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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

What Adam Smith said.

The Mormons are the exception in the world. The exception does not prove the rule . Family size decreases as income rises for the most part. And it isn't just a Western thing. Look at Japan for instance. They don't have a One Child Policy, yet only want a few children. Why? Because of the high incomes in Japan the value of the peoples' time is great, and therefore they wish to spend less time on child rearing.

[DanS]

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

The gamble is that China will innovate to ameliorate or solve the problems that you mention. If you have no faith in that equation, then China is doomed anyway. Doesn't matter the population base.

Not surprisingly, I see the gamble as an almost sure thing. Furthermore, whatever risk there is should be weighed against the very real risk that China will experience population contraction or unsustainable aging (). I consider this a graver threat.

Even though population pyramids are speculative (I know, I know, ef ), China's doesn't look too hot.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
"Do you realize what kind of gamble you're taking here?"

The gamble is that China will innovate to ameliorate or solve the problems that you mention. If you have no faith in that equation, then China is doomed anyway. Doesn't matter the population base.

Not surprisingly, I see the gamble as an almost sure thing. Furthermore, whatever risk there is should be weighed against the very real risk that China will experience population contraction. I consider this a graver threat.

Even though population pyramids are speculative (I know, I know, ef ), China's doesn't look too hot.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/...im/pop_ani.htm

But dropping the OCP will exacerbate the problem - one that is already grave in China. True, problems need to be solved, but these problems vary with the population you have, and the greater the problem, the greater the problems of social services, employment, environment, etc.

Besides, I see no major problems with the population pyramid. No more problematic than any aging Western country.

What alternatives does China have anyway? A straight down triangle?! That's suicide.

edit:
in fact, it seems that by 2050, the Chinese population will begin shrinking.

[DanS]

Not suicide at all. That's what India and the US are on track for, for instance. If India can continue to spend its time growing its economy, then it's all good.

[ranskaldan]

US > good. too few people anyway.
India > bad. also suicide.

[DanS]

Well, I'll turn the discussion over to more capable hands, but print out this thread and make a time capsule for yourself. In 50 years, open up the time capsule and see the relative economics of India and China.

[ranskaldan]

Right. You do the same.

[Transcend]

All ethnic Chinese on this board support "one-child" policy or China's population controls in general; the opponents are some Western conservatives who don't speak a single word Chinese, have never set a foot on China, and have never spoken to Chinese people directly.

For me, it's very clear who understands China better.

But in 50 years, we'll see who's right.

BTW, who's willing to bet $1000?

[DanS]

Bet $1,000 on what?

Edit: I am willing to bet $1 million to all comers that India will have a higher Gross Domestic Product Purchase Power Parity than will China in 2052.

"the opponents are some Western conservatives who don't speak a single word Chinese, have never set a foot on China, and have never spoken to Chinese people directly"

You're never going to win this argument, Transcend.

[Caligastia]

Is it really "conservatives" who dont support the one child policy? My views are usually conservative, but I support the 1 child policy. Maybe its because I am pro-choice...

[David Floyd]

The last time that happened in China, 30 million people died. I'm sure none of us want that the repeat itself.

No, that was the result of Mao's social engineering and communism, if you're referring to the Great Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward. If not one of those, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but those were certainly the fault of attempted communist "reforms".

[David Floyd]

For me, it's very clear who understands China better.

And for me, it's very clear which society values the individual and individual rights more than fictitious notions such as "the common good".

[Transcend]

Originally posted by DanS

"the opponents are some Western conservatives who don't speak a single word Chinese, have never set a foot on China, and have never spoken to Chinese people directly"

You're never going to win this argument, Transcend.

Chinese have no business telling Americans how to run their country, and vice versa. If people agree with certain policies of their own countries, foreigners should stay out.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And for me, it's very clear which society values the individual and individual rights more than fictitious notions such as "the common good".

for me, it's clear who understands the true purposes of human rights and is willing to protect the lives and happiness of people, and who is willing to kill people and make them suffer in the name of idealistic utopianism.

About the common good - alright, since the "common good" is a fictitious concept, we should allow every single citizen to freely buy and own bazookas, anthrax, and ICBM's, right?

No, that was the result of Mao's social engineering and communism, if you're referring to the Great Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward. If not one of those, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but those were certainly the fault of attempted communist "reforms".

It's the Great Leap Forward.
That was to show the worst-case scenario that could very well come true again.
But as mindseye has said, food is not the only thing in question here. Lack of social services, unemployment, deterioration of the environment, civil strife, a myriad other problems can arise with overpopulation and overcrowding.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What Adam Smith said.

The Mormons are the exception in the world. The exception does not prove the rule . Family size decreases as income rises for the most part. And it isn't just a Western thing. Look at Japan for instance. They don't have a One Child Policy, yet only want a few children. Why? Because of the high incomes in Japan the value of the peoples' time is great, and therefore they wish to spend less time on child rearing.

My point was that the exception will continue to grow when compared to the rule as long as it remains the exception in this case. Eventually the exception could become the rule if it continues long enough.

My explainations below can also apply here.

Originally posted by 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 Mormon religion hasn't been around that long from a generational standpoint. The LDS church was founded back in 1830, at 20 years a generation, that's not yet 9 generations. If you halve 6 million 8 times (first generation doesn't count as a doubling) you get 23437. This is far in excess of the population of the LDS church for quite some time after it was founded. In 1842, membership was at 20,856.

Of course it isn't a true exponential curve, there are people who join the church, and those who leave. Not everyone is born into it, and not everyone born into it stays.

The main point is that in 170 years the population of the LDS religion has exceeded a rate of doubling every generation. I think the 6 million figure is actually quite low as well, the official LDS website says over 11 million. If it continues at this pace, and the membership continues to have the number of children they currently average, they would eventually throw off the overall curve. This is a moral/religious pressure on population growth that isn't going to change due to economic pressures.

That all being said, I think the LDS church leaders are smart enough not to continue with doctrine that will eventually lead to overpopulating the earth by themselves. I'm using their growth rates as an example of population growth not inhibited by economic pressures.

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

I agree that we are not in that hypothetical situation. I've already stated that. My statements about how such a situation would occur were qualified ones, the required circumstances being other than are currently predicted.

The original context of the hypothetical was to refute an argument that if we were in such a situation that increasing population would not be a problem. I simply stated that if there was not food enough (or rather just enough) to feed a population, we shouldn't increase that population until we can provide for the increase in population as well.