Does the world need a single child policy?

[bar4doug]

Quite a bit. if he spends his money on care for himself, then medical staff will spend their time working on him, using capital resources of buildings, machines, etc. If they are working for him, they cannot be working for someone else. Ok, if he isn't wanting care then demand for their services will fall just a little, so maybe their pay will fall a tiny bit, but there is huge demand anyway. we are discussing this because of the problem of too many pensioners needing help.

From your response, I read that you feel the state / populous should be able to dictate how one spends their money on healthcare. That is not how I roll. If you have the means to pay, you should be allowed to pay for whatever services you can negotiate. Whether a doctor cares for a rich old man, or a poor needy child, his services typically require payment. It does not matter how the doctor gets paid.

Any person who is working for someone cannot be working, at the same time, for someone else.

If he literally burns money, then the central bank which issued that money will benefit because the debt they issued, 'the money', will never be claimed. In effect, the value of that money reverts to the government if it is destroyed, and they can simply print some more to spend on something they choose. on the other hand, if he buys a mansion and then sets fire to it, he will really have destroyed some tangible wealth and harmed society.

You read this too literally... What if he bought every Picasso on the planet, and set them on fire? Or if he bought up millions of barrels of oil and just burned them off?

I believe his acquired wealth is not for society to take without just compensation and due process.

I don't see how a government knows the serial numbers on which money was burned.

if the old have used the advantage of being active workers for 50 years so as to save up money, and then use that money to buy resources for themselves, then those resources will not be available for others. Bluntly, if a doctor is treating this 90 year old because he has money and not treating a 9 year old because he does not, that simply is not fair.

The doctor is performing a job; a job that requires payment. He serves those who can pay, or those who have someone else pay on their behalf. The doctor could volunteer his services, but the doctor still has to make a living. People pay for his services.

t may also be the case that the 90 year old had an unfair advantage, because when he was a poor 9 year old, economic outlook was much better.

Again, what is unfair? The old man had no say in when he was born. One could say he took advantage of the opportunities in front of him at the time. There were probably others who failed to take that opportunity... is that unfair?

(more to come later)

 

[dandelion]

Any person who is working for someone cannot be working, at the same time, for someone else.

Exactly. there is always a finite amount of medical care. society has to choose who gets it. Does it go towards keeping 90 year olds alive for another ten years, treating their altzheimers, or does it go towards keeping 9 year olds alive so they get a chance to grow up? If its just down to money, those 90 years olds will hog all the medical care, to the great detriment of everyone else.

From your response, I read that you feel the state / populous should be able to dictate how one spends their money on healthcare.

yes, of course. that is exactly what it does.

That is not how I roll.

then go live in China or russia. i live in a democracy.

You read this too literally... What if he bought every Picasso on the planet, and set them on fire? Or if he bought up millions of barrels of oil and just burned them off?

You mean like islamic state is currently doing, destroying historic monuments as they capture them?

I believe his acquired wealth is not for society to take without just compensation and due process.

Then tell the US to but out of every other countries business. But in what way is there not due process?

I don't see how a government knows the serial numbers on which money was burned.

Doesnt matter. Printing extra tends to create inflation, destroying currency tends to reduce it. The US, Uk and now eurozone have been printing loads of money lately. All money was printed and circulated in return for services/goods rendered to government. The government, uniquely, has the right to print more whenever it wants. If it issues it and then private citizens are kind enough to burn it, it can just keep on issuing so long as the demand for more paper fuel continues.

Again, what is unfair? The old man had no say in when he was born. One could say he took advantage of the opportunities in front of him at the time. There were probably others who failed to take that opportunity... is that unfair?

If its all chance, then you would agree it is not unfair that the state collectively make decisions as to what is best for society, and chooses to confiscate the money of the old man, and spend it on the child.

This started as a discussion over population control. The greater the population becomes, the higher the competition for natural resources, and the more the old man and child are in competition. This is precisely an example why we need to reduce population. It is also an example of why society must have taxes, which take money from the rich and redistribute it to where it is needed.

 

[bar4doug]

Exactly. there is always a finite amount of medical care. society has to choose who gets it

While there may be a finite amount of medical care, the amount of medical care available is a function of, in no particular order:

1. The number of persons who are willing to pass on their knowledge.
2. The cost of obtaining said knowledge.
3. The amount of people willing to enter that sector of the workforce.

I can't imagine anyone in this day and age going into the medical profession to simply care for others... unless money were shit on them, and they have no needs for themselves. It has to be a combination of: I like what I do; I am content with what I make. They will choose to enter such profession to make a living. They will choose other professions if those livings make their life better. I have to pay off those student debts...

Does it go towards keeping 90 year olds alive for another ten years, treating their altzheimers, or does it go towards keeping 9 year olds alive so they get a chance to grow up? If its just down to money, those 90 years olds will hog all the medical care, to the great detriment of everyone else.

