China officials break child rule

[McRocket]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who had kids does it for selfish reasons.

Other then I would put the word 'deliberately' in between the words 'who' and 'had'. If you are impregnated as the result of rape - that maybe a different story. Not sure though.

But otherwise I agree 100% and think that most of the world's problems emanate from that one sentence of yours. People usually have children simply because they want them. To create a human being simply for your own pleasure is just about the most selfish, legal thing I can think of doing.


As for China? Although China surely realized that many girls were going to be killed so that the families can have boys; I think it was a good rule. They should have just made the penalty for killing a girl allot harsher.
But now that China is prospering so quickly, I am guessing the need to have a male child will diminish as the countries wealth increases.
One thing that will probably happen though (as I first read about in an article by Gwynne Dyer) is that as these boys grow up there will be a distinct lack of female partners available. And that means one thing - importing women from poorer countries to China. It is inevitable. And apparently China is not big on foreigners. So like it or not, China is going to get a lot more diverse in about 20 years time. And puritan Chinese officials will regret their lack of legislation to protect the lives of all those dead Chinese girls.


Another great thread, IMO; AFA.

 

[McRocket]

In addition to the above mentioned 'selfishness' of deliberrately having children.

I am not typing that people are deliberately being selfish. Just that the act itself is exceedingly selfish - IMO. I am quite sure they mean good by it, not selfishness. Hopefully one day society will realize how wrong that notion is.

 

[calpoon]

yeah, I'm not saying that anyone who has kids is an asshole. obviously that is not the case, and despite my statement, I don't wish 50% of the worlds population to get wiped out. While I am indifferent to the scenario and I do think it would be better if almost any individual, Including myself, had not been born, I'm not suicidal or a murderer.

But to digress, there is a difference between desirable, and practicle. And I do think that many if not almost all of the ideals that we have about having kids come from outdated and out of touch times. In older times, it was neccesary (although still selfish) to have many kids to work as a farmer making a living. that is no longer required as most people don't make a living based on farming and advances in technology. While this is is still required for some because of the same situation, where farmers have to provide food for all the non-farmers, this doesn't entitle the non-farmers to have the same concerns about having kids, and it can be replaced by people practicing small scale farming and going away from industrial and urban living, which would help free up population density in most places where that is an option.

I don't think that is going to happen, but I just wanted to talk about these issues in the scale of practicle matters.

 

[Friday on my mind]

"Be fruitfull and multiply" was fine way for people to think once.But we have succeded at it to well and must adopt new modern realistic view that fits the present situation.The Chinease are doing what must be done.Those (primarily right wing christians)who speak of a culture of life are leading us into a holocaust of starvation,political strife,fights for resources etc...

 

[D-rock]

Increasing the punishment makes sense. If you just gave the rich a slap on the wrist financially it’s like in sports where leagues punish a superstar athlete that makes millions of dollars a year a few thousand dollars. It’s like pocket change to them so they don’t even care.

It's inevitable that most places in the world will have to adopt a one or two child limit per 2 people someday in the future. Either that or a lot of people will die out one way or the other, not even counting things like from global warming that might hurt food production. I don't think people are being irresponsible unless they have more children than that.

Just out curiosity for the people that think having children is selfish, do you think there is any reason to have children that isn't selfish? If you have it for the reason you said then it's selfish. If you have them for nothing more than to continue the species or to populate the world then it could be considered selfish also. I can't see a scenario where it isn't selfish in some respect. Yet would you propose people no longer have children?

 

[Friday on my mind]

Increasing the punishment makes sense. If you just gave the rich a slap on the wrist financially it’s like in sports where leagues punish a superstar athlete that makes millions of dollars a year a few thousand dollars. It’s like pocket change to them so they don’t even care.

It's inevitable that most places in the world will have to adopt a one or two child limit per 2 people someday in the future. Either that or a lot of people will die out one way or the other, not even counting things like from global warming that might hurt food production. I don't think people are being irresponsible unless they have more children than that.

Just out curiosity for the people that think having children is selfish, do you think there is any reason to have children that isn't selfish? If you have it for the reason you said then it's selfish. If you have them for nothing more than to continue the species or to populate the world then it could be considered selfish also. I can't see a scenario where it isn't selfish in some respect. Yet would you propose people no longer have children?

No a blanket no more children is not what I think people who fear the population growth would propose or even would be needed.China is a great example they are saying to each couple just have one child,that will lead to reduction in population instead of the increase they would have had without intervention.This will make much more possible a better life for the chinease people in the future.The problem is that leaving china aside the population at something over 6 biilion now is expected to be 9 billion by 2050.Mostly poor countries of course are the ones growing the fastest, but I would not call those people selfish.The poor of the world are part of the problem but they should not be blamed as much as the developed world which accounts for most of the enviormental damage.So yeah maybe in light of what we know while I won't say people who are in developed countries are selfish to have a child,they are doing something that will impact the enviorment positively if they have small families at least or choose to have known.

