China's one child policy

[dnoblett]

Most of the educated and wealthy countries are on average doing the one child thing when you consider birth vs death rate.

 

From another thread not long ago: http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=527177

 

dnoblett said:

george lee said:

i do not know if this post makes any sense but here goes, we did not take in consideration that people are dying every seconds around the world. people are born but at the same time, people are dying. the born to death ratio is unknown to me but people are dying may or may not make up the differences. my opinion

 

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/kpxsjkpzgwux/ukzdpv/biths-deaths (1).png

Birth / Death Ratios

 

Poverty.

 

Notice the places where Poverty is a big problem are also places where population is expanding, these places are also poor, uneducated, and the people there tend to desire BIG family.

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

[True Blue]

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.

 

A recent documentary on the Black Death Plague of 1300's discussed the "benefits" to the survivors of having less people on the planet after the plague was irradicated. More land, more food, less congestion, less stress. According to the authors this was one of the factors that ade Europe conducive to spark the Renaissance

[Corbin]

Here is the answer......

 

We have all heard the the saying "GO WEST, GO WEST...."

 

Well now we need to start a new one, Go to the stars......

 

Population issue taken care of.....

I know some of you think that is to far off the deep end. It is doable and is not so far fetched as one might think. I will not try to explain what I do know here about that. Just know that we do have the people that could do it. I is all the matter of wanting it.

 

The idea of a culling will never sit well and is sure to start the wars of wars. Someone said something about a one world government, which will happen some time down the road. When this happens we are doomed because then the End Times are here. Yes that smacks of religion and if I stepped over the line there, I can't help it. It is what I believe.

[TLB]

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.

 

A recent documentary on the Black Death Plague of 1300's discussed the "benefits" to the survivors of having less people on the planet after the plague was irradicated. More land, more food, less congestion, less stress. According to the authors this was one of the factors that ade Europe conducive to spark the Renaissance

 

Dr. Strangelove had something to say about this as well:

 

[Bert]

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.

 

The survival of the planet by pollution or over-crowding is not at stake and never could be. Assuming we are capable, if we ever do too much harm to the earth, we will simply be wiped out by our host. The good earth is quite capable of taking care of itself. We are here only temporary. We will be wiped out some day, whether by our own hands or by an external event. It is only a matter of time. If we don't find another host, we will be wiped out as a species. The earth, meanwhile, will continue to exist for millions of year until some cataclysmic event occurs. Even then, it will exist in another form.

[knloregon]

"...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..."

 

 

"...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...."

 

can you attribute that Alan? Because, according to conversations with my Father-In-Law, the Party (after Mao) felt great collective guilt about the famine years 59-62.... but couldn't do anything about it (of course) until after the Cultural Revolution, this lead, with substantial consensus to the one Child policy... Not sure how, politically, you enhance your control over a population if you tell them they can't have all the children they want---after historically having huge families..

 

seems the opposite to me, seems like a move that could only come from a very hard political appraisal of the dark times of the recent famine. Can you imagine such a law in the US?---and the political backlash?

 

"..I would agree with you that it doesn't work..."

 

Then why is India (with its unrestricted child bearing) projected to surpass China's population by mid-century? Even eight or ten years ago, they had a population of about 750 million vs. China's 1.1 billion.

 

"...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..."

 

Well, all Chinese populations have a gender imbalance, and it has nothing (well, little) to do with the one child policy---you will see it in the Chinese populations of even the very rich---HK, and Singapore, although to a lesser extent, and most certainly in Taiwan.

The preference for boys has been part of the culture for thousands of years.. Ultrasound in China, probably more than any other advancement has lead to the extermination of female fetuses more than any government policy. Unfortunately, infanticide for new-born girls is still a risk..... but diminishing, for exactly the reason you cite:

 

"...On the other end of the issue is has produced a gender imbalance..."

 

little new-born baby girls, once exterminated, now have value----thanks to this 'supply and demand' issue... I don't know what percentage of these newborns make it to the orphanages, (where they are protected from exploitation) but more and more, they are being sold into rural communities as future brides (after being raise in the son's household).

 

You have a point----this is exactly what Mao wanted to end in his historic "Half the Sky" speech , but for those of us with an emotional attachment to these abandoned girls, its a step up----to see them alive.

[a2784]

"...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..."

 

 

"...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...."

 

can you attribute that Alan? Because, according to conversations with my Father-In-Law, the Party (after Mao) felt great collective guilt about the famine years 59-62.... but couldn't do anything about it (of course) until after the Cultural Revolution, this lead, with substantial consensus to the one Child policy... Not sure how, politically, you enhance your control over a population if you tell them they can't have all the children they want---after historically having huge families..

 

seems the opposite to me, seems like a move that could only come from a very hard political appraisal of the dark times of the recent famine. Can you imagine such a law in the US?---and the political backlash?

