| Not more than 3 | 28% | 28% - 46 | ||||
| Not more than 2 | 35% | 35% - 57 | ||||
| Only 1 | 8% | 8% - 14 | ||||
| Other number (specify) | 26% | 26% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 159 | ||||||
It also has the side effect of being intrusive and controlling. But hey, why split hairs?some_random_panda wrote:
China's policy is as many as you want until you get a boy. Then you have to stop.
This would work in reducing population in the long run (and making prospects much better for men in the meantime), but it would take a while to have much effect.
Um, not really. It's limited to one, regardless of sex. In certain rural areas, they are allowed two if the first one is female or disabled. It's just that the Chinese culture does not place any value in female children...they are considered a burden to be tolerated until you can marry them off. So families (normally rural families) drop the girls off at orphanages and markets and such. That's if they allow them to live at all. It's not nearly as bad in the urban areas as in the rural ones, but it is still a prevalent cultural trait.some_random_panda wrote:
China's policy is as many as you want until you get a boy. Then you have to stop.
This would work in reducing population in the long run (and making prospects much better for men in the meantime), but it would take a while to have much effect.
Do you have children of your own?Snorkelfarsan wrote:
There are many other ways to enforce somekind of birth control than using Chinas example. Just beacuse China is failing due to several comlicated reasons doesn't mean that we would fail in implementing birth control.
And why would anyone, anywhere want more than 3 or 4 children anyway? It's more than enough to pass on your genes and if 1 or 2 of them dies, you still have 1 or 2 left. Please explain this to me.
oooo Good point... If the population were low and we were discussing everyone being FORCED to have a kid by the time the were 22 or something, everyone might have an entirely different view.. Nice touch.FEOS wrote:
To each their own.
I can certainly understand the desire for having multiple children. I can't describe it as anything other than pure joy. However, being the pragmatist that I am, I can't see the justification for having a litter as opopsed to a couple of kids. But that's just me. I can't imagine any situation where it's OK for the government to limit how many kids you can have...any more than I can see where it's OK for the government to force you to have kids if you don't want them.
No it isn't at all. Look at the number of people who don't ever want kids. Look at the number of people that want long careers first. Look at the number of women, specifically, that would be knocked out of doing what they want to do because they have kids...Snorkelfarsan wrote:
It's a lot easier to tell people to start having a lot more sex than it is to make them stop having it. So it's not really the same thing
If by we you mean you, then by all means, take whatever action you feel is your part. But to ask the government to do that? No thanks.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
It was a simplification. And it is true that many people dont want children. But still the population of most countries on earth keeps growing and growing, mainly in 3rd world countries but also here in the America and in Europe. So the countries with large populations such as India and China are the ones who must take hard action against their growth but we must also do our part.
Preferably by improving their infrastructure so that it supports their growing population, rather than trying to control their population.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Then I guess we just disagree on that matter then. And I don't see what it is that is so frightening and bad about the government (together with inhabitants of its society) agreeing over some form of restriction.
Atleast we can agree on that many third world countries should deal with their overpopulation, right?
Preferably a mix of both.FEOS wrote:
Preferably by improving their infrastructure so that it supports their growing population, rather than trying to control their population.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Then I guess we just disagree on that matter then. And I don't see what it is that is so frightening and bad about the government (together with inhabitants of its society) agreeing over some form of restriction.
Atleast we can agree on that many third world countries should deal with their overpopulation, right?
That's also a very misleading statement...Snorkelfarsan wrote:
But still the population of most countries on earth keeps growing and growing,
There's the problem. People do not agree!Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Then I guess we just disagree on that matter then. And I don't see what it is that is so frightening and bad about the government (together with inhabitants of its society) agreeing over some form of restriction.
Atleast we can agree on that many third world countries should deal with their overpopulation, right?
^^^^^^CommieChipmunk wrote:
Personally I think its selfish to have hordes of kids. In this day and age we don't need to have 10 kids a couple to maintain the population. If we keep multiplying exponentially, all of this ignorant breeding will result in a global crisis. There is no question about it. This earth will not maintain a population of 20 or 30 billion people. And it's not too many generations away..
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ldBank.gif
Last edited by Snorkelfarsan (2008-01-23 12:41:08)
What about it? At a 10+ year (I only went back and looked that far) we have stayed at around 1-1.25% population growth as a world... That means it would take at least SEVENTY years to double the population. Look at technology over the last 70 years and see what was invented, improved, and streamlined... You don't think in 70 years from now we will be any better off than we are now?Snorkelfarsan wrote:
^^^^^^CommieChipmunk wrote:
Personally I think its selfish to have hordes of kids. In this day and age we don't need to have 10 kids a couple to maintain the population. If we keep multiplying exponentially, all of this ignorant breeding will result in a global crisis. There is no question about it. This earth will not maintain a population of 20 or 30 billion people. And it's not too many generations away..
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ldBank.gif
What about that?
