China's One Child Policy............

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DanS
"*not sure on the figures, "

Of course you aren't sure on the figures. It would just be an exercise of picking a number out of a hat.

It's a bit more scientific than that. It's a rough estimate, but one consistant with the data (overall world population) that I posted earlier in the thread. Do you honestly think China's population would be the same or lower than it is today if they hadn't instituted the 1 child policy?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wraith
They aren't. It's all advertising. Only the crackpots are turning towards organic farming. Well, them and the people who are making big money off of it. It's all in the advertising and the ignorance.

Organic farming is actualy a lot more resource intensive than the current high-yeild mentions, and even more so than genetically engineered products.

Depending on what kind of resources. Regular farming degradates the land, so more and more fertilizers are need to sustain the yield. Not only this completes the vicious cycle, but fertilizers carried into surface water by run-offs cause all sorts of problems.

Then there is the problem with synthetic insecticides, herbicides, what else have you. These things don't degrade in nature, ultimately turning our bodies into toxic waste dumps.

Then there is gene pollution, a whole can of worms opened by genetic engineered, um, variations.

[Urban Ranger]

DanS, DF, DinoDoc,

First of all, we are talking about an unlimited number of children here, not some philosophical rights.

Secondly, I reject the notion of "natural rights," that it is an entirely groundless concept.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Here's something from a certain movie that I found rather prophetic:"

That's exactly the kind of enivornmentalist extremism I despise. If you think that humanity is such a despicable virus, why aren't you trying to "medicate the planet" by wiping us all out?
.....
Wraith
Stand Back! I Have a Brain and I'm Not Afraid To Use It

Well, for one, I respect my fellow man (and woman) enough to NOT do something like that. I think that until we as a species realize how damaging we really are to the planet, we will continue to burn every bridge we have until we're left with nothing left to pass on to future generations but a slag-ball of a planet that used to be called Earth.

[BeBMan]

Something to the "rights" issue...

The UN mentions "reproductive rights", source:

Population and Development, vol. I, Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994. Sales No. E.95.XIII.7. (the quote is from this UN site but this document refers to the Cairo conference)

The definition of reproductive rights recognizes the basic right of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence (United Nations, 1995a).

Since noone here cares about the UN anyway this is probably not the best argument, but good to discuss about...

[mindseye]

Wow, a lot to reply to here since I left last night ...

Do the ends justifying the means nowadays?

In this case, heck yeah! The means are hardly draconion, mostly tax incentives and fines (why do so many of you keep ignoring this?). As I mentioned before the forced abortion and sterilization horror stories are exceptional.

Of course, I'm not surprised it is universally supported in China, seeing as how the Chinese aren't generally known for having or even really wanting individual rights as opposed to societal control, if I may generalize.

Feel free to generalize, but it would be more helpful if you knew something of which you were speaking. The Chinese I know (friends, students, co-workers, etc) are not reluctant to state their opinions on things they don't like about their gov't, etc. Thus, I have heard many complaints about, say, the quality of the press, but none over the One Child policy.

We have both stability and liberty and the people of China have a right to demand likewise.

I agree 100%, although I will note that from my experience Chinese in general place a higher value on social stability than westerners. IMO this is because they know from all-too-recent first-hand experience the reality of the prices that may be paid when social order breaks down.

If you are a truly moral person (which I doubt you are)

Actually, I think he is, he just has a very different viewpoint from others here. So much the better for worthwhile discussion.

They have a society where being a woman is not as advantageous as a man, so many girls are aborted in favor of a male. All of a sudden you have a large mainly male population with very few selective mates, what will this society be like?

This is in fact changing steadily. These days women in cities like Shanghai are doing pretty well, and very many couples no longer worry over having a daughter. You are wrong in the second prediction ("suddenly", "largely male"), but what you have instead is an unbalanced population that is about 52% male, although this does mean a lot of bachelors - or perhaps, "opportunities" if you happen to be a gay foreigner living in China.

I just realised why mindseye moves to China....

Yep, just do the math ...

China could very easily afford food from the United States

Actually, I'm pretty certain China is currently a net food exporter! Contrary to where this thread has been going, the real problem is not imminent starvation, it's other problems caused indirectly by overpopulation, such as deforestation, desertification, air & water pollution, dropping water tables, overgrazing, traffic congestion, overwhelmed social services, etc.

If you have more people you also have more bodies to work the land and, much more crucially, more minds to think up better ways of working the land.

