Permanently Deleted

  • Saleriy [comrade/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I understand why that's the choice for most couples. I think there should be more incentives for adopting.

                  • Civility [none/use name]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    It kind of did though.

                    The main penalty for violating the one child policy was a fine calculated as a multiple of the parent's annual income (usually, enforcement varied from province to province and over the policies lifetime), so it was effectively a conception tax. It caused a lot of problems, but it's hard to argue that the one child policy didn't reduce China's population, or at the very least its population growth.

            • Jeff_Benzos [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              Can you explain why you would want to reduce the population?

                • Steely_Gaige [none/use name]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Mmm, this ain't the one, comrade. A tax paid for conception would only turn procreation to a privilege denied to the poor. Population reduction is not a good path forward, for obvious reasons.

                  • Duckduck [none/use name]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    Make everyone earning less than six figures exempt. An ever-expanding population means doom for the planet.

                    In 1965 a United Nations report predicted that the world's population would rise to 5.7 billion by 1995. It did.

                • Jeff_Benzos [he/him]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Right, and which babies are going to have a larger carbon footprint? The ones with parents who can pay the tax or the ones with parents who cannot?

                  Western countries destroying the earth's ability to sustain life is a product of the western consumer economy. There's a reason that shifting the blame to individuals having kids is so popular with libs

      • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        depends how you mean. A child is pretty cheap to conceive compared to the money needed to adopt, but will cost about as much over time. Plus american birthing costs are absurdly high.

    • Vampire [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Gazillions of years of evolutionary imperative

      • AcidSmiley [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Not having the time, money and economic security to raise kids seem to do a good job at overriding that evolutionary imperative. Maybe it's just not that much of an imperative? I mean, humans had to evolve that whole recreational sex thing to trick themselfs into fucking enough and as soon as you give them an option to have recreational sex without the side effect of tons of babies, they're all like fuck yes gimme.