China's one child policy

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

Planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

 

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

 

{edit} Corrected typo in topic title. "Chin'a" to "China's"

Edited December 16, 2009 by dnoblett (see edit history)

[b.c]

Pretty hard to argue with that...at least until technology catches up to allow us to adapt and sustain ourselves more on less natural resource inputs.

[Bert]

Planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

 

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

 

Even China's one child policy only applies to a little over a third of the population. Some ethnic groups can have as many children as they want. Who decides which group can have more children than another on a worldwide basis? It's too early to say that the Chinese policy works. We will see how the gender imbalance is going to play out. We would have to see if our values would change to allow us to drown a child in the river if it didn't turn out the way we wanted.

 

Even a strict one child policy is too hard to implement. There are some people and some cultures that just wouldn't comply. Would you sit idly by why another culture overtook your own? It would have to be a one world government to enforce compliance. And how do you enforce it? Fines don't work, unless you are willing to put poor people in jail when they can't pay. My wife's father was put in jail. Still had two kids. You can murder the excess babies, but I don't see that going over well. Force abortions and sterilizations haven't worked in the past in the US. The lawyers will kill that idea. You can curb births in the US by eliminating the tax benefits for having children and even make families pay more, but it only impacts those people willing to obey. Those that pay no taxes won't be affected. It is probably those, who can least afford it, that you most want to control. How about when there aren't enough working people to pay your social security? How will you impose measures that contradict religious doctrine? There goes the separation of church and state. I don't see it ever happening in the US. It would violate somebody's rights.

[Sam and Fen]

From what I understand the one child policy only applies to people who work for the government.

 

Here is an article from the Washington Post about the failures of the Chinese one child policy.

 

Washington Post

[3timescharm]

Planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

 

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

 

Even China's one child policy only applies to a little over a third of the population. Some ethnic groups can have as many children as they want. Who decides which group can have more children than another on a worldwide basis? It's too early to say that the Chinese policy works. We will see how the gender imbalance is going to play out. We would have to see if our values would change to allow us to drown a child in the river if it didn't turn out the way we wanted.

 

Even a strict one child policy is too hard to implement. There are some people and some cultures that just wouldn't comply. Would you sit idly by why another culture overtook your own? It would have to be a one world government to enforce compliance. And how do you enforce it? Fines don't work, unless you are willing to put poor people in jail when they can't pay. My wife's father was put in jail. Still had two kids. You can murder the excess babies, but I don't see that going over well. Force abortions and sterilizations haven't worked in the past in the US. The lawyers will kill that idea. You can curb births in the US by eliminating the tax benefits for having children and even make families pay more, but it only impacts those people willing to obey. Those that pay no taxes won't be affected. It is probably those, who can least afford it, that you most want to control. How about when there aren't enough working people to pay your social security? How will you impose measures that contradict religious doctrine? There goes the separation of church and state. I don't see it ever happening in the US. It would violate somebody's rights.

Very well thought out response.

[amberjack1234]

 

Even China's one child policy only applies to a little over a third of the population. Some ethnic groups can have as many children as they want. Who decides which group can have more children than another on a worldwide basis? It's too early to say that the Chinese policy works. We will see how the gender imbalance is going to play out. We would have to see if our values would change to allow us to drown a child in the river if it didn't turn out the way we wanted.

 

Even a strict one child policy is too hard to implement. There are some people and some cultures that just wouldn't comply. Would you sit idly by why another culture overtook your own? It would have to be a one world government to enforce compliance. And how do you enforce it? Fines don't work, unless you are willing to put poor people in jail when they can't pay. My wife's father was put in jail. Still had two kids. You can murder the excess babies, but I don't see that going over well. Force abortions and sterilizations haven't worked in the past in the US. The lawyers will kill that idea. You can curb births in the US by eliminating the tax benefits for having children and even make families pay more, but it only impacts those people willing to obey. Those that pay no taxes won't be affected. It is probably those, who can least afford it, that you most want to control. How about when there aren't enough working people to pay your social security? How will you impose measures that contradict religious doctrine? There goes the separation of church and state. I don't see it ever happening in the US. It would violate somebody's rights.

