Girls and adoption in China

[DMikeS4321]

As aye,

Jim

 

Welcome back, Jim!!

[DMikeS4321]

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.

 

 

Geezz Mike Texas is mighty big place

 

So I've been told, mostly by Texans!!

[chilton747]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

[Guest knloregon]

Finally got around to reading this article---

 

Great post, thanks, and for the most part, seems Candle members have their heads on alot staighter than Jacob Sullum.

 

Sullum's basic premise that "The tyrannical roots of China's international adoption program" ---ie. the preference for boys over girls---and thus the uneven ratio---boys to girls can be placed at Deng's feet is fatally flawed.

 

Heres why: If you look at the demographics, and live birth stats. boys to girls in both Taiwan and Singapore you will find that both of these Chinese societies also have disproportunate numbers of boys to girls, far larger than can be explained by natural causes. And neither of these societies has birth control policies. The ratios arn't as wide as in China, but neither of these societies are agrarian as is 2/3rds. of China, which requires male labor and head of household ascension for family security. And while China has no social safety net other than family, both Taiwan and certainly wealthy Singapore do. So the only explanation is cultural, not political as Sullum wrongly asserts.

 

His article is basicly downhill from there, but regarding China's authoritarian forced measures for birth control, vs. India's Democratic hands-off (bordering on criminal, in my opinion) policy here is what the future holds: By 2,050 India will surpass China in population, and for the children STILL won't have: universal basic education, universal inoculations, sanitation, potable water or indeed, even humane orphanages-----as China has today.

 

Someone needs to ask Sullum and crying liberals like him: If your child wasn't adopted--- What city would you rather have your baby born into? Authoritarian China's Shanghai/Guangzhou? Or India's Democratic Calcutta/Bombay?

[DMikeS4321]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

 

Sorry, Charles, Texas has a land area of 268,601 square miles. If you divide the estimated population of China, 1,300,000,000 by that number, you end up with 4839 people per square mile. At 27,880,000 square feet per mile, you end up with about 5,761 square feet per person, enough for a 1500 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot with room left over for streets, shopping centers, etc. This population density wouldn't be to my liking, but it isn't outrageously overcrowded, either. Population densities of some American cities are: New York City, 23,705 per square mile; San Francisco, 15,502; Jersey City, 15,338; Salinas, CA, 5848; Long Beach, CA, 8589; Evanston, IL,9389; Los Angeles, 7427; Springfield, MA, 4890; even little Lodi, CA (remember the Creedence Clearwater song, "Stuck in Lodi"?) has a density of 4894! (Stats from demographia.com)

 

The point isn't that such a place would be pleasant to live in. I think MY town is too crowded, but.... there is so much mis-information about this topic that people need to hear the truth and recognize that almost ALL of our problems are political in nature. China's family and population policies are based on something other than gross population and/or population growth. It has to do with economic growth, productivity, the governments ability to control the population and factors of that nature.

 

China may or may not be able to feed it's population (I don't know how much of their food they have to import, nor do I know how much of their land is viable from an agricultural point of view) but I do know that they are capable of generating enough economic activity to provide for themselves. I also know that limiting their population growth will make it easier for the government to control the population in the "countryside", which is where most of the poor live.

 

Thanks for listening.

[chilton747]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

 

Sorry, Charles, Texas has a land area of 268,601 square miles. If you divide the estimated population of China, 1,300,000,000 by that number, you end up with 4839 people per square mile. At 27,880,000 square feet per mile, you end up with about 5,761 square feet per person, enough for a 1500 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot with room left over for streets, shopping centers, etc. This population density wouldn't be to my liking, but it isn't outrageously overcrowded, either. Population densities of some American cities are: New York City, 23,705 per square mile; San Francisco, 15,502; Jersey City, 15,338; Salinas, CA, 5848; Long Beach, CA, 8589; Evanston, IL,9389; Los Angeles, 7427; Springfield, MA, 4890; even little Lodi, CA (remember the Creedence Clearwater song, "Stuck in Lodi"?) has a density of 4894! (Stats from demographia.com)

 

The point isn't that such a place would be pleasant to live in. I think MY town is too crowded, but.... there is so much mis-information about this topic that people need to hear the truth and recognize that almost ALL of our problems are political in nature. China's family and population policies are based on something other than gross population and/or population growth. It has to do with economic growth, productivity, the governments ability to control the population and factors of that nature.

