I don't know. But I do believe we're getting closer to when natural selection will take care of this 'problem' for us.

[cynatnite]

44. Do you support forcing women to only have one child...to enforce your will on their bodies? n/t

[randome]

47. Not everything involving women has to do with taking away their rights.

A population control measure would, by definition, involve limiting women's choices because I don't see how you can enforce that from a man's perspective other than to say 'Don't'.

If it's a choice between the survival of our species and moderating population growth, I don't see that it's as simple a question as you pose.

Sure, you might say 'Freedom of choice no matter the cost' but I don't think I could support that.

On edit:
Actually, you could enforce that on a man. After the birth of one child, forced sterilization. Sorry, I should have seen that a mile away.

[cynatnite]

51. I think there would have to be a global consensus...

that everyone could agree on. A 1 child policy is one I don't think would ever work even in the best of circumstances. Educating about delying pregnancy and spacing between children is a good alternative.

I do agree that overpopulation is a major problem, but the China policy is abhorrent to me.

[4th law of robotics]

127. I don't see how you can force women not to have kids without taking away their rights

unless they all chose not to reproduce.

You are arguing for limiting freedoms, so instead you need to make the argument that it's "for the greater good".

Also why is it horrific to limit a womans freedom but acceptable to sterilize the man? It makes far more sense biologically to sterilize women if your goal is population limits. Sterilize the man in a relationship and the woman can still become pregnant (sperm banks, neighbors, divorce and new husband, etc). Sterilize the woman and that's it.

[randome]

130. We have all sorts of limits on freedom now, of course.

I'm only postulating about what possibilities to avoid natural selection in the event that the Earth truly starts winding down because of our greedy habits.

You're right, though, sterilization should not be a men versus women issue. I don't have a perfect answer for overpopulation. It doesn't seem like anyone does. Maybe increased education and awareness will be enough? Somehow I doubt it. Human beings don't look to the long term, as a matter of course.

[4th law of robotics]

131. Access to BC, education, and a retirement system seem to do it

People had large families for financial security. All the other stuff (the religious or cultural reasons) built up around that initial justification.

Put in place a decent retirement system and provide people with BC and the problem will largely disappear.

Add a disincentive to having kids (say taxes to cover education, healthcare, environmental costs, etc of more children on parents) and the problem will disappear faster.

[Zalatix]

169. If you don't take away their rights, then your population control plan is dead on arrival.

And... forced sterilization of men? Are you CRAZY???

[coalition_unwilling]

67. I wish I could rec your response. And hope you and the OP will consider elaborating on it in the

form of an OP. It's not just a China issue. A global conversation about the limits of growth, the virtues of planning (family and economic), equity and justice (developed vs. developing) and policies adopted as a result.

Such a conversation and policies stemming from it would signal a major step forward in the evolution of the species.

In all my time at Occupy Los Angeles, l never heard any discussion of a need for population planning, although there were many discussions around related environmental issues such as global warming.

Cursed typos!

[4th law of robotics]

126. We could treat people like stray cats

trap them at random and forcibly sterilize them. Whenever large litters are found they can be euthanized and so on.

I mean, if you're really that concerned.

[Quantess]

13. Give more reproductive control to women, and also parents in general,

that is the sane solution to overpopulation.

Put family planning firmly in the hands of the individual. By "individual" I mostly mean each woman, herself. Trust women (and parental couples) to be responsible about their number of offspring. Give them all the birth control they want and/or need.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Agree. The idea that popping new people out in this world is some God-given right is fucked up.

And that fucked up idea is held by people across the political spectrum.

Sooner or later, though, people will see the light.

Too many fucking people on this planet.

End of story.

Only a freeper or fundy would argue with that against all scientific reason.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

80. DU has certainly changed!

Back on DU2, years ago, I got my ASS flamed for pointing out that overpopluation is killing the planet, that having more than one is selfish.

[FreakinDJ]

146. 145 replies so far telling me to Shut the Fuck Up about the obvious

[BlancheSplanchnik]

156. like teabaggers.....same kind of willful misinterpretation

biased in favor of their personal preferences.

sigh

[hack89]

183. Because any effective implementation of such a policy has no place in a free society?

you are smart to not suggest a real solution - it would not reflect well on you.

[CreekDog]

203. Actually, having children *is* a right

One has to control people's bodies or reproductive behavior to actually prevent child birth.

And I thought we were against that. Well, Democrats at least.

By the way, you are returning a portion of your Medicare and Social Security, correct? Because the children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for a part of it and I suggest giving that portion back.

[NYC_SKP]

205. So you admit it's a Ponzi Scheme?

[CreekDog]

206. who are you talking to?

[NYC_SKP]

207. "...children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for (social security)..."

You wrote:

"By the way, you are returning a portion of your Medicare and Social Security, correct? Because the children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for a part of it and I suggest giving that portion back."

Which is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme; that payments to early adopters are paid with (and in fact depend upon) new enrollment, as opposed to being paid back original investments plus interest.