 

[pathfinder]

We should have a one child law in this country! To many people having to many damn kids and living on welfare while sitting around the house all day, smoking pot and drinking...maybe I should have a few kids and do the same!

Absolutely!! Well, a 2 child law anyway.

Although I'd take a different approach... like present the financial documentation to prove that you can fully support a child. Health screening, a parental aptitude test, and whatever else to avoid allowing morons like Brittany Spears and the rest of the trailer park trash in the world to pollute the gene pool with the mental deficiencies.

 

[McRocket]

Increasing the punishment makes sense. If you just gave the rich a slap on the wrist financially it’s like in sports where leagues punish a superstar athlete that makes millions of dollars a year a few thousand dollars. It’s like pocket change to them so they don’t even care.

It's inevitable that most places in the world will have to adopt a one or two child limit per 2 people someday in the future. Either that or a lot of people will die out one way or the other, not even counting things like from global warming that might hurt food production. I don't think people are being irresponsible unless they have more children than that.

Good points - IMO.

Just out curiosity for the people that think having children is selfish, do you think there is any reason to have children that isn't selfish? If you have it for the reason you said then it's selfish. If you have them for nothing more than to continue the species or to populate the world then it could be considered selfish also. I can't see a scenario where it isn't selfish in some respect. Yet would you propose people no longer have children?

Those are some very interesting points/questions.

Personally, I think there should be some sort of minimal standards for financial security, emotional/mental health, stable and healthy living environment, etc. before someone should be granted a license (or equivalent) to have a child from some government/private organization - but NOT the church.
I do not think there should be fines or imprisonment if you have a child without getting this 'license'. I just think that many things that governments normally offer would be denied to you - like a drivers license.
Obviously, this would mean abortions would go up dramatically; so all that nonsense would have to be sorted out first (personally, I believe if there is no brain activity - usually at 10 or so weeks - then there is no 'soul'. And even if I am wrong, I would rather see a child aborted then forced to live a life of misery with parents who I would not trust to look after a goldfish; let alone a human being).

I basically think that the whole notion of anyone should be able to have any number of children they want to has to end. And I am NOT primarily worried about the environment. I am far more concerned with the horrible job of parenting that many children are subjected to.
Scratch the emotional surface of a criminal and you probably find a human who had crappy parent(s).

 

[don_equis]

I though China was a Socialist regime and there was no classes. So I did not (playing ignorant for a moment) know that they have rich people . As for this applied to the U.S. I don't think so. With the curent police state in the making that we have going on, I sure don't need a bigger Goverment telling me how many kids I should be able to have. It's called individual responsibility, parents educating their boys on not going out there and spreading their seeds all over the place or girls not just opening their legs and getting knocked up and let the State take care of it. Be responsible, be accountable for your own actions, don't let the State run your life.

 

[McRocket]

I though China was a Socialist regime and there was no classes. So I did not (playing ignorant for a moment) know that they have rich people . As for this applied to the U.S. I don't think so. With the curent police state in the making that we have going on, I sure don't need a bigger Goverment telling me how many kids I should be able to have. It's called individual responsibility, parents educating their boys on not going out there and spreading their seeds all over the place or girls not just opening their legs and getting knocked up and let the State take care of it. Be responsible, be accountable for your own actions, don't let the State run your life.

I agree that governments are too big now as is. They have their mitts in things they have no business being involved in. But there are some things that government should be involved in. And I think this is one of them.

As far as people being responsible and individually accountable? I honestly do not believe that most people are capable of doing that with children. Look at all the fucked up parents in the World? I want to remove their right to fuck up other newborn children.
I feel raising children should be a privilege, not a right. And it should be a privilege that you have to earn. Not some right you can feel free to exercise everytime you have sex with someone.

 

[don_equis]

I agree that governments are too big now as is. They have their mitts in things they have no business being involved in. But there are some things that government should be involved in. And I think this is one of them. -THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES-

As far as people being responsible and individually accountable? I honestly do not believe that most people are capable of doing that with children. Look at all the fucked up parents in the World? I want to remove their right to fuck up other newborn children. -Through history it used to be worse, I mean look at the Spartan culture, Roman soldeirs could kill their sons if they refused to obey them, there was no allimony laws back then..etc-

I feel raising children should be a privilege, not a right. And it should be a privilege that you have to earn. Not some right you can feel free to exercise everytime you have sex with someone.

- I do feel like that sometimes since I myself see so many children that are not getting the love of their parents and want the Goverment to take care of them since most of them the father is "unknown"-


Tell me how are we going to make sure it becomes a privilege....more laws x more people get in trouble = larger goverment?

