We need less people in the world. Our only hope to avoid mass human suffering is that as more women get educated and independent they reduce the number of children they’ll conceive to 1 or 2.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/under...
Personally, I think people are an asset, not a burden, and the greatest things in the world! That's right, I mean you, dear reader. Straighten that back!
* The couple has just one child, who is handicapped or unable to work because of non-hereditary diseases. * Both parents are only children themselves, and have just one child so far.
* The couple adopted their first child because one of them was diagnosed as infertile.
* The couple remarried but have only one child in total.
* The couple are ethnic minorities who moved to the city from provinces bordering other countries and were given permission from a high-ranking Family Planning office before they moved.
* The husband has brothers, but only one brother is able to give birth, and the others have promised not to adopt.
* The husband is a farmer who married a woman already with a daughter (this only if that husband pledges to care for the woman’s parents).
* The couple are rural farmers, in which one spouse is a handicapped soldier with an injury grade B or above or can no longer work.
* The couple are farmers from the deep mountains who only have a daughter, depend on farming and are poor.
* Another exception to the one child policy allowed families in rural areas to have another child if the first child was a girl, in hopes to have a boy as their second child.
[0] https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c5d870b...
But btw. many western countries have a shrinking population since years to a degree where that's an problem.
But this also means that the countries which have to take (reasonable) actions include many contribute which often can't afford more reasonable actions :/
Some as simple as reducing poverty.
Some by making it most viable to have one or two children.
Some (China) by limiting the number of children to roughly two.
...
Not all of this policies are good, not all are intentionally made to have that effect.
Still if you want to shrink a countries populations there are much more ways then a hard limit to the number of children (Which I think will hardly ever play out well.).
Then temporarily unsterilizing by winning the lottery, points, ability score, merit, money, whatever...
Simple, innit?
Any law which is not doing so and just enact it the same for any larger region (the world, or just whole of china) is bound to fail big time.
But there are a fiew things you should definitely do:
- Make sure not gender is valued above the other gender.
- No 1 child limit (instead of 2), with a 1 child limit we would have two people having one child, i.e. halving. Which is probably faster shrinking then any country can properly handle (i.e. after a while a horrible ratio of young to old people etc.). A two child limit still will cause shrinkage.
- Don't fixate the law on women, it's unreasonable and put's a further burden on them.
- Make sure your social system isn't incompatible with such a law before enacting it.
- Make sure society is compatible with such a law before enacting it.
- Make sure it's not turned into a money making machine.
- Consider regional differences.
Which would be a view points you should keep to which china didn't bother with at all.
Most problems of the past one child policy in china come from:
- Man being valued much more then woman now leading to there being much more of them then woman.
- To fast shrinkage puts the social system in danger as to view young people have to care for to many old people.
- The laws being abusive to woman.
- The laws unreasonable handling of children which under the law should not have been born but have been born anyway.
EDIT: Just to be clear, there are many more ways to (slowly) shrink a countries population which are based on subtle nudging society in the intended direction instead of enforcing any hard limit on the number of children. Which is probably what China should have done, tbh.
However, non of this will happen. We are still in a world where countries fight over getting more resources to consume. That needs to shift to fighting to protect resources. We need sanctions on countries that fish too much and have too high emissions. Otherwise we will be caught in the tragedy of the commons till the planet is uninhabitable.
Meanwhile we cannot even properly coordinate a response to a pandemic.
This is already the case in most of the world, including many developing countries.