 

 

Yes very good post but what is the answer? It will be very complex and of course there is going to be someone that is unhappy. It is my feeling and just my feeling that none of these things worked in America and never will. Our laws, gov and way of life will not permit it. Public education may help to some extent. Many years ago it was most popular to have 8-12 children especially in the rural area where the help was need on the farm for labor. Then came the depression and along with it birth control measure were implemented and for the most part it worked as today's families are much smaller. I believe the rate is about 2 children per family in America. Here is a chart that reflects the statics world wide.

 

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm

 

This education remedy will of course only work in the most well educated countries. Unless it is handled by a government like China has that has total control. Total control in China??? I think that we all know that where there is a will there is a way and this issue has been circumvented in China as well if only by a few.

 

Larry

Edited December 13, 2009 by donahso (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

Some countries have a negative population growth rate. These are countries with a highly educated population. The fact is less educated people have larger families. A large percentage of China's population doesn't even have a high school diploma. The urge for sex is probably the second strongest instinct we have, second only to the instinct for survival. While the methods may be something we could never use here in the US at least China is aggressively trying to do something about it. IMO over population is the largest single threat to the survival of humans on the planet. The damage to the environment caused by 6 billion plus people can not be sustained.

[amberjack1234]

My feelings exactly Carl.

 

Larry

[Guest Pommey]

Well theres always contaception

[chilton747]

Well theres always contaception

 

 

That costs money.

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYNwDUpb0rU

 

 

"The link could not be embedded because there is no video at that URL."

Edited February 21, 2021 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Corbin]

Here is the problem with the one child policy, it doesn't work. This is already showing in China. They already have an unbalance rate of male to female births. Not only that they have a negative birth rate, ie a non supporting rate. Less are being born to replace the existing population which is a problem.

 

Now this is China that has a birth rate policy in place. Other countries that don't even have a birth control policy in place are already losing population, below the birth rate to keep the population growing. Most will not double in the normal 70 year rate. If I remember right even the US is just above this birth rate.

 

Our hope is not just in population control, we have to look at the bigger picture. The article makes it sound so simple as if shrinking the population will save us, it will not. Even with our current population we can do very well at destroying our planet.

[a2784]

Here is the problem with the one child policy, it doesn't work. This is already showing in China. They already have an unbalance rate of male to female births. Not only that they have a negative birth rate, ie a non supporting rate. Less are being born to replace the existing population which is a problem.

 

Now this is China that has a birth rate policy in place. Other countries that don't even have a birth control policy in place are already losing population, below the birth rate to keep the population growing. Most will not double in the normal 70 year rate. If I remember right even the US is just above this birth rate.

 

Our hope is not just in population control, we have to look at the bigger picture. The article makes it sound so simple as if shrinking the population will save us, it will not. Even with our current population we can do very well at destroying our planet.

 

Yes ... so this would mean those who have excessive consumption should cut back on the consumption (and reduce pollution). Consumption does not equal better quality of life .... but this is how some countries see it ...

 

While the one-child policy in China has helped control the population growth they would otherwise had experienced (and definitely other problems along with the growth) I would agree with you that it doesn't work. The policy was actually carried out more to ensure the ability to maintain control/power of the ruling party than for the benefit of the earth or the citizens. On the other end of the issue is has produced a gender imbalance issue that will raise its head soon and further the second class citizenship of women.

 

I also agree with you that the author of this article makes it sound so simple. He also shows his lack of "realism" by this statement:

 

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

 

Once I read that statement and reflected on my years here in China I stopped to consider anymore of his "advice". Not that I think China is a bad place or not developing rapidly and advancing but it is far from being at the level of this statement.

Edited December 14, 2009 by a2784 (see edit history)

[Kyle]

I also agree with you that the author of this article makes it sound so simple. He also shows his lack of "realism" by this statement:

 

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

 

Once I read that statement and reflected on my years here in China I stopped to consider anymore of his "advice". Not that I think China is a bad place or not developing rapidly and advancing but it is far from being at the level of this statement.

Some good thoughts in Alan's post. Having lived here for a while, I tend to agree with your analysis of the author's quoted statement.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Kyle (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

We need to cut the population of the planet in half to keep from doing further damage to the ecology. That wouldn't heal the planet it would just keep it from getting worse.

 

As bizarre as it seems Don's statements of having to cull the herd may actually become necessary for survival of the planet.