Skullbones
Captain
Celibacy??? I didn't say anything about that. Surely, birth control methods are available there.
China's one child policy?
- Thread starter SirJethro
- Start date
Celibacy??? I didn't say anything about that. Surely, birth control methods are available there.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Would you rather read about mass famine?
That is true. There were accounts of police officers accepting bribes, making undair monetary demands, violence, instituting a vague policy, .... However, that is due to the fact that the government is still quite corrupt, not to the legitamacy of the policy.
If you have a better idea, let's hear it.
Exactly. Although it would have also helped if Mao ZeDong didn't encourage the nation to propogate at first after WWII.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Ultimately I have an unpleasant answer to your question, Sir Jethro- yes, and we ought to be glad of it.
There are limited resources in the world, I know some people don't believe it yet, but it is true. One child ought to be the preference till the population is down a bit and we can move to two children per family/strict replacement of couples.
There are limited resources in the world, I know some people don't believe it yet, but it is true. One child ought to be the preference till the population is down a bit and we can move to two children per family/strict replacement of couples.
GerrardCapashen
Benalish Master-at-Arms
Actually, India has been forcing some men to have vasectomies in order to prevent them from reproducing. The program is too small to make a significant difference population-wise and also largely unknown, but it is just as brutal as China's forced abortions are.
Stile
Emperor
Men in the state of Virginia used to be castrated. But don't worry that practice officially ended in the 1970's and the Virginia Assembly and the governor have since issued an apology. BTW, in this case it was an attempt to end insanity (and other mental diseases) by preventing insane people from reproducing. I guess they figured insanity breeds insanity.
Greadius
:yeah:
At least its giving people a chance.
China has enough resources to feed their own people, but actualizing those resources would require the heavy hand of agricultural planning to recede, and that is just unacceptable to policy makers.
Its not an either/or scenario.
What was chilling about the accounts was the callous disregard for human life. Precisely what is expected when the value of a human is the role he or she plays in the governments regional plan.
Run of the mill corruption is hardly bothersome.
Population control is built into the world.
There is a big difference between preference and policy.
Its a choice people should make and should continue to be able to make independant of the opinion of the government, or of anyone else for that matter. Reproductive rights are as important as freedom of speech, the press, or anything else we wouldn't relinquish.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
@Stile- I live very close to the town where the castration of mental patients was implemented. And it was a long time ago- and it gave Hitler the idea.
@Greadius- for now, you are right, and the weight of public opinion will be on your side. Maybe always. But if the right people were truly convinced it was a matter of the survival of the human race, the right to bear multiple children would by the wayside as fast as the right to develop biological weapons...
@Greadius- for now, you are right, and the weight of public opinion will be on your side. Maybe always. But if the right people were truly convinced it was a matter of the survival of the human race, the right to bear multiple children would by the wayside as fast as the right to develop biological weapons...
Greadius
:yeah:
The right people is a broad catagory.
If developed countries still had a high birth rate I'd share your pessimism. However, many countries only increase population because of immigration. This ought to tell us that implementing population limitations is wholly unnecessary as a method to achieving a wealthy society, or a society with enough resources.
Contrary to popular belief, population control is not a new thing at all. Its was very popular and widly discussed in Western thought. Of course, the numbers they used when the world was full was less than a billion people, but their conviction that we had run out of room & resources was no less limited. When the world's population hits 60 billion we'll have sounded just as silly.
Malthus & Swift have two very old essays on the topic that are quite good.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
So, just because the world didn't run out of clean water, food, and suitable living conditions for everybody when population hit a billion, or five billion, it means it never will!
Optimism, I give you. Logic, not this time.
Optimism, I give you. Logic, not this time.
Greadius
:yeah:
It could. I'm just not ready to lose faith in technology just yet.
Everything I am, everything I know, everything I want is dependant on inventions which didn't exist when these men wrote those papers. And they were much smarter than I am. How can I be so callous as to think I could effectively predict the future when the brightest minds of the past failed to so?
Everything I am, everything I know, everything I want is dependant on inventions which didn't exist when these men wrote those papers. And they were much smarter than I am. How can I be so callous as to think I could effectively predict the future when the brightest minds of the past failed to so?
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
Some people say that due to the genetic engineered food the problem is not the production but the distribution - if it would be optimal, there would be no famine. Some demographer argue (contrary to the neo-Malthusian argument) that if there is a population pressure, new technologies emerge for food production and substituting raw materials. It means that we're still very far from the limits.
It does not mean of course that "let's go and consume big time".
That would be the hardest thing to enforce and it also bring up a lot of cultural and social differences: having one child is different in the more developed countries than in the less developed ones.
Demography is a sensitive tool and after some time the processes could get out of control. One example is Western Europe with its natural decrease, which on the long run has serious impact on labor policy, social security and pension systems. It is true for the US also to a certain extent, if there would be no Latino immigration, the US natural increase would be natural decrease.
And birth control is only one side of the coin, there is a transition in mortality also. This is where for example the socialist population policies failed: they focused only on fertility with strict regulations.
