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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how one little group of a few millions that like to have a lot of kids because of their religion will screw up everything.

[Aeson]

Not will, could. It's simple math. At 4 children per couple, each generation doubles in number of children. If the rest of the world has stabilized their population, only the unstabilized portion will continue to grow, right?

Take 11 million at 4 children per couple, give them 20 years (a generation) and it becomes 22 million + 11 million. The next generation is 44 million + 22 million + 11 million. The next generation see's the demise of the first 11 million (assuming 60-80years average lifespan), so you have 88 + 44 + 22... ect. Granted it will take several generations (which I noted in my original statement) to reach a point where it really becomes a problem. By the 9th generation you have 2.8 billion + 1.4 + .7, which is where problems would start to really show up. By the 11th the 'exception' has surpassed the rule (with ~9-11 billion as the stabilized population for the rest of the world).

This is of course very simplified, there are other factors involved. More people could start leaving the church, or more start joining. I'm just using membership trends that have occured throughout the church's history.

The assumptions being made are that those trends would continue, and that the promotion of large families (and the effect it has on the number of children per couple) would as well.

The entire example just being used to show how a relatively small group of people could affect the whole when dealing with population growth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The assumptions being made are that those trends would continue, and that the promotion of large families (and the effect it has on the number of children per couple) would as well.

There is the problem, the assumptions are flawed. Only a few members of that group decide to have large families of children. Most of them choose not to, especially the ones that were born into the religion and moved away from Utah. They realize their time has greater value and thus produce less children.

An example to back this... the Catholic Church. Sure they did have large families (and some still do) but most these days do not in the 1st world nations.

[Ecthy]

They actually aborted an 8 months pregnancy? And I thought that once child policy was merely a question of economic support for the family rather than a strict prohibition of a second, third etc. child. That surprised me.

[Aeson]

I allowed for that though. I was using membership number to derive an approximate number of children per couple. The membership has exceeded a doubling per generation. The actual number of children per couple who stay in the church is probably higher than 4.

Having grown up in the LDS church, and lived in LDS communities both in and outside of Utah, I can assure you that your 'few' in the second sentence should be 'most' or 'many'. I one of 9 siblings, and most everyone I grew up with had at least 3 or 4 children in their family. In the end it doesn't really matter though, the membership numbers give good hard evidence of the population growth rate within the church.

Example:

During the 80's there was an increase in LDS membership from 6 to 9 million. That fits very well with doubling per generation. There were 300,000 converts, which only make up 10% of the increase. Which would mean there were at least 2.7 million births (actually, baptisms at age 8, but it's the same people, just 8 years later) into the church during that time. Now the number who left the church would only add to that 2.7 figure. I have no idea how many that would be, but the overall figures are still pretty close to the doubling per generation number which the overall membership has been keeping up for 170 years.

See, it doesn't matter if one couple has one child, and another has seven, it still averages out to 4 per couple, which is the number that closely relates to the membership figures.

The Catholic example you brought up is one that shows the effect of economic pressures. I am using the Mormon example as one that has circumvented those pressures through an overriding pressure, LDS values in this case.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
They actually aborted an 8 months pregnancy? And I thought that once child policy was merely a question of economic support for the family rather than a strict prohibition of a second, third etc. child. That surprised me.

I'm sure it happens, and it is terrible when it does. It isn't the policy to do so though AFAIK. Just like it isn't the policy for our police to use excessive force, but it happens still.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
They actually aborted an 8 months pregnancy? And I thought that once child policy was merely a question of economic support for the family rather than a strict prohibition of a second, third etc. child. That surprised me.

That surprised me too. But as mindseye said, that was carried out by local officials without state sanction.

[David Floyd]

That surprised me too. But as mindseye said, that was carried out by local officials without state sanction.

Wouldn't you agree, though, that official policy lends itself to various interpretations, and regardless of supposed intent, it could be interpreted to condone forced abortions?
Further, is there any law, mandate, rule, even memorandum directing officials never to conduct a forced abortion/sterilization? If not, why do you suppose that is?

