One-child policy. Or we could slaughter loads of dumb people and assholes, but that doesn't sound right to me.. ll , llxhl'' ll' MINI] THE WWII! WWII] HAVING si unpopular opinion puffin
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

One-child policy

Or we could slaughter loads of dumb people and assholes, but that doesn't sound right to me.

ll , llxhl'' ll' MINI] THE WWII!
WWII] HAVING sitll) Milli}?
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 927
Favorited: 0
Submitted: 11/15/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to mrsaytan E-mail to friend submit to reddit

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#17 - pjers ONLINE (11/15/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Unfortunately that would lead to under-population.

The average is about 2.5 children per 2 adults (the .5 is birth defects & random death) the sensible policy is a two child policy with the .5 assigned at random to healthy couples with no dangerous genetic abnormality (if you assess couples as a whole you can eliminate couples where both have a harmless form of say sickle cell but not couples where one has sickle cell anaemia but the other is free because they can't have a child with the disease) otherwise healthy couples who want children could just be assigned one. BTW I just used sickle cell as an example the method works for haemophilia for any recessive trait just as well.
User avatar #19 to #17 - mrsaytan (11/15/2013) [-]
Of course the policy would be used just to hold the population until we're in lesser numbers, not to use it to extinction.
#8 - ogg (11/15/2013) [+] (3 replies)
i dont think it very fair to restrict the number of children. i think over population is just a thing with no good way to "fix" it.
User avatar #9 to #8 - mrsaytan (11/15/2013) [-]
There are ways to fix overpopulation, but all of them are somewhat immoral. One-child policy is probably the least harmful of them. At least it's much less harmful than to wage war over the ever lessening resources or to die of famine.
#1 - twi (11/15/2013) [+] (6 replies)
this is a cute pony
you like cute pony
upvote cute pony
#26 - anonymous (12/05/2013) [-]
ya but itll create population aging like eastern europe and japan. People are just living really long
#22 - anonymous (11/16/2013) [+] (1 reply)
who would enforce this? this sounds like a restriction of basic human rights. any government that had the power to enforce this would be far too powerful.
I think a better way to go about this is to let the population expand quickly. technology will expand with us and more people will be able to live in less space. genetically engineered crops will have higher and higher yields. Eventually we'll expand into the rest of the solar system (and galaxy!) and overpopulation won't be even a remote concern.
Have faith in humanity. We've overcome quite a few things in our history!
User avatar #21 - sharlibri (11/16/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Could you imagine how many spoiled brats the world would have?
User avatar #11 - mechanichore (11/15/2013) [+] (6 replies)
We do not have overpopulation in the U.S. In fact, 30% of our country is considered wilderness. Also, overcrowding and overpopulation are different.
 Friends (0)