It may not be all that bad...
Lots of irony today...
1. I Can't buy the crime argument for China. I understand that punishment is severe in China, and I also understand crime rate is related more to the certainty rather than severity of punishment. However, in China, one can forget about these concepts in western criminology studies. One is almost certain to be punished, and severely at that, having merely been accused of a crime! Therefore, I doubt serious/violent crime rate would be increased due to the policy... an advantage of communism.
2. Hmm... maybe a revolution at "home" may accidentally lead to democratic reforms? Unhappy people in China only serves to encourage reform.
3. Well.. unmarried men serving in the military is ironically, a little more socially responsible. Before this policy, we argued that communist soldiers willingly died because of propoganda. With this policy we now argue that only single men die for communist countries.
I read The Economist every time I'm between airports. I wasn't expecting such shoddy opinion as presented in this article.
I prefer females to males... fewer testosterone related social problems.
On topic, spoiled kids for one generation is a good thing for China. Maybe future generations will become accustomed to having more to divide among fewer...
Yes, China has enough resources to feed their own people. It even doubled food production in the last 20 years. Further, China has even developed its own genetically modified foods, but has chosen to not implement their use until they are more certain of its safety.
No, lack of population control is not giving people a chance. It was an extreme situation that was probably brought upon by the failures of Mao-communism. Ironically, it was the power of communism that was used to help correct a situation that was too far out of control for half-hearted, slower, or less brutal measures.
At the time the measures were incorporated, China was projecting population growth of 30 million in one year! Let's put 30,000,000 people in perspective:
(a) That is the entire population of Canada, today.
(b) By US standards, the entire population of California, today.
(c) By European standards, that is half a country, today... well, OK, an entire country for the really small ones.
Imagine 20 years ago, what it took to feed 30,000,000 people? Imagine an entire country of people born in China every second year?! We aren't talking every generation. We are talking every... two years!
Lots of irony today...
1. I Can't buy the crime argument for China. I understand that punishment is severe in China, and I also understand crime rate is related more to the certainty rather than severity of punishment. However, in China, one can forget about these concepts in western criminology studies. One is almost certain to be punished, and severely at that, having merely been accused of a crime! Therefore, I doubt serious/violent crime rate would be increased due to the policy... an advantage of communism.
2. Hmm... maybe a revolution at "home" may accidentally lead to democratic reforms? Unhappy people in China only serves to encourage reform.
3. Well.. unmarried men serving in the military is ironically, a little more socially responsible. Before this policy, we argued that communist soldiers willingly died because of propoganda. With this policy we now argue that only single men die for communist countries.
I read The Economist every time I'm between airports. I wasn't expecting such shoddy opinion as presented in this article.
I prefer females to males... fewer testosterone related social problems.
On topic, spoiled kids for one generation is a good thing for China. Maybe future generations will become accustomed to having more to divide among fewer...
Yes, China has enough resources to feed their own people. It even doubled food production in the last 20 years. Further, China has even developed its own genetically modified foods, but has chosen to not implement their use until they are more certain of its safety.
No, lack of population control is not giving people a chance. It was an extreme situation that was probably brought upon by the failures of Mao-communism. Ironically, it was the power of communism that was used to help correct a situation that was too far out of control for half-hearted, slower, or less brutal measures.
At the time the measures were incorporated, China was projecting population growth of 30 million in one year! Let's put 30,000,000 people in perspective:
(a) That is the entire population of Canada, today.
(b) By US standards, the entire population of California, today.
(c) By European standards, that is half a country, today... well, OK, an entire country for the really small ones.
Imagine 20 years ago, what it took to feed 30,000,000 people? Imagine an entire country of people born in China every second year?! We aren't talking every generation. We are talking every... two years!
LesCanadiens
Deity
I'm going to jump right in and state that I have mixed opinions on this matter. On the one hand, I sympathize with the People's Republic (as an extreme left wing) and feel that there is little else they can do. After all, this only really works in the areas where the Government is a significant prescence ie urban areas. In the mass rural areas of China, such programs, I imagine would have little effect.
On the other hand, it is immoral to decide how many children people are allowed to have.
On the other hand, it is immoral to decide how many children people are allowed to have.
If one-child-policy hadn't been enforced, we'd be shipping massive food aid to China by now, and the feeding of one billion undernourished Chinese would be a constant issue and a great weight on the world. China cheated the press, and avoided making news. They took the right path.
***
Under less medically advanced conditions, males are more susceptible to death during gestation and during the first years, than females. This was balanced by the higher genetic likelihood of conceiving a male. So, by reducing infant mortality, we should expect to see a greater number of males over time. China is arguably the world leader in prenatal and baby care, and its general population will be the first to reflect that male/female conception ratio.
I'm unsure if that's the ratio we're seeing today, though. Some people might be passing thank you envelopes to the ultrasound technicians, who then make a fetal hip measurement in addition to the other necessary checks. Those workers can often guess a baby's sex at a glance, and may let you know with a wink. Maybe in twenty years we'll see a lot of women with narrow hips.