China's arable land is already about as labor-intensively farmed as is conceivably possible. In fact, most "farms" here would seem to westerners more like very large gardens in terms of size and cultivation techniques. What China does not need is more farming. As I already mentioned, the effects on the water table, deforestation, filling in of lakes, etc is already terrible.

When it requires forced abortions (...) The fact is that China's method of enforcing its one child policy violates individual rights.

Sigh. This strawman just won't die! How do tax incentives violate individual rights?

I also question wheather government should even have the authority to police individual citizens bedrooms.

Hey, shouldn’t this comment be in the thread about sodomy still being illegal in many US states?

Sexual freedom and reproduction is by definition an individual right.

Uh, you mean by your definition, right? What happens when my freedom of reproduction seriously threatens the most basic quality of your life?

I don't particularly care if they are the norm or not. The very fact that they happen at all and with State sanction is abominable.

Of course it's abominable ... but it's not the national policy! These cases (at least as far as I can tell) are the product of abusive local (usually rural) officials acting beyond their authority. Beijing has far less control over the country than most westerners realize, leading to many mischaracterizations of "China" (IMO the unaccountability of local officials is one of the worst problems with China's present political system - whatever it is). Many of my students have siblings, their parents were not sterilized or forced to have abortions. They are simply willing to pay the price for extra children.

Of course it's morally wrong!

What's morally wrong with tax incentives?

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Something to the "rights" issue...

Originally posted by BeBro
Since noone here cares about the UN anyway this is probably not the best argument, but good to discuss about...

The UN applauses the One Child Policy

[BeBMan]

Really? Hypocrites

Nah, come on, I´m not interested in China bashing, but how can they say its good (and yes, from the point of pop control it has its function) and OTOH they say there are basic rights which include that people can decide freely about the number of children they want to have?

[Wraith]

--"I'm sure you can see how a population of ~6million could increase rapidly doubling every generation."

Look at it another way. The Mormon religion has been around a long time, with those same strictures in place, and there's still only that many of them. Your assumption that all (or even most) of the children of such families will automatically become Mormons as well is not true.

--"The statement you quoted was about any hypothetical situation"

I started by arguing against this hypothetical situation. As I said earlier, population growth is leveling off. Food production advances are not.

--"So the country is going to depend on the international market for food?"

Many have in the past...

--"Fourthly, most of the money China takes in through trade goes not to the government, but to private corporations."

So you're saying China doesn't have taxes?

--"Depending on what kind of resources."

Manpower is the biggest, of course. However, "organic" farming is nowhere near as light on the fertilizers and pesticides as you seem to believe.

As far as "gene pollution"...
Ah, well. At least you didn't call them frankenfoods.

--"Well, for one, I respect my fellow man (and woman) enough to NOT do something like that."

You respect your fellow virii too much, eh? :roll: At least the ELF type nutters are consistent in their beliefs, however crackpot they are.

--"How do tax incentives violate individual rights?"

Taxes always violate individual rights. They're a forced takings.
Using those proceeds to perform social engineering is just compounding the problem.

--"Hey, shouldn’t this comment be in the thread about sodomy still being illegal in many US states?"

I think you'll find that many people arguing against governemnt population controls are against this as well.

And will everyone please stop assuming zero-sum economics?

--"The UN applauses the One Child Policy"

So the UN is contradicting something else it said? What a shocker... :roll:

Wraith
Maybe I'll become an evil genius and destroy the world and THEN I'll feel better

[DanS]

"it's other problems caused indirectly by overpopulation, such as deforestation, desertification, air & water pollution, dropping water tables, overgrazing, traffic congestion, overwhelmed social services, etc."

I think these are very real challenges, but to give it the moniker "overpopulation" is giving the challenges way too much respect. Necessity is the mother of invention and I have a good idea that the Chinese will figure out a reasonable way to move forward on these issues. With increased wealth comes increased leisure, which in turn leads to innovation and scientific progress.

Urban: Most pesticides on the market (at least in the States) break down into metabolites very quickly. For instance, glyphosate (Roundup) the most commonly used pesticide breaks down fully in about two days, IIRC.

[Caligastia]

I just had a chat with my chinese co-worker about this, and he said that in the cities the people dont have a problem with the one-child policy(because their lives are busy and they have less time for children), but in the countryside many chinese break the law because they know they can get away with it and because they have a greater desire for children.. The policy is more easily enforcable in the cities you see.

He also said that in the cities the government has recently made a modification in policy that allows couples to have two children if they are both the only child of their parents.

His opinion is that the policy violates "human rights", but he sees it as a necessary evil.

[mindseye]

Hey Caligastia, did you read this thread?

