Girls and adoption in China

[DMikeS4321]

Maybe we can redirect this back to the orginal subject a little more specifically?

 

Good idea, Mike!

 

OR Kim!! I seem to be on a losing streak....

 

Best Regards

[DMikeS4321]

The density of NYC (i.e. 5 boroughs) is about 994 sq. ft. per person. The idea that the entire world population being able to live with approximately 93 square meters of space per person on a sustainable basis is laughable.

 

Even more laughable, however, is the idea that the crystal ball you obviously bought on the Home Shopping Network gives you insight into the minds and thoughts of those in China's political structure who developed and demand enforcement of China's population policy.

 

While it is debatable that China cares much for the world's population issues as a whole, anybody with a rational and educated mind would realize that first and foremost the Chinese powers that were and powers that be see overpopulation as a limit to sustainable development.

 

That a smaller population allows the government to maintain power over the populace is probably an added extra benefit – if even that.

 

Your talents are misplaced here. Try setting up your own Psychic Friends Network.

 

OK. I'm sure the people in NYC would be sad to hear that they don't live in a sustainable community.

 

Be that as it may, your post clearly proves my point; the decisions are based on POLITICS. I think you pretty much admit this, GZ, as you reference "the powers" twice here in describing POLICY. The POWERS have made a political decision. Call it whatever you want.

 

As for density, you STILL haven't addressed all the large countries with greater density than China, one of which is India. Many seem to think that India will dethrone China as THE economic powerhouse in the next few years. Best tell them they can't without population control, Bill. I don't think they've gotten the word yet.

 

Merry Christmas!!!

[Guest Mike and Lily]

 

OK. I'm sure the people in NYC would be sad to hear that they don't live in a sustainable community.

 

Be that as it may, your post clearly proves my point; the decisions are based on POLITICS. I think you pretty much admit this, GZ, as you reference "the powers" twice here in describing POLICY. The POWERS have made a political decision. Call it whatever you want.

 

As for density, you STILL haven't addressed all the large countries with greater density than China, one of which is India. Many seem to think that India will dethrone China as THE economic powerhouse in the next few years. Best tell them they can't without population control, Bill. I don't think they've gotten the word yet.

 

Merry Christmas!!!

 

The people of New York don't live in a self sustainable community. They rely heavily on outside sources for food and for places to dispose of their waste. New York could not possibly survive without either.

[IllinoisDave]

Over population is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. The earth needs fewer people in order to heal itself.

 

China's population policy is based on political judgements, not the ability of the planet to support increased population. The carrying capacity of Earth is far beyond today's population. Most famine is caused by political repression. Most "drought" is a direct result of misallocation of resources.

 

Malthusian propaganda aside, let's not turn this into a political thread, OK?

 

P.S. Planet Earth doesn't possess a "self", it's an inanimate object. It's doesn't "heal", it is a constantly changing eco-system of almost unimagineable dimension. Every human on earth could live in an area the size of the state of Texas. Population density would be approximately that of the City of San Francisco. This would include streets, stores, parks, government buildings, residential lots.... all of it.

 

Our planet is HUGE, as anyone who has travelled overseas should know.

 

I've been away from the computer for a few days. I'm sorry I've missed so much,including some very interesting "facts".

 

"The carrying capacity of Earth is far beyond today's population."

 

Really? How far beyond? Estimates put the number of malnourished people on Earth at around 850 million. Tell them that there's plenty of Earth left for them to subsist on.

 

"Most famine is caused by political repression."

 

Most? I doubt that very much. Political repression may exacerbate a famine as in North Korea. But the underlying cause of nearly all famine is a basic shortage of food. I would say most of those shortages are due to weather-related causes,over-population of the area or a combination of the two.

 

"Most "drought" is a direct result of misallocation of resources."

 

Again. Most? Come on. Unless someone's discovered a way to misallocate rainfall, this is a pretty dubious statement as well.

 

"Malthusian propaganda aside, let's not turn this into a political thread, OK?"

 

Mathusian propaganda? I'd say that's a political statement in and of itself.

