论文部分内容阅读
人口问题，无疑是最主要的全球性社会问题之一。我们都知道，当今世界人口正在迅猛增长，由此对环境、资源、经济等多方面造成了巨大的影响。有人提出，人类必须控制自己，做到有计划地生育，使人口的增长与社会、经济的发展相适应，与环境、资源相协调。但又有人指出，当今世界上已经有许多国家长期呈现人口负增长，面临着劳动力不足与人口老龄化的严重问题，怎么还要控制人口呢？
那么，当今人口是否过于庞大呢？人们是否应该实行计划生育呢？本期就让我们来听一场此专家对彼专家的争论。
★ 支持控制人口：
约翰·吉尔博， 伦敦大学学院生殖健康荣誉教授，理想人口信托组织主席。
★ 反对控制人口：
马修·康纳利，哥伦比亚大学历史系副教授，《Fatal Misconception》的作者。
大家将听到的争论，是一个没有结果的争论，因为这个话题本身，似乎就是一个理智与情感对决的难题，很难有结论。
请大家边听边想想，如果是自己，会加入支持方，还是反对方呢？
Mike: Welcome to the program everybody.
I’m looking now at an on-line world’s population counter. The number is 6,853,476,102…103…4…5…6…. It’s a big number and growing as you can hear. Figures out this week from the United Nations predict that in the year 2050, that population clock will tick over to 9.15 billion. But is today’s global population too big? John Guillebaud.
John Guillebaud: Yes, it is, as a short answer. Basically we have a
1)finite planet: 70% of it is salt water and half of the rest is mountain and desert. And there has to be a limit to the number of humans, particularly when you remember what humans do: we are 2)innately “environment trashers” and we cannot have... just by the way we live, while we use resources and create pollution, and the world could suffer 3)inexorable damage,
4)irreversible damage, from too many environment trashers.
Mike: Matthew Connelly, can I ask you to answer the same question: Is today’s global population too big? Is there a problem?
Matthew Connelly: No, I don’t think so. I mean, if you ask someone, almost anyone, “Do you think you in particular shouldn’t be here? If so, then when are you leaving? ”I think most of us would say, “No, we’re quite happy to be alive.” Most of us, I think, would agree that when parents choose to have children, they’re usually in the best position to know whether they should have children or not. When we try to make those choices for them, governments almost always do a worse job than parents do, and that’s why we have to give parents the choice.
Mike: We will come onto that a little later, but, just for a moment, let me come back to this question of how many is too many. John Guillebaud, I wonder, does the
5)Optimum Population Trust have a figure for the world’s optimum population?
John: No, we don’t. We don’t have an actual figure. We…we would say that, based on the Worldwide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report”, which shows that in 2007, the most recent figures, we needed one and a half years to 6)regenerate the resources of cropland, 7)fisheries and woodland. In other words, we are already 50% over-consuming. We…we’re in 8)overshoot mode.
Matthew: Well, John, is that the “9)Royal We”? I mean, when you say that there are too many of us, I mean, are you including yourself, are you including your children?
John: Totally including.
Matthew: Okay.
John: Totally including myself.
Matthew: If I could just…I mean, I…I…that’s not the end of the question. Is the “Royal We” including all of those who live in the UK who consume, per 10)capita, 25 times as many resources as the average person in Bangladesh? Are there too many Britons in particular? Is it the resource...the “environmental wasters”, as you refer to them, who begin…who need to begin to…to limit their numbers?
John: Absolutely! Yes!
Matthew: If so…if so, then well, where to begin…
John: It’s all of us. It’s all of us.
Matthew: I mean, how are you going to persuade your
11)countrymen to have fewer children? And if they don’t do it, what then? What are your plans? Because in the past, people who have made your arguments, have said that if it’s not enough to persuade people then you have to begin to 12)coerce them: you have to tax children, or perhaps you even have to give licenses out to give people the right to have children…
John: Optimum Population Trust stands for 13)family planning for rich people. We think that one… that every family should have one less child in the rich world—If you’re going to have six, have five; if you’re going to have three, have two. Because that child, listen to me Matt, will consume three million miles worth, in terms of reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases of…of 14)fossil fuels in their lifetime. So I’m for family planning for every human on the planet, but it’s voluntary.
