This conversation is closed.

Can the one child policy solve poverty by making the poor extinct?

Continued existence of families living below the poverty line depend on the eligibility of their bachelorette or bachelor. Since Economic status is a great determinant of eligibility, there is a higher likelihood that those in the bottom of the socio economic pyramid will lose out. Union of families fostering single children also means that all resources will be funneled meaning greater Economic wealth. Single child system also means that those who cannot afford to marry and take care of his or her parents would ultimately have to choose between the two, which means increased incidences for self determined lineage extinction. Another imbalance to consider is the gender disproportion towards men, meaning reproductive opportunities would be limited to those who are able.

  • Mar 21 2013: Write whatever you think, but before you post it, go back and try to find all the weaknesses you can, before others do. You might anger others by not considering who and how your words might find.

    My apologies, oppression that you obviously never knew, is all some of us have lived.
    • Mar 21 2013: There was a time when I too felt oppressed, sometimes a change of scenery will do wonders. Move physically and mentally to a place where you feel like you can feel productive. Imagine life as a one time thing, and opportunities are one off things.
      • Mar 21 2013: Thanks Ronald

        The more a person understands, the more sorrow must increase and unless one has enough money to walk away, doing as you suggest is going to be different for each, dontcha think?
        • Mar 22 2013: Different by experince yes, but the framework shouldn't be too different. Google pmargins if it interest you.
  • Mar 21 2013: Truth and justice are at the very heart of learning. Most schools, like lawyers and congress, care nothing for the truth or justice. My schools taught copy and paste. My bosses taught, hooray for me and the hell with you. Congress stands in the open, taking bribes. Congress divides itself and the people, by having 2 parties that create fighting and gridlock, instead of one people, working towards the greater good.

    Without truth and justice, there is no learning and no moving forward.
    • Mar 21 2013: The question I pose to you is, are truth and justice more valued in a sustainable economy? If one faction does not have enough to survive, will they care too much about truth and justice?
  • Mar 21 2013: What is the only thing that creates wealth? Once you google that, ask yourself, are you going to be the-- laborer?
    Everything is stolen from the laborers, by those that set the rules, never caring that a life of labor can be a lot more informative than schooling and much harder. However, it is the laborers that most times bring the new thinking, tools and ideas, that non laborers steal, in the name of the law.
    • Mar 21 2013: Those laborers that bring out the out of box ideas will no longer be laborers for too long. If it is idea stealing that you referring to, then intellectual property rights awareness is your contention and not that laborers deserve more compensation.
      • Mar 21 2013: Why do you think management has meetings?
        • Mar 22 2013: Yeah, but like you said, it is those that immerse themselves in the production that come up with the innovations.
      • Mar 22 2013: That's partly why I was so mad when congress gave away the manufacturing that made this nation great.
    • Mar 21 2013: Also, without googling, wealth creation is the product of business transactions, I.e. business model + capital
      • Mar 21 2013: Make a transaction for say beans. How much money did you make from that transaction?
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2013: This could end poverty,

    The fundamental part of Capitalism is that people have to make less money so other people can make more. This can be seen in today's current economy as the 99% vs. the 1% in America. What most Americans don't realize is that the 99% of Americas are also in the top 1% of the world.

    Because I am able to run my business in a free market, my plan is to limit my employee’s salary, as well as my own, to an amount no greater than $100,000 per year for life. I already have 3 business ventures that I am currently working to get off the ground. These businesses are as follows; One in Marketing, one in 3D printing, and one that can be best described somewhat as a Jiffy Lube for nail salons. As I’ve previously stated, my employee’s and I will never make more than $100,000 a year in income. Furthermore, I plan to automate the jobs completed by my employees and create machines that will complete the work for them. However, I will still pay them their annual salary. I will be able to accomplish this with the capital received from the automated services my businesses will provide. As an employer, I don’t really care who or what does the work as long as it gets done. With the future IT companies I plan to establish, I will be able to spread Wi-Fi coverage to everyone in the country, cheaper than it’s already being done. In addition, I will also have the ability to offer more coverage in more places. I will show those employees how they can outsource their job to 3rd world workers, where they can basically double that person’s income by only paying them a tenth of what I plan to pay my employees. This will allow my employees to semi-retire and still complete all the necessary job requirements. Essentially, this method will enable me to rescue my employees as well as the 3rd world workers from a life of poverty. This can be seen as a trickledown effect, which current businesses like to pretend they already accomplish.
    • Mar 21 2013: Your plan hinges upon the assumption that you R and D beats out the big corporations' and they have the advantage because they have scale and more resources. Also having a wage ceiling and creating redundant jobs probably means your company is less effective and/or efficient than other companies.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2013: Actually is exactly what we are currently doing as business. I am just going to give my billions away as I make them, because I know I can make more. And I know that if I start 23 company that's $2,300,000 a year. I pretty sure I can live fine off of that.

