First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply Why doesn't India control its population
1379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15
that is true starting with Darwinism in 1885 or even before people started to think about stopping criminals or even "imbeciles and the feeble minded" from passing on their genes. in 1907 Indiana passed a law that legalized involuntary sterilization. by 1931 it was accepted in over 30 states. it reached a climax in 1935-40 when up to 4,000 sterilization were preformed in Virginia alone, and over 25,000 are estimated to be sterile in the general population from criminal punishment. up to the 1990s sterilization of the mentally retarded was a common practice in institutions and prisons.

(Consepts in Biology Eldon D. Enger, Fredrick C. Ross, David B Bailey)

this is not something i am proud of as an American, but it is a crime that i think we shouldn't hide or it will not be dealt with properly. i don't think we had the right to sterilize those people. but imprisoning them for the rest of their lives has the same effect in the long run. even post WWII more Americans are in favor of sterilization than i would like to think. White supremacist groups are a serious problem in many regions still, and these are strong supporters of "perfecting humanity" which has a strong resemblance to Hitler's plan to perfect Germany.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

I'd rather limit who can have a kid rather than the limit to how many... Some people do not need to reproduce


I vote only super athletes with PhDs can reproduce!


PhDs mean nothing in a war. Only those who are fit for service should reproduce!


Hence super athletes and PhDs we would be unstoppable within a few generations.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So, basically, you want to improve their lot in life by taking away the right or privilege to have children? Okay. I see your point.


Your kinda young so i'll cut you some slack. Do you know how expensive raising children is?


Not really. I'm just pointing out how such a thing will sound to the impoverished. Such an authoritarian measure usually doesn't go well is what I'm guessing.


So you realize the less children people have the better off they are. Especially the poor this move would benefit them the most.
16853 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

biscuitnote wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

I'd rather limit who can have a kid rather than the limit to how many... Some people do not need to reproduce


I vote only super athletes with PhDs can reproduce!


PhDs mean nothing in a war. Only those who are fit for service should reproduce!


Hence super athletes and PhDs we would be unstoppable within a few generations.


They would be too worried about their lives to effectively charge a machine gun. Need people with less concern about their own lives.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

I'd rather limit who can have a kid rather than the limit to how many... Some people do not need to reproduce


I vote only super athletes with PhDs can reproduce!


PhDs mean nothing in a war. Only those who are fit for service should reproduce!


Hiroshima would disagree



1379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

I'd rather limit who can have a kid rather than the limit to how many... Some people do not need to reproduce


I vote only super athletes with PhDs can reproduce!


PhDs mean nothing in a war. Only those who are fit for service should reproduce!


Hence super athletes and PhDs we would be unstoppable within a few generations.


They would be too worried about their lives to effectively charge a machine gun. Need people with less concern about their own lives.


so we are going to leave the future of man kind in people who don't care about surviving? that is a great plan, why don't we just shoot ourselves. it would be quicker and produce the same results.
16853 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

Dariamus wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

I'd rather limit who can have a kid rather than the limit to how many... Some people do not need to reproduce


I vote only super athletes with PhDs can reproduce!


PhDs mean nothing in a war. Only those who are fit for service should reproduce!


Hiroshima would disagree





We targeted civilian population centers not troops. Even in the cold war we targeted cities.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15


WIthout getting into too much detail, (because I'm lazy) that's one reason why more intelligent people tend to produce less children. Plenty of others obviously, but I wish more people would take note of the former.
1379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15

Dariamus wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

I'd rather limit who can have a kid rather than the limit to how many... Some people do not need to reproduce


I vote only super athletes with PhDs can reproduce!


PhDs mean nothing in a war. Only those who are fit for service should reproduce!


Hiroshima would disagree





the pen has always and will always be mightier than the sword, the gun, the bomb. in the sense that without the pen, none of them would exist, and none could be used properly.
Posted 11/3/15

mdmrn wrote:

Are we really going to argue in favor of limiting how many kids a family is allowed to have? As a Dad with 4 kids, I say - that's ridiculous. We shouldn't be forcing people to conform to specific norms of what is family size. Some want a few kids, some want a lot. So long as they can afford the children, who cares? Overpopulation will always be an issue, but to allow for totalitarian control over people's lives where you are restricting their number of children through force (or forced sterilization at times in China), is outrageous and downright evil.