Until you ban money, and what it can buy... then yes it all comes down to money... no matter how noble your cause may be.

 

[bar4doug]

Then tell the US to but out of every other countries business. But in what way is there not due process?

If the US is involved, then someone invited them in. Call it the inner circle.. Call it whatever you want...

There are greater forces at work here than large penises.... The insiders want the US there, because the US buys their goods and makes them money...

 

[bar4doug]

then go live in China or russia. i live in a democracy.

I doubt that. You don't live in a democracy.. You live in a democratically elected republic, whose power should be constrained by a paper document.

If you lived in a democracy, your fellow countrymen should be able, with a 50 percent plus one vote, make you supreme ruler of your nation. Can you do that? I thought not.

Please watch this video:

You do not live in a democracy... I don't. I live in a republic, ruled by law, not the whims of men.[/QUOTE]

 

[bar4doug]

You mean like islamic state is currently doing, destroying historic monuments as they capture them?

Irrelevant. Owners should be able to dispense with their property how they see fit, unless the public is willing to compensate them.

 

[bar4doug]

If its all chance, then you would agree it is not unfair that the state collectively make decisions as to what is best for society, and chooses to confiscate the money of the old man, and spend it on the child.

all depends if you live in a democracy or republic.....

I know where I'd want to live.....

 

[554279]

No the world needs a "Be a responsible fucking adult" policy, to include covering the conundrum of "when should I sling dick or pop open my thighs unprotected, vice can I afford to raise a child" sub clause or paragraph built in to said policy.

I know its a stretch, but what the hell.

 

[Drifterwood]

No the world needs a "Be a responsible fucking adult" policy, to include covering the conundrum of "when should I sling dick or pop open my thighs unprotected, vice can I afford to raise a child" sub clause or paragraph built in to said policy.

I know its a stretch, but what the hell.

We could vote on it. You could vote on controlling weapons a bit better. But apparently there are inalienable rights that trump either the will of the people or common sense. ;-)

 

[Drifterwood]

If you lived in a democracy, your fellow countrymen should be able, with a 50 percent plus one vote, make you supreme ruler of your nation. Can you do that? I thought not.

The English were always revolting. The Tudors faced one every five years or so and don't forget what happened to Chuck senior. We killed a lot of monarchs till our glorious revolution a hundred years before yours. We left the monarch as nominal head of State and developed a system that allows us to depose the elected leaders every four/five years. Just like you.

 

[dandelion]

While there may be a finite amount of medical care, the amount of medical care available is a function of, in no particular order:

1. The number of persons who are willing to pass on their knowledge.
2. The cost of obtaining said knowledge.
3. The amount of people willing to enter that sector of the workforce.

As we don't have a guild apprenticeship system any more in the UK, training of doctors is largely a function of government choices about the number of available training places.

They will choose to enter such profession to make a living.

Thats true. In the UK doctors get very well paid by comparison with average pay. As I said, perversely the number of doctors trained is nothing to do with what we pay them, because there simply arent enough training places. In fact we import many doctors from abroad, but that just begs the question of their home medical services training staff for us to poach.

Until you ban money, and what it can buy... then yes it all comes down to money... no matter how noble your cause may be.

I am not necessarily advocating training more doctors in general, but in this particular case I think the UK should be training more. In the uK health care is rationed, and limiting the supply of doctor is one way we cut costs. Yes, that is a financial decision, but it is a government decision not a personal one. It is a planned economy.

I doubt that. You don't live in a democracy.. You live in a democratically elected republic, whose power should be constrained by a paper document.

If you lived in a democracy, your fellow countrymen should be able, with a 50 percent plus one vote, make you supreme ruler of your nation. Can you do that? I thought not.

You do not live in a democracy... I don't. I live in a republic, ruled by law, not the whims of men.

[/QUOTE]technically I think it would only needs about 35% of the votes.I would have to organise a politcal party, but once I had a majority in the commons on the basis of that vot, then the other hurdles could be overcome within a 5 year parliament to dissolve parliament, remove the current monarch and make me supreme ruler.

 

[554279]

We could vote on it. You could vote on controlling weapons a bit better. But apparently there are inalienable rights that trump either the will of the people or common sense. ;-)

Ain't that the damned truth. Unfortunately common sense is anything but common.

 

[deleted957600]

The world does need a single child policy. Our one planet has finite resources. Animals are killed for food, new jobs need to be created and people consume other resources. It is definitely possible to live in an environmentally conscious manner but resources are still being used, nonetheless.

An interesting argument was made earlier: What if a 90-year-old spends their own money on their own healthcare while an indigent 9-year-old does not receive care? I believe the 90-year-old should be able to spend his own money as he sees fit. You can take this a bit further and say a 90-year-old who receives care from a geriatric doctor will have no effect on pediatric care.