 

Maybe I am wrong but the information and people I have talked to attribute the famine to the government (specifically Mao). So from this perspective I make the connection that the 1-child policy was a result of fear over mass uprisings from having too many people without enough resources (as the country at that time was very low on the development curve) and thinking that another famine induced reduction was not the best way to go politically.

 

"..I would agree with you that it doesn't work..."

 

Then why is India (with its unrestricted child bearing) projected to surpass China's population by mid-century? Even eight or ten years ago, they had a population of about 750 million vs. China's 1.1 billion.

 

Sure it has worked in some extent to controlling the population but at what costs? In addition as China grows and get richer/more educated the tendency is to have/need less children (see prior graphs on birthrates in developed and non-developed countries). I would think at least some of the reduction in birthrate/growth in China has to do with this not the 1-child policy.

 

India, on the other hand, has a much less developed overall economy that China. Hence the need/desire for more childen to ensure one is taken care of later in life.

 

"...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..."

 

Well, all Chinese populations have a gender imbalance, and it has nothing (well, little) to do with the one child policy---you will see it in the Chinese populations of even the very rich---HK, and Singapore, although to a lesser extent, and most certainly in Taiwan.

The preference for boys has been part of the culture for thousands of years.. Ultrasound in China, probably more than any other advancement has lead to the extermination of female fetuses more than any government policy. Unfortunately, infanticide for new-born girls is still a risk..... but diminishing, for exactly the reason you cite:

 

I cannot agree with you on this. Look at the reported statistics (they were reported a long time ago on another thread) showing the gender of new births. You will see China's are not within the normal variation experienced in China. It would be interesting to see the stats from HK, Taiwan, and Singapore if broken out just for Chinese poplulation.

 

I don't see how the 1 child policy results in reduction of infanticide of new born girls or abortion of girls based on ultrasound in a culture where the boy is preferred.

 

"...On the other end of the issue is has produced a gender imbalance..."

 

little new-born baby girls, once exterminated, now have value----thanks to this 'supply and demand' issue... I don't know what percentage of these newborns make it to the orphanages, (where they are protected from exploitation) but more and more, they are being sold into rural communities as future brides (after being raise in the son's household).

 

You have a point----this is exactly what Mao wanted to end in his historic "Half the Sky" speech , but for those of us with an emotional attachment to these abandoned girls, its a step up----to see them alive.

 

They now have value as slaves/brides? I would question that value/freedom.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to bash China here but when you see their current tact at the Climate Conference of claiming to be the only nation addressing population control by their "successful" 1 child policy it demands for someone to address the cost/benefit aspect of this policy. Perhaps the earth could accomadate quite a few more people if the fat cats (including those crying the benefits of their 1 child policy) reduced some of their consumption and enjoyed a good life, not an excessive life, while letting others get a little bit of the pie too. Then again socialism is not the answer either and others would say I am requesting for a "redistribution of wealth" that smacks free capitalism/democracy right in the face......so what is the answer?

 

[knloregon]

I don't have the answer.

 

But I don't see how you can dispute the outcome----if not the price.

 

Authoritarian China HAS slowed population growth.

 

Democratic India has not. -----India will in the foreseeable future---surpass China as the most populated nation on earth----that to me, is a tragic failure of Democracy...

 

"....They now have value as slaves/brides? I would question that value/freedom. ..."

 

well, I conceded this point at the end of my last post, this does (for these girls---not all girls in China) represent a retrograde return to the old system forced/arranged marriages, and girls bought and sold for that purpose, almost as chattel.. Its one of the 'olds' that the Communists specifically wanted to destroy.

 

-But, and its a big BUT----these girls are alive, because of the shortage. They are being "groomed" as brides--- (Ha, Ha ~ ! Get it?! just doesn't get much more amusing than that ~ ! B) ) And they do represent a segment of society that would have been turned to prostitution (Slumdog Millionaire) .... if they had happened to survive the risks of abortion, or infanticide. No, not all escape this other fate, just a larger proportion do.... and again, simply because of the value created by the scarcity of girls-----the brokers of abandoned girls can get more from a rural family---where the handwriting is on the wall ---not at all uncommon to see 120-130 boys to 100 girls in rural villages----and if the parents (the ones with the money) want to try to keep their son on the ancestral land, they need to find him a bride, or he will surely leave the village for the city.

 

Time and again, this dynamic (shortage of girls) is portrayed as the fallout of the one-child policy in the western liberal press----some small part of it is---but again, the shortage of girls in Chinese culture is very evident in the Chinese communities---which don't have the one child policy---pretty much proving there is a strong cultural predisposition towards boys that not only pre-dates Communism, but is centuries old.

[david_dawei]

The preference for boys goes backs more than 5000 years. The 1 child policy may have compounded some issues due to this preference.

 

I don't buy that the 1 child policy was to prevent social unrest. Larger families would of been to allow status quo and keep people happy. IMO, the change in policy could of triggered more unrest than not doing the policy.

 

China is a land which does not embrace fast change. While the 1 child policy was an obvious and dramatic change it served to keep some population issues in check and it's "success" will always be defined differently from a domestic vs a foreign point of view.