I paid into Social Security, I don't need new babies to come into this world to be covered in my retirement.

[CreekDog]

208. You called Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

i could argue with you, but i make it a point not to waste time arguing with Republican talking points here. instead, i simply point out when i see one.

[NYC_SKP]

210. No, you did. (nt)

[CreekDog]

211. But YOU called Medicare a ponzi scheme

your payments in don't equal your payments out.

[NYC_SKP]

212. I accept your apology.

You said if babies aren't born then I won't get my SS check.

I say my funds are intact and waiting for me.

Disability and Medicare, which you bring up for some unknown reason, do not enter into the equation.

The Ponzi-esque description was yours, I just applied the label to it.

Your description, not mine.

ciao.

[CreekDog]

213. Social Security has disability

I won't accept a lecture from someone who doesn't understand the program they're lecturing about.

And I don't cede the moral high ground to you snd your anti helpng children, selfish politics.

[CreekDog]

209. by the way, if someone becomes disabled, did they fully fund their SS and Medicare?

Hmmm?

[DCKit]

17. Socially and ecologically responsible, but not economically responsible.

There has to be balance. The U.S. gets that balance from immigration, something which will never happen in China or Japan.

Any real solution is going to encompass far more issues than population growth. If it's flaming you desire, then here I go: Your stance is simplistic.

[MH1]

41. Why is it economically responsible? Because we insist people retire at a young age?

If a person is still healthy and can do the job they're trained for - or retrain for one they can do - why not pay them for their wisdom and let them continue to work?

I'm not suggesting that people who are physically worn out shouldn't be able to retire according to current guidelines. Just that people who enjoy working continue to do it, and that we try to keep people healthier longer and reward continued work.

I agree that the economic factor needs to be considered, but to simply write off a proposal as "that will never work" rather than exploring possible solutions, is also simplistic.

[quinnox]

18. I don't see how you would enforce it

You would need a one world government or maybe a supreme ruler of earth and then they decree to all you can only have one child. And what would happen to those who didn't adhere to the law, imprisonment or would they be forced to be sterilized after having one child? This sounds like a nightmare-ish scenario to me. Not to mention shades of "1984" in terms of the kind of total control of the population that would require.

[randome]

26. Trade and economic treaties are made all the time without a world government.

Sadly, it will take a mass die-off in some part of the world to wake up the rest of the world.

[Glorfindel]

19. No flame here. I agree with you 100 percent.

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. American Representative to the UN Calls for Worldwide Depopulation

Roger Dittman, an emeritus professor of physics at California State University, believes that Agenda 21 policies should be implemented in the United States. Dittman is the American representative to the UN.

In his 2004 talk entitled “Sustainable Development, the New International Scientific Order, and UN Reform”, Dittman defines sustainable development in a unique way. He states:
Economic (and other) development that leads to reduction in population toward an optimum level for maximization of the quality of life, i.e. environmentally benign development that reduces the birth rate.
Dittman’s professional history includes, among other notations, his affiliation with UNESCO.

UNESCO, in 1974, was integral in using clever mind-control and brainwashing techniques in all facets of societal controls; including mass media, public and private school programs to steer the public perception about depopulation.

By the hand of the then Director General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, popularized the scientific dictatorship with a speech at a dinner for the International Coordinating Council of Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsberg.

The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.


Maheu asserts that the planet will be destroyed unless “a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert.”

This “international community” he references is the UN. He goes on to say, “I wish to reiterate my firm conviction - together with my hope - that a new world order - political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established.”

Dittman believes that in order to bring about the events necessary for depopulation, there must be a global governance to oversee all directives and make sure they are carried out. “Since this is a global effort, it requires global organization, both governmental and popular.”

Under the rule of an “international scientific order” Dittman asserts that “not only do people require organization about their (multiple) identities (including professional, scholarly, and scientific), they need international, even supranational affiliation, facing a common adversary.”

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/american-representative-to-un-calls-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29&utm_content=FaceBook

[fascisthunter]

23. this is a tough one for me

I believe trying to keep population numbers down, but I have a problem with messing with reproductive freedoms. Something though, must be done... this is a tough one.

[LAGC]

78. I'm with you, my friend.

I wish there was a less intrusive way to reduce our global population, but providing incentives for only having 1 kid per couple may be the least intrusive option out there. (Better than more wars over diminishing resources or mass starvation down the road.)

It's a pickle, no doubt about it.

[Marrah_G]

178. There is a way

When women have education, opportunity and reproductive freedom, birth rates go down.

[HereSince1628]

30. If you could separate the policy from it's implementation, it still involves more than live births

Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

and the consequences of large population go far beyond, familial ability to feed, support, and educate. Because env. problems are considered to be human caused, every environmental problem is a per capita based problem. Defining the problem of over-population in terms of family wealth is at best a very limited perspective.

Unfortunately for all of us the problem is much more complicated than it appears at first view. Life-history traits represent evolved biological capacities to long-term species survival problems and are hardly independent of other human characteristics some of which are psychological and sociological. Important among those human characteristics is the drive to reproduce and to care for not only ourselves but also members of our social groups.