 

China may or may not be able to feed it's population (I don't know how much of their food they have to import, nor do I know how much of their land is viable from an agricultural point of view) but I do know that they are capable of generating enough economic activity to provide for themselves. I also know that limiting their population growth will make it easier for the government to control the population in the "countryside", which is where most of the poor live.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

I think I misread the chart Sorry Mike

[GZBILL]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

 

Sorry, Charles, Texas has a land area of 268,601 square miles. If you divide the estimated population of China, 1,300,000,000 by that number, you end up with 4839 people per square mile. At 27,880,000 square feet per mile, you end up with about 5,761 square feet per person, enough for a 1500 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot with room left over for streets, shopping centers, etc. This population density wouldn't be to my liking, but it isn't outrageously overcrowded, either. Population densities of some American cities are: New York City, 23,705 per square mile; San Francisco, 15,502; Jersey City, 15,338; Salinas, CA, 5848; Long Beach, CA, 8589; Evanston, IL,9389; Los Angeles, 7427; Springfield, MA, 4890; even little Lodi, CA (remember the Creedence Clearwater song, "Stuck in Lodi"?) has a density of 4894! (Stats from demographia.com)

 

The point isn't that such a place would be pleasant to live in. I think MY town is too crowded, but.... there is so much mis-information about this topic that people need to hear the truth and recognize that almost ALL of our problems are political in nature. China's family and population policies are based on something other than gross population and/or population growth. It has to do with economic growth, productivity, the governments ability to control the population and factors of that nature.

 

China may or may not be able to feed it's population (I don't know how much of their food they have to import, nor do I know how much of their land is viable from an agricultural point of view) but I do know that they are capable of generating enough economic activity to provide for themselves. I also know that limiting their population growth will make it easier for the government to control the population in the "countryside", which is where most of the poor live.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Please resit the math portion of the GREs.

 

Your claim was "every human on earth," not the population of China. That would give each and every person a grand total of 1,134 sq. ft. If that's not outrageously overcrowded, pigs can fly.

 

Your truth is moronic.

[DMikeS4321]

I think I misread the chart Sorry Mike

 

Charles,

 

There is certainly no apology necessary. This information is the kind of thing that should be taught in elementary school, but isn't. It should be reflexive or intuitive (just like most people don't have to think about the answer to the problem of 10 X 10 = ?) for people to know these things; it would help cut through a lot of the nonsense we are constantly being misled with.

 

I'm not trying to make this political, but I think it's really important for people to recognize the political origins of most of these problems. We can't really address the issues unless we understand where they come from.

 

China isn't overcrowded. It has a big population, but as I showed in one of my earlier posts, there are several big countries that have greater population densities. There isn't a big gender imbalance in China because there are a great many more boys being CONCEIVED than girls, it's because there are a great many more boys being BORN than girls, and that is a function of cultural biases exacerbated by government policy.

 

Best Regards

[DMikeS4321]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

 

Sorry, Charles, Texas has a land area of 268,601 square miles. If you divide the estimated population of China, 1,300,000,000 by that number, you end up with 4839 people per square mile. At 27,880,000 square feet per mile, you end up with about 5,761 square feet per person, enough for a 1500 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot with room left over for streets, shopping centers, etc. This population density wouldn't be to my liking, but it isn't outrageously overcrowded, either. Population densities of some American cities are: New York City, 23,705 per square mile; San Francisco, 15,502; Jersey City, 15,338; Salinas, CA, 5848; Long Beach, CA, 8589; Evanston, IL,9389; Los Angeles, 7427; Springfield, MA, 4890; even little Lodi, CA (remember the Creedence Clearwater song, "Stuck in Lodi"?) has a density of 4894! (Stats from demographia.com)

 

The point isn't that such a place would be pleasant to live in. I think MY town is too crowded, but.... there is so much mis-information about this topic that people need to hear the truth and recognize that almost ALL of our problems are political in nature. China's family and population policies are based on something other than gross population and/or population growth. It has to do with economic growth, productivity, the governments ability to control the population and factors of that nature.

 

China may or may not be able to feed it's population (I don't know how much of their food they have to import, nor do I know how much of their land is viable from an agricultural point of view) but I do know that they are capable of generating enough economic activity to provide for themselves. I also know that limiting their population growth will make it easier for the government to control the population in the "countryside", which is where most of the poor live.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Please resit the math portion of the GREs.

 

Your claim was "every human on earth," not the population of China. That would give each and every person a grand total of 1,134 sq. ft. If that's not outrageously overcrowded, pigs can fly.

 

Your truth is moronic.

 

My bad on the stats. I mixed up tables and graphs.

 

Even at 1,134 square foot per person, the density would be approximately that of New York City. I would guess it would be less than several others like Jarkarta, Mexico City, Shanghai and Tokoyo. I don't care for urban living, but I don't think, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are OUTRAGEOUSLY overcrowded, at least not to the point that pigs can fly.

 

Thanks for checking the math, but that doesn't change the point, and I don't think it's moronic. It is foolish, however, to pretend that the problems we're discussing are a result of population and/or population density. It's culture and policy, pure and simple.

 

Sorry if you disagree.

 

Best Regards

[Guest knloregon]

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

[DMikeS4321]

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

 

Good idea, Mike!

