Population Control

Dec 2011
2,198
#21
I agree that experts shouldn't be making personal decisions for people, but they don't, the laws are made by representatives that we elect. I don't believe in making laws to restrict the amount of children people can have, but you seem to be suggesting that the government should intervene where people cannot afford children. How would that work?
 
Feb 2018
227
Manila
#22
With all due respect, "experts" and "learned professors" should not be making personal decisions for people. Otherwise, where is one's freedom? Each person should choose if they wish to have children and how many. There aren't many more personal decisions and human rights choices. Now, if somebody chooses to have children they cannot support, that may be a matter of public policy.
Then I am interested to see YOUR own answers. Please answer my questions even according to your humble opinion:

Is China right to implement birth rate control? two children per couple.

Am I right that a country should focus on creating well-learned population population even it is few for economic growth than asking the populace to procreate a lot even most families cannot afford to raise and feed their children?

Am I right that if mass production of goods is the problem, AIs are better than using your huge population to manufacture mostly cheap and defective products?
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,483
Sydney
#23
one could dwelt on the fate of India and China , not totally dissimilar structure in the 1970ies
China held it's population while India didn't , the future will tell who was right
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,996
US
#24
Then I am interested to see YOUR own answers. Please answer my questions even according to your humble opinion:

Is China right to implement birth rate control? two children per couple.

Am I right that a country should focus on creating well-learned population population even it is few for economic growth than asking the populace to procreate a lot even most families cannot afford to raise and feed their children?

Am I right that if mass production of goods is the problem, AIs are better than using your huge population to manufacture mostly cheap and defective products?
Well, it is just my opinion and I thought the post you quoted from me clearly speaks my position. Again, I believe in freedom - individual freedom, with a concern to the community or tribe or neighborhood - whatever term one chooses to use for society. I should decide if I wish to have zero offspring or ten. Such a personal decision is nobody business. Now, if I have 10 children, then come to you consistently and constantly for a hand out because I cannot afford them, then this changes things somewhat. I should be able to support my decision by caring for the children I have. So, no I am not in favor of a government telling me how many children I should have. I don't think that should be the role of government. Do you?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,996
US
#25
I agree that experts shouldn't be making personal decisions for people, but they don't, the laws are made by representatives that we elect. I don't believe in making laws to restrict the amount of children people can have, but you seem to be suggesting that the government should intervene where people cannot afford children. How would that work?
I see your post above follows mine. You did not quote me, but your post seems to fit as a response to my post, so I will feel free to respond to your post as if you are quoting me. I don't know of any nation with a freely and fairly elected government of representatives who has imposed a limit on the number of children one may have. Do you? It is typically totalitarian governments that do such things. Hence, this is why they are termed totalitarian. They impose upon people as if they are slaves or serfs, telling people what they can and can't do, even down to the act of procreation - a most basic and vital human act and right. As for the government caring for children whom people have, but can't care for, this is not ideal. Creating an environment where people can get jobs to support their family is a government function. Private, charitable organizations helping those who are in need is better. Communities where family and neighbors look out for each other and help each other is ideal.
 
Dec 2011
2,198
#26
Rodger, I never said that a democracy had ever imposed a limit on children. In your earlier post you seemed to suggest that the government should intervene when people cannot afford to have children. In your last comment you say that the government's role is to ensure that there are jobs so that people can work to support their family. But there are people on low-wage jobs, who have, let's say, 5 children, and they don't really have enough money to raise a family that size. There are whole communities like that.
(The quote button doesn't seem to work for me).
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,996
US
#27
Rodger, I never said that a democracy had ever imposed a limit on children. In your earlier post you seemed to suggest that the government should intervene when people cannot afford to have children. In your last comment you say that the government's role is to ensure that there are jobs so that people can work to support their family. But there are people on low-wage jobs, who have, let's say, 5 children, and they don't really have enough money to raise a family that size. There are whole communities like that.
(The quote button doesn't seem to work for me).
Ok. My apologies then. Look, I am sympathetic to helping others. I don't believe government is the most efficient way of doing things, simply because 1) bureaucrats get paid well and tend to multiple like rabbits (after all, who is their "boss?' The taxpayer, who doesn't have time or knowledge to keep things in check), and 2) politicians get votes by "giving things" to their constituents and we all know nothing is free. Giving something to one means taking from another. I have worked in fields where people have basically admitted that they have children to increase their benefits: housing, food, cash, etc. In a situation like that, I still don't wish to tell people how many children to have, but I do believe we can tell them how much we will support them, financially. Charitable organizations are suited for this kind of help. People freely give to these organizations. It is their choice to support (or not).
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,483
Sydney
#28
. the only two proven ways of controlling population are starvation and educating women .
the more the women are educated the less the birthrate , food is an absolute limit on human number
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,414
Florania
#29
this is interesting,can you specify the verse no or the book or anything?
. the only two proven ways of controlling population are starvation and educating women .
the more the women are educated the less the birthrate , food is an absolute limit on human number
If feminism is our friend of population control, why so many people dread it?
 

Similar History Discussions