[a2784]

I don't have the answer.

 

But I don't see how you can dispute the outcome----if not the price.

 

Authoritarian China HAS slowed population growth.

 

Democratic India has not. -----India will in the foreseeable future---surpass China as the most populated nation on earth----that to me, is a tragic failure of Democracy...

 

I agree with this ... you cannot dispute the outcome ... the question is in the implementation. Either you implement it within an authoritarian govt. or you implement a children cap and trade program.

 

Time and again, this dynamic (shortage of girls) is portrayed as the fallout of the one-child policy in the western liberal press----some small part of it is---but again, the shortage of girls in Chinese culture is very evident in the Chinese communities---which don't have the one child policy---pretty much proving there is a strong cultural predisposition towards boys that not only pre-dates Communism, but is centuries old.

 

However the stats show the gap is widening since the 1-child policy was implemented.

[a2784]

The preference for boys goes backs more than 5000 years. The 1 child policy may have compounded some issues due to this preference.

 

I don't buy that the 1 child policy was to prevent social unrest. Larger families would of been to allow status quo and keep people happy. IMO, the change in policy could of triggered more unrest than not doing the policy.

 

China is a land which does not embrace fast change. While the 1 child policy was an obvious and dramatic change it served to keep some population issues in check and it's "success" will always be defined differently from a domestic vs a foreign point of view.

 

It was not the only reason but it played a part in the policy. This is an interesting article with good insight into the policy:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116810/

[knloregon]

Alan,

 

As usual, your supporting material is objective, excellent and a 'must read' for this discussion.

 

I would point out that this report does also cite the use of ultrasound in gender selection, specifically aiding the abortion of girls. thats not (mostly) a decision based on the one-child-policy, but rather, based on a family preference for boys---the reason for which, is discussed in this report.

[Ovahimba]

I have been fortunate to have done lots of world travel and have had a chance to see slums all over the world, all over Latin America, Cairo to South Africa, Jakarta, Manila... When I see these places I often scratch my head and think WTF.

 

China and India as economic powers are often mentioned in the same sentence, but the living conditions for the average person are very different. China does not have the poverty, filth and beggars that you see in India. I think India gave up on population control ever since they tried to exchange radios for sterilization jobs.

 

I suppose we can forget it and have lots of children but we would have to live like those in Bangladesh (assuming no massive wars). Not likely. China in my opinion is headed in the right direction with the one child policy. There are lots of problems with it as mentioned above, as with trying to confront any human impulse. There are NO perfect answers.

 

And for sure such policies are beyond the comprehension of Americans, for we are the entitled people, entitled to big houses, big cars, big TVs, entitled to have it just the way we want it.

[3timescharm]

I have been fortunate to have done lots of world travel and have had a chance to see slums all over the world, all over Latin America, Cairo to South Africa, Jakarta, Manila... When I see these places I often scratch my head and think WTF.

 

China and India as economic powers are often mentioned in the same sentence, but the living conditions for the average person are very different. China does not have the poverty, filth and beggars that you see in India. I think India gave up on population control ever since they tried to exchange radios for sterilization jobs.

 

I suppose we can forget it and have lots of children but we would have to live like those in Bangladesh (assuming no massive wars). Not likely. China in my opinion is headed in the right direction with the one child policy. There are lots of problems with it as mentioned above, as with trying to confront any human impulse. There are NO perfect answers.

 

And for sure such policies are beyond the comprehension of Americans, for we are the entitled people, entitled to big houses, big cars, big TVs, entitled to have it just the way we want it.

We are the "entitled people"???????? Not all Americans have "Big houses, big cars, big TV's. Nor do we all have it the waty we want it.

 

Just wondering what your motives were for this statment???

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

I have been fortunate to have done lots of world travel and have had a chance to see slums all over the world, all over Latin America, Cairo to South Africa, Jakarta, Manila... When I see these places I often scratch my head and think WTF.

 

China and India as economic powers are often mentioned in the same sentence, but the living conditions for the average person are very different. China does not have the poverty, filth and beggars that you see in India. I think India gave up on population control ever since they tried to exchange radios for sterilization jobs.

 

I suppose we can forget it and have lots of children but we would have to live like those in Bangladesh (assuming no massive wars). Not likely. China in my opinion is headed in the right direction with the one child policy. There are lots of problems with it as mentioned above, as with trying to confront any human impulse. There are NO perfect answers.

 

And for sure such policies are beyond the comprehension of Americans, for we are the entitled people, entitled to big houses, big cars, big TVs, entitled to have it just the way we want it.

We are the "entitled people"???????? Not all Americans have "Big houses, big cars, big TV's. Nor do we all have it the waty we want it.

 

Just wondering what your motives were for this statment???

Since we are on the path to socialism many Americans will be have nots. No innovation, no invention and no can do attitude will be encouraged. How can it be? The leaders of our nation grew up believing big government is good.