The advance of our social evolution has gifted us with the capacity to remove or overcome many mortality risks that only 10,000 years ago (not terribly long ago in terms of the generation time that paces out evolutionary response) were mostly balanced by fecundity. We are strongly addicted to those recent risk reductions and trapped by the slowness of evolutionary change in our characters.

[hughee99]

32. The Governement has no business telling people what they should do with their bodies,

unless they're being "socially responsible". Yes, having basic rights is all good and fine, but their has to be a mechanism for the government to take away those rights when they "know better than us" what is socially responsible. Thankfully, we continue to elect intelligent, trustworthy and fair-minded public officials who can tell us what's best for us.

[frazzled]

33. Why focus just on the birth rate?

People now live incredibly longer than ever before. Why not a euthanasia policy to control population, eliminating the sick and old, who use up a lot of resources.

Of course, I condone neither mandatory birth policies nor what I've shockingly suggested above. Governments should not be in the business of telling people how or when to procreate or how long to live.

Your intentions I'm sure are sincere, but they have consequences: you need to think about where the line can be drawn in using policy to control population. And of course, you can't draw a line. The moral implications are huge.

There are options to consider other than restricting people's private reproductive rights. Education is one; scientific research and policy efforts to find ways to sustain and spread resources is another.

I think your post is paternalistic, judgmental, ethnocentric, and frankly scary. And also sexist: China's one-child policy has led to the extermination or export of female children. Yes, if people can have only one child in China they want a boy. Girls are aborted, abandoned, given up for adoption to foreigners (Jeebus, how many people do you know who have Chinese daughters: I know at least five). And now China has an extremely skewed population of males, creating other social problems.

It's a terrible policy, and one you'd never accept in a Western country like ours. Yet you advocate it for the poor breeding natives.

[randome]

35. China has deep cultural issues.

You're right, the insistence on boys over girls is abominable. The government could do more to reverse that.

But if nothing is done to put this planet on a sustainable course, we will see millions of people die in our lifetimes. I think we're that close to seeing it happen.

[FreakinDJ]

37. I see no benefit in spiting out children so they can die in the streets

"Western country like ours" with unattended children joining gangs and taking to the streets dealing drugs and committing murder or engaging in childhood prostitution - Oh yes we are so much better then those "Evolving Societies".

[frazzled]

40. Oh my, you really are a dyed-in-the-wool eugenicist

I suppose you want to sterilize all those irresponsible poor (black and Hispanic) people who have too many children.

You and Barbara Bush, who used to be a great proponent of eugenics, as I recall.

[FreakinDJ]

46. You certainly like to make assumptions on little or no fact

btw: Alert Sent

[randome]

53. Now, now.

You opened up a great discussion. Let's see where it goes.

[FreakinDJ]

55. Personally I believe "Unattended White Children" have just as many problems

its just that their working 50 - 60 hrs a week career obsessed parents spend their life savings hiring good lawyers to gain them a lesser sentance - doesn't mean the kids don't go bad or end up seeking negative attention

[randome]

63. Sure, but I don't think this needs to be framed in economic terms.

We have to do something about the number of people on this planet. It could be an international treaty for each country to act to reduce its population by three percent a year or something like that.

We could try the education and maybe financial incentive way first and see if that works. For every couple that has more than 1 child, they get hit with a tax.

Maybe that would work?

On edit:
What am I thinking? No, financial de-incentives will only mean the rich will win out again. Sorry, I'm posting while at the same time talking to my daughters about the Avengers movie (awesome!) and whether or not Shia Labouef is an actual cannibal or not.

And they will not stop talking!

Talk about multi-tasking.

[MH1]

60. Well, 4 out of 6 random DUers think it's a-ok to attack someone as being racist

just because they don't like a political position which has ZERO natural association to race or eugenics. (and could be in fact a race-neutral alternative to a eugenics approach. Not that eugenics was even under discussion until that poster raised it as an attack.)

[MH1]

50. Content of my alert *** Jurors please note ***

because I spent some time on writing it, and while I am sure other alerters could have easily made the case as well, in case they got there first and didn't make the case, here's mine:

Calling the poster a "eugenicist" and implying the poster is racist, is extremely over the top. They imply racism in asserting that the targeted poster wants to "sterilize all those irresponsible poor (black and Hispanic) people". Nowhere did the targeted poster remotely make any statements like that. Suggesting that a "one child" policy might be a good thing, and that population needs to be limited in some way does not in ANY way propose a racist or genetic based policy. To accuse the poster of that is an extreme personal attack. I have checked TOS violation on this because it is bigoted to impose a racist view on another person based on an expressed opinion which itself has nothing to do with race.


Edited to add: I'm posting this because currently only the text of the first alert is considered, as I understand it. It would be nice to have the system show other alert comments that come in during the jury consideration of the first alert.

[noamnety]

59. If they promote a policy

of spot reducing the populations of specific countries (20-30 countries), what are we to conclude?

