Population Control

Sir Codin said:

My issue with birth quotas personally is that I just don't feel like it's a moral thing to tell a family "oh, you can't have this child because our resources are strapped." On a practical level it seems to make sense, but if the couple wants to have the child this is seen as an oppressive slap in the face.

Some couples love having lots of children. I don't know or understand why on a personal level but they just do and I for one think that pro-choice means "pro-choice." Just like how I think abortion should be a choice, so too do I think having the child should be so as well. As much as I complain about the ineffective nature of voluntaryism, sometimes it has its place.

Click to expand...

In situations where there's no population issue I'm totally with you. In situations like China, I think the good of a nation full of people probably needs to come first over people's personal desires for a large family.

I wasn't gonna bother with this with the day I was having but I think it's paramount I discredit this false narrative you're spinning really for good here.

Maple Leaf said:

I felt like there was no point in replying to Mr. Echo, but here goes. Since we have established laws (what a novel concept) against what was genocide (we're agreeing), no, the new immigrants cannot do that.

Click to expand...

I did not ask if they legally could. I asked if it would be ok with you if they did. The Natives had laws and customs too. I was highlighting the massive flaw in your morality over the subject.

Also, the adjective "eugenic" and the noun "eugenics" have different meanings.

Click to expand...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenic?s=t

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics?s=t

One is the practice and one is the theory. Most dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster etc) do not distinguish them as separate terms to begin with. (Oxford simply refers to Eugenic as the act of Eugenics)

So no, you're wrong here.

Your description of the noun is accurate.

Click to expand...

Yes because unlike you I've researched the theory.

However, abortion tends to be eugenic in nature.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Abortions of deformed fetuses or fetuses that will be heavily disabled could be considered eugenic, abortions for financial or personal reasons, health risks to the mother, as a result of rape or other mitigating personal reasons have absolutely nothing to do with eugenics and cannot be considered eugenic.

You see, this is something that appalls even Fox News and the pro-life crowd; no echo chamber here. Research the Donohue?Levitt hypothesis.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like it's hard to appall the reactionaries at Fox.

The Donohue-Levitt hypothesis relates mostly to crime trends falling in the post Wade v Roe years. That doesn't at all support the belief that Abortion is a form of state sponsored eugenics.

Last but not least, I never said that abortion hampers "white growth." It hampers growth. Hence, we do not have a massive population problem like other countries. We're not China; we might never need a one-child policy.

Click to expand...

"P.S. I meant that "rampant immigration" replaces, or perhaps exceeds, the losses of abortion"

"while foreigners inundate our lands."

"Since then, a staggering 58 million "American" fetuses"

"This is demographic replacement"

It's pretty clear what you meant with these statements. By demographic replacement you had to be talking about whites because they're the only group that has slipped behind in their 'market share' of the ethnic pie in America. Black/Mixed race Americans have seen consistent and continuing rises in their number. At best you were showing you've done as little research into the growth of minority groups as you have in eugenics and white growth rates, at worse I was absolutely correct about your narrative. Neither looks great. We already know that your claims about stagnating population growth are false, and we already know that the immigration claim doesn't hold up either. I don't think it really matters if you were pushing the white genocide myth or were just completely wrong with your claims due to ignorance on the matter. Either way your argument holds no water in the real world.

Minorities are more likely to get abortions than whites, so I highly doubt abortion is causing any demographic shift against whites, and if it is, it has little impact. Abortion is not causing any white genocide.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

Maple Leaf said:

What is reading comprehension?

I never mentioned "white genocide," and thus abortion was never connected to it. Also, while I did mention demographic replacement, I made it clear that immigrants are doing the replacing. (Actually, minorities being likelier than whites to get abortions contributed to the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis.)

Click to expand...

Okay, remove the phrase "white genocide" from my post. I mentioned "white genocide" because the topic is very similar to this.

The point was that abortion isn't causing any demographic shifts against whites. If immigrants - non-white immigrants - are replacing whites and the discussion is talking about abortions, there is a strong implication. My post merely provided the stats that back up Hands's argument.

no government has no right, i think it's personal issue

SunsetGreen said:

no government has no right, i think it's personal issue

Click to expand...

Could you go into more detail please?

I really don't think there's a definite answer on this one. Although some countries may find themselves in a desperate need to control population growth, there are always negative consequences to doing so. I know that in China, many girls were orphaned by parents who wanted baby boys as a result of the one-child policy.

Isn't there a huge lack of females going on in Asia because of this and is causing its own problems?

gimmepie said:

Could you go into more detail please?

Click to expand...

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like he's referring to what Bad Sheep and Maple Leaf were talking prior to his point - i.e. abortion - in which the statement is about the choice for abortions being from the individual, not controlled by the government.

Lucid said:

Isn't there a huge lack of females going on in Asia because of this and is causing its own problems?

Click to expand...

I would argue that's more a result of their culture than directly the fault of population control methods.

El Héroe Oscuro said:

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like he's referring to what Bad Sheep and Maple Leaf were talking prior to his point - i.e. abortion - in which the statement is about the choice for abortions being from the individual, not controlled by the government.

Click to expand...

Probably. I would think though that keeping the population safe and healthy is very much the responsibility of the government.

gimmepie said:

I would argue that's more a result of their culture than directly the fault of population control methods.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the 1 child per household law tho. I read somewhere that India is dealing with a similar issue in some places but I can't find the link. Of course it's cultural, male children are more valuable in most cultures, but as a result I think there's about 33 million more men then women as of 2014 there. When it comes to the sex coin flip medically speaking for every 100 females 107 males are born. So there's no reason other then the obvious why those numbers are so lopsided.

