• OwOarchist@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      And wasn’t China very recently concerned about their birthrate being too high? One Child Policy?

      Now they’re already concerned about their birth rate being too low?

      • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        2 days ago

        The one-child policy was abolished in 2015, but birth rates have continued to decline after that. They currently have one of the world’s lowest fertility rates.

        • YeahToast@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Well yes, but also no. I think it was only really heavily policed in the 70s and early 80s then was lifted so regional and rural could have a second child (wiki says by '84 the single child policy only impacted 35% of the population). Still goes to show by forcibly dropping birthrates how much it destroys future planning

          • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Still goes to show by forcibly dropping birthrates how much it destroys future planning.

            Looking at all the other countries, it may not have had an impact on future birthrates at all.

      • Trev625@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        It says that it was proposed… We propose a lot of bills that never pass here in the US. I’m not sure how China’s laws are setup but Wikipedia doesn’t say that it was ever implemented.

    • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Is that your take on the matter? How is wanting yo promote real human relationships between teenagers a bad thing?

        • Zos_Kia@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I’d say that’s more like trying to solve mental illness by making it illegal to exploit and profit from it

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erewhon

          Erewhon: or, Over the Range (/ˈɛr.ɛ.hwɒn/, ERR-eh-hwon)[2] is a utopian novel by English writer Samuel Butler, first published in 1872,[3] set in a fictional country discovered and explored by the protagonist. The book is a satire on Victorian society.[4]

          In Erewhon, illness is crime and crime is illness. As a result, citizens are imprisoned for offenses like physical ailments, misfortune, or ugliness while those who commit conventional crimes like fraud or theft are seen more sympathetically as exhibiting symptoms of moral afflictions and prescribed sessions with a “straightener” (essentially a psychologist) for treatment.[5]

              • Axolotl@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 hours ago

                In this case, we have to look at the parents, how can you be so irresponsable that you need a government and a company to look after YOUR child?

                • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  Everything can be true at same time ie that parents need to be more present (what capitalism helps to not be the case), that companies need to be made accountable for what happens in their platforms (what they don’t want), and that governments in the interest of the betterment of all society need to preemptively avoid the worst scenarios of societal unhealthiness (prevention is cheaper than treatment). What I don’t understand is the willingness of Feddit to bend the knees to the man with money’s will instead of accomodate the collective will of all society through State policies.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m pretty sure AI partners are not the primary reason people don’t have human partners. The issues are systematic and root very deeply. While I do think AI partners are a very toxic and dangerous way out of this, I highly doubt they were the reason people were single in the first place.

        • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I’m pretty sure alcohol is not the primary reason people don’t drive responsibly. The issues are systematic and root very deeply. While I do think driving while drunk is a very toxic and dangerous way out of this, I highly doubt they were the reason people were ebrious in the first place.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            22 hours ago

            You’re joking, but people drive under influence not because alcohol exists, but because they have issues with self-control and responsibility.

            So you do prove a point while trying to oppose it, imo

            • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              No, my point is you don’t stop repressing drunk drivers because there are more rooted issues that lead them to drink.