 

"P.S. Planet Earth doesn't possess a "self", it's an inanimate object. It's doesn't "heal", it is a constantly changing eco-system of almost unimagineable dimension."

 

Main Entry: eco·sys·tem

Pronunciation: \-ˌsis-təm\

Function: noun

Date: 1935

: the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit

 

If that's the definition of an inanimate object, I'm Billy Graham. Since the Earth was a mere babe, and without the help of us humans,forests have been burning down and growing back even more lush than they were before. If that's not healing itself, then what is?

 

You're right, it is a constantly changing eco-system. Part of that constant change is trying to keep up with the destruction caused by humans. Unfortunately, as humans are wont to do, we're winning, which also means we're losing. And you're right about it being "almost" unimagineable. Funny thing about "almost" though, it's only good in horseshoes, hand grenades, and some elections. B)

The Earth is imaginable because it's finite and so are it's resources.

[Shenzhen K-1]

An interesting article on adoptions in China. Some surprising and heart-breaking info and statistics.

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123021.html

 

Still a great read Dave, but this post has gone a little sideways.......

 

China's problem will cure itself one way or the other. By most "experts" thoughts there will be so few females in the next 20 years or so to marry or have babies that the rise in people will have to slow down.

 

The fact that so many Chinese women are willing to marry "mugs" like the most of us on CFL should say volumes in itself.

[chilton747]

It's no secret that China is trying to extinguish the female population to some degree. Fewer women, fewer babies.

[Guest Mike and Lily]

It's no secret that China is trying to extinguish the female population to some degree. Fewer women, fewer babies.

 

I don't really think that's the primary goal, but when China's one child policy collides with Chinese cultural values, that's the net result.

[Shenzhen K-1]

It's no secret that China is trying to extinguish the female population to some degree. Fewer women, fewer babies.

 

I don't really think that's the primary goal, but when China's one child policy collides with Chinese cultural values, that's the net result.

 

ABSOLUTELY, sad isn't it????

[pkfops]

You may want to contact this VT member:

 

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/3cddd/

 

She has first hand knowledge of adoption.

[Shenzhen K-1]

You may want to contact this VT member:

 

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/3cddd/

 

She has first hand knowledge of adoption.

 

Some great trips and wonderful photos as well!!

 

She did say that the "White Swan hotel" in Guangzhou seemed to make peole sick though!!

[IllinoisDave]

but this post has gone a little sideways.......

 

They have a way of doing that.

[GZBILL]

The density of NYC (i.e. 5 boroughs) is about 994 sq. ft. per person. The idea that the entire world population being able to live with approximately 93 square meters of space per person on a sustainable basis is laughable.

 

Even more laughable, however, is the idea that the crystal ball you obviously bought on the Home Shopping Network gives you insight into the minds and thoughts of those in China's political structure who developed and demand enforcement of China's population policy.

 

While it is debatable that China cares much for the world's population issues as a whole, anybody with a rational and educated mind would realize that first and foremost the Chinese powers that were and powers that be see overpopulation as a limit to sustainable development.

 

That a smaller population allows the government to maintain power over the populace is probably an added extra benefit ?if even that.

 

Your talents are misplaced here. Try setting up your own Psychic Friends Network.

 

OK. I'm sure the people in NYC would be sad to hear that they don't live in a sustainable community.

 

Be that as it may, your post clearly proves my point; the decisions are based on POLITICS. I think you pretty much admit this, GZ, as you reference "the powers" twice here in describing POLICY. The POWERS have made a political decision. Call it whatever you want.

 

As for density, you STILL haven't addressed all the large countries with greater density than China, one of which is India. Many seem to think that India will dethrone China as THE economic powerhouse in the next few years. Best tell them they can't without population control, Bill. I don't think they've gotten the word yet.

 

Merry Christmas!!!

 

Well, from personal experience, I can tell you that NYC is by no means a sustainable community for anybody who doesn't earn at least $250k NET per year. Again, anybody who has been in NYC for more than 2 days would laugh at the idea of NYC being a virtual model for the rest of the world.

