Speaker Geeks! discussion

18 views
What Do You Think (General)? > Child Policy on a Global Scale

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Evan (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments As much as I disagree with it I would probably say so. Our Planet has reached 7bn. That is an awful lot of people. While we could share out are resources and sustain having a more populous planet. That is not in our nature. So unless people share we should probably ave a one or two child policy.

However tis may prove difficult to enforce.


message 2: by Victor (new)

Victor (ace-geek) I agree even though I hate one person infringing on another's life. But we've got a pretty fixed amount of resources here. Only so much land, water, etc.


message 3: by Ella (new)

Ella (AWholeLotofNothing) | 386 comments I think a child policy would be a good idea on a global scale. But it'll never be enforced, and if it is, it won't work very well. Look what happens in China. All the other children that they can't keep go up for adoption. People will just continue to have more babies. And what would we do with the children that were conceived "illegally"?

Also, I was wondering, if there are any parents out there, why would someone want more than one child? Just asking out of sheer curiosity.


message 4: by Evan (last edited Aug 23, 2013 01:42PM) (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments I guess the only way they could enforce it was by neutering. ( I can't thing of the word used for humans) If they were to make people infertile after giving birth once then they wouldn't be able to have more. But not everyone will agree with it. Particularly those who follow NML as one of their principles is to procreate.

Ella wrote: "I think a child policy would be a good idea on a global scale. But it'll never be enforced, and if it is, it won't work very well. Look what happens in China. All the other children that they can't..."

I'm not a parent but I wouldn't mind one of each when the time comes. It just seems fitting.


message 5: by Victor (new)

Victor (ace-geek) Evan wrote: "I guess the only way they could enforce it was by neutering. ( I can't thing of the word used for humans) If they were to make people infertile after giving birth once then they wouldn't be able to..."

"Neutering" would certainly work, but how do you manage that with the people who object to it?


message 6: by Leah, I'm HI-larious! (Head Mod) (new)

Leah | 3478 comments Mod
There's a theory that the Earth's population will level out at approximately 9 billion. This is based on the fact that the population is influenced by the ratio of births to deaths. Until the 1800's the population was steady because of the fact that many children and babies died and deaths ended up equaling the number of births. Then, the birthrate seemed to spike, but only because medical care improved and more babies and children survived. When parents realized that they didn't need as many children (which was not long ago) to run a household or to "carry on the family name," birth rates decreased (and death rates remained fairly constant). It is theorized that when this happens throughout the world, the population will again stabilize. I thought this was an interesting concept and might add a tilt to the debate.


message 7: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments Maybe we need easier adoption process so that already born children have a family


message 8: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments H99 wrote: "Maddison wrote: "Maybe we need easier adoption process so that already born children have a family"

Yes, we definitely need that... We also need more people aware of adoption and less queasy at it."


Yes that would help


message 9: by Billy (new)

Billy | 195 comments Nope, no government should enforce how many kids somebody can have. Is government going to stop people from having sex? And then with pregnancy, will they pay for every abortion? Sounds immoral and expensive.

Sure population is growing, but let nature take its course. Its sad to say, but kids will die if there aren't enough resources anyways, the population will stabilize.


message 10: by Xdyj (last edited Aug 23, 2013 09:34PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Ella wrote: "I think a child policy would be a good idea on a global scale. But it'll never be enforced, and if it is, it won't work very well. Look what happens in China. All the other children that they can't..."

One-child policy in China is indeed very controversial & not consistently enforced but it did manage to reduce birth rate & slow down the population growth significantly. I think Iran has also done something similar though nowhere as extreme. I don't think such policy will ever be enforced globally bacause in most underdeveloped countries with high birth rate there is very little popular support for population control, and because limiting the number of children a family can have is usually seen as infringement of human rights. On the other hand, there are many other things a government can do to reduce rapid population growth, like improving gender equality & reducing poverty & illiteracy.


message 11: by ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, Lend me your ears! (new)

ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱ (charlie_awesome) | 91 comments Mod
We wouldn't have to worry about overpopulation is healthcare and birth control were available readily to the masses. People have a lot kids if infant mortality rate is high (they have a bunch so some survive), if they have no access to free birth control, or if they are very poor and need children to help out in their jobs, but probably don't have enough money to support them. Large families are common in impoverished areas everywhere. Providing healthcare and even a bit of aid would decrease birth rate. Europe is facing under birth problems, most families have less than 2 kids so the population is decreasing. Immigration keeps their population growing, also because those immigrant have more children, as is their culture. But as those immigrants become wealthier, their birth rate will drop as well.


message 12: by Evan (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments There are also problems such as in the U.K people use their children as a source of income. For the first child here they get £20 a week and for each child after £13 added on. This for many is a source of income and as they often don't work being full time parents they don't have any other sources of income.


message 13: by Xdyj (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Lia wrote: "Also, doesn't the one/two-child policy result in an aging labor force?"

Yes.


message 14: by [deleted user] (new)

The Child Policy on a Global Scale makes me remember The Giver. Each family gets two kids-a boy and a girl from a birthmother.

But they also in the book, pick your job, your spouse, your child for you, give you equal amounts of food, they live in a climate control place where no one minus the giver knows about war, snow, love, friendship, or anything that isn't their current lives

They choose when the old die, and you have warnings. If twin are delivered, the smaller one is killed. EVerything is also in white and black so no one is different from each other.

THey have "Years" that count as their birthday when they celebrated all the years birthday and all the kids in the same year get the same gift.

YOu just have to read the book!


message 15: by Leah, I'm HI-larious! (Head Mod) (new)

Leah | 3478 comments Mod
Ah, reminds me of that too!


back to top