Population control in China

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Population control in China

  Okay Gauche I took the typical route by citing Wikipedia on this topic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

  Fell free to cite more academic sources if you desire or even rely upon your personal observations since you said you'd been to China.

  My only contribution to this thread will be to quote you "My question is in what fantasy world is everyone going to willingly sign up for your extinction agenda. ? "   and compare it this quotation from the wiki article "Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center showed that over 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy."

 I am aware that their system makes exceptions for particular circumstances and that variables are an integral part of the population control policy.

  From here on out I will lurk and consider your arguments and hopefully others on the forum will choose to participate....

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
If 76% of people agree then

If 76% of people agree then 24% don't agree. You don't want to talk about the measures taken against those people in polite society because it's forced surgery, taking children out of their mother's arms and heavy fines all for wanting to have a family. Instead you just want to talk about the numbers so let's talk about the numbers from the mouths of Chinese "officials" as reported by the BBC

Quote:
"Because China has worked hard over the last 30 years, we have 400 million fewer people," said Zhang Weiqing, minister in charge of the National Population and Family Planning Commission.

"Compared with the world's other developing countries with large populations, we have realised this transformation half a century ahead of time."


You get that? According to their estimates the population of China would have dropped by 400 million anyway because of industrialization but they came in ahead of schedule because of oppression. But are they even correct in that assessment? Possibly, but as I said it's debatable. From the same article:

Quote:
  
A team of independent Chinese and foreign academics, who this year completed what they say is the first systematic examination of the policy, agree that China has managed to limit its population growth.

But team leader Wang Feng, of the University of California, Irvine, says this reduction is mainly due to a fall in the fertility rate in the 1970s, rather than any more recent initiatives.

 During the 1970s, China began encouraging delayed marriages, longer intervals between births and fewer children.

"The total fertility rate - the number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime - was reduced from over five to slightly over two," Prof Wang says.

All this happened before the current family planning policy was introduced in 1978.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7000931.stm

And again from your source:
Quote:
As Hasketh, Lu, and Xing observe: "[T]he policy itself is probably only partially responsible for the reduction in the total fertility rate. The most dramatic decrease in the rate actually occurred before the policy was imposed. Between 1970 and 1979, the largely voluntary "late, long, few" policy, which called for later childbearing, greater spacing between children, and fewer children, had already resulted in a halving of the total fertility rate, from 5.9 to 2.9. After the one-child policy was introduced, there was a more gradual fall in the rate until 1995, and it has more or less stabilized at approximately 1.7 since then."[35] These researchers note further that China could have expected a continued reduction in its fertility rate just from continued economic development, had it kept to the previous policy.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, so the chink dipshit has

OK, so the chink dipshit has a number for what the population would have been had they not done what they did. He may even be somewhere close to correct but I fail to see how it is possible to know that.

 

Now Gauche, I will grant you that people in industrialist economies often have fewer kids. However, it is not the country that makes that happen. Rather, it is the level of personal wealth. I submit that Mike Judge got it right in the opening to “Idiocracy”.

 

If you have lots of stuff and having kids means you have to live a bit smaller, then you are less likely to have kids. On the other hand, if you are already living small, then why not have kids with abandon?

 

If you check the stats for world population over time, you will see that access to food is a huge factor as well. When agriculture is developed, population spikes. With other huge developments in access to food, population also spikes. Currently, we are in the middle of a spike and the cause is largely the development of modern transportation networks and food production.

 

Sure, there is evidence that population increase levels off at the end of the cycle but for the major part of the world, industrialization will cause an immediate increase in population that will not level off for a century or so.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline

Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't see what's wrong

I don't see what's wrong with telling people to only have two or three kids.  Why on earth anyone would want more, I can't imagine, but even if you did want more than that there are plenty of children up for adoption. 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:Why on

Gallowsbait wrote:
Why on earth anyone would want more, I can't imagine,

Lol, we don't have to imagine, we can ask them.

Catholics, Mormons, etc. etc.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Bloody Catholics!Well that's

Bloody Catholics!

Well that's all well and good, but you'd think they'd just stop having sex after the seventh or eighth or ninth?  Much more efficient than selling them to be tested in medical experiments, am I right?

 

........Right..........?


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:I don't

Gallowsbait wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with telling people to only have two or three kids.  Why on earth anyone would want more, I can't imagine, but even if you did want more than that there are plenty of children up for adoption. 

 

Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Nobody has the

Big E wrote:
Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:Big E

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

 

Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Big E wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

 

Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?

 

Define freedom.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Because YOU

Big E wrote:
Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?
We all dictate one another's lives. We can't help that, it's part of being in a society. It has nothing whatever to do with my opinions about freedom.

After all, you just spent several posts here dictating to Cat how s/he aught behave. Do you not see that, hater of ClockCat's freedom?

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
At least from what I know,

At least from what I know, people who have more than just a few kids aren't particularly capable (or even willing, sometimes) to care for and raise said kids.  As I've stated before, if what these people want is to actually care for children they should adopt the ones who have already been recklessly conceived and then likewise recklessly abandoned. 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3386
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Big E wrote:Deadly Fingergun

Big E wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

 

Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?

i don't think most people here have any problem with "freedom" in its various popular definitions.  i think they just mean your statement is too subjective to have any relevance to anything. 

or that's what i mean, anyhow. 

there are plenty of devices that could give anyone the "right" to dictate your life, or at least end it if you don't cooperate.  the whole idea of a "right" is totally arbitrary.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Deadly Fingergun

Big E wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

 

Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?

