Is China's One Child policy eugenic?

[Kitschum]

Well, go find the numbers!

But would you imagine any correlation between pollution and birth defects be simple, especially on a national level? For one, don't you think any increased pollution would be offset by improvements in things like health care, education of mothers and housing over the same period?

[Heraclitus]

Never said the correlation would be simple... that is why I said "guessing"


Edit: According to Wolfram Alpha (estimates for are made for 2002) the cause of death probability for congenital anomalies in China is 0.94% world mortality rates are 0.86%. Comparing it to western countries like Slovenia (0.29%) and the US (0.47%) one draws the conclusion that its pretty high. Haven't been able to find data for 1995-2009 thou.

[One_more_turn]

Either way, it will be a demographic disaster for China in a few decades.

[Heraclitus]

Either way, it will be a demographic disaster for China in a few decades.

This is very true, I wonder what the party is thinking employing this policy for so long?

[Maniac]

A decreasing population is a temporary problem, over in or two generations.
A constantly increasing population / overpopulation is a permanent problem.

[Kitschum]

The problem is not a decreasing population per se, but one that reproduces at below replacement level.

[Maniac]

I fail to see why that's a problem. It makes social security more expensive for younger people, but the quality of life might in the end still be better than an overpopulated world of 9+ billion people.

[Kitschum]

If below replacement level fertility persists then population decline is by no means temporary. About overpopulation: it doesn't much help Bulgaria if Palestinian women have 5 children each does it?

[bumfister]

I fail to see why that's a problem. It makes social security more expensive for younger people, but the quality of life might in the end still be better than an overpopulated world of 9+ billion people.

As the population continues to go down that means the number of retirees who must be paid per working adult keeps going up. That means the costs per worker keep going up.

The solution is for Swedish people to bump up their birth rate so we can all marry Swedish models like Tiger Woods. Or failing that at least give one to me.

[Heraclitus]

A decreasing population is a temporary problem, over in or two generations.
A constantly increasing population / overpopulation is a permanent problem.

Haven't recent UN projection actually decreased the forecasted global population by 2050? Its something like 9 billion, considering we are already practically at 7 I think long-term overpopulation may no longer be a big problem.


Edit: From wikipedia:

According to UNESDA:
2009: ~ 6800 million
2050: ~ 9150 million

Doesn't seem that bad considering what the population was 40 years ago...

[VetLegion]

If below replacement level fertility persists then population decline is by no means temporary. About overpopulation: it doesn't much help Bulgaria if Palestinian women have 5 children each does it?

I think that population decline is by definition temporary. People who have
few kids simply get replaced with people who have many kids. It's not a
quick process but it's an ongoing one.

[Kitschum]

I think that population decline is by definition temporary. People who have
few kids simply get replaced with people who have many kids. It's not a
quick process but it's an ongoing one.

Hardly by definition. What if the people (presumably some subgroup of the whole nation ?) who have many kids stop doing so? How is it temporary?

[One_more_turn]

This is very true, I wonder what the party is thinking employing this policy for so long?

If the party doesn't, China (and maybe the whole world) will suffer the fate of Easter Island.

[Maniac]

As the population continues to go down that means the number of retirees who must be paid per working adult keeps going up. That means the costs per worker keep going up.

Well it all depends on how far a country is under replacement level. I maintain that it being slightly under replacement level is preferable though.

Haven't recent UN projection actually decreased the forecasted global population by 2050? Its something like 9 billion, considering we are already practically at 7 I think long-term overpopulation may no longer be a big problem.

Besides the number of people, the "problem" is also all those people want a "western" lifestyle. I'd still like to be able to eat meat and fish in 2050.

[VetLegion]

Hardly by definition. What if the people (presumably some subgroup of the whole nation ?) who have many kids stop doing so? How is it temporary?

They disappear and those with a greater urge to procreate replace them.