[MH1]

62. How do you know which countries? Why not the U.S.?

(except for the many valid oppositions to a one-child policy raised in this discussion, which are race-neutral.)

[noamnety]

69. I think you're being disingenuous

if you interpreted this as referring to the US: " because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. "

[MH1]

73. Really? Do you actually think that the US can independently sustain its population?

why are we all over the globe trying to control resources if we have enough here at home for the population we want to sustain?

[noamnety]

82. I sure don't think that.

But looking at the OP's phrasing, I maintain that it's disingenuous to claim that's what they were referring to when they wrote:

"Time after time a Crisis of epic proportion as starving masses of children are dying around the world because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. Wars being fought as people fighting over diminishing resources ensues.

I can think of another 20 or 30 countries that could use such policies "

Honest answer please - which countries do you think they had in mind when they wrote that? Countries like the US? Or ones like Ethiopia?

[frazzled]

61. In this case, I'll take a hidden post as a badge of honor

Perhaps I should have taken the "Jeopardy" approach and stated my objection as a question: "Are you advocating eugenics"?

The OPs response to my post was shocking, and in my opinion deserved a shocking response. If it gets hidden (my first hidden post on DU3), I will consider it well worth the effort.

[MH1]

66. The post you seem to be referring to, did not imply any racial component to me.

I don't know where you are getting those things from that post, or anything else by that poster in this thread.

In any case, why think the worst of someone? If there was any question that the person was implying race or gene components to be included in the policy, why not ask before accusing? You might also, instead of name-calling, if the poster confirms that is what they are thinking, explain why that approach would be immoral.

[AngryAmish]

200. The OP is a eugenicist

Eugenics is the controlled breeding of people to advance a goal. There are many ways to get there but the one child policy is one of them. The goal - reduce the population. It need not be race-based. Remember "three generations of imbeciles are enough"? Carrie Buck was white. The eugenics board determined that her genes were unfit to move forward.

[Zalatix]

185. I must disagree with that awful accusation you made here

because You forgot to add 'social Darwinist' and 'anti-Choice'.

If I get a jury decision to hide my post then oh well. It's the truth. FreakinDJ's comments are anti-choice, and identical to what social Darwinists AND Eugenists would say to justify their war of population control.

[Capt. Obvious]

48. One child for some, death panels for others

Win-Win

[Igel]

70. Hey, population growth has many mothers.

Fewer deaths due to disease (hence longer lives), higher infant survival rate, better nutrition, fewer wars.

Heck, even in vitro fertilization adds more to the population than folks like Octomom. Octomom must cause some special kind of revulsion and feeling-based thinking.

Why privilege the living over the non-living? (I had this dispute with students who wanted all kind of perks regardless of what it did to the college in 5 years--after all, they had rights that those who would come later couldn't possibly have.)

Want population reduction? Dispose of all the things that produce larger populations. High birth rates preceded all these later perks.

It's one solution. Just not one that makes life convenient for those living in the West, so the OP wouldn't like it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. Picture of the earth and the amount of water as spheres

That includes all water
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12286090


Until the economic system is changed there will be no change, There is enough food on the planet to feed 10 billion right now, but education and awareness is lacking on how to take care of this planet and its people and resources.

[jberryhill]

111. Another view

[randome]

115. I remember reading that to my daughters.

Forget what it's called.

[jberryhill]

118. Five Chinese Brothers

A classic.

[Ichingcarpenter]

121. So we vomit?

don't really get the metaphor, picture etc.

The Sea and lower animals on that spectrum?..

Don't get it.

[jberryhill]

123. It's from a children's book which has been popular for decades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Chinese_Brothers

When one of the brothers, a somehow very successful fisherman, agrees to let a young boy accompany him on his fishing trip, trouble results. This brother holds the entire sea in his mouth so that the boy can retrieve fish and treasures. When the man can no longer hold in the sea, he frantically signals to the boy, but the boy ignores him and drowns when the man releases the water.

[cynatnite]

43. Personally, I find China's policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations horrific...

They outlawed forced abortions in 2002, but there are still reports of local governments in China forcing them on women.

I've read articles that have said the policy has problems. They are faced with a large aging population. The single sibling generation will have to carry the burden of not just caring for their parents, but also potentially 4 grandparents as well.

They could have done a better job with this by teaching about spacing children between births and delaying pregnancy.

Overall, I find the policy offensive. To enforce this kind of control over a woman's body is no different than the anti-choicers forcing their beliefs.

[sendero]

54. I suppose.

... but without enforcing rules on the selection of gender it is a disaster.

Now quadrillions of Chinese men have no chance of ever finding a wife. Sucks to be them.

[FreakinDJ]

57. Ya - thanks Mom and Dad

now I'll never get laid

LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. There is a better way to achieve a very similar result

educate women. How much they are tracks directly with how many children they have.

It just comes naturally, as it were.

It is long term better, and actually less expensive.

One or two kids are quite dandy, thank you.

