[strken]

Given the pretty strong birth order effects in play when it comes to gay men[0], you could probably stop about a quarter of the gay male population from being born just by banning consecutive male births, assuming you were willing to enforce a comically evil level of control over the population.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male...

[dragonwriter]

> Given the pretty strong birth order effects in play when it comes to gay men[0], you could probably stop about a quarter of the gay male population from being born just by banning consecutive male births, assuming you were willing to enforce a comically evil level of control over the population.

A one-child policy with exceptions available if the first-born is a girl is a “comically evil level of control” that is hard to imagine being applied in the real world?

[zaarn]

A one-child policy is ethically achievable by making the parents rich or otherwise making retirement care a non-concern. If you look at studies, rich people or people who have retirement taken care of are more likely to produce less children. A socialised retirement plan along with a good safety net for those unemployed would likely drive down population massively within a few generations.

[strken]

I'm not a huge fan of China's one-child policy, no, and I'd be even less of a fan if they'd done it with the intent to eradicate gay men.