 

[McRocket]

- I do feel like that sometimes since I myself see so many children that are not getting the love of their parents and want the Goverment to take care of them since most of them the father is "unknown"-


Tell me how are we going to make sure it becomes a privilege....more laws x more people get in trouble = larger goverment?

Not in my opinion. If you want a child, you have to pass a clearly defined set of goals. Say, a clean legal record. Stable income and a clean, safe and suitable living environment for a family (to be decided by a government investigator - paid for entirely by the potential parents). Potential parents been together at least x number of years (and prove it). Blood test for potential genetic abnormalities that could be passed on. Some post secondary education courses on child rearing and child psychology that must be successfully completed. No history of mental instabilities or violent behaviour. References from 50%+1 of all parents and/or legal guardians of potential parents. Approval after several meetings with a government approved child counselor (again at the potential parents expense).

Once you had all these credentials you just bring it to government official and they give you the license if you have everything. Or do not if you do not.
No big government deal. Just someone to check on your job and house and someone to rubber stamp your license. It is up to the parents to get everything together.

No big laws. Simple. If you have a child without a license then you lose your drivers license and/or some other government privilege(s) until such time as you do qualify for that license. You don't get fined or go to jail. You just lose some of the benefits that governments currently provide.

 

[calpoon]

doesn't that set a dangerous precedent, mcrocket? that is, the idea of having some kind of qouta for having children based on individual characteristics?

although being far the excpetion and not the rule, I've known people that have come from a terrible background, failing all of the criteria that you suggested, and are some of the best parents that I've seen because their desire is for their children to not have to live the same way that they did.

then you have people like paris hilton, who has everything, but is not a very responsibile or productive member of society.

I'm not saying either of things things makes good or bad people, but that making such a judgement call leads inevitabley to abuse.

Just as you said, the rich people are the one's that use up all the resrouces and still have a lot of kids for precisely that reason. just as much as the people that you see at walmart. the most obvious issue is that in a lot of places the poor tend to be made up of a distinct and seperate ethnic/religious group than the rich, because of old or current conflicts, and to make it so that they are barred from breeding would definatly be continuing racist and genocidal tactics. The seconday issue, is that even if you did reduce the numbers of poor, it wouldn't really change anything about how society functions so would have no real effect at all, because as long as the rich want to stay rich then they need a poor class to provide that. the temporary restriction of that would only lead to even more resource consumption and breeding to fill in the gap, IMO.

I think the only thing that works is a flat very low minimum child rule for everyone to stabilize the population. After that happens, then the only suitable and practicle criteria to decide is basing it on the number of people any given area can support sustainably. Of course areas with an allready overloaded population density and resource consumption will be very slow to affect change and will have all the same short-run problems, but overall it will be beneficial and that can only help and ultimately be better for everyone.

 

[don_equis]

McRocket what you just said sound to me like Communist! Apparently that has not worked in China or Cuba. Fuck the Goverment telling me how many kids I should have or taking my license for not following the rule, then I'll just not go to work and tell the Goverment I can't make it to work because you took my driver's license. It's a fact that people like to fuck, you just have to educate people better on birth control, limit the amount of social programs so some folks can't get them. If you have a lot of kids you will have to work your ass to the ground to take care of them and don't expect but a tax break from the goverment nothing else, everything's on you. Me I am going back to the Moses's days and having a lot of kids and moving to a farm in Wisconsin and raise my own food and when the Goverment knocks on my door to penalize me for having more than one kid, I am going with my tribe to Canada or South America and live in peace in some jungle. But no one is telling me how many kids I should be allowed to have, that's the day they can burn the Constitution and be done with freedom of choice.

 

[calpoon]

I find myself really agreeing with your logic don e.

this whole thing makes me think of the movie Children of Men. I think that it's not neccesarily what would happen, but it's a pretty accurate portrayal of what could be a real possibility.

 

[don_equis]

Hey I got a better idea. I am going to take my tribe to let's say Iraq and live in the desolate desert, nah, wait a minute there comes the goverment again something that I need to volunteer my kids for the "War on Terrorism".

 

[McRocket]

doesn't that set a dangerous precedent, mcrocket? that is, the idea of having some kind of qouta for having children based on individual characteristics?

although being far the excpetion and not the rule, I've known people that have come from a terrible background, failing all of the criteria that you suggested, and are some of the best parents that I've seen because their desire is for their children to not have to live the same way that they did.

then you have people like paris hilton, who has everything, but is not a very responsibile or productive member of society.

I'm not saying either of things things makes good or bad people, but that making such a judgement call leads inevitabley to abuse.

