ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

290 32864
thecode11
offline
thecode11
242 posts
505

Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.

  • 290 Replies
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,469 posts
24,700

To clarify, the government artificially produces jobs, mainly with the PLA. The PLA (People's Liberation Army) is the world's largest employer. To drive my point in, here's a photo my mother took while we were at the Ice Festival in Beijing.


I don't see how that is in any way ''artificial''. It's still a job, and the government needs it, seeing the massive amount of terrain and population needed to be patrolled. China actually spends more or an equal amount of money on internal security than external security.

Elderly Chinese are actually really tough, because they're the survivors of the Great Leap Forward.
Lastly, I'm saying the one-child policy should be implemented worldwide.


No....This is a rather false assumption. In that case, wouldn't any war veteran, or any survivor of a totalitarian regime be equally tough? Yet we see elderly care homes springing up everywhere. An old person is still an old person no matter what, and we cannot expect them realistically to continue shouldering the burden of the economy.

Lastly, I would like to add that the effect of being a single child does have its negative side effects. At least, from what I can glimpse from my friends and previous classmates from China. It's not altogether healthy.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

I'm saying the one-child policy should be implemented worldwide

noooooo!
then in 40 year only 1/4 of the living people would be in the working stage of life.
bringing the economic burden of everyone on the shoulders of 1/4 of the population is just crazy. they wont be able to make enough money to sustain everyone. china is getting away whit it because of it's reserves. but for about any other country that does have a debt. this is just not possible.

It's not altogether healthy.

how so? there is nothing wrong whit being the only child right?
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,469 posts
24,700

how so? there is nothing wrong whit being the only child right?


Not in all people. But Hahiha's links have already shown some of the traits that I see in them. Overly competitive, less interactive and capable of interactive with people, slightly more selfish, and the like.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

i dont see how that is the cause of being a only child. there are enough people that have brothers/sisters and are like that aswell.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,910 posts
21,160

i dont see how that is the cause of being a only child. there are enough people that have brothers/sisters and are like that aswell.

No one claimed it was unique to being an only child, nor did anybody claim that it was a necessary consequence of it.

It just tends to influence people that way. Read the first link, especially the last critique part.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,469 posts
24,700

i dont see how that is the cause of being a only child. there are enough people that have brothers/sisters and are like that aswell.


Of course. Major duh. But when you have a nation where the majority are single child families, trouble tends to manifest on a much larger scale.
SonOfVader
offline
SonOfVader
110 posts
850

Not in all people. But Hahiha's links have already shown some of the traits that I see in them. Overly competitive, less interactive and capable of interactive with people, slightly more selfish, and the like.


I'm an only child... :/
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

No one claimed it was unique to being an only child, nor did anybody claim that it was a necessary consequence of it.

then why do we link it to each other?

It just tends to influence people that way. Read the first link, especially the last critique part.

i dont have all the time right now. so i have only readed the last part.
and i have to agree whit the ending:
"there are almost an infinite number of other explanations of anything else that could have varied with time: variation of socio-economic environment, prosperity, nutrition, political environment - anything."

as for the bit above that:
"They are making very strong claims about differences in behaviour for people born before or after 1979, and they are inferring it is all to do with the introduction of the one child policy in that year."

if the law was introduced in 1979 then the signs of these trades should only be visual since 2000 or so.
not instantly.

Of course. Major duh.

thats what i thought

But when you have a nation where the majority are single child families, trouble tends to manifest on a much larger scale.

i still dont see that link tho. and i'm not even sure i understand what you mean by "trouble tends to manifest on a much larger scale."
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,469 posts
24,700

i still dont see that link tho. and i'm not even sure i understand what you mean by "trouble tends to manifest on a much larger scale."


Not all single children grow up with such traits. But by having an increased percentage of single child families, numbers children with such traits will tend to follow the pattern and be more than what would normally be in another nation without the policy.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,910 posts
21,160

then why do we link it to each other?

It started with a common belief in China that the One Child generation is spoilt. The study went and found a correlation, a significant difference between people born before and after. Correlation does not mean causation, but people born under the policy are statistically more selfish.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

i guess we just have to disagree then. because i dont see the link you try to make.
i do understand what you mean but i cant agree B is the cause of A. i think it has no link. and is maybe just coincidences.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

people born under the policy are statistically more selfish

what can have many causations. why is this one linked to it? only because of the pre-believe and the notice that people behave different then 30 year ago?
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,469 posts
24,700

i guess we just have to disagree then. because i dont see the link you try to make.
i do understand what you mean but i cant agree B is the cause of A. i think it has no link. and is maybe just coincidences.


It's not a cause. It's merely a logical adherence to a statistical figure. Suppose that 5% of single child families will experience such problems. Assuming that 20% of the population will come from single child families. 1% of the population will thus have such a problem. Ceteris paribus, if this 5% is now say, 50%, then 10% of the population will experience the problems that come with being a single child.

i guess we just have to disagree then. because i dont see the link you try to make.
i do understand what you mean but i cant agree B is the cause of A. i think it has no link. and is maybe just coincidences.


I doubt that millions of people are a coincidence. We have a saying in Chinese that translates roughly to ''Little Emperors'', and lately, the problem has become so significant due to the inversion of the Chinese family unit, such that 6 people dote on one child (2 parents, 4 grandparents), there's even a semi-official term, the ''Little Emperor Syndrome".

We can also bring up another example, in HK, where single child families are becoming more common. Recent studies have shown that HK kids are becoming more narcissistic, egotistical, and overestimate themselves, whilst linking it to coming from a single child background.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,469 posts
24,700

It's not a cause


Edit: You don't need to view it as a cause, although there are numerous studies to back this up.*
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

i dont see how that is the cause of being a only child. there are enough people that have brothers/sisters and are like that aswell.


It's just saying you will be more likely to find such traits in an only child than one with siblings.

Any rate, not intending to turn this religious or anything but it relates to the argument of having children. Have any of you heard of something called the Quiverfull movement? It's a religiously driven idea of not using any sort of protecting, planned parenthood or even cycles. The whole point is to have as many kids as you can, even if it costs the woman her life.

If you've seen or heard of the "reality" show 19 kids and (Close your **** legs already!), they are a good example of this movement.

For more information.
Vyckie Garrison - If the pre-millennial christians are wrong about... (Eschaton 2012) She talks about her experience as a member of this movement and her getting out.
The wiki page on it.
Showing 121-135 of 290