Mike: I think it’s time for us to… there’s been quite a lot of heat. I’d like to spend a little time now on a different
15)facet of the population problem: the 16)flip side. The latest figures show 17 countries with negative population growth rates; the number of residents falling. By the year 2050, according to UN estimates, there’ll be 25 million fewer people in Japan than there are now, down from 127 to 102 million.
Matthew, I’d like to ask you what you think are the consequences of some nations having a falling population, and by definition, an aging one, while others continue to rise and rise rapidly.
Matthew: Well, this is exactly why I’m so passionate about how it’s a mistake to begin setting population targets; why I think it really has to be about letting parents choose for themselves how many children they should have and not getting into the position of having governments or international organizations or even NGOs trying to either coerce or even persuade parents to have more or fewer children. The reason for that is that there’re already some 65 countries that have 17)fertility rates that are too low to replace the current generation of working adults.
Mike: I think it’s worth remembering before we leave that, for the 18)overwhelming majority of parents at the bedside now, each of these is a great cause for joy and perhaps a future winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a talented engineer or a musician or a medical researcher who’ll prevent pain and save lives. Let me ask you all very briefly whether you think we should share in that joy. John, first.
John: Just quickly taking your last point, I’m afraid if we go on having those many billions extra, what’s to stop having extra Gengis Khans and Hitlers and everything else? (Laughter) I’m afraid that doesn’t give the answer.
Mike: Okay, fair enough.
John: Let me… let me finish up by saying this. (laughter) As far as I’m concerned, the bottom line is this: family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race. That was said by James Grant of UNICEF in 1992, and he went on to say this would still be true if we actually didn’t think about the environment, if we just thought about poor women being forced 19)coercively by the absence of the resource of family planning to have more children than they want and to die. MDG-5 is about 20)maternal 21)mortality, and about one in three of those who are dying as a result of 22)pregnancy didn’t want the pregnancy that killed them.
Mike: Okay. Matthew Connelly, should we share in the joy?
Matthew: Oh, absolutely, Mike! I mean, what you just heard from John I think is exactly why most people in most countries, when they hear what the people like the Optimum Population Trust really plan for them, go running out of the room; go screaming out of the room, because he begins by talking about how his fellow human beings are “environment wasters” and he finishes by saying that instead of re…greeting with joy the birth of new children, we should think of them as potential Hitlers. So that’s exactly why you don’t want a man like this in charge of making decisions. Instead you want parents to be able to decide for themselves whether and how many children they would want.
