OP: It's not my role to decide what's good or not good for China. It's their country and they can decide on their own what they need to get their rather massive population under control. One way or another they'll have to do something to achieve a proper balance where they are not out stripping their demand for their natural resources and farm-able land. Any 2nd or 3rd world nation who wants to join the 1st world group of nations will at some point have to come to grips with their over population problems.
He's right. The Chinese have always preferred boys over girls. Female infanticide has occurred in the countryside amongst peasants long since before the first pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. There is even a term for having a girl when you wanted a boy amongst Chinese peasants, the term is called "Having maggots in the rice.". The reason the Chinese prefer boys over girls has to do with their culture. Once a woman marries in traditional Chinese culture she is no longer part of the family and is instead part of her husbands family.
Having a boy is seen as sort of pension plan for old age in rural China as the son is obligated to take care of his parents along with his future wife and kids. China of course is not alone either as countries such as India have also had a long history/problem with female infanticide.
Anyways....You seem to like to re-write history to fit your own point of view. I guess you can't stand being wrong. Must be a ego thing.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
If it fails, I guess mass starvation and poverty could be used as a backup plan. I don't see why it wouldn't succeed over time if the laws applied to everyone and if they were enforced and if immigration were zero.
Where is the evidence that it has not worked in curbing their population? I don't see it provide by you. By the way...........
India is 2nd in world's population right now. India has a growth rate at about 1.6% and China's growth rate is about 0.6% for 2007.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...-factbook/geos/ch.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html">https://www.cia.gov/libr.........k/geos/ch.html</a></a>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...factbook/print/in.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/in.html">https://www.cia.gov/libr........./print/in.html</a></a>
This will mean that India will soon catch up to China and then out pace at China in raw population. China itself has had a steady decline in it's growth rate from the year 2000 where it was at 0.9% down to 0.6% for 2007. That is a 0.3% drop in their population growth rate.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ch&v=24
India had a growth rate at around 1.58% in the year 2000. They had a sharp drop in growth from the year 2000 up to the year 2006 where it reached it's lowest at 1.38%. Currently for 2007+ their growth rate is back up around 1.6%. So this means India saw 0.02% increase in population growth for 2007 compared to the year 2000's growth rate. Overall India's growth rate from 2000-2007 has been much higher then China's and has rebound higher then it was in the year 2000.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=in&v=24
Eventually India will have to do something about it's growth rate just like China is trying to do something about their growth rate. If India does not gain control over their growth rate they'll hit a brick wall on their resources and usable farm land. China has a issue with over population but at their current declining growth rate they'll overcome it if their growth rate maintains itself or drops further.
One-child doesn't actually exist in most of China. In some places you can get a small fine for having more than 2 kids. You should read up on it (things have changed considerably since the idea was first introduced)
Maybe WhipperSnapper was on to something when he said:
Perhaps the introduction of a contraceptive type drug in the water, or food supply, something that would render the women infertile and the men impotent is the answer. And not just China but in all overpopulated countries whose economical infrastructure can not afford the population, i.e not having enough food, shelter medical facilities, waste treatment, proper education, jobs etc? in other words, that are having people cranking out burdens to society hand over fist.
Perhaps have a cure with a high price tag is also the answer to ensure only those that can provide good food, shelter, in a clean environment, medical care, proper educations so they at least stand a chance to become a benefit to society not a detriment can have children.
This would take the burden of choice away from the people; there would be no more infasides, no child abandonment?s, no more orphanages, no more starving neglected children. The quality of life will go up, wages would go up, economical infrastructures of the countries will dramatically improve, not to mention the huge ecological benefits.
That back up plan would not work until the people in the overpopulated parts of the world migrated to every other country, overpopulating them, taking the whole world down and that scenario is already in full swing. China's 1-child policy is an apparent failure which just means more drastic measures will have to be taken.
They will not recognize the problem and stop on their own, not ever! So the ones that are smart enough recognize it and see the ramifications of it, not only don?t have a choice but to force them to stop, they have a obligation to mankind, indeed the earth it self to force them to stop.
If they are not made to stop eventually world?s resources will dry up, and mankind will perish but not before hell on earth ensues. We will have irreversible cataclysmic ecological disasters, world wide starvation, deadly diseases spreading on a global scale, even cannibalism rampant through out all parts of the world on a mass scale.
