Hacker News Reader

This would cause a significant population decline. US population growth is largely being propped up by immigration, with a one child policy (i.e. 2x parents down to 1x child) it is unlikely that immigration could maintain the current population levels.

China implemented One Child because they needed population decline or to slow population growth. But even China has now largely scrapped it.

> You're on your own for any child after the first child

To phase this more accurately, the second CHILD is on their own. The first child, under your scheme, is educated and receives health benefits. The second child will receive no education and will have to suffer from any health ailments that they receive.

> To phase this more accurately, the second CHILD is on their own. The first child, under your scheme, is educated and receives health benefits. The second child will receive no education and will have to suffer from any health ailments that they receive.

The current status quo is bad for our society. Someone mentioned that we need means-testing as a compromise between no social safety net and a social safety net for all regardless of income. What I am proposing is a radical heartless turn that creates two classes of people: the first-born.

I would like to remind you that a one-child policy is NOT my first preference. The whole thing goes away if we accept that we need to pay our share for the welfare of our children. Ideally, it won't come to this but if it does, I have faith that we will survive a shrinkage in population. It is the right thing to do (given the hand we are dealt).

Have you looked at African-American child mortality rates recently, especially in the South? Until you can convincingly promise birth visitors and prenatal care (like people got in the New Orleans projects in the forties and fifties, and no one contested that as an expenditure then), don't count on this going down easily with them.

I am all for Medicare for all. I'll gladly accept any proposal better than mine.

I'm not a politician. I don't have to be popular. I suspect (and it scares me a little) that a majority of the public will support this idea.

If you can't afford to have one child, you certainly shouldn't have a second one. Like I said before something has to give. Either convince the taxpayer to pay for the child or you point up the money. In any case, it is cruel and inhumane to bring a child in extreme poverty in these United States.

Of the various ideas you could come up with "only the rich should be allowed to have more than one child" doesn't strike me as "the right thing to do."

As the father of natural twins, I have issues with your modest proposal.

Not that I'm defending a one-child policy, but fwiw even China's policy had an exception for twins.

My first preference is medicare for all. However, I don't see that happening. Something has to give.

I can be flexible on natural twins. Ideally, I do not want a one-child policy. The main point of contention is funding. How many natural twins are there and how does it affect funding?

basically, this is a ponzi scheme and our only way it is sustainable is a massive burst in productivity (I don't know how, will have to figure it out as we go).

A birth rate that is basically replacement (ie ~2 children per couple) is not a "Ponzi scheme". It's not contributing to population growth. The US and most other industrialized nations have negative population growth, once immigration is removed from the equation. And this low birth rate is an observed consequence of increasing income. It doesn't require western standards of living, either. Vietnam has a birth rate of less than 2.

You don't need to coerce the population. You just need to lift them out of extreme poverty.

As for a massive burst in productivity - that's already happened and is continuing. The Internet is making the world's knowledge freely available to everyone. What does that do for productivity? In a few decades, clean solar/wind power will replace fossil fuels. What will limitless clean energy do for productivity?

In the 19th century, most of Sweden lived in extreme poverty. Fully 20% fled to America to escape famine. Today, they're one of the richest countries in the world, and their population is stable.

Sorry, didn't mean to say that. I meant to say A birth rate of 1 is a Ponzi scheme. But really it is a game of chicken to force our society to act.

I don't think you're considering how flexible my policy is... As we have more will, we can increase the one child policy to two or even three. All it takes is increased funding.

I have a hard time thinking of a policy of killing off the excess babies as "flexible". Kind of the opposite, actually.

Worse, because it's totally unnecessary.

Oh. Sorry. I never meant to say we should kill people. I am simply saying that in the absence of public support for a social net for all, we should at least guarantee a social net for the first born for everyone regardless of their background or social status.

I never meant to imply that we will actively terminate any living being for the mistakes/crimes of its parents. Under the n -- current proposal is n = one -- child policy, it will be a crime to have more than n children and not be able to afford a minimum standard of living for them. You'll have to be really careful should your circumstances change in the future. While this will hurt some people in the short term, I believe people will be better off than they are today.

The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration.

> The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration.

I am all for mooching on the rest of the world if that is what it takes. The immigrants will be subject to the same one-child policy though. No exceptions*

* I think there is appetite for an exception for natural twins based on replies here. We will need to see how it holds up in practice.

I think your idea for reducing the birth rate in the US even further is poorly considered. As for immigrants, I'm certain that their children end up with the same decreased rate of childbirth thanks to economic pressure.

Optimization for GDP growth results in an increased global population. If you want a more sustainable human footprint on the world as a whole, what you want to pursue is _global_ negative GDP growth. If you want to see a decreased US ecological footprint you should be against immigration.

> Optimization for GDP growth results in an increased global population. If you want a more sustainable human footprint on the world as a whole, what you want to pursue is _global_ negative GDP growth. If you want to see a decreased US ecological footprint you should be against immigration.

Sorry if this question is stupid. I am not an economist. Is global GDP growth non-negotiable?

I don't think it's a stupid question. I'm not an economist either. It's debatable (if you use Google, you can easily find a lot of environmental and economic papers talking about the subject) but GDP growth is probably a good proxy for environmental footprint growth as of now. Of course it's possible to imagine better production technologies producing the same or more output for less input, but broadly speaking if you are a fan of a sustainable future you should be an advocate of negative growth economies.

They pay that with taxes. Taxes come from citizens. Citizens come from babies.

If you don't have kids, you don't create taxpayers, and then society can't pay.

> If you don't have kids, you don't create taxpayers, and then society can't pay.

I don't for one second believe that we don't have the funds. This isn't about money. This is about priorities. What do we prioritize as a society?