Originally posted by DoctorDaranot only that but it's an easy way as well to control people generally, if you aint a good little sheep, find yourself a confi bridge and start to beg.
No but in the developed nations we do it indirectly through cost of living.
What use to happen is that the poorer the family the bigger they were.
I just love it when people point out how bad the "others" are just so they don't have to look at their own situation.
So yeah, bad china boo! let's bomb them!
Originally posted by DoctorDaraWhat's with the collective "we". There's nothing 'indirect' about the cost of living (except when it comes to things like taxes.) If folk decide to have children they had better prepare themselves, if they can't feed em, don't frickin breed em.
No but in the developed nations we do it indirectly through cost of living.
Originally posted by WajomaI think if you and your partner have to work 15 hours a day to feed your kids and send them to the creche because you won't even have time to take care of them, the choice is pretty obvious.
What's with the collective "we". There's nothing 'indirect' about the cost of living (except when it comes to things like taxes.) If folk decide to have children they had better prepare themselves, if they can't feed em, don't frickin breed em.
Can't feed them, don't breed them. I think that was exactely the point of the Doc here.
Originally posted by JeeWhoah they have a 'choice', seems like our little chat did some good.
I think if you and your partner have to work 15 hours a day to feed your kids and send them to the creche because you won't even have time to take care of them, the choice is pretty obvious.
Can't feed them, don't breed them. I think that was exactely the point of the Doc here.
Its a good question.
On one hand forcing a family to only have only one child sounds barbaric, why should the government be allowed to do something like that.
On the other hand, something definitely has to be done to curb the worlds expotential growth in population, but what.. There is an argument that an increase in the living standards of a populace results in a decrease in birth rate, just take a look at most eurpoean countries.. Its a quality of lifestyle vs cost of raising children balance thing.
In developing/poor countries the cost of raising a child, as compared to ones income, is a lot less and therefore having extra children makes economic sense, its means extra hands to help working etc.
Birth control obviously has also had an effect on birth rates in developed countries too, women now have a choice as opposed to 50 years ago.
All this of course ties in very neatly with the whole immigration debate too, our polulation is decreasing while the opposite is happening in most others.. Its inevitable that people will try to move to where theres most work and money to be made.
So, back to the argument, is Chinas policy right? I think the idea is right but its execution is wrong.. Its too drastic. I guess they should only have to keep it in place for a single generation and in theory the population will be halved so maybe they a more evenhanded policy will be put in place then..
Originally posted by dk3nnyThere's a counter example of this actually with the 1966 decree in Romania who forbids contraception for 20 years over there, to build new generations.
Its a good question.
On one hand forcing a family to only have only one child sounds barbaric, why should the government be allowed to do something like that.
On the other hand, something definitely has to be done to curb the worlds expotential growth in population, but what.. There is an argument that an increase in the living standards of a populace r ...[text shortened]... the population will be halved so maybe they a more evenhanded policy will be put in place then..
God were they happy to shoot Nicolae down!
And not a long time ago, in Ireland, if a girl/woman had a child without being married, the child was taken from her and put automatically to adoption. Dunno exactely when it stopped but only about 10-20 years ago.
China’s one child policy has had a disastrous effect on the country: selective abortion (mainly the girls), an imbalance in the ratio of boys to girls (which will affect the marriage prospects of millions of Chinese men), and not enough people born in the successive generations to care for the elderly or to create the wealth needed to pay for their care.
Originally posted by mrstabbyAre they still teaching the myth of overpopulation? Here are some facts:
Not growing exponentially isn't the same as dying out. Yeesh.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=12876
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=12329
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=13665
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=941
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=663
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=10120
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYes because of the "welfare state", Europeans will soon be as extinct as Neanderthals. What a disaster that will be for the inferior races; who will rule them?
The cost of the welfare state prevents many responsible people in the West from having children. Consequently, Europeans are a dying breed.