        It's inspired by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, I am just not going to wait till I am dead. I don't care how big my money pile gets because I know the only thing that is stopping me from creating a larger money pile is me.

        Profit for Poverty, instead of profit that creates poverty. Who do you think the 99% will purchase from?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2013: Also I am not creating redundant jobs I am getting rid of jobs, so people can enjoy this beautiful thing that we call life. While creating financial security
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2013: And my R and D is pretty good I have a very unique and great gift I can actually understand and then repeat people's thought pattern's. This is just something I am learn from all of these ted convo's. So once I learn how you came to the knowledge or truth that you know, I can then use that knowledge and out evolve or just prove that what I am saying is truth as well. This is an from another conversation see if it make sense to you.

        So let me see if I can use logic and reason to show you how you need to use their logic and reason. To not prove them wrong but to show them that there is other truth. So you can pick any topic you want and any side of the said topic and I will debate the other side. See to get someone to believe what you say is truth you first have to understand their side as truth as well. Not that it wrong and it clearly might be(like anyone who would say oil is not toxic).

        It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. ~ Sun Tzu Art of War

        Now it doesn't matter how the argument is going once I figure out how you came to your knowledge of truth I can figure out your thought "pattern" or common sense. Once I understand that I can use your common sense thats right your common sense to prove my information as truth. Not as I am right your wrong but just that there is other truth. Edited: I dont even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be

        Think about it as positive or negative manipulation, or even along the lines of a mentalist
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2013: The best part about this plan is that my “semi-retired” employees will have the buying power. Therefore, they will buy from my company instead of from my competitors. Much like a lobbyist, I will be “bribing” my employees for their loyalty in the form of the semi-retired salary, which they will make for the rest of their lives. My employees will know the more they buy from me, the more people we can rescue from poverty.

    Once I educate my employees on how money actually works, they will realize it is a juggling act and my enterprise will be the ultimate juggler. This will also allow the removal of government welfare programs, thus lowering everyone’s tax rates. This will be effective simply because I will be paying people for doing nothing. From then on they can volunteer or spend their time completing more hospitable and fulfilling activities while having job security.

    If 25% of the world companies and charities used this model instead of our current model how fast do you think we can end poverty?
  • Mar 21 2013: Of course one child policy can't solve poverty.In my opinion:Only education can help.
    • Mar 21 2013: Education and forced family planning do not have exclusivity.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Mar 21 2013: No. The only way to end poverty is to end the fiscal system designed by those who intentionally built poverty into it. Poverty was supposed to limit the number of poor people (through what was called "natural law" - where the greater number of their children would die of poverty related issues) while wealthy people ruled over them (by divine right).
    • Mar 21 2013: I agree that the divine right mentality is a huge factor of global poverty, but filial identity and personal posession has been around so long that most people take it as fact of life. Do you have a better alternative yet? What about the fact that more people in developing nations do not practice family planning? Should they have to? What are your thoughts on family planning?
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Mar 22 2013: Family planning is a wonderful idea, but our culture is so insane that this alone will not help.

        I had a conversation here with someone calling for more medical aid in those parts of Africa where because of malnutrition and lack of adequate medical care, too many women are unable to bear children. I suggested that Africa has so many orphans because of aids, that there are many ways to become a parent. His response was that adoption is not socially acceptable in his culture. He was unable to understand how bringing a child into a world where there is already not enough food was unfair to the child as well as those who are already living.