迈克：欢迎各位收听我们的节目。
我正看着一个网上的世界人口报数器，现在的数字是六十八亿五千三百四十七万六千一百零二、一百零三、四、五、六……这是个很大的数字，而且如你所听到的，还在不断上升着。联合国这周发表的数字预测，到了2050年，全球人口将飙升至九十一亿五千万。但是，当今的世界人口真的是太庞大了吗？
约翰·吉尔博，你觉得呢？
约翰·吉尔博：一言蔽之，是的。基本上，我们拥有的这个地球，资源是有限的：70%是海水，剩下有一半是高山和沙漠。这必然意味着人口数字得有个上限，尤其是当你想起人类的所作所为：我们天生就是“环境破坏者”，我们不能……就按我们现在的生活方式，耗用资源，制造污染，这个地球将承受无情的伤害，是无法逆转的永久伤害。
迈克：马修·康纳利，你能回答同一问题吗：当今的世界人口是否过于庞大？这是个问题吗？
马修·康纳利：不，我不这么认为。我的意思是，你随便去问谁，任何一个人，“你觉得你自己不该留在这世上吗？如果是这样，那你打算什么时候离开呢？” 我想我们大部分人都会回答说：“才不呢，我们活着挺开心的。”我想，我们大多数人都有这样的同感，一对夫妻决定要孩子的时候，他们通常是最清楚自己该不该这么做的。如果代替这些父母作这样的抉择，可以说，哪个政府都不会比父母们做得好，所以我们得把选择权留给父母们。
迈克：我们呆会儿再来聊这方面的话题。现在，容我回到刚才的问题，究竟多少人口才算过多呢？约翰·吉尔博，我有个疑问，理想人口信托组织对全球人口数字是否有定下一个理想目标呢？
约翰：没有。我们没有一个具体的数字。我们……这么说吧，世界自然基金会的《地球生命力报告》最新数据显示，在2007年，我们所消耗的农田、渔业及林木资源量需要一年半的时间才能再生回来。换句话说，我们已经是超前消费了50%的资源，我们已经处于过度消耗状态。
马修：约翰，你所谓的“我们”，是你自己这么想而已吧？当你说我们人太多的时候，你有没有把你自己，把你的子女都包括进去呢？
约翰：完全包括在内。
马修：好。
约翰：完全包括我自己啊。
马修：我只是想……我的意思是，我……我的问题没有说完。这所谓的“我们”包括了英国的所有居民吗？要知道，按人均值计算，他们消耗的资源是孟加拉一般居民的二十五倍。是有太多英国人了吗？是不是说，像你所说的那些资源……那些“环境破坏者”，我们该开始限制他们的数量呢？
约翰：绝对是！没错！
马修：如果是这样，那我们该从哪儿开始……
约翰：我们所有人，所有人。
马修：我意思是，你如何劝导同胞们少生孩子？而且如果他们不听你的劝告，你又能怎么样？你打算怎么做？因为，过去，跟你持同一观点的人也说过，要是劝导无效，就得施招逼迫：你得开征生育税，或者甚至规定必须领取证照才有权生育……
约翰：理想人口信托组织支持富裕家庭节育。我们认为，富庶国家的每个家庭应该少生一个小孩。如果你本来想生六个孩子的，生五个就好了；本来要三个的，生两个就好了。听我说吧，马修，因为那少生的小孩一生本来会耗掉相当于行车三百万英里所需的化石燃料，以二氧化碳和温室气体的排放量来说的话。所以，我赞成为地球上每个人造福的计划生育项目，但要出于自愿性质。
迈克：我看，是时候让我们……讨论一直挺激烈的。我想花点时间来谈谈人口问题的另一面：负增长。最新数据显示有十七个国家的人口数呈负面增长态势，居民数量在不断下降。依照联合国的估计，到2050年，日本的人口将比现在少两千五百万，从现时的一亿二千七百万下降到一亿零两百万。
马修，一些国家人口下降，而且明显出现人口老化现象，但同时其他国家的人口又在迅速膨胀，我想问问你觉得这样下去的后果是什么？
马修：这就是为什么我一直强调不应该设定目标人口数字，也正是因为这样，我们必须让父母自己去决定应该生多少孩子，而不是让政府或者国际组织甚至非政府组织来胁迫劝诱父母多生或少生孩子。原因是，我们已经有大概65个国家的生育率低至难以有足够的新生一代来替换现时的成人劳动力。
迈克：我想在结束我们的讨论之前，值得提醒一下，对如今正在床边的大部分父母来说，生儿育女是快乐的巨大来源，也许还会成就未来的诺贝尔和平奖得主、优秀的工程师、音乐家，或者能减轻疾痛、挽救生命的医学研究员。我来简单问一句，你觉得我们该分享这份喜悦吗？约翰，你先说。
约翰：简短地回应你刚才说的，恐怕得这样说，如果我们的人口一直十亿十亿地超限度膨胀，有什么能阻止一个个再世成吉思汗、希特勒和其他所有人出现？（笑）恐怕这不是什么答案。
迈克：好，有道理。
约翰：让我……我来最后总结几句吧。（笑）就我看来，问题的底线是：比起人类现有的任何科技，计划生育能以更低的成本给更多的人带来更大的好处。这是1992年詹姆士·格兰特在联合国儿童基金会上说的，他还提到，就算我们不考虑环境的因素，这依旧是颠扑不破的硬道理。想想，那些可怜的妇女，因为缺乏计划生育的资源，被迫违背自己所愿而生育过多的子女甚至因此丧命。联合国千年发展目标的第五条关注的就是孕产妇死亡率，有三分之一在怀孕生育过程中死亡的妇女其实根本不是自愿要怀那一胎的。
迈克：好。马修·康纳利，我们该分享那份喜悦吗？
马修：噢，当然应该，迈克！我的意思是，正是因为你刚才听到约翰说的那一切，大多数国家的大部分人听到理想人口信托组织给他们作的计划，都会冲出房间，尖叫着跑出来，因为他一来就说自己的人类同胞是“环境破坏者”，最后又说大家孕育的孩子可能是未来的希特勒，而不是带着喜悦迎接新生命的诞生。所以，你不会想要这样的一个人来主宰我们的命运。要不要生孩子，要生多少，我们还是应该让父母自己来作决定。
那么，当今人口是否过于庞大呢？人们是否应该实行计划生育呢？本期就让我们来听一场此专家对彼专家的争论。
★ 支持控制人口：
约翰·吉尔博， 伦敦大学学院生殖健康荣誉教授，理想人口信托组织主席。
★ 反对控制人口：
马修·康纳利，哥伦比亚大学历史系副教授，《Fatal Misconception》的作者。
大家将听到的争论，是一个没有结果的争论，因为这个话题本身，似乎就是一个理智与情感对决的难题，很难有结论。
请大家边听边想想，如果是自己，会加入支持方，还是反对方呢？
Mike: Welcome to the program everybody.