And I can think of more than twenty or thirty countries that need similar policies, because of global climactic change... we will be forced into dramatic ways of doing things, I am afraid

But the thing that has to go with education are vaccination campaigns, because one reason for that is the utter lack of survival early in life if you don't have those.

[Zalatix]

104. Hey you, common sense lady, scoot, get outta here!

This is not the place for logic or reasoning. We're in the middle of an all-out assault on reproductive freedom. Anti-choicers are okay if we're anti-choice for population control reasons!





Seriously, though, well said. It saddens me to see no one else had anything to say to your wise counsel.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Nothing shocks me anymore

[LadyHawkAZ]

114. This is the only thing that will ever work

but since it's implemented over time, and doesn't give instant-gratification results, no one seems to like it.

[tnvoter]

71. yours is not a popular opinion, but I agree with it

Take India as a counterpoint. It also has a population growth problem. While it calls itself a "democracy," its society is far from utopian. If India had followed "communist" China's one-child policy, it would still have a poverty problem. But it's poverty problem would not be exacerbated by an overpopulation that overwhelms its social safety nets. I think China has largely averted the oppressive poverty that burdens India. And though both countries have advanced industrially, China has is a bigger middle class and far better safety net for its poor.

[CK_John]

72. Real world example of unintended results, is the 120male to 100 female ratio.

History has shown that this ratio creates warlike states and cultures. The world may end up paying for their policy.

[MH1]

75. The world is going to pay for over-population either way. nt

[Mnemosyne]

162. An old wive's tale was that when many boys were born there was war coming.

Maybe not so far off...

[Zalatix]

170. Not just an old wives' tale, it's pretty much historical fact.

It's called a "Youth bulge" and it coincidentally precedes a GREAT DEAL of wars in history.

[Mnemosyne]

173. Thank you for that, Zalatix. I still have much to learn. I'm not an old wife, but

have learned many tales from them.

[drm604]

74. The way to do it is to increase the education, rights, and economic well-being of women worldwide,

and to make the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies easily and freely available.

Give people easy alternatives to birthing and rearing large numbers of children and they will, for the most part, pursue those alternatives.

[MH1]

76. I agree with this whole heartedly.

However, if too much time passes without this happening (and we are regressing from it here in the US), draconian policies like "one child", with their attendant downsides, may become the lesser of evils.

[kiranon]

92. Agree that this is the answer. n/t

[RobertEarl]

77. Key: Socially responsible

Governments should not have to legislate such a policy. People should limit their reproduction on their own. But they are not.

So we are faced with an overpopulation problem.

What government has done--- give taxbreaks to reproductioners, can and should be undone. Government should levy a tax on every new child.

That would in essence not be telling them what they should do, just stating the fact that doing so creates an impact that must have a balance and a tax would help to balance that impact..

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Yeah. China: Where "The War On Women" starts at conception.

How responsible a program is it when this policy causes FAR MORE FEMALE fetuses to be aborted than males?

Just wait a few years until the wave of Chinese males caused by this policy hits puberty...

Then tell me if it's responsible.

[Zalatix]

135. Let's play Jeopardy! I'll take population dynamics for a thousand.

Alex Trebek: It's one of the most common causes of wars in human history, possibly even more fundamental than religion or ideology.

Player: What is a youth bulge?

[FreakinDJ]

187. Here on the other hand is some Actually Educated Information on the subject

The human cost of such an involuntary population rebalancing is, of course, horrific. Based on this model we would experience an average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to achieve our target population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, and would be about 200 million that year. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for only six years.


http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

[Zalatix]

188. Youth Bulge is actually quite correct and proven.

It means that when you have a large number of young men without hopes for marriage or success, wars will happen.

This means that pollution, resource usage and downright environmental destruction will SKYROCKET - accelerating the likelihood of a huge crash.

Your study also ignores the fact that we have nuclear weapons that can be put into play this time.

That is what will happen under your anti-choice population control system, in which boys will be heavily favored over girls.

[FreakinDJ]

191. Your assuming Gender Selection would be legal or condoned under such drastic measures

[Zalatix]

192. Even China cannot control gendercide against girls, what makes you think you can?

And after all this time has it ever occurred to you that education, free access to birth control and opportunities for women has done more to curb population growth than your fascist dreams of an anti-choice, social Darwinist utopia?

Outliers besides the Duggars notwithstanding, prosperity and education are the best form of population control.

You're hell bent upon using force, to the point of glorifying China. Nothing else seems to even computer with you.

Please move to China if you think China is so socially responsible. There is no country for you here.

[magical thyme]

83. I agree on all points.

If people can afford it and they want more children, they should adopt. It's not like China has a shortage of beautiful babies in desperate need of homes or an overabundance of natural resources.

[Skelly]

84. A socially responsible policy in this case

as administered by any government, would have to definitely include the sterilization of 'x' percentage of men (1/2? 1/3?). A female can only have 'x' number of children in a lifetime. Men, an infinite number. A lottery should do it. Problem solved. You're welcome.