My guess would be that the central government actually has little problem with those measures, yet can't be seen to publically support them, so they found the middle ground. Just a guess though, I really have no idea.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That surprised me too. But as mindseye said, that was carried out by local officials without state sanction.

Oh, come on. If it didn't even have tacit approval from higher up, the Chinese government could stop it more easily than the Falun Gong movement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aeson, wait a few generations, and the Mormons will be just like the Catholics in family sizes.

[axi]

Mass starvation due to overpopulation almost never happens - people adjust their behaviour long before that happens.
Almost all famines are caused by war or bad government policies - and they usually only happen when you get a combination of both.

Famines are semi-random events. They may b caused by overpopulation, but they always appear to be a result of some reduction in production. If the chinese govt would let the population rise to the level that all agricultural potential is used, then what would happen in a disease were to strike rice plantations in Asia? Tens of millions would die.

China's one child policy is greatly beneficila, not only to China, but to the whole world. Imagine what eould happen to Africa if the Chinese started absorbing all the available food on the market. They wouldn't be able to pay the prices and they would starve. OTOH, the western practices of destroying crops to keep up the prices are criminal and should be terminated.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Transcend
the opponents are some Western conservatives who don't speak a single word Chinese

Wo3 hui4 shuo yi4dia3nr Zhongguo2 hua4.

have never set a foot on China

Been there twice, and hope to go again.

and have never spoken to Chinese people directly.

Done this too, both in English and in my halting Chinese.

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

Quite possibly. But any policy which results in thousands of infant girls abandoned each year surely has great room for improvement.

[mindseye]

My guess would be that the central government actually has little problem with those measures, yet can't be seen to publically support them, so they found the middle ground. Just a guess though, I really have no idea.

I agree. You have no idea.

Oh, come on. If it didn't even have tacit approval from higher up, the Chinese government could stop it more easily than the Falun Gong movement.

Sorry, Dino, but I'm afraid you don't understand how things work here - and neither did I before I moved here. The hierarchy of authority here quickly becomes very frayed as you move downward. Local officials sometimes have shocking amounts of authority, and little or no accountability. I have seen this first-hand, even here in Shanghai. Last year's EP-3 fiasco was probably a huge example of this.

The difference between a few isolated cases of forced abortions and Falun Gong is that the latter is seen as a direct threat to the continued rule of the Party. The former is just another example of small-scale corruption and abuse that one can encounter anywhere in China (especially in the countryside), and as such gets little attention from higher-ups, who have their hands full with other problems and priorities (which can range from the welfare of the public to lining their pockets). Consider it yet another indictment of Communism as a political system.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
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.

The communists were willing to gamble the lives of their citizens on a lot less justification, and the results were tens of millions starved. Their continued fascination with an unproven economic system made the one child policy possible, and in the eyes of the communist leadership necessary. All Dan S. and company are arguing for is the use of proven capitalist methods for increasing the value of labor by improving the efficiency of that labor, which translates into higher salaries and less population growth (or none) down the road. Interestingly the government has swallowed some of it's pride and adopted some capitalist methods over the last 30 years.

Unfortunately China is still ruled by a communist oligarchy, which acts as a lodestone for both the economy and individual rights. China has shifted from a communist economy where it barely produces enough to survive to a semi-capitalist system where a surplus is created, but it won't be able to evolve into a society which is thriving politically, artistically or economically until the shadow of the communist party is permanently eradicated by the light of freedom.

[mindseye]

But any policy which results in thousands of infant girls abandoned each year surely has great room for improvement.

Okay, do you have any suggestions for a better policy? There are plenty of criticisms, but not many ideas around here.

Personally, I don't see overpopulation as the true problem, but as a symptom of a harder-to-change root problem: the Chinese attitude about children. As is well-known, with no other satisfactory guarantees of care in old age, many still rely on male offspring for their "social security". What's worse is that not having a child or adopting a child is aparently seen as an indictment of a man's sexual potency. The latter unfortunately rules out adoption for most couples.

It's hard to change ancient social biases, but I am willing to give the current government credit for doing as well as it has, at least with this problem.