I’m looking now at an on-line world’s population counter. The number is 6,853,476,102…103…4…5…6…. It’s a big number and growing as you can hear. Figures out this week from the United Nations predict that in the year 2050, that population clock will tick over to 9.15 billion. But is today’s global population too big? John Guillebaud.
John Guillebaud: Yes, it is, as a short answer. Basically we have a
1)finite planet: 70% of it is salt water and half of the rest is mountain and desert. And there has to be a limit to the number of humans, particularly when you remember what humans do: we are 2)innately “environment trashers” and we cannot have... just by the way we live, while we use resources and create pollution, and the world could suffer 3)inexorable damage,
4)irreversible damage, from too many environment trashers.
Mike: Matthew Connelly, can I ask you to answer the same question: Is today’s global population too big? Is there a problem?
Matthew Connelly: No, I don’t think so. I mean, if you ask someone, almost anyone, “Do you think you in particular shouldn’t be here? If so, then when are you leaving? ”I think most of us would say, “No, we’re quite happy to be alive.” Most of us, I think, would agree that when parents choose to have children, they’re usually in the best position to know whether they should have children or not. When we try to make those choices for them, governments almost always do a worse job than parents do, and that’s why we have to give parents the choice.
Mike: We will come onto that a little later, but, just for a moment, let me come back to this question of how many is too many. John Guillebaud, I wonder, does the
5)Optimum Population Trust have a figure for the world’s optimum population?
John: No, we don’t. We don’t have an actual figure. We…we would say that, based on the Worldwide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report”, which shows that in 2007, the most recent figures, we needed one and a half years to 6)regenerate the resources of cropland, 7)fisheries and woodland. In other words, we are already 50% over-consuming. We…we’re in 8)overshoot mode.
Matthew: Well, John, is that the “9)Royal We”? I mean, when you say that there are too many of us, I mean, are you including yourself, are you including your children?
John: Totally including.
Matthew: Okay.
John: Totally including myself.
Matthew: If I could just…I mean, I…I…that’s not the end of the question. Is the “Royal We” including all of those who live in the UK who consume, per 10)capita, 25 times as many resources as the average person in Bangladesh? Are there too many Britons in particular? Is it the resource...the “environmental wasters”, as you refer to them, who begin…who need to begin to…to limit their numbers?
John: Absolutely! Yes!
Matthew: If so…if so, then well, where to begin…
John: It’s all of us. It’s all of us.
Matthew: I mean, how are you going to persuade your
11)countrymen to have fewer children? And if they don’t do it, what then? What are your plans? Because in the past, people who have made your arguments, have said that if it’s not enough to persuade people then you have to begin to 12)coerce them: you have to tax children, or perhaps you even have to give licenses out to give people the right to have children…
John: Optimum Population Trust stands for 13)family planning for rich people. We think that one… that every family should have one less child in the rich world—If you’re going to have six, have five; if you’re going to have three, have two. Because that child, listen to me Matt, will consume three million miles worth, in terms of reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases of…of 14)fossil fuels in their lifetime. So I’m for family planning for every human on the planet, but it’s voluntary.
Mike: I think it’s time for us to… there’s been quite a lot of heat. I’d like to spend a little time now on a different
15)facet of the population problem: the 16)flip side. The latest figures show 17 countries with negative population growth rates; the number of residents falling. By the year 2050, according to UN estimates, there’ll be 25 million fewer people in Japan than there are now, down from 127 to 102 million.
