3 ms·

I can be flexible on natural twins. Ideally, I do not want a one-child policy. The main point of contention is funding. How many natural twins are there and how

by mcny 8y ago

I can be flexible on natural twins. Ideally, I do not want a one-child policy. The main point of contention is funding. How many natural twins are there and how does it affect funding? basically, this is a ponzi scheme and our only way it is sustainable is a massive burst in productivity (I don't know how, will have to figure it out as we go).

beat 8y ago
A birth rate that is basically replacement (ie ~2 children per couple) is not a "Ponzi scheme". It's not contributing to population growth. The US and most other industrialized nations have negative population growth, once immigration is removed from the equation. And this low birth rate is an observed consequence of increasing income. It doesn't require western standards of living, either. Vietnam has a birth rate of less than 2. You don't need to coerce the population. You just need to lift them out of extreme poverty. As for a massive burst in productivity - that's already happened and is continuing. The Internet is making the world's knowledge freely available to everyone. What does that do for productivity? In a few decades, clean solar/wind power will replace fossil fuels. What will limitless clean energy do for productivity? In the 19th century, most of Sweden lived in extreme poverty. Fully 20% fled to America to escape famine. Today, they're one of the richest countries in the world, and their population is stable.
- mcny 8y ago
  Sorry, didn't mean to say that. I meant to say A birth rate of 1 is a Ponzi scheme. But really it is a game of chicken to force our society to act. I don't think you're considering how flexible my policy is... As we have more will, we can increase the one child policy to two or even three. All it takes is increased funding.
  - beat 8y ago
    I have a hard time thinking of a policy of killing off the excess babies as "flexible". Kind of the opposite, actually. Worse, because it's totally unnecessary.
    - mcny 8y ago
      Oh. Sorry. I never meant to say we should kill people. I am simply saying that in the absence of public support for a social net for all, we should at least guarantee a social net for the first born for everyone regardless of their background or social status. I never meant to imply that we will actively terminate any living being for the mistakes/crimes of its parents. Under the n -- current proposal is n = one -- child policy, it will be a crime to have more than n children and not be able to afford a minimum standard of living for them. You'll have to be really careful should your circumstances change in the future. While this will hurt some people in the short term, I believe people will be better off than they are today.

by mcny 8y ago

beat 8y ago

A birth rate that is basically replacement (ie ~2 children per couple) is not a "Ponzi scheme". It's not contributing to population growth. The US and most other industrialized nations have negative population growth, once immigration is removed from the equation. And this low birth rate is an observed consequence of increasing income. It doesn't require western standards of living, either. Vietnam has a birth rate of less than 2. You don't need to coerce the population. You just need to lift them out of extreme poverty. As for a massive burst in productivity - that's already happened and is continuing. The Internet is making the world's knowledge freely available to everyone. What does that do for productivity? In a few decades, clean solar/wind power will replace fossil fuels. What will limitless clean energy do for productivity? In the 19th century, most of Sweden lived in extreme poverty. Fully 20% fled to America to escape famine. Today, they're one of the richest countries in the world, and their population is stable.

mcny 8y ago
Sorry, didn't mean to say that. I meant to say A birth rate of 1 is a Ponzi scheme. But really it is a game of chicken to force our society to act. I don't think you're considering how flexible my policy is... As we have more will, we can increase the one child policy to two or even three. All it takes is increased funding.
- beat 8y ago
  I have a hard time thinking of a policy of killing off the excess babies as "flexible". Kind of the opposite, actually. Worse, because it's totally unnecessary.
  - mcny 8y ago
    Oh. Sorry. I never meant to say we should kill people. I am simply saying that in the absence of public support for a social net for all, we should at least guarantee a social net for the first born for everyone regardless of their background or social status. I never meant to imply that we will actively terminate any living being for the mistakes/crimes of its parents. Under the n -- current proposal is n = one -- child policy, it will be a crime to have more than n children and not be able to afford a minimum standard of living for them. You'll have to be really careful should your circumstances change in the future. While this will hurt some people in the short term, I believe people will be better off than they are today.