Lucid said:

I was referring to the 1 child per household law tho. I read somewhere that India is dealing with a similar issue in some places but I can't find the link. Of course it's cultural, male children are more valuable in most cultures, but as a result I think there's about 33 million more men then women as of 2014 there. When it comes to the sex coin flip medically speaking for every 100 females 107 males are born. So there's no reason other then the obvious why those numbers are so lopsided.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with that.

Lucid said:

I was referring to the 1 child per household law tho. I read somewhere that India is dealing with a similar issue in some places but I can't find the link. Of course it's cultural, male children are more valuable in most cultures, but as a result I think there's about 33 million more men then women as of 2014 there. When it comes to the sex coin flip medically speaking for every 100 females 107 males are born. So there's no reason other then the obvious why those numbers are so lopsided.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that ended in 2015 though? At least China ended that policy then I believe.

El Héroe Oscuro said:

Wasn't that ended in 2015 though? At least China ended that policy then I believe.

Click to expand...

Yes but it doesn't matter, it's effects are going to hang around for more then a while. That's a huge imbalance that won't fix itself for a bit. I think it would be fair to chalk it up to an unforeseen consequence of the law and culture but it is one to take into account when discussing these things.

Outside of encouraging safe sex practices, especially use of contraception, there isn't much that a government can do to curb population growth without some rather sinister adverse effects. In particular the one child policy in China is something I considered a complete abomination. It's good that it's been ended but we can still study the effects. There was a mathematical anomaly in the number of male births reported compared to the number of female births. Basic biology should tell us this is 50-50, but we can see on page 27 of this article that this isn't the case. What, exactly, is happening with these "missing females"? Best case scenario is that they simply aren't being registered with the Chinese government, which still presents some hurdles for the parents of these young girls. However, in some cases, it would be naive to assume that something more perverse couldn't be happening. It's also important to note that, according to the same article, many theorize that the imbalance in the sex ratio, particularly in more remote provinces, could be driving a rise in sex-related crimes against women. To me it's incredibly sick to expose the women of China to such an oppressive and dangerous environment simply to curb overpopulation; while it certainly is an issue in China, overpopulation is much, much worse in South Asia and Southeast Asia (think India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.). China still maintains an economy and a standard of living that, while developing, are above average for the region.

What can be done? It's hard to say. Any intervention against global overpopulation has been proven inhumane and ineffective. For one, it promotes eugenics. How do we determine who deserves to have children and who doesn't? Eventually, the human population will reach its carrying capacity. It's a horrifying thought, because it means that most new births will place people in living situations that are so poor that they can't sustain their own existence. The best thing that can be done is to dilute political power at the very top of the global economy and attempt to redistribute resources to people who are suffering all over the world. Ruling out a revolution would, at this point, be silly.

Lucid said:

Yes but it doesn't matter, it's effects are going to hang around for more then a while. That's a huge imbalance that won't fix itself for a bit. I think it would be fair to chalk it up to an unforeseen consequence of the law and culture but it is one to take into account when discussing these things.

Click to expand...

Oh mot definitely, I agree with the fact that it is going to have consequences on the population out there. I was just trying to confirm my thought process of it still existed. Yes, it's going to damage the ratio out there, but at least the policy was upturned.

I see population control as the one singular aspect of life where the government should have the right to restrict the freedoms of its populace. It has gotten to a point now where it's probably too late to save what's left of the Earth because it has become clear that the human race is incapable of overcoming the base urge to procreate. If they can't make a simple conscious decision to override the programming of their biological clocks, then somebody has to step in and make that decision for them.

I don't like the idea of the government controlling its people like this, but there's simply too much at stake. Everything is at stake, really.

I get increasingly frustrated with people's inability to understand that their choices are "don't procreate" or "live to see the apocalypse." When I try to talk to people about it, the most common response I run into is "...but I want children," as though nothing I've said can register through their single-mindedness. If it comes to it, I'm absolutely comfortable with any government deeming them unfit to make their own reproductive decisions.

Well... If you you want my honest opinion.. It doesn't really matter if it were to happen.. I mean, if we keep using the resources the way we use them, we'll run out and cause nature to die and it's apocalypse by then. We're fucked either way, unless we change the way we live which is impossible because a vast majority of the population drive vehicles that require fuel which puts toxic vapors in the air, and most can't afford an economical car!! Funny how this game works right? Or, the dumping of fuel into the ocean?? Yeah, we can't forget about that. That's just one of the many problems.

As to would they? I'm not sure.. Who knows what their true agenda is behind closed doors??

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

Well... If you you want my honest opinion.. It doesn't really matter if it were to happen.. I mean, if we keep using the resources the way we use them, we'll run out and cause nature to die and it's apocalypse by then. We're ****ed either way, unless we change the way we live which is impossible because a vast majority of the population drive vehicles that require fuel which puts toxic vapors in the air, and most can't afford an economical car!! Funny how this game works right? Or, the dumping of fuel into the ocean?? Yeah, we can't forget about that. That's just one of the many problems.

As to would they? I'm not sure.. Who knows what their true agenda is behind closed doors??

Click to expand...

This is the bleakest and most real post here. He's right. Even if there was less of us, our lifestyle will still be our end.

And to mention.. If they were to go through with a depopulation tactic, anybody making 6 figure income and more are basically safe, the rest will be removed from the planet. Depopulation would remove those that can't support themselves, those that leech off others to support themselves, those that barely get by but support themselves, and those that are successful and rich but not "wealthy". Hell, even families that make hundred's of thousands would be killed. Really, it's all a money game and who's the most fortunate as to whether they would survive or not.

The real question is... Is if they were to do something like depopulating the planet, how would they approach it? Deadly gas in the air? radiation? Militias gunning us down? Camps? Nuke?