One Child Policy
- Thread starter Marcus
- Start date
- Status
![[Nook]](/data/avatars/m/1/1990.jpg?1585850325){kind=avatar}
Nah, just move them and the rest will move.Josh. said:
I got an idea.
A family doesn't like the policy and they live in China.
The UN decide what country they will go to.
If the family agrees, they will go.
@Yokie
Man, I hate those kind of people, so snobby and they think they're so cool.
Can you shut up and get out of the topic? I don't want you to talk about Justin Bieber in this topic as it has null to do about it.[Nook said:
Jeremy said:
Similar to what Bulerias recently said. But what happens when we do not have the space for the required farmers to work? There will come a point when our available farming land will not be enough, the factories working to produce the food will be stretched beyond their limit, the water available does not meet the demands. I know this would not have for a very long time, but it would undoubtable happen.
I think the scares of overpopulation are exaggerations. And they go back centuries, yet it has never been a problem.Bulerias said:
It was popularized by Thomas Malthus, but his theory is flawed. "People reproduce exponentially, while food reproduces arithmetically" is not actually the case.
Huge picture, sorry... but look at the first fact: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/12/2000vs2010.jpgJeremy said:
A population increase of almost 1 billion in a decade is unprecedented. Whether this increase is actually exponential, I'm not sure, but it could very well be headed in an unsustainable direction...
Still there IS a carrying capacity for humans, we might not reach it until a very very very long time. When that time does come there should be a change how many children a person/family is able to have. Personally I think it's inevitable for a there to be a limit.
Well I think both parts are flawed, but the idea that food can only grow that slowly... well he did make that statement before the industrial revolution. The difference in food production is pretty big between then and now.Bulerias said:
But technology will meet the needs of a larger population, just like it has been in comparison to 250 years ago.
They aren't exaggerations. The rate of world population growth is still rising year after year, again as Bulerias said, the readings for 2010 were 1 billion. However, unless I am very much so mistaken, the size of the earth is not expanding...lol.Jeremy said:
Therefore, the two are eventually going to meet, and then, unless changes are made, the rate of population and therefore the demand for certain life necessities will overtake the earth's resources.
Oh. I don't know about food production -- in fact, I don't see why production would be hindered by a population increase. What I'm saying is that we'll eventually run into a wall as far as resources. Consider this...Jeremy said:
We live in a finite space -- we can't "add" more room for more people after a certain point. Even though resources are potentially infinite (growth of crops, etc), there are certain resources that are NOT (such as oil). Even potentially infinite resources have the potential to become finite (population growth contributing to less space for crops, for example).
Population rates vary. In Europe, for example, it is decreasing.Marcus said:
Also, I didn't mean that an increase in population is an exaggeration. That is obviously possible and happening now, as it has been for centuries. I'm talking about the fears of overpopulation.
True that oil is finite, but technology will have to provide for an alternative. Of course, people lived without oil a lot longer than people lived with it. It's not needed for human survival. The uses of it are pretty important today, but there are other sources of energy.
No I know, I was talking about that. I was pointing out that it is plausible, even if it is not imminent.Jeremy said:
Also this ties in with Global Warming. A result of Global Warming is the risings in sea levels. Various countries are under severe threat of "going under". Therefore, those people will need to be evacuated if solutions are not made in time.
Wouldn't you personally rather live in a well populated area rather than one whose population is very dense?
Also looking at Bulerias's chart with the increase of people, there are more endangered animals and temperature has risen. Currently in the situation we re in I think it's safe to say
More People = Higher Temperatures and Endangerment of Species
Also looking at Bulerias's chart with the increase of people, there are more endangered animals and temperature has risen. Currently in the situation we re in I think it's safe to say
More People = Higher Temperatures and Endangerment of Species
It's a good question, and one I still don't know the answer to.
People have rights to live their lives as they wish, but at the same time, our planet will not be able to sustain us in perhaps as short as a few hundred years if we don't keep our population under control.
People have rights to live their lives as they wish, but at the same time, our planet will not be able to sustain us in perhaps as short as a few hundred years if we don't keep our population under control.
Well, the temperature increase is most probably a result of GW, and nobody is sure whether or not we are at fault for that. And as are some animals becoming endangered.D1llon said:
But yes, I think we are to blame for GW, so you are right.
Mr. L
What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets!
I agree, they should make this policy to overpopulated countries, and I know it causes tons of abortions but they knew they were only allowed to have 1 child, even if they had it by mistake. Also, the rate of births is much higher than deaths.
Psychonaut
Senior Member
sup japan?
There is quite a common misconception that China is in fact running out of space, that's not the case. It's resources which are becoming the problem. You could fit every single living human in Los Angeles, standing shoulder by shoulder, and Los Angeles could fit multiple times within China, therefore the need for more space isn't really a need at all. It's resources. Resources to build houses, resources to develop raw land into a usable farms and commercial areas, and most importantly, the resources to have basic needs such as a dwelling to live in, food and water.
The Chinese Government put the one child policy into place for that reason, because they don't have enough money to shed to be able to ensure there 'mass-population' can survive when the resources reach an absolute minimum. I fully support the policy, it's helping the country and probably helping the parents in the long run, because children do cost a fair amount.
The Chinese Government put the one child policy into place for that reason, because they don't have enough money to shed to be able to ensure there 'mass-population' can survive when the resources reach an absolute minimum. I fully support the policy, it's helping the country and probably helping the parents in the long run, because children do cost a fair amount.
This is an issue I'm torn on.
Because on one hand I don't believe we should deny life. But on the other I believe it's better to have a lower population considering the amount of resources there are.
And no I don't agree with girl infantcide. Unfortunately it's common in Asian countries.):
& it stereotypes most asians. Before my mom found out I was a girl in her womb, the nurse brought out abortion papers telling my mother she wasn't going to like the news. -_-
Because on one hand I don't believe we should deny life. But on the other I believe it's better to have a lower population considering the amount of resources there are.
And no I don't agree with girl infantcide. Unfortunately it's common in Asian countries.):
& it stereotypes most asians. Before my mom found out I was a girl in her womb, the nurse brought out abortion papers telling my mother she wasn't going to like the news. -_-
- Status
Similar threads