[randome]

85. And thank you.

[FreakinDJ]

96. Thats is biased against men

Yes the approach of sterilizing men as will as women would be best. Once a man or woman fulfilled their quota of species replenishment then they could/would voluntarily submit. Given the propensity of changing lovers/bed-partners as frequently as we do this would be the preferred method

But a lottery systematically sterilize males could would lead to "Selection"

[Skelly]

103. No more bias

than that against families who CHOOSE to have more than one child. Women would not need to be sterilized. In fact, it would be quite detrimental to the species to do so.
Seems like a simple solution to me. At least as simplistic as 1 child per family law.

[Nolimit]

106. A sterilization lottery?

That sounds pretty dystopian to me.

[Skelly]

109. Oh...

I thought that was what we were discussing...dystopian ideas for population control...China's one child law, forced sterilization, etc. I was merely cutting to the chase.

[Quantess]

134. Has anyone read the short story "The Lottery"?

It's about a civilization where one person draws the unlucky number and gets stoned to death.

Maybe off topic, maybe not.

[randome]

137. We're gonna need some more stones.

[Nye Bevan]

108. YES. Because what's more liberal than involuntary sterilization? (nt)

[Zalatix]

110. Or accepting the anti-choice position for the sake of population control?

[Skelly]

112. There is always SOMEONE

who has to bring up that pesky little liberty idea. Next you'll be spouting about the need for education, family planning and access to safe, affordable birth control.

[4th law of robotics]

128. That's not a good solution

ignore for the moment the sexist approach that it is ok to take away men's reproductive abilities but not women's.

If you have a population of 100 men and 100 women and you sterilize 90 men and 0 women how many potential pregancies could you have that year? 100.

Now flip it, sterilize 90 women and 0 men. How many pregnancies? At most 10.

Which is lower?

You're assuming people are monogamous and won't find other mates if they want kids (or sperm banks). That isn't the case. Sterile males work in certain populations. Those that mate only once then lay eggs and die. Like some mosquitoes. Not so much in people that are capable of mating several times a year (even dozens of times in some aberrant individuals!).

[Union Scribe]

161. Edit. Didn't see your post downthread.

Mr. Swift would be proud.

[slackmaster]

196. Of course our top military and government men would be automatically exempt from the policy

[CrispyQ]

86. Mother Nature will take care of us if we won't police our own numbers.

I'm always stunned how many responses posts like this get from people so pissed off at the suggestion that we should manage our numbers. The planet cannot sustain 7+ billion people, all trying to attain as close to an American life style as possible. Add to that, the fact that we treat our home like a garbage dump, I don't see a good outcome for billions of people.

"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure."

~Agent Smith

on edit:

I agree with the posters who say education, family planning & birth control are key. It would help if organized religion would renounce that 'go forth & populate' bullshit.

7 Billion Miracles is Enough!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

89. Yes, yes, yes -- But does every single wild species of animal have to die first?

I too am sick of many progressives who turn a blind eye to the fact we are destroying our home on planet Earth. How bad does it have to get before we wake up?

[randome]

91. '7 Billion Miracles is Enough!'

Nicely put. But that number is much, MUCH higher when you consider all who have come before.

[bhikkhu]

122. That's another interesting math problem:

http://blog.1000memories.com/75-number-of-people-who-have-ever-lived

...so if our species is about 200k years old, then out of all humans who ever existed, one in 8 is still alive today.

[randome]

124. 57 billion people. Thanks for the link.

It puts things in a different perspective.

[prefunk]

88. As a concept, yes, but its the implementation that causes problems.

We need to get PEOPLE to see that having only one child is the socially responsible thing to do. Until we change minds...

[Rex]

93. China holds 1.3 billion people.

That is a staggering number considering the size of China. I won't flame you, I am just not to excited about any country that culls the herd of humans through social engineering.

[randome]

95. If you see the human race as a 'herd', that may be part of your dilemma.

It's like down-sizing a company through attrition. No one currently at the company is hurt and the employees who remain are more secure.

In concept, anyways.

[Zalatix]

100. No, Rex correctly sees humans being TREATED as a herd

when describing what is happening in China.

Being a herd and being treated as one are 2 different things.

[Rex]

132. Thank you

I did not make that distinction in my post and I should since it is important.

[silverweb]

94. I strongly support the concept.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]But I strongly oppose the means by which it's being done in China.

It's a dilemma -- how to achieve the right outcome without using a very wrong policy -- but not an unsolvable one.

Government should play a key role, but not an invasive/oppressive one.

[cabot]

101. I'm pro-choice not anti-choice but to each his/her own

I think better education in overpopulated countries is the key to controlling the world's number of people. I don't like it when the government tries to restrict abortion access and I don't like it when the government tells someone how many children they can have. Why do you think there are so many murders of baby girls in China? Because of the one child law.

[Marrah_G]

102. Education, opportunity and access to birth control for women are what brings down birth rates.

[Quantess]

129. Trust women with their own fertility!

The world needs women need to take full control of reproduction (in accordance with their male partners, of course). This is something women must be in charge of, and of course with input from their male partners.