That said - what has curbed overpopulation in the west? Mostly culture. As the culture has changed, so has the desire to have children. People are having fewer and fewer with some western nations having negative population growth, which will be problematic for them in the long term.

TL;DR Don't limit how many children people can have, that's a forceful and vile thing to do. Eventually these things will most likely remedy themselves as cultures shift.


Tell that to Japan. The decrease in population grow is gotten to the point where there some permanent lasting damage. That cannot be fix by normal means. Meaning drastic measures are going to be taken when the problem explode in their face.

I don't like it any more than you do. You can call it evil all you want but is a necessary one. What you say is completely irresponsible. Do you know how many countries stop to exist because of over population or decrease in population grow ? a lot, a fucking lot.

TL;DR Don't limit how many children people can have, that's a forceful and vile thing to do. Eventually these things will most likely remedy themselves as cultures shift.

1379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/15
So it is then God, or Gigas, or fate or whatever else you want to call it. natural selection weeding out the countries or rather the mind sets that are unhealthy or destructive. if they don't fix it then it is their own death. if they do fix it then they have conquered the problem, and live.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/3/15 , edited 11/3/15

KarenAraragi wrote:Tell that to Japan. The decrease in population grow is gotten to the point where there some permanent lasting damage. That cannot be fix by normal means. Meaning drastic measures are going to be taken when the problem explode in their face.

Natural population decreases pose a severe economic issue because modern societies are based on the concept that each successive generation will be larger than the preceeding one. While painful, those preconceptions can be adjusted and the issues compensated for.

The eventual goal would be population stability: a 0% change in population over the long term. A regulated birth rate of ~2.1 given current mortality rates in first world countries. This does not necessarily equate to a two child per family limitation as not all families will have, or desire, two children.

Posted 11/3/15

Dariamus wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:Tell that to Japan. The decrease in population grow is gotten to the point where there some permanent lasting damage. That cannot be fix by normal means. Meaning drastic measures are going to be taken when the problem explode in their face.

Natural population decreases pose a severe economic issue because modern societies are based on the concept that each successive generation will be larger than the preceeding one. While painful, those preconceptions can be adjusted and the issues compensated for.

The eventual goal would be population stability: a 0% change in population over the long term. A regulated birth rate of ~2.1 given current mortality rates in first world countries. This does not necessarily equate to a two child per family limitation as not all families will have, or desire, two children.



Again this no apply to Japan. I was watching a report and other evaluations of Japan grow problem. I don't remember where but I do remember this. They say even if a majority of the Japaneses population start to have babies. A ratio of 3 or 4 by family. The damage is already is been done. I can be fix but is going take multiples generations and that assuming they star in the next 10 year or so.

I think 23.1 percent of the population is 65+ While 15–64 age ratio is a 63.7 percent I think. This is bad because the majority of the younger generation is no having babies according to many reports. Take 10 or 20 years and if the majority of young people still refuse to have babies. The problem is going to become a nightmare to fix.

7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/3/15 , edited 11/3/15

KarenAraragi wrote:
Again this no apply to Japan. I was watching a report and other evaluations of Japan grow problem. I don't remember where but I do remember this. They say even if a majority of the Japaneses population start to have babies. A ratio of 3 or 4 by family. The damage is already is been done. I can be fix but is going take multiples generations and that assuming they star in the next 10 year or so.


Of course it will take generations to fix. Population problems are never short term in nature. Population problems resulting from cultural issues are even more difficult. At least with China the problem is the result of policy decisions, not a natural population decrease.

The goal should remain long term population stability. A culture that takes a healthy approach towards work/life balance and embraces a modest family size of 2-3 children, with the average much closer to two. It will most likely take Japan at least another generation to begin effectively addressing the issue and two generations before the population begins to stabilize.

27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/15 , edited 11/3/15
Abortion can be considered a method of population control. I do suggest that many of you rethink what constitutes population control and why you are against it if you think that the right to bear children is more important that making sure there is enough to go around without driving ourselves to extinction.

A policy also does not need to be "forced" to produce the desired result. Merely allowing certain behaviors can help get the ball rolling.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.