[SinoTexas]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

 

Sorry, Charles, Texas has a land area of 268,601 square miles. If you divide the estimated population of China, 1,300,000,000 by that number, you end up with 4839 people per square mile. At 27,880,000 square feet per mile, you end up with about 5,761 square feet per person, enough for a 1500 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot with room left over for streets, shopping centers, etc. This population density wouldn't be to my liking, but it isn't outrageously overcrowded, either. Population densities of some American cities are: New York City, 23,705 per square mile; San Francisco, 15,502; Jersey City, 15,338; Salinas, CA, 5848; Long Beach, CA, 8589; Evanston, IL,9389; Los Angeles, 7427; Springfield, MA, 4890; even little Lodi, CA (remember the Creedence Clearwater song, "Stuck in Lodi"?) has a density of 4894! (Stats from demographia.com)

 

The point isn't that such a place would be pleasant to live in. I think MY town is too crowded, but.... there is so much mis-information about this topic that people need to hear the truth and recognize that almost ALL of our problems are political in nature. China's family and population policies are based on something other than gross population and/or population growth. It has to do with economic growth, productivity, the governments ability to control the population and factors of that nature.

 

China may or may not be able to feed it's population (I don't know how much of their food they have to import, nor do I know how much of their land is viable from an agricultural point of view) but I do know that they are capable of generating enough economic activity to provide for themselves. I also know that limiting their population growth will make it easier for the government to control the population in the "countryside", which is where most of the poor live.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Please resit the math portion of the GREs.

 

Your claim was "every human on earth," not the population of China. That would give each and every person a grand total of 1,134 sq. ft. If that's not outrageously overcrowded, pigs can fly.

 

Your truth is moronic.

As aye,

Jim

[GZBILL]

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.

Yes our planet is huge. Texas has a land area of 2000 square miles. I don't think the math would support this.

 

Sorry, Charles, Texas has a land area of 268,601 square miles. If you divide the estimated population of China, 1,300,000,000 by that number, you end up with 4839 people per square mile. At 27,880,000 square feet per mile, you end up with about 5,761 square feet per person, enough for a 1500 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot with room left over for streets, shopping centers, etc. This population density wouldn't be to my liking, but it isn't outrageously overcrowded, either. Population densities of some American cities are: New York City, 23,705 per square mile; San Francisco, 15,502; Jersey City, 15,338; Salinas, CA, 5848; Long Beach, CA, 8589; Evanston, IL,9389; Los Angeles, 7427; Springfield, MA, 4890; even little Lodi, CA (remember the Creedence Clearwater song, "Stuck in Lodi"?) has a density of 4894! (Stats from demographia.com)

 

The point isn't that such a place would be pleasant to live in. I think MY town is too crowded, but.... there is so much mis-information about this topic that people need to hear the truth and recognize that almost ALL of our problems are political in nature. China's family and population policies are based on something other than gross population and/or population growth. It has to do with economic growth, productivity, the governments ability to control the population and factors of that nature.

 

China may or may not be able to feed it's population (I don't know how much of their food they have to import, nor do I know how much of their land is viable from an agricultural point of view) but I do know that they are capable of generating enough economic activity to provide for themselves. I also know that limiting their population growth will make it easier for the government to control the population in the "countryside", which is where most of the poor live.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Please resit the math portion of the GREs.

 

Your claim was "every human on earth," not the population of China. That would give each and every person a grand total of 1,134 sq. ft. If that's not outrageously overcrowded, pigs can fly.

 

Your truth is moronic.

 

My bad on the stats. I mixed up tables and graphs.

 

Even at 1,134 square foot per person, the density would be approximately that of New York City. I would guess it would be less than several others like Jarkarta, Mexico City, Shanghai and Tokoyo. I don't care for urban living, but I don't think, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are OUTRAGEOUSLY overcrowded, at least not to the point that pigs can fly.

 

Thanks for checking the math, but that doesn't change the point, and I don't think it's moronic. It is foolish, however, to pretend that the problems we're discussing are a result of population and/or population density. It's culture and policy, pure and simple.

 

Sorry if you disagree.

 

Best Regards

 

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 ¨C if even that.

 

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

[Guest Mike and Lily]

Regardless of the motivation of China's restrictive policies on having children, the policy benefits the Chinese people and the world as a whole. It doesn't take a high IQ to see the impending disaster of overpopulation. At least they are doing something about it. The religions of the world, especially catholicism are promoting policies that they think will increase their influence around the world but just bring us closer to the brink of disaster.

[GZBILL]

Regardless of the motivation of China's restrictive policies on having children, the policy benefits the Chinese people and the world as a whole. It doesn't take a high IQ to see the impending disaster of overpopulation. At least they are doing something about it. The religions of the world, especially catholicism are promoting policies that they think will increase their influence around the world but just bring us closer to the brink of disaster.

 

Exactly.

 

Those who think of overpopulation only in terms of population density are simple-minded. Differences in religion, political thought, life-style and even sexual preference are insurrmountable barriers when imagining that everybody on Earth can live together in a state the size of Texas.

 

It cannot get much more moronic.