Matthew, I’d like to ask you what you think are the consequences of some nations having a falling population, and by definition, an aging one, while others continue to rise and rise rapidly.
Matthew: Well, this is exactly why I’m so passionate about how it’s a mistake to begin setting population targets; why I think it really has to be about letting parents choose for themselves how many children they should have and not getting into the position of having governments or international organizations or even NGOs trying to either coerce or even persuade parents to have more or fewer children. The reason for that is that there’re already some 65 countries that have 17)fertility rates that are too low to replace the current generation of working adults.
Mike: I think it’s worth remembering before we leave that, for the 18)overwhelming majority of parents at the bedside now, each of these is a great cause for joy and perhaps a future winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a talented engineer or a musician or a medical researcher who’ll prevent pain and save lives. Let me ask you all very briefly whether you think we should share in that joy. John, first.
John: Just quickly taking your last point, I’m afraid if we go on having those many billions extra, what’s to stop having extra Gengis Khans and Hitlers and everything else? (Laughter) I’m afraid that doesn’t give the answer.
Mike: Okay, fair enough.
John: Let me… let me finish up by saying this. (laughter) As far as I’m concerned, the bottom line is this: family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race. That was said by James Grant of UNICEF in 1992, and he went on to say this would still be true if we actually didn’t think about the environment, if we just thought about poor women being forced 19)coercively by the absence of the resource of family planning to have more children than they want and to die. MDG-5 is about 20)maternal 21)mortality, and about one in three of those who are dying as a result of 22)pregnancy didn’t want the pregnancy that killed them.
Mike: Okay. Matthew Connelly, should we share in the joy?
Matthew: Oh, absolutely, Mike! I mean, what you just heard from John I think is exactly why most people in most countries, when they hear what the people like the Optimum Population Trust really plan for them, go running out of the room; go screaming out of the room, because he begins by talking about how his fellow human beings are “environment wasters” and he finishes by saying that instead of re…greeting with joy the birth of new children, we should think of them as potential Hitlers. So that’s exactly why you don’t want a man like this in charge of making decisions. Instead you want parents to be able to decide for themselves whether and how many children they would want.