Your post is absolutely correct, and is backed by masses of evidence. When women are educated, have adequate financial opportunities, and have full access to family planning, birth rates go down to a sustainable number.

That is sanity.

[Old Codger]

105. Really

No one needs to do anything really, mother nature will eventually solve the problem for us with disease, wars and famine, so we can just keep on popping them out knowing that someday the planet will do a "correction" just as the stock markets does now and then...So we can all stick our heads back into the sand and ignore the possibilities.

[Skelly]

113. OR...

Take the nuclear option of the OP.
I love a pendulum.

[loyalsister]

117. Personal policy- maybe

But not legally determined and forced. I respect the good intentions behind your suggestion, but we have seen this before.
The eugenics movement was a partnership of people who did not want to see children born into suffering, and people who wanted to create a master race. Forced sterilization was where it stopped for the people with good intentions. It has been expanded beyond that and the mindset of the self identified superior "races" continues.
While that is not the goal of China's policy, it's not hard to see how ugly it could get in a more heterogenous country.

[4th law of robotics]

125. I think it's awful. A more acceptable policy would be . . .

to heavily fine people for having more than 1 kid. Offer no benefits for having 1 child. And paying people to become sterilized after one child (and paying them more to be sterilized with no kids).

And of course provide all forms of birth control freely and readily.

[arely staircase]

133. i dont. i am pro-choice

I believe forcing a woman to give birth or have an abortion are both reprehensible.

[Egalitarian Thug]

138. Eliminating all tax deductions for spawning would be a start.

Follow that up with a massive education program. We know from experience all over the world that as a population is elevated out of ignorance, birth rates plummet.

We really need to get the population down to about 2 billion. Do that, and your descendants will inherit a world of infinite possibility.

Of course this will never be done as we are overrun with egotistical morons that are certain that the human race will disappear without the contribution of their superior genetics, reinforced by religious delusion.

[and-justice-for-all]

155. I concur!!! nt

[former9thward]

139. You think forced abortion is "socially responsible policy"?

You are not much for women's rights are you? Do you think having a country totally unbalanced men/women is a good thing? Because that is what China has now and whatever other country would have if they wanted to deny women's rights like you do.

[roamer65]

142. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

World War III is coming. There won't be many people left after that.

[FreakinDJ]

147. Or the Biblical Prophecies

1/3 of earth's inhabitants will be killed off

as seen with most of the replies a "Mass Kill Off" is the population control means of preference

[chrisa]

148. I can't believe I see support for such an Authoritarian, misogynistic policy like forced abortion

here.

[Hippo_Tron]

151. I don't see a need for a policy, just distribute birth control and teach people how to use it

Half of all pregnancies are unplanned. That number could be drastically reduced if our society would change its attitudes about sex.

The Duggars and all of the other batshit people can have 20 kids, for all I care. This problem can be solved on the macro level without having to implement any such policy.

[Skidmore]

152. And how are you different than the anti-choice crowd?

[and-justice-for-all]

154. Yeah, I find 19 kids and counting to be irresponsible

and people who are unable to care for a child or children which then become a burden up society as whole, is not acceptable to me. People that are mentally unstable, should not be running around and having children and Rapist should be chemically castrated, as well as child molesters...People that are clearly socially unfit to have children.

Seeing that mentally handicapped people are more often then not left in the care of others, should not be able to reproduce for their own safety.

I am not at all ashamed to vote for population controls, you should even need to apply for a license to have children which would require IQ testing and mental evaluations.

[Skelly]

160. How about

alcoholics, drug addicts, those who are obese? Can we add them to the list? Also maybe the disabled in general. Oh, and just the down right stupid. Stupid people really bother me.

[and-justice-for-all]

214. unregulated human population growth

Is an issue that is having a negative envrionm ental and social impact. Your condensending remarks shows you don't understand the issue nor its consequences.

[Skelly]

215. Perhaps not

However, I DO understand the consequences of the one child law.

[Skip Intro]

159. It's worth a real discussion.

I have a huge problem with government regulating reproductive rights, but at the same time, in places where famine and death by starvation could be eliminated by such regulations...it almost seems inhumane not to support it.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see any reason anyone should flame you for offering the topic by stating your view. In fact, I applaud you for speaking your mind on a forum where I get the growing sense that many censor themselves for fear of crossing some ever-encroaching boundary of what is and is not acceptable.

[FreakinDJ]

164. thanks

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

167. Good post

[Marrah_G]

195. Places with famine and starvation rarely have education or opportunity for women

They also rarely have birth control.

[musical_soul]

165. You can't have a one child policy.....

without the dumb consequences and/or coercion that goes with it.

It has been said before that we have enough resources to feed everybody on this planet. We don't do so because of selfishness. We actually give farmers subsidies to throw out food. We need to put the human race before profit.

[Fort Minor]

168. This is offensive

As someone who wants to have four children I find all these measures ridiculous. Who are you to tell people they can't have more than one child if they wish?

