2 ms·

I think most people do not consider social evolution at a whole. We know we are too much for Earth resources, witch means the need to reduce the human populatio

by kkfx 4y ago

I think most people do not consider social evolution at a whole. We know we are too much for Earth resources, witch means the need to reduce the human population. China have tried it in a simple way: no more than one child per couple. Than they found a big issue: population aging. Witch means young people have to help their parents and grandparents alone, and the second generation might have also 4 elders to help etc. Automation help a bit, but does not suffice. The Swedish model of social services does help a bit, but again do not suffice so far. Inventing "multi-partners families" is a way to re-create the old family model with enough young and enough not too old to help the elders and the children while still ensuring a reasonably free and productive life to anyone "in the family". It's hard to agree ourselves also in two, in more it's even harder, convincing people to a new social model it's equally harder, but probably certain trends are a potential partial answer to such demographic problems that summed to others might "solve enough" for the not-so-far future...

bobthepanda 4y ago
That wasn't the only issue with the one child policy. Countries that depend on children caps also generally see sex-selective abortion, because generally in most marriage customs the man is favored over the woman and no one wants to be unfavored. (Interestingly, as regulations have eased and also with both increased gender mobility in general and the current lopsided situation favoring women, the sex ratio is starting to swing back in China.) If anything, lopsided sex ratios are even more dangerous, because revolutions do often get started by young, restless men.
Thiez 4y ago
One child per couple means every generation will be half as big as the generation before it. That is such a ridiculously fast decrease that it is no surprise that population aging will be an enormous problem. Having 2 (or 2.1 or something like that) children per couple will also result in a shrinking population, but at a much more sustainable pace. Not that I particularly support such a policy. It appears that a country becoming richer and more educated automatically reduces population growth, to the point where the classic Western countries tend to have mostly stable populations. I don't see multi-partner families being a significant part of the solution for large population numbers.
- kkfx 4y ago
  > I don't see multi-partner families being a significant part of the solution for large population numbers. They might be a solution to allow fast population shrinking, since they offer enough free and productive life to those in a productive age inside the family.

by kkfx 4y ago

bobthepanda 4y ago

That wasn't the only issue with the one child policy. Countries that depend on children caps also generally see sex-selective abortion, because generally in most marriage customs the man is favored over the woman and no one wants to be unfavored. (Interestingly, as regulations have eased and also with both increased gender mobility in general and the current lopsided situation favoring women, the sex ratio is starting to swing back in China.) If anything, lopsided sex ratios are even more dangerous, because revolutions do often get started by young, restless men.

Thiez 4y ago

One child per couple means every generation will be half as big as the generation before it. That is such a ridiculously fast decrease that it is no surprise that population aging will be an enormous problem. Having 2 (or 2.1 or something like that) children per couple will also result in a shrinking population, but at a much more sustainable pace. Not that I particularly support such a policy. It appears that a country becoming richer and more educated automatically reduces population growth, to the point where the classic Western countries tend to have mostly stable populations. I don't see multi-partner families being a significant part of the solution for large population numbers.

kkfx 4y ago
> I don't see multi-partner families being a significant part of the solution for large population numbers. They might be a solution to allow fast population shrinking, since they offer enough free and productive life to those in a productive age inside the family.