Jump to content

Welcome to Green Day Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

One Child Policy

Debate GDC

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31
I'm saxy.

I'm saxy.
  • Little One

  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined Sep 12, 2012
  • 6 rep
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Check your sock drawer.
I think that the one child policy is nessesary to keep the population somewhat manageable. As everyone knows, right now the world can barely sustain its huge human population. With this policy, although there are some cons, eventually the population will straighten out: A top-heavy population doesn't stay top-heavy forever. Eventually, the massive older generation will die off, helping to correct the rediculous amount of people who live here.
Yes, this policy infringes on human rights; but isn't it even crueler to raise a generation in utter poverty, with only an overpopulated, under-regulated world to look at? A world with almost no natural beauty, because it was all cleared away to make room for this new generation?
They should keep the policy. It has some serious cons, but the pros far outweigh them.

#32
Juliette

Juliette
  • Wanderlust

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,978 posts
  • Joined May 04, 2007
  • 951 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland
While I understand that over-population is a huge problem, I think people should be allowed to have children if they want. That said, I think that only people who have the means to support children should be allowed to have them. For example, in third world countries where people get pregnant because they don't have access to contraceptives or simply aren't educated in these things, and children are born into terrible conditions and will most likely suffer and die at a young age. Personally I'd say that's a worse issue. Equally in the UK for example, and I know these are generalisations, but there are a lot of teenagers / young people who get pregnant accidently or whatever, and keep the baby despite not being in a position to support it.
I know this sounds like I'm saying only rich people should be able to have kids, and that's not what I mean. But I think that stopping incompetent parents from having children all over the world is important and would have a significant impact on the population as well.

#33
Vesper

Vesper
  • Channelling Her

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,990 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,130 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

While I understand that over-population is a huge problem, I think people should be allowed to have children if they want. That said, I think that only people who have the means to support children should be allowed to have them. For example, in third world countries where people get pregnant because they don't have access to contraceptives or simply aren't educated in these things, and children are born into terrible conditions and will most likely suffer and die at a young age. Personally I'd say that's a worse issue. Equally in the UK for example, and I know these are generalisations, but there are a lot of teenagers / young people who get pregnant accidently or whatever, and keep the baby despite not being in a position to support it.
I know this sounds like I'm saying only rich people should be able to have kids, and that's not what I mean. But I think that stopping incompetent parents from having children all over the world is important and would have a significant impact on the population as well.


I think that sounds like a good idea. Only problem is, how does a politician or someone with the power to do it, put a spin on different rules for different people and still get elected?



On another note, apparently there was a politician in Australia a few years ago (she didn't get elected) who had one idea that if a woman had a baby and needed state support she'd get it the first time, because once is an "honest" mistake, the second time she'd get half of what she had for the first one because two mistakes is pushing it... the third time she wouldn't get any help financially for the child because surely you can't make the same mistake, like that, three times.

#34
Johnny.

Johnny.
  • Supermodel Robot

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Joined Jan 11, 2012
  • 301 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
hmm well i read how some people are saying they support the one child rule since it's got pros to it, but what about all the female infanticide? im not sure what they're expecting to happen when all these boys reach the age of reproducing.

#35
Juliette

Juliette
  • Wanderlust

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,978 posts
  • Joined May 04, 2007
  • 951 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland

I think that sounds like a good idea. Only problem is, how does a politician or someone with the power to do it, put a spin on different rules for different people and still get elected?

Well, I suppose you couldn't. Really the only way to do that is to have a more educated & intelligent society and that's pretty unlikely to happen.

#36
Comrade

Comrade
  • Razzamataz

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,163 posts
  • Joined Aug 31, 2008
  • 4,746 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
I don't think it is right on an ethical level for people to be told to only have one child, but for the sake of the planet Earth, people should be socially and financially encouraged to have only one. State sponsorship of the first child - increased child benefits for the first born and reduced or no benefits for subsequent children.

Overpopulation is the single biggest threat we face as a species and as a planet. It is the root cause of every issue humanity faces. It will define this century with it's impact and how it is dealt with. This will be a century of untold and epic-scaled human tragedy as a result of it. Our ability to increase crop yields is slowing down even faster than the population is rising - it's not even a proportional decline. China, India and America are going to suffer mass, mass shortages of food mid-century. The west coast of America is drying out, the aquifers based around the Colorado only have about 20 years left in them at current rates.

Unless hydroponics are massively invested in and the technology is made cheaper and easier to run on a mass scale, and we stop growing crops for bio-fuels and invest more in nuclear and renewable energy sources, vast swathes of the world are fucked. Europe is lucky - we still have a surplus and soon to decrease population once the baby-boomers die off. Africa is only going to get worse too. Japan won't be having a great time either. Part of the long term solution is without doubt in single child families. Also - less people around means increased wealth. Less to be shared. Who wouldn't want that? :P

#37
Shoot That Fucker Down

Shoot That Fucker Down
  • Insomniac

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts
  • Joined Oct 03, 2005
  • 660 rep
  • Age:28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Punk Rock Hell
Here we go:

Posted Image

#38
Guest_Honey Emerald_*

Guest_Honey Emerald_*
  • Joined --
  • 0 rep
In reality... the problem is that we need to educate the older population as well as the younger on how to use sustainable resources of energy, recycling, conservation and gardening (without plants we can not have enough fresh water or fresh air)...
These things should be the norm, not the unexpected. If society followed those 4 simple things... population would not be a problem and the Earth would sustain us just fine.

What we really have is an overabundance of people who do not have that training. They are learning from people who never recieved that training, therefore they are continuing the ritualistic practices of a much older population that did not know any better.

#39
Heyhobilliejoe..

Heyhobilliejoe..
  • Brat

  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Joined Apr 28, 2012
  • 15 rep
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow, Scotland, UK
The One Child Policy is how going too cause major problems in China now. In terms of funding pensions ( as in the future more older people means not many of working ages to pay taxes etc) So China might have to rethink this policy, as its gonna really fuck them over.

Edited by Heyhobilliejoe.., 27 September 2012 - 07:06 AM.


#40
Vesper

Vesper
  • Channelling Her

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,990 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,130 rep
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

The One Child Policy is how going too cause major problems in China now. In terms of funding pensions ( as in the future more older people means not many of working ages to pay taxes etc) So China might have to rethink this policy, as its gonna really fuck them over.


That's all very well, but what about other problems - resources etc. if they don't keep up the policy?

#41
Guest_MadeInRatCity_*

Guest_MadeInRatCity_*
  • Joined --
  • 0 rep
And after all this world's so full of shit it's better to have no child. Freaks me out!!

it's my personal view don't take it any other way. Individual right.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate, GDC

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users