Just as you said, the rich people are the one's that use up all the resrouces and still have a lot of kids for precisely that reason. just as much as the people that you see at walmart. the most obvious issue is that in a lot of places the poor tend to be made up of a distinct and seperate ethnic/religious group than the rich, because of old or current conflicts, and to make it so that they are barred from breeding would definatly be continuing racist and genocidal tactics. The seconday issue, is that even if you did reduce the numbers of poor, it wouldn't really change anything about how society functions so would have no real effect at all, because as long as the rich want to stay rich then they need a poor class to provide that. the temporary restriction of that would only lead to even more resource consumption and breeding to fill in the gap, IMO.

I think the only thing that works is a flat very low minimum child rule for everyone to stabilize the population. After that happens, then the only suitable and practicle criteria to decide is basing it on the number of people any given area can support sustainably. Of course areas with an allready overloaded population density and resource consumption will be very slow to affect change and will have all the same short-run problems, but overall it will be beneficial and that can only help and ultimately be better for everyone.

You maybe right. But which criteria that I listed do you see as detrimental to a child? You certainly do not have to be rich to meet these criteria. I would think people of even moderate income should be able to meet all of them given a little time.
Besides, the criteria (and I listed them just off of the cuff) are far more based on the personalities of the prospective parents then their income.

The only thing I am not sure of is the penalty part of it. I am wondering if penalizing the parents might hurt the children as well. So maybe it should be looked upon as a guideline rather then a rule. Hopefully the shame factor would make people looked upon differently if they do not have a 'license' or have passed the 'standards'.

And BTW, I realize this is a bit off topic. But I could care less about the population explosion. If you look at UN statistics, the population growth rate is slowing down and the World will (if it continues at it's present rate) stabilize it's population in a number of years. And the two largest countries (China and India) are prospering fast, which will slow down their growth rates as well. And in the West, the if it was not for immigration many countries would have almost no population growth.
I am concerned about the quality of care and upbringing of the average child. Not how their births affect the global population.

 

[McRocket]

McRocket what you just said sound to me like Communist! Apparently that has not worked in China or Cuba. Fuck the Goverment telling me how many kids I should have or taking my license for not following the rule, then I'll just not go to work and tell the Goverment I can't make it to work because you took my driver's license. It's a fact that people like to fuck, you just have to educate people better on birth control, limit the amount of social programs so some folks can't get them. If you have a lot of kids you will have to work your ass to the ground to take care of them and don't expect but a tax break from the goverment nothing else, everything's on you. Me I am going back to the Moses's days and having a lot of kids and moving to a farm in Wisconsin and raise my own food and when the Goverment knocks on my door to penalize me for having more than one kid, I am going with my tribe to Canada or South America and live in peace in some jungle. But no one is telling me how many kids I should be allowed to have, that's the day they can burn the Constitution and be done with freedom of choice.

Well, I agree that Communism was an extremely flawed system. And I myself question whether their should be penalties for not meeting these 'criteria'. Though, if there were some penalties that would hurt the parents and not the children then I would be all for them. Not sure that is possible though.

Also, I am not typing about people that had children by mistake. I am more pissed off at people that deliberately have children and then do a crappy job of raising them. Look up on the net the most popular reasons that people choose to have children and almost all of the reasons are based on selfish desires of the parents.
You should have a child for one reason above all else: that you believe extremely strongly that you will provide a fantastic upbringing for your child(ren). If that reason is not on your list - you have no business having children just to fulfill some selfish void in your life using another human being to do it.

But on a separate note; I do find it interesting that you are so against government control and yet you (I assume) freely volunteered to join the institution that controls you far more then communism ever did - the military.

 

[don_equis]

Funny that you mention that Rocket. Yes like people who have gotten themselves addicted to drugs and know first hand how terrible that road is, well I volunteered for an organization that pretty much your rights are waived so I know first hand how it feels to have someone always up your bussiness,regulations, punishment and ordering you around on what to and not to do. :glugglug:


Now I find that one good reason to have kids is to establish your legacy and leave a bit of you for the world to remember when you croak.

 

[McRocket]

Funny that you mention that Rocket. Yes like people who have gotten themselves addicted to drugs and know first hand how terrible that road is, well I volunteered for an organization that pretty much your rights are waived so I know first hand how it feels to have someone always up your bussiness,regulations, punishment and ordering you around on what to and not to do. :glugglug:


Now I find that one good reason to have kids is to establish your legacy and leave a bit of you for the world to remember when you croak.

I am not typing that you would be a bad parent. And I mean no offense, but in my opinion that is a very selfish reason to create another human being. Simply so you will be remembered.
And I am fully cognizant that your reason is a very common one. It's that kind of thinking that I think needs to change.
Children should not be deliberately created to fulfill our own desires. They should be created to fulfill theirs. Our wishes/desires should be secondary.