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

[ranskaldan]

Firstly, as mindseye has pointed out, forced abortions is not the norm. Most of the one-child policy is carried out through tax incentives.

Secondly, individual rights go so far as they don't violate the equal rights of others. This is why there is no "right to murder", because other people have the right to live. In the same way, people have the right not to starve. This is why there is a one-child policy.
(Seriously, are you going to let a country self-destruct through overpopulation because you want to safeguard the rights of the people to reproduce?! Get your priorities straight.)

Thirdly, there is sexual freedom in China.

( You'd think that I would know what I'm talking about, considering that I'm an only child. And yep, you got it, because of the infamous Policy.)

[Aeson]

Come on now... Malthus was WRONG . Technology will always be ahead of the 'famine that will doom mankind' .

It would never doom all of mankind, just the portion that were in excess of our capability to feed (the food going to those with the power to take/keep it).

Technology may very well keep up, my argument is against a rate of population growth that would exceed our ability to feed that population. That ability changes with time, and so can our rate of growth.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Firstly, as mindseye has pointed out, forced abortions is not the norm.

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.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Just because humans have the ability to avoid overpopulation doesn't mean overpopulation is not a potential problem."

And just because we don't have any proof of giant invisible Learnian space hamsters doesn't mean that their attacking the earth is not a potential problem.
There's just a matter of degree of probability. We've got some other things that are more important to worry about.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If we say overpopulation could never be a problem there is a risk that it would become a problem. If we understand the risk, we can guard against it.

--"Mormon's could achieve overpopulation eventually"

You spout all that stuff above about exponential and then bring this in? Please. You know what averages and medians are.

You excluded the qualifier to my statement (part of the sentence you quoted even): "(many generations) with what probably is around 4 children per family average." I'm sure you can see how a population of ~6million could increase rapidly doubling every generation.

--"if it is at a point where a required value (food) is not known to be sufficient to support the increase"

That's the point. We've got plenty of food, and we're nowhere near our production limits. We could end famine on the planet right now if growing the food was the only issue (the shipping, political, and logistics problems are another thing).

If you had read my previous posts I have already stated that exact same argument. The statement you quoted was about any hypothetical situation where the ability of our food production to feed our population had been reached.

It was in response to a claim that we don't have to worry about overpopulation because future advances will provide more food.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


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.

Any Chinese site would say there it doesn't happen with State sanction, and any English site would say that it does.

At this particular point, it's hard to decide who to trust.

-----

The point remains, that even state sponsored abortion is better than state sponsored starvation. The last time that happened in China, 30 million people died. I'm sure none of us want that the repeat itself.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to make this choice between two evils. But we don't live in an ideal world.

[DanS]

STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT!

"(Seriously, are you going to let a country self-destruct through overpopulation because you want to safeguard the rights of the people to reproduce?! Get your priorities straight.)"

Why would the country self-destruct? As painstakingly shown above, China has had little risk of self destructing and now could cover any food shortfall on the international market with ready money.

If anything, China is just screwing with its demographics. It won't be long before it will be said that fewer and fewer workers are supporting an aging population.

[Ramo]

Of course it's morally wrong!

[ranskaldan]

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

Firstly, of course, there is the logistics of distributing food to 1.2 billion people (or, if you have your way, 6 billion people instead).

Secondly, severe overcrowding in China would have severe consequences on the environment, in terms of agriculture, power usage, waste disposal, etc.

Thirdly, a whopping 4 or 5 billon Chinese are not merely going to sit and wait to eat. There will be countless other problems - employment, social services, and housing. A lack of any of these can result in severe civil strife.

Fourthly, most of the money China takes in through trade goes not to the government, but to private corporations. The private sector generally does not spontaneously decide to feed the country for free.

Lastly, the food supply of an immense number of people in China would then depend entirely on the Chinese economy and the global market. Any part of this goes kaput, and you will have several billion, starving, desperate, angry people. In addition to being morally repugnant, this won't be a pretty sight in terms of global stability.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The west has stabilized population growth through personal choice.

Through economics. When the median population rises, people have less kids. The population usually stabilize by itself through the mere fact that peoples' time is worth more as incomes rise. And when the value of time is more, there are less children because the oppertunity cost of having chilren is much greater when the potential income is so much higher.

A choice based on economic factors is still a choice right? My example of Mormon's show that economic factors will not always limit population growth. The simple fact is that the LDS religion promotes large families, it is part of their doctrine. They take the 'go forth and multiply' portion of the Bible very seriously.

There are personal, social, economic, moral, and religious (call them cultural) factors involved in procreation. I don't think it's proper to assume that because one group (in this case western civilization in general) chooses to limit their population growth, that all groups regardless of their cultural ideas will do the same.

There is a very real political power to be gained through procreation. Children brought up in a system are more likely to follow in that system. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that a group would use this to outbreed their rivals. I even wonder if this isn't one of the driving forces behind the LDS promotion of large families.

My point is, as long as there is any group of people willing to continue without population growth constraints, humanity could eventually face the problems associated with global overpopulation.

[DanS]

"(or, if you have your way, 6 billion people instead)"

How on earth do you know that there would be 6 billion people in China without the one child policy? Sounds awful far-fetched to me.

The rest is a hypothetical based on a really weird number. Don't know what I could say about it.

[Aeson]

Re: STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT!

Originally posted by DanS
Why would the country self-destruct? As painstakingly shown above, China has had little risk of self destructing and now could cover any food shortfall on the international market with ready money.

If anything, China is just screwing with its demographics. It won't be long before it will be said that fewer and fewer workers are supporting an aging population.

You are saying that now, 30 years after the implementation of a regressive population control, that their population could be supported. Are you sure that if they hadn't installed such controls that they would be able to support their population that might be close to double* what it is now?

*not sure on the figures, but overall population has grown to about 1.6 times what it was in 1970, and China's population was growing at above normal levels. Factor any any negative population growth promoted by 1 child, and it could well be more than double.

[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.

[Aeson]

6 billion is a bit high. 2.5 billion maybe the upper limit. It still would cause a lot of problems.

[DanS]

"2.5 billion maybe the upper limit."

Yer pullin' it outa yer azz.

[ranskaldan]

DanS:

How on earth do you know that there would be 6 billion people in China without the one child policy? Sounds awful far-fetched to me.

The rest is a hypothetical based on a really weird number. Don't know what I could say about it.

straw man alert.

the number 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 billion people is not the point.
whether the population of China becomes 2 billion or 2 trillion, those problems that I mentioned remain. They certainly aren't based on the number "6 billion".

(besides, you seem to be horrified by the number "6 billion" or the prospects of arguing for that 6 billion situation. Why then are you against the One Child Policy?)

To reiterate those problems of overpopulation and depending entirely on imports for food:

1. Logistics of Food Distribution.
2. Environmental Consequences that a huge population could have.
3. Providing Social Services & Employment to a huge population (and the dire consequences of not doing this)
4. Dependence on World Market for food - leaving the food supply of China extremely vulnerable
5. Money goes into the Private Sector not Government - the private sector doesn't spontaneously feed people for free.