What are the social effects of the proposed 2-child-policy in the Philippines?
a change in the economy but that doesn't mean it is for the better. as i've always believed, it is not the population alone that is to be blamed for the poverty we are experiencing right now.
Social Welfare: Why do governments give benefits to families with many children instead of giving benefits to people who don't contribute to overpopulation?
There are two ways to look at this.The first is the angle taken by the other answers so far. I'd express it this way: governments aren't providing benefits to the parents, they're providing benefits to the children. The children had no say in their own conception and birth, and it makes no sense from a moral or practical perspective to withhold benefits to them based on their number of siblings. It's a good argument, and sufficient on its own, but I have an even better one.Consider your underlying assumption about overpopulation. The story you link to is in the UK. If overpopulation is an issue there, it's not because too many children are being born. According to Demography of the United Kingdom, the UK's fertility rate has been below replacement (i.e. couples don't even have enough children to replace themselves in the next generation, let alone grow the population) since the early 1970s. The total population is still growing, but that's entirely because of immigration and the onset of longer life spans. If you look at the projections, almost all of the future increase in population is going to come in the elderly age brackets.That's going to be rough on the UK economy, as it will be for a lot of other developed countries, as it struggles to support more retirees with fewer workers. If birth rates were lowered even further as you propose, the only way to keep the UK viable as a modern economy over the next few decades would be to encourage a lot of immigration. Hopefully you support immigration? A policy of further lowering birth rates while opposing immigration would amount to national economic suicide. Which the UK is welcome to do, I suppose, but in the world picture the UK's policies with respect to its population of 60-70 million have approximately zero effect on a worldwide population of 7 billion. If the UK is concerned with worldwide population growth, its best contribution would be foreign development programs aimed at bringing more countries to the point of demographic transition.
Should we limit how many children welfare users can have?
You can live free in America, that is fine. But if you decide to receive welfare or assistance from other hard working people then you shouldn't have the same freedoms as others. Otherwise, there is no incentive to get off your *** and do something productive. And the more kids they have, means the more kids who will grow up as future lazy welfare recipients who do nothing with their lives but bottom feed. I work hard each day at my job. I can't use drugs or commit crimes without it affecting my career. Why should lazy people get paid to do nothing and use/sell drugs and do nothing but make the world a worse place. There needs to be some changes made or we are looking at a socialist country where only a few people work, while everyone else mooches. Mooching sounds like the better option to a lot of people, thus the increase in welfare users each year.
What are your views on Modi government’s announcement of 10% reservation in jobs and education for economically weak general category?
I belong to so called upper caste and come from a semi urban background. My opinion isPROSThere are many poors in general category who will be really helped by this decision. They also needed help from government which government did.Middle middle class , upper middle class and BPL will be highly benifitted.People from rural and semi urban background will be helped more. Because 66k per month is considered a handsome salary here.If one takes advantage of reservation and get a good job his/her next generation can't enjoy the same privileges.Now generals and OBC are having reservation on the basis of income. So it is a step towards reservation on income basis.( If in future creamy layer may be introduced in ST SC criteria)People of eastern UP , Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal,Odisha will be benifitted more because of more economic backwardness and small size of farms. In MP, Punjab, Haryana, farm sizes are bigger.(because>5 acres is also a criteria)A milestone in the journey of Hindu unity. Reservation was the cause of resistance between Hindus. Now I can hope for better situation.CONSNow open category is only 40.5%. little more hardships for well off Generals and OBCs.People employed in unorganized sector may act to be economically backward by showing less income. (But house size and land can take care of that)Overall I welcome this step of government. But I think creamy layer should also be applied to ST SC. This is better but best will be no reservations in education.Friends please tell one thing , antonym of PRO is CON, so what is antonym of PRO -GRESS? Lol. Comment pleaseEdit: Some hypocrites are also being exposed now.
Should men ordered to pay retroactive support for a child they didn't know existed be classified as deadbeats?
How about the parasitic woman has to account for how the "child support" is spent? How the fvck can someone be a "deadbeat" over an obligation they didn't even know existed? 23yrs? At 23 the "child" needs to get a fvcking job if mommy is so concerned with requiping the costs she supposedly incurred raising her own child that she wanted all to herself so bad that it took her over two decades to "name the father"
Should we have a two child policy across the world starting in the 20's of this century after a green revoluti?
we implement green revolutions in india and elsewhere, where populations are going out of control because people need children to make ends meet...with a green revolution, food becomes more accessibly, people stop fighting to try to stay alive and therefore reproduce less (people that end up in cities have less children once they have a steady food supply)....this can go hand in hand with subsidies for the people by the governemnt. This would be a great stategy in india because cows are concidered sacred...therefore the food paid for by the government (rations) could feed the whole world, and in doing so inhibiting population growth without any harsh policiesi n the future or naturally by nature. This would inhibit resource consumption growth and therefore limit the pressure on prices for such things as oil, coal, food, steel...etc,etc.. well, actually, people in cities although would be less, would tend to consume more of these resources...think about it 20% of the pop consumes 80% of the resources....rich nations consume more....green revolutions would increase the demand of these things although it may appear that a lower population would do the opposite. However, you can simply make urban living be close tight communities and deny people access to oil, steel, etc....and just give them basic sanitation, water, and food. If this was done correctly, you would reduce the population to around 8 billion instead of 9 billion by 2050, and have less consumption of resources.
What are some solutions to problems of street children?
I like John Mixon's answer and would add to his Point 1 that studies show that when poor women are given access to birth control, they use it. And when teens in the United States were given the opportunity to choose free voluntary implanted birth control, the rate of pregnancy plummeted.Also, it seems to me that ultimately, the solution to this problem in the third world is to reduce poverty, and that that requires that third world countries imitate the nations of the first. That requires a high level of morality in public officials, an emphasis on education and delayed gratification, a free market economic system (although socialist states can also address this issue, albeit they fail in other respects), and a secular, rational emphasis rather than a religious one.In the first world, street children are far less common and are generally a consequence of children fleeing brutality at home, drug abuse, or abandonment over parents due to issues like transsexualism. These kids need safe options *before* they hit the street.