China's One Child Policy May Be Trashed

[seven]

China, worried about an ageing population, is studying scrapping its controversial one-child policy but will not do away with family-planning policies altogether.

China may scrap one-child policy

[Myrtti]

Originally Posted by seven

China, worried about an ageing population, is studying scrapping its controversial one-child policy but will not do away with family-planning policies altogether.

China may scrap one-child policy

The whole one-child policy is a bit unnatural but I guess it has done mostly good to China. At least if you don't think about the "problem" of increased amount of single men (hmm, maybe I should move to China). The whole policy has been a bit too short-sighted though and now if people will suddenly start to have more kids, even if it's just one or two kids extra, there will be loads of other probelms that have to be sorted out, such as schooling and public health. And it's not like China didn't have enough problems already.

[spadlet]

China has vowed to slap heavier fines on wealthy citizens who flout family planning laws, in response to the emergence of an upper class willing to pay standard fines to have more children.

I think it's good that they are making any laws applicable to everyone, rather than just picking on people that are less able to defend themselves. I'm not sure what to make of it over all though.

I thought that higher population was supposed to increase the labour available so that resources weren't needed to build machines to carry out tasks that people could do? Obviously resources would be needed for feeding the extra people etc. So maybe it's a balance between the two?

The control on children policy does seem to have been an effective way of reducing the population. I'm not sure how it would work in the UK though as I know quite a few people that have either chosen not to have children or found that they were unable to have children. Also, the definition of family seems rather blurred here, with people having children with more than one person.

[imp]

China is taking a great step toward securing long-term economic and military security for its citizens by phasing out the 1 child policy. They are still a backward nation that could be crushed by the awesome military might of the US. But they are taking the right steps toward ensuring that nations will think twice before they mess with China.

There has been a relaxation of government control in China in the last few years. This is why they have been prosperous the last decade or so. One billion people making decisions for themselves are much more powerful than one billion people dictated to by Marxists.

[bruce]

Looks like it won't be going after all.

China has tried to end speculation over the future of its controversial one-child policy by saying that it would not be scrapped for at least 10 years.
The future of the policy, which the Communist Party claims has reduced the potential population by 400 million since it was introduced 30 years ago, has been the subject of intense debate within the government.

China's one-child policy 'to stay for a decade' - Telegraph

[britishinchina]

the chinese never physically strictly enforced this one-child policy. it's just that you have to pay more tax if you have more than one kid.

bruce: try talking to someone who lives in china (e.g. me) rather than reading a newspaper article

imp: pls dont call china 'backward'.. thats extremely insulting. you know how many western companies 'depend' on china? you know how fast china is growing these-days? i would have thought the term 'backward' should be applied to some so-called 'christian' country and government who like to bully other countries for their oil, illegally invade them, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people

[Mr_Flibble]

Sorry but imp is a very pro bush(moron) pro women stay in home and make babies until they can't make no more type of person.
he also believes everything he watches on fox news and is totaly blinkered as to the current direction of america with regards human rights and opression.
He is the sort of person that will destroy the planet because it's his god given right to because he's american.

[August]

From AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Volume 104, issue 4, published 7 Jan 2008:

"Urban daughters have benefited from the demographic pattern produced by China's one–child policy. In the system of patrilineal kinship that has long characterized most of Chinese society, parents had little incentive to invest in their daughters. Singleton daughters, however, enjoy unprecedented parental support because they do not have to compete with brothers for parental investment. Low fertility enabled mothers to get paid work and, thus, gain the ability to demonstrate their filiality by providing their own parents with financial support. Because their mothers have already proven that daughters can provide their parents with old age support, and because singletons have no brothers for their parents to favor, daughters have more power than ever before to defy disadvantageous gender norms while using equivocal ones to their own advantage." -- Vanessa L. Fong

[krystof]

I have long been interested in China's population program and here are my opinions about this.

• China is the only country that has ever done anything significant to reduce population.
• However, the reason for this is that China's overpopulation was desperate.
• A major reason that China is able to control its population is that China is not democratic.
• I read that population expansion was encouraged by Chairman Mao because he believed nuclear war to be inevitable.
• China had reason to believe this because many US generals including MacArthur advocated nuclear weapons in North Korea and Vietnam. Also it is seldom if ever pointed out that the Vietnam war was probably a significant factor in the violence of China's Cultural Revolution. America had a similar Macarthy period, which certainly would have worsened instead of ending if Russia had invaded Mexico. This is analogous to the US invasion of Vietnam for China.
• Currently, China is not counting the first child if it is a girl, in the hopes of restoring the gender balance.
• China is nonetheless exporting its citizens to Tibet. Java is similarly exporting its citizens to Irian Jaya.