        That man was not alone. That culture was not unique. So many people have lost their ability to use critical thinking skills.

        Given that global warming is real (whatever the cause), and massive population growth is real, and that arable land is being lost at a shocking rate - due to both global warming and bad farming practices by mega corporations that run most farms; and that clean drinking water will be at a premium because mega corporations legally pollute aquifers, family planning will be coming into your neighborhood in less than 15 years (projected) - whether you want it or not.

        And if hunger and thirst doesn't lower our numbers enough, Those who are most inconvenienced by poverty (who are super wealthy and they invest heavily in the military industrial complex), we will hear the drums of war sounding, and we will again hear how a war is necessary. Wars are good for reducing the numbers of people in mass quantities, and because people are so blind to what they are doing, they're sheeple who are willing to defend their right to be victimized.

        I think that some people shouldn't be parents. Having been raised in a large family (9 kids), I believe that large families are a form of child abuse. Had birth control been available, I wouldn't have been born, and that is OK with me.
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Mar 22 2013: I just read what I wrote and I see what a dark picture I have drawn. But it is not all dark.

        There is a movement that is growing globally. It's not mainstream yet, but it is growing. There are so many who have "awakened", who are able to think rationally and who are self-aware. Whatever route we take to get there, I see nothing but good for the culture that comes out of what is to happen.
  • Mar 21 2013: Reread Ricardo and Malthus. You can have too much of a good thing including people. There are many ways to reduce population. A two child policy would work. China had an extreme problem. India was in a similiar spot.
    Indira Gandhi was assissinated. Calories consumed per person have declined in India in recent years. Eventually something will give in India.
    • Mar 21 2013: I agree human resources are premium, my question is does lack of family planning help or hurt human resources.
      • Mar 22 2013: two hundred years ago Moral Restraint was observed by Malthus. Isn't that family planning and doesn't it separate us from the rats, guinea pigs etc. l?
        • Mar 22 2013: The irony of some religions promoting immorality if that statement holds truth.
  • Mar 21 2013: No.

    A one child per family policy might help geographic locations where the population exceeds the available natural and economic resources, but poverty will still exist. Resources and wealth are not evenly distributed by any over-arching entity and are mostly market driven at the global level. Some government types have attempted to reduce this disparity through regulation and oversight, but social Darwinism still creeps in and creates disparity between people. There are also cataclysmic events, natural disasters, health problems, criminal behavior and corruption, and similar problems and blights that will constantly be chaotic influences that create poverty. Individually, humans are susceptible to greed, disagreements about fairness, different work ethics, different cultural and personal priorities, and different levels of acceptable quality of life that will also serve as chaotic influences.

    A one child policy will not solve all these problems.
    • Mar 21 2013: I thought poverty was the state of inability towards procuring the basic needs of life and not wealth equality or managing wealth disparity. Basic human rights and the goods or tools that are prerequisite towards such.
      • Mar 22 2013: I am sure there are many definitions. Here is one from Wiki:

        Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Relative poverty is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people live.

        Howver, for any of these definitions, yours or the one from Wiki, a 1 child rule might lessen the effects of an impoverished family, but will likely not solve poverty or make the poor extinct.

  • thumb
    Mar 21 2013: .
    A strict one-child-policy will make us richer and richer
    and save humankind from population explosion.
    • Mar 21 2013: How? Economically and spiritually richer or just economically? P.s. spirit = culture
      • thumb
        Mar 23 2013: .Thanks.
        . . (1) Every couple has only one child.
        , , (2) The wealth on the planet is constant.
        , , (3) No invalid happiness (greed) exists.

        . . (1) The population gets smaller and smaller.
        , , (2) Every person shares the wealth more and more,
        , , , , .economically as well as spiritually.


        (For details, see the 1st article, points 1-3, 14, at
  • Comment deleted

    • Mar 20 2013: I agree that in the short term, some problems like old age welfare might be an issue, but like I stated above, doesn't that too lead to the extinction of that family line.