Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerseun
Dannieyankee, I think you've got the cat by the tail, so to speak.
Yes, a population of a billion might have, let's say, 100,000,000 couples interested in having kids (the rest of the population is too old, too young, or already up to their 1-kid limit). That'll bring the population to 1,100,000,000. But it seems as if you're calculating as if the very same people will have kids every year.
It's a simple exercise: A kid's got a father and a mother. There are two people involved in creating a child. Now, if those same two people were to create two children, then they would replace the mother and the father after their respective deaths, resulting in a 0% population growth. This is, of course, ignoring such things like extramarital sex, but any offspring from those kleptogamic encounters will be made impossible via enforced vasectomies. Now, it should be abundantly clear that if a 1-child policy were to be strictly enforced world-wide, the global population must come down - because the new generation is now only replacing one of the parents.
The biggest problem lies in convincing the global population to the benefits of such a scheme - and how to enforce it.
|
You're right, I suppose I was pulling new adults out of nowhere. Thus, this is why I should never be a mathmatician ;D
While it is true that things such as extramarital affairs seem uncommon NOW, you forget to calculate how humans react to strict mandates. That number of children might possibly increase. I assume you understand that a global mandate would increase the number of world-wide kids in the adoption programme, correct? Which brings me to another correlated concept from the first post - adoption versus in-vitro fertilisation. Clearly, with the number of children needing to be adopted increasing and the mandate decreasing, you will see an increased number of adoption.
I have just discovered two flaws in my logic; one about the acceptance of homosexuality, the other about production and industrialised nations.
1) While attempting to bring the population down, there is no doubt that homosexuality will probably be very well supported - after all, they love and STILL don't make babies. In this modern world where nationalism is not a big idea, love is still something they could consider well to benefit the population. However, at a population of one billion, who says it will still be popular? Overtly religion people will already be in a flux, because babies aren't being made OH GOD WHAT NOW!?. The idea of also accepting homosexuality as a natural prevention of birth would be horrid to them and their blissful ignorance.
2) Many industrialised nations were built on hard labour. Making countries such as Africa and rural parts of India more industrialised will have to use that same method, unless another method is suggested. That would sorely hurt the population.
I agree about the idea of limiting the number of children instead by income level. I also suggest a screening of the parents - this is an opportunity to not only decrease the population, but to also severly shrink the population of children being abused in their households. This is a chance to increase the quality of living not only for the adults giving birth to the children, but of the vulnerable, the ones who cannot protect themselves. While I agree that the world should not be held back by its' weakest, children are our future. It is common that abused children could turn into abusing adults, whether or not they realise it. I know emotionally abused children turn into insecure, fearing children who shy away from their parents and quiet, bullied adults not able to take care of their own children, either from being emotionally abusive to them, or too lax for fear of being that same parent. Overpopulation is caused by both low education and stupidity - both increasing the chance of a weaker, more depressed population.
