Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Chinese couples now allowed two children.
Thread: Chinese couples now allowed two children. This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 30, 2015 09:43 PM

Elodin said:
@fred79 It is self evident that procreation is a human right.
It's not because it takes two, so it needs some kind of agreement anyway.
Apart from that - obviously, if you have a genetic hereditary disease, do you really have the "right" to procreate, no matter what?

Also - and that's funny - the basic procreation rights were never disputed, only the right to procreate as often as you want (or as often as it happens to happen if left to your own device).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 30, 2015 11:31 PM

One child pr. couple, given everyone stays in one relationship and also get at least one child would within generations quickly diminish the population. A billion, half a billion, US size, etc...

Two children would keep the population a lot more stable. I think now that China has seen a large increase in wealth and hopefully lowering of infant mortality, the causes that led to the huge population increase in the first place hopefully isn't there anymore.

Btw. it reminds me after watching downton abbey where we've 3 couples where one of the spouses dies, but after getting only 1 child, that for the population to maintain, the spouse left alive would have to
1) find a new spouse
2) have 2 children with the new spouse
Which I think is pretty incredible to think about.. get 2 children for every two people (one pair) and the population is somewhat stable (though slowly lowering irl), but if one pair only manages to get one child and one spouse then is no more.. you're left where you started and probably actually worse off in reality.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted October 30, 2015 11:35 PM
Edited by Elodin at 23:37, 30 Oct 2015.

JollyJoker said:
Elodin said:
@fred79 It is self evident that procreation is a human right.
It's not because it takes two, so it needs some kind of agreement anyway.



Let me clarify my statement.  It is a self-evident fundamental human right for any adult human to procreate with another consenting human adult.

JollyJoker said:
Apart from that - obviously, if you have a genetic hereditary disease, do you really have the "right" to procreate, no matter what?

Also - and that's funny - the basic procreation rights were never disputed, only the right to procreate as often as you want (or as often as it happens to happen if left to your own device).


It is exactly none of the government"s business who I chose to procreate with as long as that person is a willing adult.

If I have a genetic condition that predisposes me to Alzeheimers or blindness or even the terrible disease of liberalism ( ) the government has no right to oppress my natural right to procreate as much as I and my chosen willing adult partner wish to do.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 31, 2015 12:07 AM

OhforfSake said:
One child pr. couple, given everyone stays in one relationship and also get at least one child would within generations quickly diminish the population. A billion, half a billion, US size, etc...


*sighs happily with hands propping face up, staring up at the stars with a smile on his face*

what you stated here was like a tranquilizer. i feel soothed and calm, just imagining.


...then i realized that "quickly" wouldn't happen in my lifetime.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 31, 2015 04:28 AM

Elodin, does that mean you support the legalization of incest? Between consenting adults, of course.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EnergyZ
EnergyZ


Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
posted October 31, 2015 10:11 AM

Elodin said:
Why do people put up with a government that dictates how many kids they can have? They should rose up and overthrow the communist freaks and put in place a legitimate government.


There is something being called overpopulation. When a child is born, you'd expect it in a dozen years to have a job, to feed itself and have a decent life. Don't you think the number of people would compromise such a situation? At least they are lucky enough they have a giant country, where one billion people could live.
____________
Come and visit the Might and Magic Wikia!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted October 31, 2015 10:20 PM


mvassilev said:
Elodin, does that mean you support the legalization of incest? Between consenting adults, of course.


I think an incestuous marriage is unwise. However if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman by Supreme Court fiat a man should be able to marry his brother or sister or even his father or mother. In the US the Supreme Court has decided that it alone has the right to define marriage and the SCOTUS dreams up whatever it wants to impose on the people so who knows what they will decide when such cases come before them.

EnergyZ said:
Elodin said:
Why do people put up with a government that dictates how many kids they can have? They should rose up and overthrow the communist freaks and put in place a legitimate government.


There is something being called overpopulation. When a child is born, you'd expect it in a dozen years to have a job, to feed itself and have a decent life. Don't you think the number of people would compromise such a situation? At least they are lucky enough they have a giant country, where one billion people could live.


