Is China's One Child policy eugenic?

[VetLegion]

Look, I don't know why I need to keep explaining what I said. You see, it's a tautology.

[KrazyHorse]

You need to explain what you said because it makes no sense.

[Kidlicious]

Look, I don't know why I need to keep explaining what I said. You see, it's a tautology.

You said population decline is by definition temporary. You should explain that.

[Lorizael]

You said population decline is by definition temporary. You should explain that.

That's pretty intuitive. Given a long enough timeframe, declining populations either stop declining or reach zero.

[Kidlicious]

That's pretty intuitive. Given a long enough timeframe, declining populations either stop declining or reach zero.

No

edit: I will agree that one day the population of the earth will be zero, but that doesn't mean what you said has any meaning.

[Lorizael]

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. Population is a one-dimensional figure with an absolute minimum. It can increase, decrease to a point, or stay the same.

[Kidlicious]

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. Population is a one-dimensional figure with an absolute minimum. It can increase, decrease to a point, or stay the same.

If you don't know what the population will be in the future how can you know if it will stay the same?

[Lorizael]

Er, uh, you can't. You can certainly make predictions. And observations. But that doesn't change the fact that populations can, in fact, stay the same. And they can increase. And they can decrease as well, but only to zero. What's so difficult about this concept?

[KrazyHorse]

Why are you trying to talk rationally with kiddy?

[Lorizael]

No

edit: I will agree that one day the population of the earth will be zero, but that doesn't mean what you said has any meaning.

I never said it did!

[Kidlicious]

I never said it did!

How do you explain something that has no meaning?

[Lorizael]

WHAT IS GOING ON? OH MY GOD! I MADE A SILLY REMARK ABOUT THE FACT THAT POPULATION NUMBERS ARE NATURAL NUMBERS AND YOU'RE TOTALLY FAILING TO GRASP THE CONCEPT. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?

[Kidlicious]

WHAT IS GOING ON? OH MY GOD! I MADE A SILLY REMARK ABOUT THE FACT THAT POPULATION NUMBERS ARE NATURAL NUMBERS AND YOU'RE TOTALLY FAILING TO GRASP THE CONCEPT. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?

My bad. I got you confused with Vet Legion for some reason.

[Heraclitus]

Vetlegion may have a point. Strong selective pressures now exist for those that desire families, while sexual drive is selected for weakly (only in the very young).


It may be that in 10 or 11 generations the remaining humans will have a very strong desire for family and perhaps even a slightly weaker sex drive than we do today (since promiscius people statistically seem to be reproducing less, off course its hard to get good data for the number of ofspring promiscius males make).



Those who will be left will be the ones who have traits that encourage people to have lots of kids. The transition may be a good thing, if most of the third world goes the European way eventually this might mean that the global population in the 22nd century could be smaller than the 21st century peak by a billion or more. This pause in growth could help tech catch up to our needs.

[VetLegion]

It may be that in 10 or 11 generations the remaining humans will have a very strong desire for family and perhaps even a slightly weaker sex drive than we do today (since promiscius people statistically seem to be reproducing less, off course its hard to get good data for the number of ofspring promiscius males make).

Quite the opposite. People in the future will if anything have a higher sex drive than today. I think that the movie Idiocracy is a good depiction of both the current trend and where it leads in the extreme (and not very likely) case.