Talk:Should the world adopt a one-child policy?

Merge with Should we aim to reduce the Earth population?

The merge seems undesirable: the two propositions are distinct and distinct kinds of arguments apply to them. Since, one-child policy is one particular top-down policy to reduce the Earth population, with element of strong totalitarian-like government intervention, whereas the objective of reducing the Earth population can be aimed at using a range of different policies, including better education and economic opportunities for women (people with vaginas capable in principle to give birth to children, I mean), better access to contraception using condoms, better public debate about the benefits of reducing the Earth population, etc. Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's more productive to discuss specific policy rather than whether or not we need to reduce the population. Contraception, public discourse and education only reduce the subpopulations that care enough about the problem to avail themselves of such things. To introduce selective pressure against the sort of person who gives a damn in the first place seems ill-advised. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Though, I would pose the question more generally and ask whether or not we ought to have an "n child policy", as it were. A well-enforced two-child policy would likely keep a given population below replacement and probably have fewer negative social consequences. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Actually, I misunderstood your comment, somehow. I thought you were suggesting merging the two. AP295 (discuss • contribs)