 

As for your definition -- or lack thereof -- of the term "political," it's not surprising to find justification in semantics when your original theory is a non-starter. Just as a reminder, your original statement was:

 

China's population policy is based on political judgements, not the ability of the planet to support increased population.

 

Any decision made by a governing body can be called "political" by definition. By your twisted logic, we can claim that FDA regulations requiring child-proof caps on all prescription drugs is a political decision. Looks like you are in a lose - lose situation. Using your language definition, your original statement is akin to stating that everything that is black in color is black.

 

Now let's look at India. By any standards of decency and human self-worth, it would be laughable to consider India a sustainable community. It may be, however, the world's largest sustainable whorehouse. Or the nation with the world's largest sustainable transportation system that transports humans in worse conditions than industrialized nations, and most third-world countries, transport, say, animal carcasses. But I digress as this has nothing to do with your ealier statement that "China's population policy is based on political judgements, not the ability of the planet to support increased population. The carrying capacity of Earth is far beyond today's population. Most famine is caused by political repression. Most "drought" is a direct result of misallocation of resources."

 

Tune into your Psychic Friends Network so that they can feed you more drivel.

[Dennis143]

The density of NYC (i.e. 5 boroughs) is about 994 sq. ft. per person. The idea that the entire world population being able to live with approximately 93 square meters of space per person on a sustainable basis is laughable.

 

Even more laughable, however, is the idea that the crystal ball you obviously bought on the Home Shopping Network gives you insight into the minds and thoughts of those in China's political structure who developed and demand enforcement of China's population policy.

 

While it is debatable that China cares much for the world's population issues as a whole, anybody with a rational and educated mind would realize that first and foremost the Chinese powers that were and powers that be see overpopulation as a limit to sustainable development.

 

That a smaller population allows the government to maintain power over the populace is probably an added extra benefit ?if even that.

 

Your talents are misplaced here. Try setting up your own Psychic Friends Network.

 

OK. I'm sure the people in NYC would be sad to hear that they don't live in a sustainable community.

 

Be that as it may, your post clearly proves my point; the decisions are based on POLITICS. I think you pretty much admit this, GZ, as you reference "the powers" twice here in describing POLICY. The POWERS have made a political decision. Call it whatever you want.

 

As for density, you STILL haven't addressed all the large countries with greater density than China, one of which is India. Many seem to think that India will dethrone China as THE economic powerhouse in the next few years. Best tell them they can't without population control, Bill. I don't think they've gotten the word yet.

 

Merry Christmas!!!

 

Well, from personal experience, I can tell you that NYC is by no means a sustainable community for anybody who doesn't earn at least $250k NET per year. Again, anybody who has been in NYC for more than 2 days would laugh at the idea of NYC being a virtual model for the rest of the world.

 

As for your definition -- or lack thereof -- of the term "political," it's not surprising to find justification in semantics when your original theory is a non-starter. Just as a reminder, your original statement was:

 

China's population policy is based on political judgements, not the ability of the planet to support increased population.

 

Any decision made by a governing body can be called "political" by definition. By your twisted logic, we can claim that FDA regulations requiring child-proof caps on all prescription drugs is a political decision. Looks like you are in a lose - lose situation. Using your language definition, your original statement is akin to stating that everything that is black in color is black.

 

Now let's look at India. By any standards of decency and human self-worth, it would be laughable to consider India a sustainable community. It may be, however, the world's largest sustainable whorehouse. Or the nation with the world's largest sustainable transportation system that transports humans in worse conditions than industrialized nations, and most third-world countries, transport, say, animal carcasses. But I digress as this has nothing to do with your ealier statement that "China's population policy is based on political judgements, not the ability of the planet to support increased population. The carrying capacity of Earth is far beyond today's population. Most famine is caused by political repression. Most "drought" is a direct result of misallocation of resources."

 

Tune into your Psychic Friends Network so that they can feed you more drivel.

Drivel can be found quite easily here at the Candle these days. Why, there's enough pontification here to even satisfy Pushbrk...remember him?