Should the U.N. Mandate One Child Per Couple?

Question

Bill McKibben's book "Maybe One" lays out an argument that only by decreasing population can we have a sustainable human lifestyle in the 21st century and beyond.

Should the UN pick up the successful model of China and mandate that for all countries, each couple can only have one child? Wouldn't this have an immediate affect on places like Darfur and Somalia where starvation is rampant?

Answer 1

China does not have a successful model. The males are out numbering the females now, and it only is going to get worse. They only want males as the males take care of the parents in old age. Where a female marries and leaves with her husband. What will they do when the women are gone? Do you really think the people in Somalia or Darfur would listen to the UN? How would they even know or care?

Answer 2

China is far from a model to hold up as a success. Aside from the startling number of child abductions and child trafficking, there is now a huge disparity between the number of boys and girls. While I like to think the Western world isn't so obsessed with this moronic idea that males are worth more than females, who knows what could happen if there was a 'one child' per couple system. Would parents be forced to have an abortion if they became pregnant a second time? Would second children be made to feel like burdens to society?

What is needed is better, fairer division of basics like food and water. In areas where food and water are scarce, those are where there needs to be less children. The Third World has too many kids while Developed countries are in-line to suffer from a child shortage where there are too many old people and not enough young folk to take over the workforce.

Answer 3

And what would Bill McKibben suggest I do with the second of my twin daughters - leave her on a hillside to die, or perhaps sell her to someone else, like they do in "successful" China?

No, but a more practical and humane global solution might include an end to the post-colonial exploitation of the so-called 'third-world' by the the rich 'first world' ; a more even and equitable distribution of the world's resources ; and maybe the removal of narrow-minded religious missionaries from these famine-struck countries to faciliate access to contraception, so these poor people can avoid unwanted pregnancies and chose not to bring children into misery and starvation and watch them suffer and die through "God's will".

Answer 4

Brilliant model China. Let us see, just how many females is their population short of now due to the selective abortion methods used as a direct result of their ' successful ' one child policy ? Imagine this extrapolated to societies around the world that do not exactly elevate the status of the women in their midst. Historically large numbers of surplus males equals war, so I suppose that would lower world population. So the aim of population contraction could be achieved through the law of unexpected consequences. Just a thought.

Answer 5

Despite what the conservatives tell you, the ability of the UN to mandate ANYTHING is quite limited. Even if countries like Somalia agreed to this, the impact would not be felt for another generation, so this is not a "quick fix" to Darfur.

Answer 6

I am prochoice and do not want government regulating any woman's body even though I recognize that 50,000 species are going extinct in each of the decades. The world population was the US population 2000 years ago and is now over 6 billion. Children are important to fight wars. Just look at who fights in the US military - youngsters right out of high school.

Answer 7

What Darfur and Somalia need do is stop their ignorance
and do something constructive for their countries and
people instead of constant fighting over nothing all the
time.......I don't believe in U.N. mandates disrupting any
phase of our private lives or imposing on any freedoms
we have.....should anyone see China as 'a successful
model' in this respect, this someone should go on over to China, there are plenty mandates there for them to follow!

Answer 8

This whole idea reminds me of the idea that some places have, that now that I'm here, no one else is welcome. I think that it is a regressive and self defeating attitude, but one that many people like.
You see it in very restrictive subdivisions,in country clubs,in some states, and even in our country,(illegal immigrants). Most of us wouldn't be here if our parents hadn't come to this country, by whatever means available, and now that we are here, we don't understand that others might want to be here too, by whatever means available.
The world will never get better if we don't have children to make it so, and not all of our greatest humans have been first borns. So what are we doing to ourselves?
I think that we ought to let God decide, and for those who don't believe in Him, let nature decide. We cannot control everything.

Answer 9

Only if YOU were the 2nd child in your family !!!!!

This is the most idiotic idea I have EVER heard. China's model is FAR from successful - in some areas of that country it borders on barbaric !!!

Get your facts straight you uneducated fool !!

Besides - the UN "tries" to tell countries alot of things..... most never listen. What makes you think they could even BEGIN to be effective with an idea like this ?

Plus, hmmmmmm I can hear the liberals now..... so, if your poor or can;t take care of your own, you only get to have 1...... if your rich / affluent and can support them, you get to have as many as you want .........

Yeah - thats equal rights......

Answer 10

They could also mandate that everyone in the world stop smoking and lose weight. How effective do you think that would be? And will they, like China, force you to abort if you become pregnant with a second child?