limited child policy
what would you say or do if a 10-child policy was enacted? 5? 2? 1? 0?
for those who don't know, this is where you are prohibited to have more than (x) children
yarp
Side Score: 5
|
 |
narp
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
If those who intend to have large families have the financial means to support their off spring then I feel that such an imposition would be wrong. However, those low lives who breed like rabbits without the wherewithal to support their brats, usually with the intention of receiving benefits from the taxpayer, should be neutered or spayed like dogs and cats after the first two. Off with the gollies for men, and exploding suppositories for the females. Side: yarp
2
points
that seems to me like a more narrow minded view only with relation to the economy. don't you think there are physical limitations as to what the planet can provide which is aside from the economy? also, for what reason do you believe the poor are poor? it also seems your argument bestows fewer rights on those with less finance. is that what you believe? why? Side: yarp
|
There have been significant problems with these sorts of policies, and I am unaware of any time when their benefits have outweighed their costs. I think that if one wants to control for domestic population one must identify and target the causes of birthrates in the country - household income, child labor laws, healthcare quality and access, child mortality rates, career tracks, etc. Admittedly, any form of artificial birthrate control is going to have limited success simply because the issue is so complex and fundamentally biologically driven. Side: narp
1
point
if one wants to control for domestic population one must identify and target the causes of birthrates in the country avoid controversy with an indirect approach then? it's too bad i agree birthrate control is going to have limited success simply because the issue is so complex and fundamentally biologically driven. just wondering, what factor do you think most makes issues complex? i believe it may be due to the attention an issue receives, but even were that true, what makes something worthy of attention? haven't we shunned much of our biology in favour of almost random social whims? infants have to learn our monophasic sleep cycle and abandon their biphasic one. we insist on taking sometimes poisonous drugs. exercising. dieting. there are many small decisions we make as well which make no benefit or even harm health or whatever other biological goal, but rather serve our desires Side: narp
I think that the most complicated variable in controlling birthrate is the very basic genetic drives towards sex and reproduction, generally some of the strongest evolutionary drives alongside the instinct for survival. I do not think we are shunning or violating our evolutionary biology when we act in ways that are detrimental to our well-being or reproductive odds. Evolution does not select for the optimal, ideal specimen but rather applies a selective force that establishes a minimal degree of function for survival. We are a compilation not of the best attributes but of the better attributes which minimally guaranteed the survival of our species. That we are not perfectly adaptive and regularly dysfunctional does not mean that we are acting against our biology, only that we are an imperfect specimen that is merely functional enough to survive. The matter if further complicated by circumstance, since an advantageous attribute (hoarding, greed, jealousy, even depression) might be disadvantageous in other situations; this gives such attributes a decent chance of being passed on even though for some people they will be more disadvantage than otherwise. Side: narp
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
