/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3212486]

Does anyone believe a "1 child" law would be beneficial, at least in terms of environmentalism?

Although it isn't the most acceptable thing, I think America, Canada, whatever could benefit from a form of this sort of law, in that you could have it be a form of 1 pregnancy law, so that once you have one pregnancy, whether it happens to be twins or just a singular child, you call it quits. In that way, you wouldn't have to abort if you had multiple children from one pregnancy, and population growth is slowed.

I do believe overpopulation is a growing concern for the planet, as we are basically fucking its resources up the ass with many people having an upwards of 2-3 kids.

What is /sci/s opinion on this?

[Anonymous No.3212501]

I think that if a one pregnancy law was put into place you'd see alot of women taking fertility drugs to have as many kids as she wants. so it would help, but not to an absolute degree.

[Anonymous No.3212503]

The poor and uneducated would refuse. Instead they'd keep pumping out spawn into households that can't support them, while responsible parents and non-parents foot the bill via taxes.

[Anonymous No.3212510]

In China and India they are running out of women because they abort girl fetuses so they can have boys to carry on the family name. Same shit would happen among the more...backward elements of western society. Also it would leave us woefully unprepared for a massive disaster. I say just work to raise global living standards and the problem will solve itself.

[Anonymous No.3212517]

>>3212510
How would that fix the problem of overpopulation? If you were to raise the standard of living, we would probably just have more kids around!

[Anonymous No.3212518]

>>3212510
yeah, pregnancy limitation is compensatory

[Anonymous No.3212521]

Why should 1st world white middle classes be targeted for this scheme specifically?

[Anonymous No.3212529]

>>3212521
They wouldn't be, those were just the first countries coming to mind at the time.

To be honest, a lot of smaller countries would benefit a lot more from this sort of law.

[Anonymous No.3212533]

>>3212529
No, they'd benefit by having stable, industrialized economies thereby solving the problem of overpopulation.

[Anonymous No.3212537]

Dude Canada has such a small population and so much land. Canada needs people!

Also after you break a threshold there's no going back. Once the world commits to depopulation you won't be able to simply stop it anymore.

Also there will be the problem of only wanting males to keep the family name and blah blah blah.

[Anonymous No.3212539]

>>3212517
That doesn't make any sense. As living standards go up, birth rates go down. Just look a Germany, or most of western Europe for that matter. Only the poor and uneducated fuck like rabbits because they don't have anything better to do or don't have east access to contraceptives. I think the best thing to do would be to put contraceptives in all free school lunches for middle and high school students. Also make birth control a prereq for recieving govt. assistance. That would go a long way toward cutting down on the number of useless gutter skags taking up space in our society.

[Anonymous No.3212540]

it would work if everybody followed the law...which wouldn't happen. instead all the illegals would still have 4-5 kids until america is composed of 100% mexicans.

[Anonymous No.3212563]

>>3212539
>>3212533
Now that I have had time to think about it, you are both correct.

Not sarcastically, whoops.

[Anonymous No.3212564]

>>3212517

>>people still think malthus was right

Check the fertility rates of the world's nations and compare them to living standards. Negative correlation, all the time.