I think a child is profoundly better off being born in poverty than being killed in the womb at the behest of some tyranical government official.

It is interesting that folks who are so concerned with overpopulation never think it is their life that is the problem. I'd have more respect of the Green Population Control Movement if their leaders would stand up and say, "There are too many people on earth so we are going to kill ourselves as an example of what others should do for the good of the planet" and then immediately commit suicide on live TV. Instead they want to kill others "for the good of the planet."

Maybe the entire Chinese government will be the first to kill themselves for the good of the planet but don't bet on it.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EnergyZ
EnergyZ


Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
posted October 31, 2015 10:25 PM

Nobody said about killing anyone, just that there ought to be less "contact".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted October 31, 2015 10:48 PM
Edited by Elodin at 22:52, 31 Oct 2015.

So...you want every straight couple to be required to use contraceptives every time they have sex? And how is the government going to enforce that?

Can the government also mandate safe sex practices for gays?

Should a woman who has reached her quota of children be forcibly sterilized? Should a woman who becomes pregnant after reaching her quota be imprisoned? What if a woman has one child left on her quota and becomes pregnant with triplets?

Does a woman have a right to snuff out human life in her womb as often as she wishes but not the right to give birth as often as she wishes?
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 31, 2015 10:53 PM

Elodin said:
So...you want every


This is all I read.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EnergyZ
EnergyZ


Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
posted October 31, 2015 11:27 PM

No, but their goal is (or, rather was) to reduce the number of births. It is hard to control the number of births, but not impossible.

In all, there should be some balance - to have overpopulated countries have less children born, while the underpopulated ones have more children.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 01, 2015 08:13 AM

Elodin, I'm not fond of falling into our old pattern here. Let me just say that rights always have duties lurking somewhere in the wake of them, most of all when it comes to procreation.
In this case, procreational righrs would heavily depend on duties with regard to the result of those rights and the consequences for the rest of society.

Since this "right to procreate" affects others, if society as a whole is supposed to have any meaning and control about its development, it's obvious that in this case duty is more important than right (this is also the reason why many countries don't hand over educational rights completely to parents).

In the end, it's not only the individual that has rights; the "guardians of the common good" as the advocates of the rights of society must have rights as well, otherwise a society cannot thrive.

If you think about it, it's comparable with rationing something. In times of crisis, it's usual and normal that certain goods are rationed, to avoid desaster. In this regard limiting the population growth is the same thing.

This needs a willingness to avoid pregnancies, and we would still be animals if we were not knowing the rules here and unable to do that. And if there are riligious or other beliefs that would declare this a taboo, those beliefs should be long gone together with the times that bred them.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 01, 2015 09:34 AM
Edited by artu at 21:15, 01 Nov 2015.

JollyJoker said:
If you think about it, it's comparable with rationing something. In times of crisis, it's usual and normal that certain goods are rationed, to avoid desaster.

I was going to give exactly the same example but you beat me to it. I don't think we are in a phase in history where it's necessary for the governments to dictate how many children we are allowed to have, yet. I am not especially informed about the specific conditions in China, although, we know theirs is quite an oppressive regime by 21th century standards and I see no reason to assume this is an exception.

