If every couple had only one child?

Question

after two generations the worlds population would be at 1900 levels, Is this a good idea?

Answer 1

It might be a good idea for several aspects:

1. Increases the amount of resources the parent(s) have to give to their child (time, attention, money, food, security)

2. Lowers the impact of increasing population on the resources of a town, district, state, country and continent.

3. Allows for each child to receive a larger portion of available education and future job prospects.

There are many more advantages, but these are just a few.

There are drawbacks - no one wants to be told how many children they are allowed to have, especially in countries that consider themselves to be democratic. Religions would not support a mandated one child rule either.

There was a Zero Growth movement back in the late 70's that had caught my attention - I was still pretty impressionable.

My spouse and I (for different, though still somewhat similar reasons) decided that we would personally adpot a Negative Growth policy for our family. We decided not to have children of our own, but to participate in our community by contributing our time and what resources we could to other people's children.

We will not leave a legacy of new human beings, but a legacy of helping to give the existing young generations a better tomorrow.

It has to be a personal choice for each couple and each person.

It would be nice though, if people could stop trying to talk us out of our decision and respect our choice.

Answer 2

Unfortunately this solution only works in places that are more industrialized, or that are ruled by a government that has the power to do such a thing.

So far the trend has been that the more educated and more money people have often the less children they have as well. It is often uneducated people who live in poorer and more rural areas that often have many more children. Which leads to those children becoming uneducated and poor and have more children themselves. It is a vicious cycle. If you look at the population of the world which countries have the largest growth? The 3rd world countries which can deal with the growth the least. The Western countries and Europe see more growth due to immigration percentage wise then the established population repopulating itself.

Answer 3

It depends on your perspective. If you're an environmentalist you'll see that there will be less population crowding and less strain on the environment. Less need for housing, more land areas left alone. Less pollution.

However, other issues are we won't have a large enough work force to support the current lifestyle. It would devestate economies across the world. Less tax money coming in. Businesses closing. Just in the United States alone Social Security will go haywire because there won't be enough of the younger generation to support the older generation.

Slowing or decreasing the world population growth isn't a bad idea but definitely not in such a short time span.

Answer 4

My Science Professor said that a population can only get as big as the resources can support. It is agreed that some countries are growing faster than resources can be tapped but at least replacement reproduction would ensure that the technology and advancements stay possible. If each couple only had 2 children, the population would be at a slow decline, but it wouldn't change anything in daily life. I think if there are going to be any restrictions, that that should be all it is.

Answer 5

That's a tough one to answer for someone who's child #3.

I believe that's a simplistic approach that fails to take into account a population that is living longer and longer due to improved nutrition and medicines. It isn't realistic to presume that the various nations of the world will achieve this kind of stringent population reversal in the next decade, but implementing goals for the future that can be met and identifying sustainable measures to allow that population to live quality lifestyles is something we should all be striving for. Of the current world population, many live in fear or squalor with a lifestyle far below anything most of us have ever experienced.

Answer 6

I think it would be...our population growth is horribly exponential right now. If we all had less children, we could focus and do more for one child than for 3 or 4. It would be good for the environment as well. There are too many people in the world today. I once read a book in college history that plagues possibly arise from populations being too dense causing disease to spread more easily. So, I believe fewer kids would be good for the earth, healthier for us, and would help many people money wise. True, your child wouldn't have the experience of having a lil bro or sis....

Answer 7

This was done in China to limit population. The problem is that when one gender or type of child is revered over the others, children are killed to have that one perfect child.

The other problem is what to do if people do not comply with the law. Would the police have to arrest someone who has more than one child?

The more likely population culling scenario is probably going to be a global pandemic, like bubonic plague, incurable influenza, or bird flu that takes out a vast portion of the populations.

Answer 8

This is not a new proposal. In the 1970's zero population growth was pushed. The problem is only the educated and western nations jumped on the bandwagon. (Except China where they punish you severely if you have more than one child). Less educated parts of the world don't participate. Various cultures promote just the opposite. In the middle east, men are allowed up to 4 wives, and they have many children with each wife. Their goal is to take over the world. Osma Bin Ladden is one of 53 children!

Answer 9

Over population is really an area specific problem. Under population is a contributing factor in the poverty levels in certain area. A great example of this is Mongolia where the population is so low the younger generations are not able to support the oldest generation that is no longer able to work. I fear that restricting everyone to one child would recreate this problem. China has implemented this one child policy because of their extreme over population and it seems to be working for them, but there are a lot of exceptions and it has created a lot of problems in their society. Also we have enough food to easily feed the entire world. Most starvation problems are a result of war not a lack of food. Ethiopia for example can easily produce enough food to feed their nation but that food is stolen by the warlords who use it as a power base.

Answer 10

I guess you have no children or you wouldn't say that.

The effect on the world would be similar to the effect that small town's feel when their children grow up and move away to the big city, leaving the town to die. Business close, farms fail, people are left without hope. It is really depressing.

Just imagine half of all houses abandoned and whole cities turned into ghost towns. Like some post apocalyptic science fiction story.

I really get tired of people who think our problems can be solved by just giving up. Just give up cars. Give up children. Give up on the future and just try to survive at the minimum level. What a failed world that would be.