Cali informed us:

but in the countryside many chinese break the law because they know they can get away with it and because they have a greater desire for children

To quote myself from earlier in this thread:

lots of countryfolk simply fail to register their "extra" offspring. The latter is really a cruel and selfish practice, as these phantom children later face enormous problems finding jobs and housing since they do not officially exist - they don't have any official ID, etc.

Cali also revealed:

He also said that in the cities the government has recently made a modification in policy that allows couples to have two children if they are both the only child of their parents.

Hello! To quote myself again (same post):

there are plenty of loopholes (...) marriages between two only children

[Caligastia]

Oops! Sorry! I guess I skimmed through those parts...

[Adam Smith]

Jeez, you stay off OT for a weekend and an interesting thread develops. Where to start??

Visualizing the Problem
China has almost exactly the same land area as the US but has almost five times the population. Start with a map of the US. Move Michigan and Wisconsin next to New England (Manchuria). Dump Alaska and Hawaii into the Gulf of Mexico (Guangzhou / Hong Kong area). Now put about five times the current US population into states that are on or east of the Mississippi River (eastern China), plus Texas (Szechwan) and the Gulf of Mexico. Leave the rest of the country largely depopulated (Tibet, Xiniang). You now have almost the exact size, location, and population distribution of China.

Food Production
China has been able to feed itself since about the late 1970's. This is justifiably regarded as one of the great achievements of the Communist regime. (Passes smelling salts to Chegitz and other leftists. )

The One Child Policy
My understanding is that the policy is enforced primarily by local officials, with relatively little guidance from Beijing. As a result, enforcement of the policy can vary widely. Forced abortions and monitoring of women's menstral cycals are among the abuses which have been reported. The primary impact of the policy is in central and southern rural areas, especially areas away from the economically developed areas along the coast. Northern areas do not have as great a population problem, because wheat production in the north is dependent on available moisture, where rice production in the south is dependent of available labor. Urban areas do not have as great a reproduction problem because agriculture is not as important.

Economic Issues
Economists and demographers have long known that the numberof children per family decreases as income rises. Thus China's population growth rate would gradually could be expected to have gradually declined even in the absense of a one-child policy.

Most of the penalties for having additional children are economic in nature. These penalties can still be severe in an economy where the state provides virtually all of the social services, and still exerts substantial control over economic activity. For example, in order to live within city limits, a person must have a valid identity card. Lack of a valid identity card means no social services such as schools or medical care, and much greater difficulty in finding a job, since a valid identity card is required for officially sanctioned employment. Children who are not compliant with the one-child policy either have no identity card, or their families must pay huge sums to obtain one.

Demographic Issues
Traditional Chinese society has long had a preference for male children. Part of this is due to the fact that male children are better able to work on the family farm. Part is due to the fact that the Chinese, lacking a central retirement system, live with their oldest son's family when they are no longer able to work. A family without a son could find itself destitute in old age.

Most demographers have found that the preference for boys has already seriously skewed China's demographics. The exceptions to the policy for children who are themselves only children is one clear example. A child who is the only son of two only child parents would find himself supporting two parents and four grandparents, which is clearly an impossible task.

The one-child policy has also led to other demographic consequences. For example, even with the exception for farmers whose first-borne child is a daughter, and in spite of strict laws against the practice, there are thousands of infant girls abandoned in China each year. (Looks fondly at pictures of daughters on desk ) A farm family whose first two children are girls often abandons the younger girl to avoid economic sanctions or in hope of having a son. One study found that approximately 90 percent of Chinese grils adopted in the US have an older sister (jeje) in China.

I have bunch of links on the one-child policy and Chinese demographics. I will try to post them when I get a chance.

edit: the usual typos and wording issues

[ranskaldan]

Ugh, now the arguments from the opponents of the OCP has turned into, "We should let them have as many children as they want, as this is a fundamental right. The problems will be worked out later....."

DanS & co:

Do you realize what kind of gamble you're taking here?

A myriad problems arrive with overpopulation. This is especially true for China, where it is already overpopulated, with massive rural migration to the cities and environmental deterioration going on as we speak.

As far as I can see, I haven't seen magical, snap-the-finger solutions for most of those problems I've mentioned (employment, social services, environment, etc etc). In fact, it is entirely possible that for some of these problems, there aren't any solutions available to us with our current technology.

If you're willing to gamble an entire nation's quality of life and happiness over the issue of having children, fine. But human rights were created to safeguard the quality of life of all humankind, not destroy it. Thus they shouldn't be used, in this case, to put an entire country's life and happiness on the line for certain idealistic concepts.