However, if we're talking hypothetically, all "self-evident" rights, including procreating limitless, are established under certain  social and environmental conditions. If these conditions change drastically, what constitutions consider rights will adapt accordingly, simply because survival of the society as a whole will always come first. Even countries that are considered the cradle of capitalism and free market sold food on rations during war time. Now, simply imagine, in the future, conditions brought along with war were permanent, then buying food on rations would be the standard and our "rights" would involve being able to buy some amount of food, instead of whatever we want. There is freedom of press, but then there is a certain class of information in every country that is considered "state secrets" and they lock you up if you try to share that. Another example would be the difference between alcohol and, say, heroin. There is no theoretical difference between the right to sell alcohol and the right to sell heroin. When it was introduced in the beginning of the 20th century, heroin was a legally sold pharmacy product. However, most societies experienced and decided that this "right" had too much of a backfire on society to sustain. (On the other hand, trying to prohibit alcohol in the 1920's (U.S.) resulted in bigger problems and made organized crime members rich as kings, since it was a soft "drug" and most people had the tradition of consuming it without any major problems.) Of course, ideally, the rights of the individual should be as broad as possible, there are many governments in this world and some are much more oppressive than others, it is quite an observable phenomenon that regimes that give more freedom to the individual are not only preferable for marginal individuals, on the contrary, in the long run, the society thrives better as a whole, too. Freedom as much as possible results in relatively less government corruption, better science, better arts, better education, more productive and creative people. You can criticize the policies of even the most liberal ones and disagree with their legal system at certain points. (While I'm ok with heroin being illegal, I think weed shouldn't be.) But the details don't change the core mentality. If something turns into too much of a risk, the legal system modifies itself accordingly. This certainly has a potential of power abuse and that's why we came up with concepts like separation of powers, habeas corpus and institutions such as supreme courts, high courts, etc. People should always be alert about what is presented as the law to them.

Yet, saying procreating endlessly is a right because it predates governments doesn't make any sense, a government's function is not to preserve the natural state of mankind, which also involved strong murdering the weak, tribes abandoning the old and the sick, in the days of hunter-gatherers, even children were directly getting killed in order to prevent disease spreading or slowing down the group. That was their version of preserving the common good, they mostly had no other chance. And if we reach to a phase in history when overpopulation becomes a much more serious and immediate threat to general public and ecological balance in general, governments will surely regulate how many children a couple can have and if such a time comes, they should. After a few generations, people will consider it the norm anyway.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted November 01, 2015 11:22 AM

The overpopulation problem is usually oversimplified. The global counter is fairly meaningless when there are huge areas with minimal population density and small ones where people are stacked like cattle in great numbers. The US and China are pretty equal in size but the latter is more than 4 times more populated despite having fairly similar climate so comparing "human rights" and what is generally "right" in these two instances really makes no sense. Democracy and oppression aren't ephemeral notions that exist outside of space and time so you can say that one country will always be democratic or oppressive no matter the circumstances - i.e. it will be quite naive to claim for example that the US would be the same democracy if it had 4 times its current population. Same applies to each and every country (of course there are always many other factors but this one is pretty significant).  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 01, 2015 11:43 AM

@Zenofex

Are you talking about population control in specific or do you think it is harder for a crowded nation to execute democracy in general?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted November 01, 2015 11:58 AM

More like that the type of government and respectively how much freedom it allows to its citizens/subjects is tied to a fairly big set of conditions with population size being one of the more important ones. Respectively comparing the freedom level of two (or more) otherwise similar from geographical perspective countries, one of which is much more or less populous than the other(s) without taking this factor into account isn't going to result in a very accurate analysis.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
posted November 01, 2015 04:45 PM

No business of mine what China's government is doing. And whatever I think, if it goes against their own ideologies they won't change... everyone can change, but everyone has a different idea about what to change and how and what to keep the same. Same goes for the governments.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted November 01, 2015 05:00 PM

Speaking specifically of global population it can only be forcibly lowered by governments in three ways:

1) Shipping people offworld to another planet.  Not currently an option.

2) Increasing death rates. The government either directly kills humans or denies some of them access to what they need to live.

3)  Decreasing birth rates. Some Forced measure of birth control.

Those who believe the governments of the world should engage in population control please explain exactly how the population of the world should be controlled.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EnergyZ
EnergyZ


Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
posted November 01, 2015 05:07 PM

Elodin said:

Those who believe the governments of the world should engage in population control please explain exactly how the population of the world should be controlled.


Easy. You have to pay taxes for having a second child, until the child is an adult. But this should only be applied to overpopulated countries, as you know it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted November 01, 2015 05:12 PM

Yeah, let's start with Africa. Make them pay!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0537 seconds