[LAGC]

172. Welcome to DU!

Do you really not think we are over-populating this world as it is?

Granted, there's still lots of open land here in America, but do we really want to see it become as populated as parts of Asia?

There is something called QUALITY of life, you know. It's not just about bringing in as much new life as one can by "procreating like bunnies", you know.

There IS going to come a point where this planet simply can't sustain any more people. Unless we finally figure a way to branch out and start colonizing other planets, we're pushing this planet to its limits.

[Daniel537]

175. And your answer to all that is totalitarianism?

Because that's exactly what China's despicable one-child policy is. Once you give a govt. that amount of power, there is no going back. If they can tell you how many kids you are "allowed" to have, there is no limit. Notice how that whole human rights thing means jack shit to the thugs running Beijing.

[FreakinDJ]

176. Don't worry - Soon you won't have a choice

Environmental expert Lee Ewald, commented on the matter by referring to a graph on world population growth from the 1600s in relationship to those of the most recent Census data. “It is quite evident that the real global population explosion began to happen when societies became industrialized. Moreover, when farming became intensive with petroleum based farm implements and petro-chemicals.....the world’s population exploded.” In this way, the carrying capacity was effectively artificially inflated to accomodate the unnatural infusion of the human population.

Ewald further projected, “If we run out of fossil fuels, we cannot continue the intensive farming to feed an already overcrowded earth. We are seeing this form of starvation in many places in the world now, without even taking into consideration the additional increasing problems of drought and famine produced by global warming.” Oil industry executives have projected perhaps 40 more years of oil remaining on which to base a hydrocarbon economy say Peter Davies, chief economist at BP (Conway, 2004).

http://karen-hansen.suite101.com/activists-endorse-global-sexual-reproductive-health-act-of-2010-a272184

I guess you must have missed the memo

[Warren DeMontague]

179. You are offering apologia for a horrible human rights abuse.

Inexcusable.

And I wonder of the nabobs nodding their heads "yeses, yeses" would still agree if you went and LISTED those 20 or 30 countries... by name.

[Ter]

180. Then you're not a Democrat

You're a Communist, and I don't use that word loosely.

[FreakinDJ]

182. Between Global Warming and diminishing Oil Production

in 30 to 40 years from now there is going to be serious famine for the majority of the world's inhabitants.

You may think it is "Fine and dandy" to bequeath that inheritance to you off spring. I on the other hand find it reprehensible

BTW: here is the food for thought - http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

[Zalatix]

184. You are not a Democrat. Your views are anti-choice.

Whether you feel that your views are beneficial or not, you are anti-choice, by the logical definition of the word.

Anti-Choice.
Anti-Choice.
Anti Freedom Of Choice.

[FreakinDJ]

186. Don't worry - your children won't have a choice

[Major Hogwash]

190. Except for one slight problem -- there is no 1 child policy in China.

The folks there can have 2 children. But, most of the time, in most provinces, they are taxed for having the 2nd child.
The problem is worse in the rural areas of China, so it is hard for the government to get a handle on how sidespread the problem really is.

[Son of Gob]

193. Have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?

[slackmaster]

197. Families deciding to limit themselves to 1-2 children would be socially responsible policy

When government does it, it's repression.

[Bill McBlueState]

198. In the US we have a $1000 per child tax credit

In China there is apparently a tax penalty after the first child.

If you think people are having too many children, it seems like it would be simple and unintrusive just to change the tax-credit-vs-number-of children curve.

Maybe $1000 for the first and second, $500 for the third, $0 for the fourth, etc. Whatever. The point is that, in keeping with our 100-year tradition of social engineering through the tax code, there are plenty of tweaks one could enact without being super-authoritarian.

[raccoon]

199. Social responsibility? How about a country that has something like 5% of the world's population and

uses up about 30% of resources being used?

IOW, the first world countries that are way into overconsuming are a big part of the problem.

[MissHoneychurch]

201. The only problem China has with that

(and it will be a very big problem for China) is that most of the children born are boys. Girls aren't worth as much as boys there and the families are trying to get rid of the girls and try again to get a boy. Esp. in the rural areas. At one point there won't be enough women for all those men. And that calls for trouble. Big trouble.

[slackmaster]

202. Men who can afford to will import brides from other countries

Or they'll leave China.

Some men who can't afford to do either will be SOL.

[apocalypsehow]

204. Of course, actual achievement of your vision would ultimately require these enforcement mechanisms

be implemented world-wide:

1. Mandatory abortions performed upon women who are impregnated after already having had one child.

2. Mandatory sterilization of the men who do said impregnating.

3. A combination of both.

That's going to be a tough sell in countries that respect reproductive autonomy and the right of men and women to control their own sexual behavior within the bounds of mutual consent.

The better idea is actually three-fold:

1. Provide wide-spread access to birth control along with education on how to use it.

2. Continue to strive for gender equity worldwide - societies that strive and have achieved some degree of equality between men and women have lower birthrates for all sorts of reasons, and is the right thing to be working toward in any event.

3. Don't have kids yourself.