for some reason you gave me the impression that you were a new here.

I can't because I lost track of the conversation. Sorry.

China’s One Child Policy: In 1979 China introduced its one-child policy which set up penalties for families that chose to have more than one child.[52] Women were compelled to undergo a surgical implantation of an IUD following the birth of their first child and tubal ligation if they were to have another child.[52] Families that disobeyed the law were levied a fine and lost their right to many government services, including access to health and educational services.[53] Nevertheless, transgressions of the law most certainly occurred.[53] Consequently, over the course of over three decades, hundreds of thousands of children, the majority of which were girls, were abandoned and required caretaking.[53] Non-governmental organizations stepped in to assist with the re-housing of these girls, leading to the international adoption of over 120,000 Chinese children.[54] Today, China's fertility rate has not quite returned to the rate of replacement (the birth rate that will maintain population size under conditions of zero net immigration/emigration). In fact, in the years since the relinquishing of the policy, China's fertility rate has only risen .04 per family.[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abandonment

@Brett

I learned about that in high school. :razz:

If I recall correctly, female infants were abandoned in the woods.

Because people see mental illness as a character defect rather than a biological disease.

Im not seeing it.

Does it matter if its intentional?

(Critical thinking)

You might want to move this to the educational thread because its off topic. :cool:

Edit: but it is about limiting the spread of HIV. The effects on population are not the intention. — Brett

Forced sterilization is used for population control. Look up eugenics.

@Brett
Q: In Asia in the 1970s, many countries had strong population control programmes that provided family planning services. Didn’t women in these countries receive better care than women in countries where contraception was not supported by the government?

A: While contraception was an essential and desired service, too little attention was given to service quality because the goal was to promote acceptance of contraceptives. In India, for example, a lot of intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted during periodic “camps” were not fitted properly and led to unwanted pregnancies. The women involved often ended up having unsafe abortions because abortions were rarely available in health-care facilities, especially in rural areas, even though it had been legalized in 1972 for pregnancies up to 10 weeks. This is still the case in rural areas. Although abortion services are now more widely available in urban areas, especially from private, for-profit providers, low-income urban women must still resort to unsafe procedures. IUDs remain unpopular in India. Other contraceptive choices were very limited and services then, as now, were often poor, yet women were blamed for not wanting to use them. In Indonesia, contraceptive services were often delivered to villages by the military. Women were given no choice in contraception-related matters; they were not offered support or information on dealing with its side-effects or guidance in choosing alternative methods. Again, the drive to increase acceptors trumped interest in service quality.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/2/12-040212/en/

Stopping the spread of HIV is about health. You can lump it in with population control if you want but that’s stretching it. — Brett

That's not what he's talking about by sterilization. :rofl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#:~:text=Compulsory%20sterilization%2C%20also%20known%20as,in%20the%20early%2020th%20century.

Not that I want you banned, or anything. :cool:

Really good questions!

No, you should be fine as long as your follow the Site Guidelines. It's also important to know your rights. :wink:

*hint* You don't have any. :lol:

You're probably getting way more out of this forum than you are putting into it.

(I don't expect this to go down well.) :scream:

Better question: What does it mean to say a particular quark is conscious?

Quarks have a very small degree of consciousness — Eugen

Let's pretend to take that seriously for a moment. What are quarks conscious about?

He may not have Trump's charisma, but he seems pretty put together.

@tim wood I'm really optimistic about the US recovery under Biden, especially when the Trump wreck really hurts the Republican party. The real problem is that we're still going to face a largely unproductive segment of the US population that won't go away even after Trump's demise.

Well, of course I hope you're right. But hope is one thing, and expectation another. — Janus

In this case, it is rational to be pessimistic.

@Janus Did you expect this thread will last for a while? I'm just curious.

Edit: I don't want this to be all personal. Peace!

Maybe global coordination really is an impossible situation to bring about, — Janus

In this case it is rational to be optimistic.

in which case this thread will probably peter out pretty quickly; since people generally don't wish to contemplate intractable problems. — Janus

I wouldn't bet on that. :joke:

Agreed. Putting it another way: Politicians* and isolated intellectuals can talk and point fingers all they want, but it's all up to scientists and the rest of society to do anything about it.

*Some politicians.

Yep, we can do a lot a damage to the biosphere.

I understand this is a very touchy subject. It makes me want to "overreact" too. But I also think if we ignore it, it will be at our peril. — Janus

In all serious, I agree with this sentiment. We must do all we can to avoid as much human (and animal) suffering as possible.

Let us not forget that the planet is not in danger in anyway.

I don't mean men with PhD's. I mean us casually discussing it.

I know I'm overreacting a bit.

Plastic — A Blessed Curse

Environmental issues are something we all should do something about. I feel passionate about that. I just react badly when I perceive that the debate is being confined to a few philosophers who don't care enough to do anything about it.

I'm not sure where this thread is going. Do we want this to be philosophical debate about overpopulation @Janus, or not?

If yes, then perhaps @schopenhauer1 can help you.

If you want a private conversation with @StreetlightX, perhaps you can PM him.

Is population the worse thing for the environment?

I would say plastic is:

You have to force them*. Exactly. I have no problem with that.

*Many of them.

Honestly, I'm much more optimistic in this approach than trying to get the filthy rich to tone down their lifestyle.

What are we prepared to sacrifice to address the primary problem of overpopulation? — Janus

Who says we can't address the problem of overpopulation without making huge sacrifices?


There are studies that show that female empowerment results in the decision to have less kids.

Regardless of the country, more empowered women desire significantly fewer children compared with their less empowered counterparts. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-019-0747-9

Nice one.

I'm not really an ageist. Sorry if I offended any old people on this thread.

There's a biological basis to agism. :cool:

Slack on my part too. I thought @Banno would find this interesting. :sweat:

I was mistaken. You’re dismissed.

I found it funny that you wrote country instead of continent. Did you at least get that part?