迈克：欢迎各位收听我们的节目。
我正看着一个网上的世界人口报数器，现在的数字是六十八亿五千三百四十七万六千一百零二、一百零三、四、五、六……这是个很大的数字，而且如你所听到的，还在不断上升着。联合国这周发表的数字预测，到了2050年，全球人口将飙升至九十一亿五千万。但是，当今的世界人口真的是太庞大了吗？
约翰·吉尔博，你觉得呢？
约翰·吉尔博：一言蔽之，是的。基本上，我们拥有的这个地球，资源是有限的：70%是海水，剩下有一半是高山和沙漠。这必然意味着人口数字得有个上限，尤其是当你想起人类的所作所为：我们天生就是“环境破坏者”，我们不能……就按我们现在的生活方式，耗用资源，制造污染，这个地球将承受无情的伤害，是无法逆转的永久伤害。
迈克：马修·康纳利，你能回答同一问题吗：当今的世界人口是否过于庞大？这是个问题吗？
马修·康纳利：不，我不这么认为。我的意思是，你随便去问谁，任何一个人，“你觉得你自己不该留在这世上吗？如果是这样，那你打算什么时候离开呢？” 我想我们大部分人都会回答说：“才不呢，我们活着挺开心的。”我想，我们大多数人都有这样的同感，一对夫妻决定要孩子的时候，他们通常是最清楚自己该不该这么做的。如果代替这些父母作这样的抉择，可以说，哪个政府都不会比父母们做得好，所以我们得把选择权留给父母们。
迈克：我们呆会儿再来聊这方面的话题。现在，容我回到刚才的问题，究竟多少人口才算过多呢？约翰·吉尔博，我有个疑问，理想人口信托组织对全球人口数字是否有定下一个理想目标呢？
约翰：没有。我们没有一个具体的数字。我们……这么说吧，世界自然基金会的《地球生命力报告》最新数据显示，在2007年，我们所消耗的农田、渔业及林木资源量需要一年半的时间才能再生回来。换句话说，我们已经是超前消费了50%的资源，我们已经处于过度消耗状态。
马修：约翰，你所谓的“我们”，是你自己这么想而已吧？当你说我们人太多的时候，你有没有把你自己，把你的子女都包括进去呢？
约翰：完全包括在内。
马修：好。
约翰：完全包括我自己啊。
马修：我只是想……我的意思是，我……我的问题没有说完。这所谓的“我们”包括了英国的所有居民吗？要知道，按人均值计算，他们消耗的资源是孟加拉一般居民的二十五倍。是有太多英国人了吗？是不是说，像你所说的那些资源……那些“环境破坏者”，我们该开始限制他们的数量呢？
约翰：绝对是！没错！
马修：如果是这样，那我们该从哪儿开始……
约翰：我们所有人，所有人。
马修：我意思是，你如何劝导同胞们少生孩子？而且如果他们不听你的劝告，你又能怎么样？你打算怎么做？因为，过去，跟你持同一观点的人也说过，要是劝导无效，就得施招逼迫：你得开征生育税，或者甚至规定必须领取证照才有权生育……
约翰：理想人口信托组织支持富裕家庭节育。我们认为，富庶国家的每个家庭应该少生一个小孩。如果你本来想生六个孩子的，生五个就好了；本来要三个的，生两个就好了。听我说吧，马修，因为那少生的小孩一生本来会耗掉相当于行车三百万英里所需的化石燃料，以二氧化碳和温室气体的排放量来说的话。所以，我赞成为地球上每个人造福的计划生育项目，但要出于自愿性质。
迈克：我看，是时候让我们……讨论一直挺激烈的。我想花点时间来谈谈人口问题的另一面：负增长。最新数据显示有十七个国家的人口数呈负面增长态势，居民数量在不断下降。依照联合国的估计，到2050年，日本的人口将比现在少两千五百万，从现时的一亿二千七百万下降到一亿零两百万。
马修，一些国家人口下降，而且明显出现人口老化现象，但同时其他国家的人口又在迅速膨胀，我想问问你觉得这样下去的后果是什么？
马修：这就是为什么我一直强调不应该设定目标人口数字，也正是因为这样，我们必须让父母自己去决定应该生多少孩子，而不是让政府或者国际组织甚至非政府组织来胁迫劝诱父母多生或少生孩子。原因是，我们已经有大概65个国家的生育率低至难以有足够的新生一代来替换现时的成人劳动力。
迈克：我想在结束我们的讨论之前，值得提醒一下，对如今正在床边的大部分父母来说，生儿育女是快乐的巨大来源，也许还会成就未来的诺贝尔和平奖得主、优秀的工程师、音乐家，或者能减轻疾痛、挽救生命的医学研究员。我来简单问一句，你觉得我们该分享这份喜悦吗？约翰，你先说。
约翰：简短地回应你刚才说的，恐怕得这样说，如果我们的人口一直十亿十亿地超限度膨胀，有什么能阻止一个个再世成吉思汗、希特勒和其他所有人出现？（笑）恐怕这不是什么答案。
迈克：好，有道理。
约翰：让我……我来最后总结几句吧。（笑）就我看来，问题的底线是：比起人类现有的任何科技，计划生育能以更低的成本给更多的人带来更大的好处。这是1992年詹姆士·格兰特在联合国儿童基金会上说的，他还提到，就算我们不考虑环境的因素，这依旧是颠扑不破的硬道理。想想，那些可怜的妇女，因为缺乏计划生育的资源，被迫违背自己所愿而生育过多的子女甚至因此丧命。联合国千年发展目标的第五条关注的就是孕产妇死亡率，有三分之一在怀孕生育过程中死亡的妇女其实根本不是自愿要怀那一胎的。
迈克：好。马修·康纳利，我们该分享那份喜悦吗？
马修：噢，当然应该，迈克！我的意思是，正是因为你刚才听到约翰说的那一切，大多数国家的大部分人听到理想人口信托组织给他们作的计划，都会冲出房间，尖叫着跑出来，因为他一来就说自己的人类同胞是“环境破坏者”，最后又说大家孕育的孩子可能是未来的希特勒，而不是带着喜悦迎接新生命的诞生。所以，你不会想要这样的一个人来主宰我们的命运。要不要生孩子，要生多少，我们还是应该让父母自己来作决定。