|
| Thread: Chinese couples now allowed two children. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted November 01, 2015 05:32 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
2) Increasing death rates. The government either directly kills humans or denies some of them access to what they need to live.
Sounds to me like certain governments are already doing it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 06:23 PM |
|
|
EnergyZ said:
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.
What if a poor woman has more than one child but does not have the financial means to pay the child bearing tax?
____________
Revelation
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 06:45 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
What if a poor woman has more than one child but does not have the financial means to pay the child bearing tax?
Ah, but that's the deal, it *shouldn't* happen. How else would she support that child if she does not have (her own) money? As strange as it seems, it would mean the child inherits poor financial state of his/her parents.
If it does, though, then I guess the woman should employ herself properly. Either way, the message should be sent: there should be less (poor) children in overpopulated countries. If that woman did not understand, her fault.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 07:17 PM |
|
|
EnergyZ said:
Ah, but that's the deal, it *shouldn't* happen. How else would she support that child if she does not have (her own) money? As strange as it seems, it would mean the child inherits poor financial state of his/her parents.
That's exactly what happens when people mindlessly reproduce though, examples are all around. Apart from the ready and willing representative of the opposite sex, it takes exactly two things to bring yet another inhabitant to this planet with fairly predetermined miserable future - sexual urge and lack of brains. No sort of taxing can cure these two.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:22, 01 Nov 2015.
|
@EnergyZ So your policy is to limit the number of kids the middle class women can have via taxation. Poor women would not care about a tax they can't pay and rich people would not care about a tax that is an insignificant part of their income.
____________
Revelation
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 07:33 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
What if a poor woman has more than one child but does not have the financial means to pay the child bearing tax?
that's one of the reasons Abortion exists, silly.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 07:37 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
No sort of taxing can cure these two.
It is more to prevent such situations. Besides, people could have one child, not two.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 08:51 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 20:53, 01 Nov 2015.
|
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.
sure, i'll bite.
1. as far as technology goes, computers and the internet(made by the u.s. government, remember) have personal info covered. nearly everything is computer documented these days; in 1st-world countries at least. so if any agency has the capabilities to extract personal info, then said agency can find out what they need, as far as who's giving birth to what. cross reference that info, with welfare, schooling, and any other information that can be found otherwise.
now, any population-monitoring agency should have all the information they need, plus or minus some rarer occurences of people living off the grid, and out of 1st-world society.
what can be done with this information? simple. find the areas that are most populated, and introduce what is needed(chemicals, acute diseases, whatever) to sterilize(and ONLY sterilize) the population; through the water supply/food that they shop for(think, FDA), into the air via "pest control"(we have mosquito sprayers here), etc. the possibilities are endless, elodin. if you live in a society, that society can be used against you just as easily as you can use that society for your benefit. people forget that. they only think of easy access and civilization as a good thing, because it mostly is, for humans. not so much for everything else.
2. (and this is one is problematic, due to the certainty of "muh human rights" outcries): people having more than X amount of kids get executed. seems to me, that welfare should be taken away first, as i see more poor people with more kids than adults who are better off financially. now, that doesn't excuse the middle-class or the rich at all; just because you have the means to take care of kids financially, doesn't mean that they should have more than others, either.
so the "execute people as soon as they bypass the X number of offspring" should be pushed across the board. which is also problematic, because the rich tend to buy themselves "get out of rules" passes all the time.
even IF an agency were to introduce chemicals, drugs, or acute diseases that made procreation impossible, word would get out, unless it was handled by a discreet few, who operated under armed guard, and were never allowed to leave whatever factory/laboratory that produced whatever was needed to control population.
and the sudden inability to reproduce, on a large scale, will raise quite a fuss, in the modern world; where people aren't even allowed to point out facts anymore.
so the summary answer to your question, elodin, is population control through war. if war is widespread enough, it will distract people sufficiently enough to employ the softer, quieter version(option 1); to take care of any that aren't wiped out through physical violence.
of course, society will almost certainly collapse under that outcome(not to say that it can't be rebuilt, though); so it would really have to be at the "no-turning-back" point. hopefully, the different societies will straighten themselves out. but i see what i described above, happening, in no later than 50-or-so years. especially now that china has taken the brakes off it's own populace. things will get much uglier, and only keep getting worse, by an ever-increasing population.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 08:51 PM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 08:59 PM |
|
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 09:07 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Birth Rates worldwide
Just to put in some numbers.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0. just to put in some other numbers. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 09:37 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:33, 01 Nov 2015.
|
elodin said:
3) Decreasing birth rates. Some Forced measure of birth control.
