4 ms·

China helped themselves and the world massively with the one child policy, which arguably would have been impossible in a 'free country'. In the meantime we're

China helped themselves and the world massively with the one child policy, which arguably would have been impossible in a 'free country'. In the meantime we're 7 billions and projected to reach 11 billions by the end of the century. We already can't seem to protect the environment today so I'm not holding my breath with a 40% population increase.

yters 7y ago
China maintains their one or two child policy through forced abortions, which is murdering a child. If murdering people is an ok method for achieving the goal of protecting the environment (in a suitably 'sanitary' manner), then we might as well focus our efforts on wiping out the most fecund populations (India and Africa) with 'sanitary' methods like contraception and abortion. Oh wait, maybe we are already doing that...
- CinchWrench 7y ago
  Not everyone shares your value system. (I do, but that's beside the point.) You never know when the person you're responding to might be Pentti Linkola.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    I'm obviously not Pentti Linkola, nor do I prefer or support dictatorship. The point is that we're told that we are in a climate an environmental emergency situation. But what are the emergency measures we take to respond to that? Nothing. Oh yes we want to ban plastic straws... We are not doing anything now and the situation can only become much worse with the projected population growth (which is one of the root causes of our environmental problems). This is the reality.
  - yters 7y ago
    It's not about value systems. I'm pointing out the supposed humanitarian reasoning guiding these draconian ideas is in actuality just plain old human selfishness: the self selected elite want to preserve themselves and the small number of the rest of their fellow human beings they find useful in some way. Nothing truly principled and moral about the reasoning going on here.
  - lyxsus1 7y ago
    So what if he is? Humanity can cover whole planet in asphalt and survive.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  Of course the policy has sometimes been harshly enforced, which, again, is something that could not happen in a 'free country'. But let's remove our pink tinted glasses. The reality is equally harsh: The WHO forecasts 250,000 extra deaths _a year_ between 2030 and 2050 because of climate change [0]. You're quite obviously misrepresenting what I wrote when you immediately equal it to "murdering people"... [0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha...
  - yters 7y ago
    My point is that if abortion is murder (it is) then enforcing a one child policy in the world requires way more than 250,000 extra deaths _a year_. With our current voluntary abortion worldwide we are already at 56 million abortions per year. So, let's not play games and pretend this is about preserving human life, in general. This is only about preserving the lives of a select few people: wealthy westerners and the lucky few in less developed countries that westerners feel guilty enough to save, or at least want their cheaper labor. There is no kind of humanitarian moral principle guiding this analysis you offer.
    - komali2 7y ago
      China no longer enforces one child policy in most places. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy?wprov=sfla1 Abortion is not murder.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > Abortion is not murder. Abortion is the termination of something. That something is genetically human, genetically not the mother, and definitely a child in 9 months or less. Terminating that is at least arguably murder. It at least cannot be dismissed with a glib denial.
        dang 7y ago

yters 7y ago

China maintains their one or two child policy through forced abortions, which is murdering a child. If murdering people is an ok method for achieving the goal of protecting the environment (in a suitably 'sanitary' manner), then we might as well focus our efforts on wiping out the most fecund populations (India and Africa) with 'sanitary' methods like contraception and abortion. Oh wait, maybe we are already doing that...

CinchWrench 7y ago
Not everyone shares your value system. (I do, but that's beside the point.) You never know when the person you're responding to might be Pentti Linkola.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  I'm obviously not Pentti Linkola, nor do I prefer or support dictatorship. The point is that we're told that we are in a climate an environmental emergency situation. But what are the emergency measures we take to respond to that? Nothing. Oh yes we want to ban plastic straws... We are not doing anything now and the situation can only become much worse with the projected population growth (which is one of the root causes of our environmental problems). This is the reality.
- yters 7y ago
  It's not about value systems. I'm pointing out the supposed humanitarian reasoning guiding these draconian ideas is in actuality just plain old human selfishness: the self selected elite want to preserve themselves and the small number of the rest of their fellow human beings they find useful in some way. Nothing truly principled and moral about the reasoning going on here.
- lyxsus1 7y ago
  So what if he is? Humanity can cover whole planet in asphalt and survive.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
Of course the policy has sometimes been harshly enforced, which, again, is something that could not happen in a 'free country'. But let's remove our pink tinted glasses. The reality is equally harsh: The WHO forecasts 250,000 extra deaths _a year_ between 2030 and 2050 because of climate change [0]. You're quite obviously misrepresenting what I wrote when you immediately equal it to "murdering people"... [0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha...
- yters 7y ago
  My point is that if abortion is murder (it is) then enforcing a one child policy in the world requires way more than 250,000 extra deaths _a year_. With our current voluntary abortion worldwide we are already at 56 million abortions per year. So, let's not play games and pretend this is about preserving human life, in general. This is only about preserving the lives of a select few people: wealthy westerners and the lucky few in less developed countries that westerners feel guilty enough to save, or at least want their cheaper labor. There is no kind of humanitarian moral principle guiding this analysis you offer.
  - komali2 7y ago
    China no longer enforces one child policy in most places. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy?wprov=sfla1 Abortion is not murder.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > Abortion is not murder. Abortion is the termination of something. That something is genetically human, genetically not the mother, and definitely a child in 9 months or less. Terminating that is at least arguably murder. It at least cannot be dismissed with a glib denial.
      - dang 7y ago