41–50 of 70 posts
This isn't about population control. This is yet another attempt to oppress Muslims. This state Uttar Pradesh is headed by an Hindu extremist priest who actively uses the arms of the government to persecute minorities. It is a common trope by the Hindu right wing that Muslims are breeding like rabbits in India and may become larger in number than the Hindus.. and the way to control Muslims is by coming up with measur…
I can't read the article, so I'm just replying to the concept. I don't see a problem with this at all. Overpopulation may be the most important issue of our lifetime. I'm not a fan of excessive government control, but incentivizing low birthrates is our only hope of saving the environment.
Here's a thought, if you're a conscientious White man concerned about the environment: Make babies. Make a lot of them. Raise them with the same thoughtfulness you have for the natural world. Raise a dozen greenies.
I assure you the woman in Niger with 11 kids has never lost a wink of sleep over any endangered Alaskan moths.
The children of those with total disregard for the Earth will inherit it. Or yours can. It's your choice.
This isn't about population control. This is yet another attempt to oppress Muslims. This state Uttar Pradesh is headed by an Hindu extremist priest who actively uses the arms of the government to persecute minorities. It is a common trope by the Hindu right wing that Muslims are breeding like rabbits in India and may become larger in number than the Hindus.. and the way to control Muslims is by coming up with measur…
[flagged]
I can't read the article, so I'm just replying to the concept. I don't see a problem with this at all. Overpopulation may be the most important issue of our lifetime. I'm not a fan of excessive government control, but incentivizing low birthrates is our only hope of saving the environment.
I assure you the woman in Niger with 11 kids has never lost a wink of sleep over any endangered Alaskan moths.
The children of those with total disregard for the Earth will inherit it. Or yours can. It's your choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who pays for all the old people?
Worse, who takes care of all the old people. So far, we have increased our lifespans up to 85 or even 90 years, but our healthspans are significantly shorter and those last 10-15 years are spent in state of partial or complete dependency on others. Unless we can do a lot more in the longevity field and stretch healthspan of old people significantly, we won't be able to meet the total demand for workforce in care.
By the time I am in an old fokes home I don't need somebody to carry me to the toilet, I can just activate my drone and fly there. That should help with the pressure.
Or so I hope.
I can't read the article, so I'm just replying to the concept. I don't see a problem with this at all. Overpopulation may be the most important issue of our lifetime. I'm not a fan of excessive government control, but incentivizing low birthrates is our only hope of saving the environment.
Here's a thought, if you're a conscientious man concerned about the environment: Make babies. Make a lot of them. Raise them with the same thoughtfulness you have for the natural world. Raise a dozen greenies.
I assure you the sub-Saharan woman in with 11 kids has never lost a wink of sleep over any endangered Alaskan moths.
The children of those with total disregard for the Earth will inherit it. Or yours can. It's your choice.
(Why is this getting auto flagged?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. Birth rates are at their lowest throughout the developed world. In some cases, it’s below the replacement level. The developing world’s birth rate is also dropping as those regions become more developed (China for example, which recently switched to incentivizing additional children).
> Birth rates are at their lowest throughout the developed world. India isn't the developed world. According to the UN, the world population is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. Despite the stagnant fertility rate, growth rate is still targeted in most countries at approx 3-4%, through immigration. I mention this because everyone has a higher environmental footprint…
Yes, I'm aware, which is why I included that the developing world's birth rate is also dropping, although starting from a higher baseline level.
> When scaling up, everything destroys the environment.
Yeah, I agree, but things don't tend to scale up linearly, and I think you're missing the cause/effect interplay between population growth and resource consumption. Yes, as populations grow they require more resources (as you point out), but limits on production of those same resources (eg food, energy) will in turn impose limits on population growth. Population growth isn't some uninhibited unstoppable force. Population shrinking forces also exist, which will likely make the net population rate of change hit an equilibrium.
But we can't have the alternative that's worked everywhere that's tried it: educating Women. If that happened the pervasive corruption might be questioned. Instead we'll just kill the extra children.
It is easy to say educate women but when there are so many women less resource/finance it is hard to scale. This policy will help educating women in a sense that there is incentive.
The draft is not about killing extra children but its about preventing the birth. The draft says it will even provide free education to single child. The policy also says it provides incentive to family that follows the rule. Those who don't follow simply wont get incentive.
I think this is correct way to handle population. India is largely overpopulated anyway. And there is constant pressure on resource.
And lastly, its not like China policy where someone is forced. India is democratic country and I think this is a good policy at least on paper. Regarding implementation we will see in future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse, who takes care of all the old people. So far, we have increased our lifespans up to 85 or even 90 years, but our healthspans are significantly shorter and those last 10-15 years are spent in state of partial or complete dependency on others. Unless we can do a lot more in the longevity field and stretch healthspan of old people significantly, we won't be able to meet the total demand for workforce in care.
It is a trade-of, as it always is. If you have fewer people involved, you will have to use more machines. By the time I am in an old fokes home I don't need somebody to carry me to the toilet, I can just activate my drone and fly there. That should help with the pressure. Or so I hope.
There is some evidence that stem cells can alleviate arthritis, so we may yet benefit from better treatments thereof.
But we can't have the alternative that's worked everywhere that's tried it: educating Women. If that happened the pervasive corruption might be questioned. Instead we'll just kill the extra children.
Looks like most people don't read the draft and comment whatever they like. It is easy to say educate women but when there are so many women less resource/finance it is hard to scale. This policy will help educating women in a sense that there is incentive. The draft is not about killing extra children but its about preventing the birth. The draft says it will even provide free education to single child. The policy a…
There are many problems in life that are hard. The difficulty level of the problem can not be used an excuse. You can decide to avoid tackling hard problems and let someone else take care of it if it's "too hard".
> I think this is correct way to handle population. India is largely overpopulated anyway. And there is constant pressure on resource.
What number would make India "not so populated"? How do you come up with this number?