• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It is time for the global south to adopt one child policies

It is time for the global south to adopt one child policies. We need to sustain what earth has given us

Abrupt declines in population are no better than spikes.

We about to witness mass starvation in China in a decade because of their one child policy.
 

A global one-child policy means humanity will go extinct after humanity's youngest woman is no longer able to bear children. So for whose benefit exactly would it be to consign the human race to extinction "Children of Men"-style, Gordy327?
 
Last edited:
A global one child policy means humanity will go extinct after humanity's youngest woman is no longer able to bear children. So for whose benefit exactly would it be to consign the human race to extinction "Children of Men"-style, Gordy327?
Overpopulation will contribute to eventual extinction. But such a policy does not need to be in effect until population numbers are unrecoverable. Nor would it likely be enforced or followed to that effect. All that is needed is a population decline to a stable limit.
 

If you look at the map, you'll notice that not nearly all of the "Global South" is actually located in the Southern Hemisphere.

Global South loosely means undeveloped nations, many of which are to the south of more developed nations, but still located in the northern hemisphere.
 
Trying to force population control doesn't work like that. The proven route is to invest in education and economic development.
Good point in this sense: as education and economic development increase, people tend to have fewer children. And as knowledge about healthcare also improves, more kids survive. In Mexico years ago it was common and broke one’s heart to hear a mom or dad say, “tengo 8 hijos, 2 vivos,” I have 8 children, 2 living, referring to the six who died in childbirth or shortly thereafter.

Naturally, because of this saying, dads would joke, “tengo 8 hijos, no todos son vivos, pero todos comen.” “Not all are “vivos” (also meaning “intelligent”) but all of them eat.”
 
The catch is that global capitalism requires the opposite.
 
But only white people in the rich world.

It doesnt matter what color skin the peon foot soldiers of Capitalism have.
Just so long as they have a strong back....and an ability to cope.
 
Overpopulation will contribute to eventual extinction.
The Malthusians have been beating that drum for 200+ years, and they have never been right. But I'm sure that extinction is coming any time now.
But such a policy does not need to be in effect until population numbers are unrecoverable. Nor would it likely be enforced or followed to that effect. All that is needed is a population decline to a stable limit.
The global fertility rate is already a quite stable 2.4 children per woman, just slightly above the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. It's already stable, or too low, in most countries. It's really only Sub-Saharan Africa and a few war-torn countries in Asia that have very high population growth. Meanwhile, much of Europe and East Asia have horrifyingly low fertility rates.
1678345084827.png
 

Attachments

  • 1678344087569.png
    1678344087569.png
    237.6 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
The Global South, you say? Like Australia? Or someone else?
It's more polite than saying third world countries. It's a global version of poor people have too many kids. Of course he's not gonna admit the racist, eugenicist, and classist undertones of his BS line of thinking
 
The Malthusians have been beating that drum for 200+ years, and they have never been right. But I'm sure that extinction is coming any time now.

The global fertility rate is already a quite stable 2.4 children per woman, just slightly above the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. It's already stable, or too low, in most countries. It's really only Sub-Saharan Africa and a few war-torn countries in Asia that have very high population growth. Meanwhile, much of Europe and East Asia have horrifyingly low fertility rates.
View attachment 67440086
Meanwhile, the global population is near 8 billion and continues to rise.
 
Back
Top Bottom