ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

255 90745
thecode11
offline
thecode11
239 posts
Nomad

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

  • 255 Replies
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

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
5,133 posts
Jester

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
8,254 posts
Regent

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
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

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
Blacksmith

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
5,133 posts
Jester

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
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

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
8,254 posts
Regent

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
5,133 posts
Jester

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
5,133 posts
Jester

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
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

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
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

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
9,470 posts
Farmer

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.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

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.

Saw a reportage of that family in TV once, didn't know it was a whole movement though. Well what to say, conservatives keeping women as birthing machines is nothing new, but this is completely crazy.
SonOfVader
offline
SonOfVader
110 posts
Blacksmith

Saw a reportage of that family in TV once, didn't know it was a whole movement though. Well what to say, conservatives keeping women as birthing machines is nothing new, but this is completely crazy.


We really ought to be out-reproducing those people...
Showing 121-135 of 255