I was responding to your presented scenario of what the government should do and how that would barely make a dent. You did not include India's sterilisation efforts in your scenario either. Or mention you wanted it to be government policy to also implement the one-child policy. I can only work with what I am given. The name of the one-child policy is also a bit of a misnomer as you can buy your way out of being bound by it and have multiple children regardless if you are willing to soak up the fines or exploit loopholes.
You seem to think it was a success.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/3796/api077.pdf?sequence=1
This does not, however, account for the unreported births either that are now coming to light. If you have more up to date analysis and statistics I would be interested.
India's forced sterilisation efforts are another contentious one resulting in further atrocities. The sterilisation came out of corrupt politics, it certainly was not the will of the people. Due to unsanitary conditions, many people needlessly died and those corpses were covered up by media censorship.
There are better methods of reducing birth rates. That don't involve your government violating your human rights, kicking your door in and forcing unwanted medical procedures on you, disregarding your personal choices for some apparent greater good. I find it absolutely fascinating you endorse that considering the site we are on.
Better methods consist of education and lifting people out of poverty. The correlation between reduced poverty and lower fertility rates is well established. You can examine in detail why that turns out to be the case here.
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
Overpopulation isn't the problem, poor distribution of resources is the problem.
Like noname says. The problems of Africa are compounded by the poor distribution of resources. Without resources how can they grow and develop? Thus reducing fertility rates as a natural byproduct of improved living standards and education?
how can you call a forced one-child policy cruel and anmoralic when it eventually helps to prevent sth way more cruel?
Easily. The causality of the environment turning against us, of shortages and famine. Is not consciously cruel. You can't argue with a hurricane and point out how damaging it is in the hopes it changes its behaviour. It has no empathy to begin with. Nor does soil depletion or acidification of the oceans. We are simply reaping what we have sown.
In contrast, a one-child policy would have humans behind it. That are capable of cruelty and disregarding suffering in favour of ideology kept in place by financial incentive regardless of the long-term damage. As has already been demonstrated by China and its condemned human rights violations. Which is a model you want to apply to the rest of the world! Would it have been more cruel to not enact such a policy? We can never know. I am not sure how you can measure such things. How do you determine what is more cruel in the first place? What measure would you use?
To enforce such a policy globally you would need some sort of force capable of enacting this law. A law that can't be enforced is about as effective as Facebook petition banning meat. There are plenty of countries that would simply reject the policy for various reasons. Those countries that believe in democracy would want to put it to a vote. If their populace decides against it. Any attempt to enforce it by some outside force would be seen as an attack on democracy. Attacking democracy is a recipe for war. Other countries would reject it outright on faith-based grounds. Trying to force the issue would be seen as an attack on faith. Again resulting in wars. Wars lead to greater shortages and even more aggressive exploitation of earth's resources. Further exacerbating the very problem you seem to view as more cruel in the first place. You would just be adding fuel to an already existing fire.
This would only work in an idealised society comprised of countries that can universally agree on something and act on it across the majority of cultures. Something we need in response to anthropogenic climate change as it is, but isn't happening.
Since that has never happened in the entire span of human history, goes against all the psychology I know of in regards to tribalism, self-invested agendas and sociology. It just seems like wishful thinking that takes us away from pursuing meaningful solutions. Preferably ones that don't have the effect of violating choice. Causing infanticide, devaluing of the disabled, and females, as well as fatal medical complications and growth in child trafficking. All things you are downplaying.
could just as well buy drugs and claim the did an overdose. countless other methods as well.
Precisely so it would add to an already existing problem. Currently, I can find very little info on murders using Nembutal. But I suspect if it was made as readily accessible as your scenario suggests that would change.
![[NoName]](/data/avatars/l/4/4003.jpg?1542567263){kind=avatar}
