- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 341 Hour
- Reading permission
You said, "China has taken the problem of overpopulation by the scruff of the neck and dealt with it precisely, in a focused and disciplined way with the maximum education possible. The result over a period of 25 years is astounding and pleasing. There have been huge issues of culture, tradition and superstitions to be overcomed and we did it , not perfectly, but more than creditably. The whole world should rejoice with us."|
I congratulate you for having the guts to tackle a huge problem. Of course, there are difficulties, as there are with any large change. It would be good if India and other countries would take a similar approach. Given the exceptions that there are to the one child policy, and the willingness of some to pay the penalties for additional children, any overall policy more lenient than one child would probably result in unacceptably large population growth.
Regarding the idea that a stable or declining population would force people to finance their own retirement, what's wrong with that? Why should we older people depend on an ever increasing pool of workers to pay for our retirement years? The present social insurance schemes of the US and other western countries are a giant pyramid scheme, relying on constant increases in the number of people paying into them. As with any pyramid scheme, the pool of contributors can't increase forever. China has wisely made pyramid schemes illegal.
Population limitation is absolutely necessary if the poorer people of the world hope to improve their living conditions, and if those already enjoying decent standards of living hope to maintain them. While China's policy may not be perfect, I don't know who is doing a better job on a large scale.