17 ms·
1. yups. this needs a law. 2. why not radical? we have "good enough" plant-based replacements, and these will improve a lot when meat/dairy/eggs/leather simply
by cies 8y ago
1. yups. this needs a law.
2. why not radical? we have "good enough" plant-based replacements, and these will improve a lot when meat/dairy/eggs/leather simply becomes out-lawed. (needs a law too) why point one "stop immediatly" and point 2 being just reduce as a personal choice?
3. this i do not get. we have seen (again and again) that educating women greatly changes the reproductive rates. we can just do that! the one-child policy was disasterous for china, and while it may work in the dev'd world, it is the undev'd world where the reduction is badly needed and where the china-disaster is likely to repeat itself.
also, with 1 and 2 in place, we have prolly no need for the one-child policy. we'll have food and land plenty!
- explainplease 8y ago1. With no fossil fuel-based energy available, global food production will plummet, and distribution of what food exists will become prohibitively expensive. Millions will starve to death. 2. Go, tell the farmers they are not allowed to eat their chickens' eggs. I will wait for you to report their answer. Or do you intend to enforce your decree by force? 3. If you are allowed to tell other people how many children to have, I am allowed to tell you how many children to have: You may have none. > also, with 1 and 2 in place, we have prolly no need for the one-child policy. we'll have food and land plenty! I wonder if you actually believe what you say.