I believe China is not interested in long term environmental conservation but in short term economic stability, plus the financial interests of a growing elite of super-wealthy people. They will maintain population controls only so far as needed to remain on the edge of environmental and economic disaster. As China becomes more powerful, population controls will further reduce as they are more able to export more people to more countries.

Nonetheless China has proven what "can" be done to save this planet if we wish.

The problems are economic, genetic and cultural.

1. The human race has been genetically bred for millions of years to desire to have children. Anybody who does not desire to have children is not likely to have children and therefore most people are likely to want children. The average human will never vote for population controls any more than would the average rabbit.

2. Numerous countries with severe overpopulation currently encourage a high birth rate in a narrow minded attempt to improve the economy. For example Singapore, Japan and Italy.

3. Every nation's economy is now planned around a stock market system, which buys and sells based on perceived value not actual value, and in effect is no different from a pyramid scheme. This necessarily results in periodic wars, depressions and epidemics. However the human race will tolerate this better than we will tolerate population controls.

4. With a population of 100 million, businesses can sell 100 million bottles of Pepsi daily and 100 million new cars every 5 years. With a population of 300 million, the same figures increase to 300 million. Therefore business interests want more people. Whether this causes wars, massive poverty and eventual financial collapse is not within the field of vision for business leaders--but only how many millions of dollars they can make today.

5. Therefore we can not look to business interests or democratic governments to inspire population controls. The main hope comes from religious leaders.

6. However all major religions are traditionally against birth control and all major birth control advocates are traditionally hostile and demeaning toward religion, both of which are equally primitive mentalities.

7. The reason that religions are against birth control is that in past centuries, the stability of a nation depended significantly on its ability to raise a defensive army. Every religion was controlled by a state government, which of course insisted on birth control being a mortal sin.

8. Therefore the human race is too primitive to initiate serious population controls at this time. However nobody has even provided an effective example of the personal benefits of birth control. If a family has only one child, then obviously that child has twice the resources and inherits twice the wealth compared with 2 children. Business mavericks also can benefit from preferring employees with and from small families and extending greater supplemental benefits to all members of those families. Nonprofit organizations can do the same not only for employees but also for anyone who pays membership dues. It is thus possible for any large or small organization, either for profit or nonprofit, to encourage its members or employees to have only one child, to give that child the best care and support, and to support the economic stability of its members. This can result in huge financial advantages for the families involved. In addition these families will be better able to help one another in times of emergency need. This in turn can show by clear example the individual benefits of population control, such as has never yet been done. Perhaps then after a hundred more years, if by slim chance we happen to survive that long, the human race might finally one day learn the point.

[August]

That's a very good post, Krystof. Both informative, opinionated, and, well, inspiring.

Originally Posted by krystof

3. Every nation's economy is now planned around a stock market system, which buys and sells based on perceived value not actual value, and in effect is no different from a pyramid scheme. This necessarily results in periodic wars, depressions and epidemics. However the human race will tolerate this better than we will tolerate population controls.

That's true. So much of the population growth - especially in the western world - is encouraged by politicians who base their opinions and strategies on economic theory. - Population growth is among the key elements to achieving exponential econonomic growth and is therefore encouraged, both by politicians and economists.

Originally Posted by krystof

5. Therefore we can not look to business interests or democratic governments to inspire population controls. The main hope comes from religious leaders.

I've been thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted by krystof

6. However all major religions are traditionally against birth control and all major birth control advocates are traditionally hostile and demeaning toward religion, both of which are equally primitive mentalities.

That's right. Now, all major religions are accustomed throughout history to thinking about the building of larde families as among the cornerstones of societal normality, and also as the good thing to do, as seen from a moral perspective. All major religions look to live up to the basic idea that life itself is holy, and that is the reason why they are traditionally against all forms of birth control.

Now, for people who are in favour of family planning, population control, contraceptives and women's right to have an abortion as a matter of free will and exerting personal control over their own bodies - are very often hostile and demeaning toward religion. This often comes as a response to their feeling somewhat demonized by leaders of different religious groups. And of course it doesn't make for a good footing for rational discussions.

Originally Posted by krystof

Perhaps then after a hundred more years, if by slim chance we happen to survive that long, the human race might finally one day learn the point.

Well, looking to UN statistics, there is every reason to expect the world population to reach 9 billion in forty years time. And I think, as of today, that would be the correct situation for people and governments to be planning for. Even if the average number of child-births per woman should decline to about two child-births each, the total population would still be growing for quite a while. And that is a statistical and mathematical fact.

The UN's prediction that the world population will come to stabilize at around 9 billion is, on the other hand, difficult to being all that certain about.