Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women. For comparison, there are 23m boys below the age of 20 in Germany, France and Britain combined and around 40m American boys and young men. So within ten years, China faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe’s three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage, untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide.
In the US we have a generation of super-moms with a "we don't need no stinkin' man" attitude and then we have this report.
The irony is both seem to be forgetting without the other there is no reproduction.
The world is not in need of nearly as much reproduction as there currently is, neither is china or the US as countries. In fact humanity would have a lot to gain if all countries adopted chinas one-child model. The ammount of resources needed to supply a population of >6 billion people in a functional way is already a problem. And regardless of if china get some reproduction problems or even if china just magically disappeared to mars, we're still becoming way too many way too fast, yet we are still not putting any restrictions. Our reproduction capabilities are tuned for a time of desperation for food, and overall exposure to nature with all it's hazards, now that we can live very safely and have kids with a comparatively extremely low risk of childdeath, our numbers are running off the charts.
Basically people need to stop having kids all the time. That's it or we will have to deal with a ****load of problems in a relatively close future.
All I can say about chinas situation is that it's their own fault, but at some point they will realize their emerging shortage of women, and sooner or later they will change themselves.
When I visited China I remember seeing billboards showing a Father, Mother and one child. I couldn't read what it said but I was told that it was to promote the acceptance of China's mandatory policy of only having one child. It was necessary for them to do something about their exploding population. By the way, this topic probably belongs in the Politics forum or some other topic since it really isn't about relationships.
People are so bound to their instincts to have children as a product of their relationships that political solutions are necessary. And as politicians are humans like the rest of us they are as uneasy as we are about going against our reproductive nature. And once the interference with that has been set our relationships look very different, because ties like cousins,uncles and siblings disappear over the span of 3 generations.
One of the biggest problems with this is that the unevolved nations in for example Africa have little to no power to regulate their populationgrowth other than using firearms, which is of course an undesired method for a number of both obvious and non-obvious reasons.
But who decides which babies live, and which babies die? For example, are babies with birth defects automatically targeted for termination? Are children with physical disabilities going to be euthanized? What about babies with severe developmental learning disabilities?
A major moral slippery slope there..IMO, best not to even open pandora's box, on that one. Otherwise, you end up with potential intentional infanticide, and eugenics (both pure evil).
I am by no means a fan of children born out of wedlock or some mothers who seem to do nothing but "pop out babies", but I think I am fully with the Roman Catholic Church on this one (Note: I am not Catholic either), in that life (human life, including infants / fetuses) is 100% sacred and special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishViking
The world is not in need of nearly as much reproduction as there currently is, neither is china or the US as countries. In fact humanity would have a lot to gain if all countries adopted chinas one-child model. The ammount of resources needed to supply a population of >6 billion people in a functional way is already a problem. And regardless of if china get some reproduction problems or even if china just magically disappeared to mars, we're still becoming way too many way too fast, yet we are still not putting any restrictions. Our reproduction capabilities are tuned for a time of desperation for food, and overall exposure to nature with all it's hazards, now that we can live very safely and have kids with a comparatively extremely low risk of childdeath, our numbers are running off the charts.
Basically people need to stop having kids all the time. That's it or we will have to deal with a ****load of problems in a relatively close future.
All I can say about chinas situation is that it's their own fault, but at some point they will realize their emerging shortage of women, and sooner or later they will change themselves.
But who decides which babies live, and which babies die? For example, are babies with birth defects automatically targeted for termination? Are children with physical disabilities going to be euthanized? What about babies with severe developmental learning disabilities?
A major moral slippery slope there..IMO, best not to even open pandora's box, on that one. Otherwise, you end up with potential intentional infanticide, and eugenics (both pure evil).
I am by no means a fan of children born out of wedlock or some mothers who seem to do nothing but "pop out babies", but I think I am fully with the Roman Catholic Church on this one (Note: I am not Catholic either), in that life (human life, including infants / fetuses) is 100% sacred and special.
Yes, I have no issue with this. I do not see any moral hang up with a defect baby giving place for a healthy one.
Neither do I share your view on what is pure evil.
Do we want to move forward or do we want to starve ourselves out through our numbers?
500 million people could populate this planet with a very high lifestandard, as we will reach 10 billion within this century the situation surrounding resources will become desperate(especially as we run out gas), and then people will have to be murdered for real rather than what you call "infanticide" through abortion.
The chinese "one child model" makes this possible without killing people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For example, are babies with birth defects automatically targeted for termination? Are children with physical disabilities going to be euthanized? What about babies with severe developmental learning disabilities?
