>>16772192Countries have something known as a saturation point. There is a natural limit based on factors like income, space, the availability of food, and the often overlooked -happiness- that dictates how many children a house-owning family can have.
Look at Japan or Germany or North Korea or most place out there with incredibly stagnant population growth. They have, on average, one and a half children at most because that's all that their means would allow. In China, a government that very openly doesn't give a shit about providing financial incentive to have children, they could have just simply had no child limit and the worst that would happen is some family might have a daughter and a son. What a disaster, the end of days for poor china.
>Women only exist for population.>Let me disregard the human-rights issue and the fact that you will end up with serious cultural implications by having a society in which -only male children- are viewed as worth having. Here, let me disregard the ways in which young men might lead empty, dead lives without the option of finding a woman to be romantically linked to (as families don't have to have kids man).>thank god an already oppressive government did a needlessly restrictive law that will never ever be overturned.Man, you need to read a book that wasn't written in the 1700s by a rich philosophical cunt, friend.
>Gee! If there was more people taking up space...yadda, yadda, resource consumption!But that's not actually how population growth works. Again, you don't seem to know anything about China's death-rate, the average income, or the average strain of a single child on a households ability to sustain itself.
Raise your hand if you've been to China.
>Hey, my arm is moving on its own!Now raise your hand if you're just speaking out your ass based on stuff your high-school political science class taught you to regurgitate for some aptitude test.
Go on. Raise your hand.
