3 ms·

China's one child policy did essentially that - financially encouraged people to have less children and the result was the murder of female babies. So many that

China's one child policy did essentially that - financially encouraged people to have less children and the result was the murder of female babies. So many that there is an alarming amount of boys versus girls today: 118.06 boys to every 100 girls born (measured in 2010). Remember that high birth rates are only a problem in poverty.

hycaria 7y ago
Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ?
- hk2001 7y ago
  > Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? Most do. And is abortion infanticide? Because abortion is widely accepted across the first world, and can result in the same thing. > And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ? Yes, which is the point. Those who say "population control" is the answer are essentially saying "make third world countries with less consumption but higher birthrates change, not first world countries with low birthrates and high consumption". The US actually have stable, ideal birth rate currently. And I doubt even the most delusional population control advocate thinks reducing the US birth rate by 10 fold (from somewhere a little above 2 to .2) is a good idea (though I could be wrong). And many first world countries are even lower to the US, to the point its actually creating major societal problems (like Japan and Sweden). What the above commenter is trying to say is that as poverty levels go down, birth rates drop to replacement level or below. So essentially to say "population control" is the ideal solution is to say make the areas of the world with high birth rates (largely developing nations, mostly in Africa) stop having children, rather than improving the consumption patterns and efficiency of those of us living in the first world. Seems problematic to say the least.

hycaria 7y ago

Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ?

hk2001 7y ago
> Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? Most do. And is abortion infanticide? Because abortion is widely accepted across the first world, and can result in the same thing. > And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ? Yes, which is the point. Those who say "population control" is the answer are essentially saying "make third world countries with less consumption but higher birthrates change, not first world countries with low birthrates and high consumption". The US actually have stable, ideal birth rate currently. And I doubt even the most delusional population control advocate thinks reducing the US birth rate by 10 fold (from somewhere a little above 2 to .2) is a good idea (though I could be wrong). And many first world countries are even lower to the US, to the point its actually creating major societal problems (like Japan and Sweden). What the above commenter is trying to say is that as poverty levels go down, birth rates drop to replacement level or below. So essentially to say "population control" is the ideal solution is to say make the areas of the world with high birth rates (largely developing nations, mostly in Africa) stop having children, rather than improving the consumption patterns and efficiency of those of us living in the first world. Seems problematic to say the least.