This. I'm not talking about a novel-like distopian thing where robotic SS guards come and snatch the second baby away from the screaming mother to recycle as food for workers. How is it working in China in the first place? Once it becomes illegal to have more than a certain amount of kids, most people will stick to the number willingly anyway, having an "illegal kid" wouldn't be exactly like downloading pirated mp3 files or not fastening your seat belt. In case of unwanted, accidental pregnancies, abortion would be the solution. (And please, let's not go back to the "abortion is murder" argument, if overpopulation becomes a menace of certain magnitude, even conservative people will start to see it as less of a taboo.)
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 09:41 PM |
|
|
|
Just ship unwanted girls to Canada and Russia, there's still plenty of empty space over here!
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 09:53 PM |
|
|
on abortion:
abortion is murder(forced death), but it is necessary if that human will further destroy a balance. culling animals is murder as well, and also necessary, if that animal destroys a balance. and calling something "evil" seriously, is both childish; and unrealistic.
death, by whatever name anyone calls it, is a necessary thing. if something lived forever, then the environments of the world would soon be overwhelmed. necessary death is needed for balance. if there is no balance in an environment, that environment will suffer. an BECAUSE an environment sustains LIFE: it supercedes anything living in it.
anyone arguing against that has faulty logic, which is why i cannot fathom anti-abortionists. logic supercedes petty human emotions.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 09:54 PM |
|
|
Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it.
By that I mean we cannot be ruled only by logic or only by emotion, even if I was very very ruled by emotions.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 11:08 PM |
|
|
@fred
There is already an abortion thread where people who think killing a fetus isn't murder explain their reasons why, paragraph by paragraph. And since by definition of law, even today, murder isn't legal, yet abortion is, a government that directs its citizens to abortion can not be called a government that directs its citizens to murder. Necessity or not, not every termination of life is called murder, even a self-defense shooting or a legal penalty of death will not be defined as murder, put aside the extraction of life at such an early stage, where it has no self-awareness, no feeling of pain, no brain, no nothing. A fetus is biologically the equivalent of an amobea.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 11:42 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:43, 01 Nov 2015.
|
@artu Certainly you have made incorrect statements about a human fetus but I'll not debate you on that in this thread.
Certainly the willful killing of an innocent young human is taking an innocent human life even if one trlies to justify killing it in the name of Population Control. Regardless of whether the human is in a womb or in a car I'd call it murder even if the government mandated the killing. Legality is not morality.
Hitler claimed marching millions of Jews through gas chambers was for the good of humanity. That was murder even though it was legal. Killing human young in the womb to lower the birth rate "for the good of humanity" is no less murder. Killing the old or chronically ill "for the good of humanity" is murder.
Introducing diseases or chemicals into the water supply or atmosphere to sterilize people is also wrong.
Some folks would justify all sorts of inhuman actions "to save the planet." I suggest we can't save the human race by casting aside our humanity.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 11:50 PM |
|
|
Well, in a situation where overpopulation is clear and present danger, if you are still completely against abortion, you will have to face much more horrifying things, this time happening to actual people who are sentient. It's as simple as that. Population control isn't eugenics, btw.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2015 11:57 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 23:58, 01 Nov 2015.
|
artu said:
@fred
There is already an abortion thread where people who think killing a fetus isn't murder explain their reasons why, paragraph by paragraph. And since by definition of law, even today, murder isn't legal, yet abortion is, a government that directs its citizens to abortion can not be called a government that directs its citizens to murder. Necessity or not, not every termination of life is called murder, even a self-defense shooting or a legal penalty of death will not be defined as murder, put aside the extraction of life at such an early stage, where it has no self-awareness, no feeling of pain, no brain, no nothing. A fetus is biologically the equivalent of an amobea.
you misunderstand my intent: the point of that post was to get across that death is necessary, and more than that, required for balance. intent is what matters; if you wish a thing dead, i define it as murder, because murder is the willful taking of a life. now, you won't see me getting upset about murder of any kind(other than an actual baby, or a child's, for emotional reasons), because murder to me, is just death, and death is necessary.
i'm not arguing against abortion, in any way, shape, or form. i never will, even if the parents are only getting an abortion because they were irresponsible. in that case, i'm all for aborting the parents too. 
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 01:58 AM |
|
|
I think women should have the right and access to abortion, and be the only one to decide if she keeps it or abort it. Maybe we can make it illegal past the sixth month, but that's about it. Abortion because of a danger of death is perfectly justified. Abortion after rape as well ; we only hear that from hardcore right wing anyways, and it's said to prove they're willing to take a stance and troll for attention both. I read a story about a girl that decided to keep the child of a rape because of how nice she was ; it made the news because the guy that raped her hired himself a lawyer to have parental visits. Talk about a life long headache.
But more importantly, it's the tool it takes on the mother's body. The father only has to produce a batch of sperm ; the mother has to give resources from her own body for 9 months. Every birth makes her weaker and weaker. Around 6 months, she did most of the job and the fetus is big enough to be granted rights like the right to live. Once the baby's out, it should be 50 % 50 % rights between the father and mother though.
|
| |
|
|