We have neither the space nor the resources for people to just do whatever the fuck they want. I the Duggar's having 20 kids in some way takes food away from others (and it does) then it is not reasonable or ethical to keep popping them out. If people like the Duggar's won't realize it on their own, then perhaps others should step in and compel them.

Look at it like this, you're at a BBQ, and some guests who have RSVP'ed have not gotten any food yet. There's only so much available and some fat, self-centered bastard is getting back in line for another helping while there's still food on their plate. Who are we to "ration" the food? Shouldn't this individual be allowed to do whatever they want? Or should we take into consideration the other people at the party?

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this why we have

Isn't this why we have wars?

 

Eugenics, anyone?

 

<ducking>


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
i can never

 

believe how fast it goes sideways once we get off the "there's no god", "I hate god" and "fuck you god" side of things.

Personally I'm not sure there is all that much freedom in world, or even that the concept of freedom functions effectively given the presence of responsibility.

I imagine most of the rest of you folks are in fiscal servitude in some way or another. Though having said that I am free to kick in the job and go surfing until

the money runs out. Interestingly people do tend to call their particular position 'freedom' but they're usually not free to reject it/capable of rejecting it.

Adherence to a particular set of social mores is loaded in at the bios level. Half the time we aren't even aware of the subtle controls that govern us.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote: Because YOU

Big E wrote:

 

Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?

Come now, Big E. This is the last place you want to be tossing strawmen around.

 

A thought just came to me while reading this thread. Instead of instituting "policies" regarding reproduction, why not just pay people to get sterilized? That way it's completely voluntary, and a ton of people would do it for the cash. If the goverment paid, say, $500 to any person, male or female, who agreed to be sterilized, I would guess that would result in many times that amount of social cost and resource savings...

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:Bloody

Gallowsbait wrote:

Bloody Catholics!

Well that's all well and good, but you'd think they'd just stop having sex after the seventh or eighth or ninth?  Much more efficient than selling them to be tested in medical experiments, am I right?

 

........Right..........?

 

That's what being an atheist is all about. That's why it's the group for me. That's why it's the group for anyone who respects the  individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in 1517, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing. But four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas. And Atheism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
 

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Geirj has an interesting

Geirj has an interesting idea, but I think population control is only as difficult as you make it out to be. One of the biggest factors is quality of life and education. With a good education and QOL, a significant number of reasons to mass produce children have been mitigated. For the rest, indirect controls should be sufficient. Instead of actually banning children, a limit on use of consumables and land per family unit would exert pressure to have less kids or have less resources for yourself. Without actually telling people they aren't allowed a tonne of children, they can decide whether to live crowded or not. Some will undoubtedly choose to live in bunk beds and eat mac & cheese instead of steak, but others won't have children at all, conserving their resources for themselves. The only real trick would lie in not overdoing it, or risk the majority not having kids.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Instead of actually banning children, why don't we conserve them as a valuable resource and put them on farms.

 

After proper nutrition and care in raising them as livestock, we can utilize them to continue being the breadbasket of the world. "A modest proposal" clearly outlines this utopia.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
We actually have a chinese

We actually have a chinese au pair living with us right now and she's talked about the one child policy.  She thinks it is sad sometimes because of people who cannot keep their children (their child bearing laws are pretty strict and it's not just about having only one child).  She also knows plenty that have "illegal" children and skirt around it, especially in the country, far away from the cities.

She would be eligible though to have two children without additional fines if she marries another single child.

The one child policy has also contributed to a huge human trafficking business in China. 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind wrote:...She

SapphireMind wrote:

...

She would be eligible though to have two children without additional fines if she marries another single child.

...

Say what?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:SapphireMind

ZuS wrote:

SapphireMind wrote:

...

She would be eligible though to have two children without additional fines if she marries another single child.

...

Say what?

 

Man + Woman under chinese law have a child

This child grows up into (another man in this case)

If the woman Sapphire talks about, marries this man, shes able to have 2 children, lawfully, without repercussion

 

No child-molestation here!

What Would Kharn Do?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:ZuS

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ZuS wrote:

SapphireMind wrote:

...

She would be eligible though to have two children without additional fines if she marries another single child.

...

Say what?

 

Man + Woman under chinese law have a child

This child grows up into (another man in this case)

If the woman Sapphire talks about, marries this man, shes able to have 2 children, lawfully, without repercussion

 

No child-molestation here!

Are you saying that a woman can have 2 children if she marries her son?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Are you saying

ZuS wrote:

Are you saying that a woman can have 2 children if she marries her son?

 

/facepalm

 

...yes... yes, that is exactly what i am saying... good reading comprehension

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol. A couple without

Lol.

A couple without siblings can have two children instead of the one they're allowed if either of the couple have siblings.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Lol. A couple

Vastet wrote:
Lol. A couple without siblings can have two children instead of the one they're allowed if either of the couple have siblings.

That's what I was trying to convey.  If she marries a man who also was an only child, she is legally allowed to have two, since the parents are both only children.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!