We could have the poor pay their own way as was suggested earlier in order to discourage large families. But this may not necessarily work as the uneducated working poor traditionally have higher birth rates. Most would rather see Steve Forbes with 5 children than someone who receives public assistance. The theory of eugenics has been around for many years encouraging certain populations to reproduce. Plato's 'The Republic' discusses getting society's upper echelon together, getting them drunk and then pairing off for sex.

This was hardly touched upon but there are other factors which negatively affect world population: hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, heart disease.

We should all think about the greater good and conservation of planetary resources.....

 

[pronatalist]

Human life is beautiful and amazing. Human fertilty is very hard to control, and human populations seem to grow so easily. Birth control is unnatural and awkward, and humans were designed to multiply naturally without birth control. Like huge numbers of people, I also have practical, philosophical, cultural, and religious objections to all methods of birth control. I have long believed that humans should multiply naturally and freely, and that families come in all sizes. As more and more people would be glad to live, I believe that humans should not control fertility, but rather encourage people to marry younger if ready, and as already-huge human populations grow wild, more people should enjoy natural procreative coitus to relieve their powerful reproductive urges, and naturally grow ever human-denser upon the earth. Put people into more places, but keep right on growing.

 

[Bardox]

I say a limit to the number of children a population can have is a good idea. A single child policy to blanket the planet would be going to far though. It would have to vary from one nation to another. You don't want populations to decrease too much. If your countries population grows to a size that your resources cannot accommodate then yes, a single child policy is warranted. The global population is entirely too large.

 

[pronatalist]

I say a limit to the number of children a population can have is a good idea. A single child policy to blanket the planet would be going to far though. It would have to vary from one nation to another. You don't want populations to decrease too much. If your countries population grows to a size that your resources cannot accommodate then yes, a single child policy is warranted. The global population is entirely too large.

But why do you think that the global population is too large? Compared to what? What could be more natural than the natural increase of human populations? Birth control is unnatural and goes against the human life.

Most all the shortages are phony, the results of corrupt governments.

 

[Bardox]

But why do you think that the global population is too large? Compared to what? What could be more natural than the natural increase of human populations? Birth control is unnatural and goes against the human life.

Most all the shortages are phony, the results of corrupt governments.

If we were still in the food chain, the population size could be considered natural. Due to technological advances, we as a species do not need to worry about predators eating our young driving us to extinction. Medical advances have almost eliminated the attrition rate in child births. Without GMO's (how much more unnatural do you want?) we would not be able to feed as many people as we do and there are still huge areas where starvation is still a problem. If your population is falling it's due to a conscious effort to not have children. Our growing population is due to unnatural factors in our society designed specifically to counter natural processes that would have otherwise limited our population size.

Simply limiting birthrates maybe unnatural, but it hardly goes against human life. There is a finite amount of resources (drinkable water/food/living space/ etc) that can be used to support the human race. If the population exceeds that limit then you are talking about euthanizing people just to maintain the rest of the population.

Please come up with an argument that doesn't involve the equivalent of "be fruitful and multiply".

 

[BigInBellevue]

Rising seas, shortages of potable water, diminished irrigation resulting in smaller harvests, shortages of critical metals, religious objections to contraception (and abortion) - all these mean that our planet cannot sustain the numbers of people which are projected in the next century. Humanity and civilization will suffer.

 

[328982]

I don't think anyone doesn't realise that either controlling or reducing the human population and or its detrimental impacts on the planet, will lead to problems. But that doesn't mean that we should bury our heads to what is being done now and their consequences being worse than the challenges in averting disaster.

I think it is somewhat of a circular argument to say that because we have so many people we have to keep that many people to sustain all these people.

Why can't the US consume at the same rate as Europeans, Kenn? The fact that our GDPs are similar would seem to negate your economic argument.

Very glad to see that the President has finally announced some curbs on US energy producers' emissions.

I agree with this premise. The bigger problem is overpopulation. We need to control human reproduction if our planet is to survive. Yes, that will lead to economic problems, even collapse, but that is not the end of the world. Technology can help but only to some extent. Either we stop breeding at this rate, colonise other planets (which seems a remote possibility), or we face extinction. The language of human rights is irrelevant here, and in any case we have no 'right' to destroy the planet because we can't control our urges.

 

[328982]

Apologies Doug. I always get that wrong. Free at the point of delivery is the correct term in the UK.

Well, regarding your first point, this debate emphasises that choices will have to be made as resources become scarcer. Still, if I have to choose between health and well-being for kids or keeping a 90 year old alive for a couple of miserable years...........

Wait till you are 90, or 70, or even 60. Remember old people have paid taxes and national insurance all their lives so have earned their keep. The NHS in the UK was set up in 1948 on the labours of the population who are now in their 90s. Are they suddenly to be cut off from the health service they set up and funded? Fuck that. And if your argument is about quality of life, why not choose to let babies die, all they do is mewl and puke. At least 90 year olds have paid their way.