Chinese women are also very interested in the sport of guessing a baby's sex, from the shape of mom's tummy, or other indicators. A lot of Chinese ladies saluted my wife on the street, when she was pregnant, to congratulate her on the boy. Maybe they always do that. Anyway, she had a boy.
***
Under less medically advanced conditions, males are more susceptible to death during gestation and during the first years, than females. This was balanced by the higher genetic likelihood of conceiving a male. So, by reducing infant mortality, we should expect to see a greater number of males over time. China is arguably the world leader in prenatal and baby care, and its general population will be the first to reflect that male/female conception ratio.
I'm unsure if that's the ratio we're seeing today, though. Some people might be passing thank you envelopes to the ultrasound technicians, who then make a fetal hip measurement in addition to the other necessary checks. Those workers can often guess a baby's sex at a glance, and may let you know with a wink. Maybe in twenty years we'll see a lot of women with narrow hips.
Chinese women are also very interested in the sport of guessing a baby's sex, from the shape of mom's tummy, or other indicators. A lot of Chinese ladies saluted my wife on the street, when she was pregnant, to congratulate her on the boy. Maybe they always do that. Anyway, she had a boy.
Siegmund
King
Ideal population control:
http://chivalry.com/cantaria/lyrics/dovirgin.html
http://dragonmud.org/people/thoth/stories/story66.html
Seriously, I see why China felt it had to take such a drastic measure ... but the idea still does turn my stomach. I suppose drastic measures are the only thing that could make the farmer/rural/uneducated/etc set opt for small families? Must say it is a bit of a concern to me that the best and brightest of the world also tend to have the fewest children, which seems to bode ill for the future if there is anything to the idea that mental abilities are inheritable and not 100% environmental.
An intriguing comment on whether we might notice narrower-hipped women in China in the future. Along the same lines, you might ask yourself whether the rapid rise in average birth weight of babies (in the US, anyway) has been due just to better care, or to the large number of C-sections to deliver babies that otherwise would have not made it in a normal delivery.
http://chivalry.com/cantaria/lyrics/dovirgin.html
http://dragonmud.org/people/thoth/stories/story66.html
Seriously, I see why China felt it had to take such a drastic measure ... but the idea still does turn my stomach. I suppose drastic measures are the only thing that could make the farmer/rural/uneducated/etc set opt for small families? Must say it is a bit of a concern to me that the best and brightest of the world also tend to have the fewest children, which seems to bode ill for the future if there is anything to the idea that mental abilities are inheritable and not 100% environmental.
An intriguing comment on whether we might notice narrower-hipped women in China in the future. Along the same lines, you might ask yourself whether the rapid rise in average birth weight of babies (in the US, anyway) has been due just to better care, or to the large number of C-sections to deliver babies that otherwise would have not made it in a normal delivery.
Another means of population control would have been to set not how many children couples may have, but when they may have children. Couples might be prevented from having children before a certain age, for example, and be required to allow certain intervals between siblings. Statistically, it could be adjusted to have the same effect, except that it would also favour couples whom, for whatever reasons, are able to successfully parent at an older age. Over many generations, this would promote greater life-expectancy and later menopause. By the same token, it would disadvantage would-be parents who can't rear children as well later in life, diabetics for example. I don't promote such policies.
About hips. I meant that by trying to select boy fetuses, what we're really doing is aborting fetuses that have wider than average pelvises. Some baby girls might trick the system if they have narrow pelvises, and then my assumption is these would grow up to be women with narrow pelvises. But you probably knew that's what I meant.
C-sections. Hard to say. Some women are advised to deliver by cesarean section because the baby's considered too big for a safe vaginal delivery. But some babies are delivered pre-term by emergency C-section, and those would be underweight. Anyway, I guess it's less common these days where you live, like here in Canada.
About hips. I meant that by trying to select boy fetuses, what we're really doing is aborting fetuses that have wider than average pelvises. Some baby girls might trick the system if they have narrow pelvises, and then my assumption is these would grow up to be women with narrow pelvises. But you probably knew that's what I meant.
C-sections. Hard to say. Some women are advised to deliver by cesarean section because the baby's considered too big for a safe vaginal delivery. But some babies are delivered pre-term by emergency C-section, and those would be underweight. Anyway, I guess it's less common these days where you live, like here in Canada.
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
The increasing weight of the babies is partly caused by the vitamin intake during pregnancy. Most of the doctors in the more developed societies strongly recommend using these vitamins even if thre's no reason for doing it. Then this increased weight leads to C-sections.
I've read an interesting article on Brazil, where the C-section delivery is more of a social issue, as several women are afraid of the body deformations that delivery may cause (in the Brazilian society there is a very high prestige of the body look). Furthermore because of the financial structure of the healthcare system, the doctors get more reimbursement from the state after a C-section delivery, so they are interested in promoting that way.
Similar threads
