With exceptions in cases like when a couple loses a child

Edit: in a scenario where everything is good. No wars, no famine.

Are you asking if it should be a thing, or if it exists?

Ah, I missed the 'should'. Thanks :)

The current trend on world population has us hitting 10.3 billion in 2080, and then it starts to recede. The idea of an overpopulated world comes from a book written in 1968 called “The Population Bomb”. The actual problem we’re facing in the west is a rapidly aging population, and birth rates that are falling off a cliff.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/07/1151971

There's no such thing as rapidly aging, there's exactly one year per year, we don't age any faster nor slower. Declining birth rate, sure, but no such thing as rapidly aging.

The one child policy was tried. It was a disaster.

The real question is why you would possibly think it's a good idea to try.

The total population will be rapidly aging; I.e. a larger portion of that population will be over 65

Literally zero way to enforce it without being cruel.

As an upper limit? As a lower limit? What do you mean?

Forcing people who don't want kids to have two is insane. Who will make it happen? Is there a conception agency where agents just go a rape women in this imagined scenario?

Forcing a third pregnancy to terminate is also pretty insane. Suppose the mother doesn't even know she's pregnant until pretty far along. Suppose a mother hides her pregnancy and gives birth in secret; is that baby getting killed?

In either case, what is the punishment for violation? Suppose a woman is incapable of having kids when you mandated 2; is she to be executed for being unable to fulfill this societal requirement? Suppose a woman intentionally had more than her government-permitted 2 children; what is her sentence for providing extra mouths to feed?

It's unethical, it's not reasonably enforceable, and frankly, I'm not sure I understand what such a policy would even be attempting to accomplish.

I meant as an upper limit.

That was already performed in China.
Kids were born outside of hospitals and either were ghost people without proper paperworl or registered as children of other family members like the sister.

What's your point with this question?

I wanted to know what people think and what could be the pros and cons etc. That's why people ask questions, don't they?

Omg, that's awful

I'm still curious what OP was thinking when posing this question to the community.

Its not a forbidden question.
Nothing about my post said I support it.
Should I explain to you why people ask questions? Are we simply not supposed to ask controversial questions on Lemmy?

nope but I don't think we should subsidize having kids with tax brakes and such. 100% public education and meals at school and we should have universal healthcare. so if children are born provide for their needs as we do for other members of society but no tax breaks or such.

If you were actually curious as to why I asked, I was just wondering, nothing more deep. I'm sorry.

It's just too many people get 'curious' as to why you're asking the question in the first place when you ask a slightly controversial question. I got 2 of these for this post alone.

The question looks at finding an answer for controlling population increase. Nothing was 'specifically' said about women. If it affects women more, I didn't think of that

Besides, there are other means for controlling population such as crushing men's testicles which is also pretty bad but doesn't control women.

I never said that. Why're you soo intent on putting words into my mouth?

Population could also be controlled by neutering men.

That you didn’t even think about how a policy around number of children allowed affects women is astounding

If you neuter men, it really doesn't. It's not that astounding

And men still produce sperm. If we neuter them after 2 children we can still do it. Not that I like that. Just saying there is something else

Wdym

Annnnd I said it wasn't. Didn't I? Didn't support it.

The point of this is, I'm not trying to control women just because I asked a question about the two child policy. Didn't support it, just asked an opinion. How come you're sooooo intent on twisting my words and finding Ill in everything I say?

I said in another comment that I meant as an upper limit.

Read my other comment. I think I should have specified that in the post.

I notice that you have replied to my other comment. You must know I meant that as an upper limit. Is there a reason you need to pretend you didn't read it?

Why?

Didn't we just argue about neutering men?

If it's about controlling anyone, it's about controlling everyone. Which means it's not about controlling women. Stop using that sentence like a buzzword. That's pretty disgusting.

And btw, a question can have multiple answers. You ask questions because you don't know some answers. If there was an answer to this question other than those I know, I might learn it by asking here. It can trigger discussions from which I might learn more on the topic. It is possible that there is an answer which is actually good and I don't know about it. THAT'S why you ask questions.

I also replied that it was not the point. The point is you're accusing the question of being about controlling women. Which it isn't. Why do you keep forgetting things we already discussed and going back to it?

Rapidly aging refers to the trend line of average age rapidly increasing over time. Not people rapidly aging.

How could I be sure? Even of there weren't I might end up learning something interesting. (For example, someone else commented about 'ghost people' about China) What you're saying sums down to 'don't ask questions related to controversial topics'. We always need to discuss them.

So? It still doesn't mean the question is about controlling women. And the point of asking questions is to learn something you might not know.

To say that questions themselves are bad is promoting blind faith.

There are no good answers for population control that doesn’t include torturing humans

This is an answer, my guy. Instead of acting suspicious for no reason, you could just do this and have a healthy discussion.

And my question wasn't 'Why do you think 2 child policy is good?' It was 'Do you think two child policy is good?' Which could be answered with 'NO' which is a good answer (if there isn't a moral way to implement it).

I’m not the only person to have a bad reaction to this question and you know

You're not peer pressuring me lmfao. If that bothered me I'd have deleted the post already. XD

Pondering how to control humans reproductive rights is certainly something you’re allowed to do and the rest of us are allowed to ask why

Oh? But I'm not going to do that tho. You can, if you want to.

My question was (how many times have I said this?) 'Do you think Strict two child policy should be a thing? ' which is a different question from 'how do I implement strict 2 child policy?'

Twisting People's words is pretty lame yk? You better stop that, for your own sake.

You’re gonna have to live with the fact that people will form opinions about you based on your actions

Ok? That still doesn't explain why you want to promote a very bad incorrect suspicion based on a normal question.