Admittedly I'm not sure how you would enforce such a system, it does have its advantages.

With the exponential growth in the human population over the last 50 years or so, we have seen an increase in poverty levels and a greater strain on the earths resources. If we continue this trend of population growth, there will be a point when we reach and exceed the earths capacity (in terms of resource and space). Once this happens we will be on a global path to civilisation collapse as we fight over the remaining resources (Iraq) and as our levels of food can't feed ourselves.

With the one child policy, we can make sure that we get the earths population under control (to a degree). But like I said, I'm not sure how you could enforce this without infringing basic human rights.

Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge that population growth rates are not uniform throughout the world. While many Asian and African nations (China and India being the two famous examples) have seen enormous population growth which does indeed threaten the sustainability of many communties and pose immense challenges to resources, other parts of the world see very low and. in some cases, declining population rates. This can be due to a variety of reasons, but in more economically developed countries such as Japan and Italy, it tends to be as a result of low levels of immigration (or high emigration) and sharply declining birth rates. Perhaps one way of reducing pressure on resources would be to slacken immigration restrictions and provide incentives for people in overpopulated areas to move to nations and regions which are relatively underpopulated.

Secondly, human beings have a remarkable ability to adapt to seemingly inhospitable conditions. A survival instinct which goes above and beyond the realm of the animal kingdom has long ensured that when faced with adversity, humans have managed to get by. Clearly the challenges which overpopulation poses cannot be simply ignored or left to address themselves on their own, but we should not underestimate the solutions which could come out of a crisis. A strain on capacity, in terms of both space and resources could well provide the incentive for innovative new uses of existing space and resources.

Having a one child policy does not have to mean that there will be authoritarian responses to those who have more than one child. It is much more sensible for governments declare itself to have a one child policy and to enforse it through the tax system. Large tax breaks and benefits for having one child which is all taken away when you have a second. Even in a reletively authoritarian china the one child policy is not absolute.

This would mean that a one child policy is not an end to freedom of choice, simply as in so many things the government tries to guide your choice through incentives and disincentives. Very few people object to the government raising high taxes on smoking in order to discourage smoking, it would be similar in the case of discouraging having more than one child.

It will start with a one child policy...and then does that mean you have to be steralised once you've had one child? What if the child passes away, then you have no chance of having another...so that means no steralisation...but what if birth control fails and you accidently fall pregnant again...does that mean you have to abort the child?? Which is against the core beliefs of many cultures and religions.

The one child policy might work in theory but in practice it's much too dictatorship like; the only reason it works so well in China is because of the fact that China is able to control the movement and the actions of its inhabitants...In Western society however there would be a huge uproar as the one-child policy over here would mean an end to freedom of choice etc. Its just not going to happen.

This seems to be arguing that we have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies and the government should get out of the way, even to the point of not using a tax and benefits system. Yes people should have the right to have more children if they want but the government should be able to discourage it as much as it can because of the consequences of having more children for everyone else who is on the planet. Smoking was banned in public areas mostly because of passive smoking affecting others. Having more children certainly affects others by helping to use up the earth's resources.

Moreover if the government is providing benefits for one child why should it not have the right to take away those benefits when you have more than one child?

Saying that we punnish the child for the sins of the parent seems to be ignoring that the parent had already decided to do that. Their income is unlikely to go up at the point where they have a second child so they have decided to spread their income over more people already. Why should the parents have this choice and the government not?

Unplanned pregnancies happen. They happen with IUD's and with birth control pills. Many women, including pro-choice women, strongly believe that abortion would be committing a murder. Forcing abortion on such women would be a violation of their body and their values.

Further, if you tax families that have more than one child, you're essentially punishing the child for the sins of the parent. (i.e. you're lowering their standard of living as punishment for being born.) That hardly seems fair.

Allow society to have unlimited access to reliable birth control. Encourage women to go to college and have careers. We've already seen negative population growth in countries that follow that type of policy. Japan can't get her people to reproduce enough to sustain their economy. The same holds true for many European countries.

There's no need to violate people's right to their very body in order to control human population. Social factors already serve as a regulating force.

One of the long-term consequences of any sudden and enforced reduction in birth rates will be the creation of an enormous group of dependent and elderly citizens who will pose a burden to younger generations. As China is currently experiencing, a relatively small population of post-policy 'only children' will form the economically active group whose task is to maintain the much larger group of elderly pre-policy multiple children. As China continues to grow economically while its life expectancy rises, the pressure placed on the only children will increase and young people may find themselves supporting many more of their aged parents and grandparents. So long as population is cut in such a dramatic way, any nation which implements the policy needs to be fully prepared for the demographic and economic consequences.

China as a test case for the one child policy has shown high levels of forced abortions and female infanticide. China as in many countries around the world place higher value on boys in society (possibly due to rural families need for a son to assist in farmwork). This has led to high levels of female infanticide due to families preference to have a boy as their one child. It is common in China for new born baby girls to be left abandoned in the street. This is believed to attribute to China's extreme population gender imbalance. This is not to say this would occur globally but would certainly affect gender balance. This ofcourse leading to problems in later life when males seek wives. The lack of women in China is thought to be the cause of many kidnappings of women from countries bordering China.

The phenomena in China of overlindulged children has been referred to by the media as 'Little Emperor syndrome'. Social problems such as poor communication skills and sharing abilities (co-operation with others) in later life could span from being an only child.