20 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
20 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

One Child Idea is good ? Pro and Cons.

by nadeemajeedch
17 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Nearly half of children in the UK are in single-child families, and it's the same in some parts of the US. With more and more countries on the road to becoming one-child nations.
So Are you in favor of this, to have One child only ? or You like to have Siblings ? what are pro and cons to have one child ?
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, as an only child, I would have liked to have brothers and sisters. My father had a sister, and I believe a brother. My mother had a whole bunch of brothers. My great great great grandfather(hope I go enough greats in there) had like 14 kids! Probably roughly fifty/fifty.

    But today, it seems like haing a lot of kids is a dumb idea. The world is WAY overpopulated as it is.

    The pros to having ONE child?

    1. No sibling rivalry.
    2. No sibling conspiracies.
    3. No fear of favoritism.
    4. More time.
    5. Lower cost.
    6. Less worry.

    CON?

    1. No instruction by older kids.
    2. Less companionship.
    3. No competitions.
    4. No big family dynamic.
    5. Less support for all in the future.
    6. Having to get babysitters, etc...

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7876095].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
      If it's imposed, I'm totally against it. Other than saying that, I'd better keep quiet now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7876412].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    Originally Posted by nadeemajeedch View Post

    Nearly half of children in the UK are in single-child families, and it’s the same in some parts of the US.
    That's suprising. The couples I know with young kids have 2,3 or 4.


    Andrew
    Signature
    Online courses
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7876507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We are inside of a major extinction with many natural resources becoming scarce. We crossed carrying capacity of the earth almost a billion people ago. Right now we need people to get used to one kid per family. Start having more and they'll just get caught in a major die off in around 10 years, anyway.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7877061].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author salegurus
    I have to say that i don't see that trend here in Texas, in fact it's quite the opposite and that's all i'm going to say about that.

    Also it depends on geography, population groups, education etc. While some population groups may have a negative growth rate the majority of the planets inhabitants are procreating at a rapid pace...
    Signature
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

    ― George Carlin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7877709].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Either we believe in and promote personal freedom - or we don't.

      If you want to live in a world where you are told how many children you are allowed to have - you also will live in a world where you are told what you can and cannot say or write or believe.

      I don't see a world where "you can't regulate my internet access" is followed by "you can't have more children". It doesn't compute.:rolleyes:

      I'll admit I have wondered what would happen if people on public assistance were not paid more for having more kids...but...

      The birth rate in the US has been declining for over ten years. Seems the greatest limiting factor in number of children - is a bad economy and a "me" generation.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Live life like someone left the gate open
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7877819].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We can promote freedom all we want. People aren't getting the drift of why we need to cut to negative birth rates right away. Nature is right now in the process of taking the lead on that choice. Right now starvation on the planet is a man-made disaster. Within the next 7 years, it will be moving into the natural disaster category and there will be not one thing anyone can do about it. We are now moving toward 2 billion hungry globally. That's around the number that will survive a global famine. It won't just be famine - we're running out of underground supplies of one metal that is absolutely necessary for our standard of life right now. When that runs out there will be some that die because of it. Then, too - resource wars are nothing right now compared to what's coming when natural food shortage hits. A lot of people will be completely cut off from distribution and any country with power to attack a food source will do it.

    This is not a "freedom" issue. When the global population hits an unsustainable number, you either get to a negative population growth or nature will kill most of you. The only "freedom" issue here is whether people have the right to breed ALL of us into extinction or close to it. We've already let them breed us into a mass extinction and we can still very easily become part of that if it's not turned around like...um.....yesterday.. Maybe time to stop worrying about putting new kids here when we are letting hundreds of millions already here starve to death?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7879380].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Seriously,
    Where has everybody been these past years?

    One-child policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7879817].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Seriously,
      Where has everybody been these past years?

      One-child policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      This is an entirely different matter as that policy is going into the second generation. Imagine a nation where all the children have

      1. no brothers
      2. no sisters
      3. no cousins
      4. no uncles
      5. no aunts

      There is a lot of evidence in China that this promotes extreme selfishness as well as other issues.
      Signature

      Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7881484].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

        This is an entirely different matter as that policy is going into the second generation. Imagine a nation where all the children have

        1. no brothers
        2. no sisters
        3. no cousins
        4. no uncles
        5. no aunts

        There is a lot of evidence in China that this promotes extreme selfishness as well as other issues.
        Derek,
        I disagree that it is a different matter,but I do agree with your assessment.
        I was trying to ge t people to actually look into it.

        I personally think that two is a good amount to have to give the family and children a better sense of balance.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7881933].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Derek -

          I've thought about the same family dynamic change as you mention. This policy is expected to go on for another 20 years before the restrictions are lifted.

          And this in a society where relatives are cherished. I've wondered what this might do to those extended family values. Also have read about girl children aborted or otherwise "removed" in favor of sons and what effect that will have on the ratio of male/female adults 20 years from now.

          It's a policy that will studied for a long time - and the results will only be fully evident in the next generation or two.

          This policy treats overpopulation as a societal problem - as HeySal sees it. But in the end, it's not society that has a child - it's two parents. Being encouraged or rewarded for having limited children is one thing - when you mandate one child only....that's as personal as it gets. It dictates rights to the most basic human function - reproduction.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          Live life like someone left the gate open
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7882070].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    We're a one-child family. It's our choice. Others choose differently, and we don't stick our nose in their business (though some do prod into ours). Maybe there are big happy families out there. I had lots of siblings and it was not The Brady Bunch. It was more Marquis de Sade.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7879877].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      We're a one-child family. It's our choice. Others choose differently, and we don't stick our nose in their business (though some do prod into ours). Maybe there are big happy families out there. I had lots of siblings and it was not The Brady Bunch. It was more Marquis de Sade.
      TBird, Your family can be very different because you are the dad and both you and your wife don't have to permit the kind of problems to go on that you experienced if you change your minds. Sorry to hear you had a tough time growing up.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7880071].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by AprilCT View Post

        TBird, Your family can be very different because you are the dad and both you and your wife don't have to permit the kind of problems to go on that you experienced if you change your minds. Sorry to hear you had a tough time growing up.
        Sorry if I came across like I had "tough time" growing. Far from it. I had a comparatively privileged upbringing, just it wasn't "warm and fuzzy" but mean-spirited and sadistic, mostly psychological in nature (though there were actual weapons such as a bullwhip occasionally employed by older siblings to inflict pain).

        I am very different as a dad from what I've described in this thread. I raise my son the way I wish I was raised, with positivity, love, constructive encouragement.
        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7880196].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
          Tbird -- My thoughts are that type of thing was definitely tough on you growing up. It's certainly to your credit that your own family is now a much different direction without violence.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7880748].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cpa-money
    one is enough, people brings lots of kids to the world and they can not support them. it is better to raise one kid than ten poor kids
    Signature
    CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR SITE!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7881526].message }}

Trending Topics