If anyone is afraid to hurt the feelings of a couple billion people denying them children to avert an inevitable world collapse then you are thinking with your heart and not your head, screw your heart!
I have never been more fully in agreement with another person before. Seriously... "take the burden of choice away from the people..." I had to read it again to make sure my sarcasm meter wasn' broken.
Is that what the ratios are? Out of curiousity, how do all those males react to the realization that there are no females left for them? Why doesn't/wouldn't the resulting female shortage swing the pendulum back in the other direction?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around a society where there's always been a 1.5:1 male:female ration, but at no point did females rise in stature.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I recommend you ask your doctor to prescribe you some Xanax.
My point is that your "predictions" of doom and gloom have as much scientific validity as those same predictions in the Bible, and (not coincidentally) sound just like those from the Bible as well.
Really, people like you are far far more of a danger to human society than the ever present and totally natural threat of overpopulation (which all of life has dealt with since the moment life began billions of years ago). Which, not surprisingly, is why your predictions are not inevitable, because it is exactly these environmental pressures that causes life to evolve.
And BTW, you're not talking about hurting people's feelings, you're talking about forced sterilizations, eugenics, and genocide, and trying to push that with an agenda of irrational fear. You sound like fscking Hitler, so much so that I can say that here and not invoke Godwin's Law.
You just glossed over the fact that their growth rate took a drop from it's original 0.9% rate in 2000 to 0.6% in 2007. Their growth rate has seen a steady decline since then. China is certainly on a better course with it's declining birth rate then countries like India who have 1.6% birth rate that is climbing. If insist on ignoring China's declining birth rate to fit your own personal views then you are not making any valid points IMHO.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
WTF? I didn't gloss over anything and I'm not ignoring anything to fit my own personal views. It's not this old law reducing China's population growth rate, but increasing modernization of their society. How can I say that? Because the policy has been around since 1979.
There's some serious screws loose in this thread. Socio would probably freak out if he found out the govt. was tapping his phone or reading his emails, but hey it'd be all good if they put something in his water to make him sterile. Or maybe if they came and took his clandestine offspring in the future. Why should that "hurt his feelings" when OMG the future of all humanity is at stake! He has an obligation to turn himself in for mandatory euthanasia damnit!
And you, why if the Chinese are having like 150 boys for every 100 girls, when the natural rate is something like 107 girls for every 100 boys, why that's okay because they've always been doing that!
To not believe it is delusional at best;
There are about 7 billion people in the world today and we have a hard time feeding them all now as it is. Just how hard it is going to be by 2050 when it hits 10-11 billion or by 2100 and it is at 20 billion? I got news for you with all those people eating up farm land, forests, rain forests tropical jungles for housing the world will not be able to sustain that many humans and the ecological damage will be irreversible when they try.
Not only is that it is already proving near impossible for infrastructure even in the western world to keep up with the population growth, I mean imagine the traffic alone in 20-30 years. If you can?t see we are heading down that road your just refusing to look.
In fact this site predicts 10 billion by 2037
World Population
1 more question. What is the inevitable outcome of a huge population finding out they're sterile? What's the inevitable outcome when they eventually figure out it was purposely done to them?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The only one refusing to look is you.
First, the methods you propose are beyond draconian, much less blatant horrific violations of even the most basic human rights. Have you even bothered to read your own posts?
Second, you significantly over inflate the severity of the threats involved, as I have already pointed out. When Ehlrich wrote Population Bomb in the 60s, the world population was half of what it is today. Yet none of his predictions of doom and gloom came true. When eugenics was all the pseudoscientific rage in the early 1900's, and otherwise educated people were advocating force sterilizations of "undesirables" (like blacks and Jews, of course), all of which culminated in Hitler's concentration camps, NONE of their predictions came true. Your predictions and your hate will be no different.
My advice: volunteer yourself to your cause. People like you disgust me.
You label it as hate because you are coming from a position of weakness, it has nothing hate and everything to do with common sense.
FYI: In the future if you can't debate without tossing the race card out to try and win then you shouldn't debate at all.
That statement is false. Increase in life expectancy can increase population growth rate as well, 0.6% growth rate does not indicate the policy is a failure. Here is a study from UC Irvine claiming the policy was effective. In the 1950s and 1960s Chinese women, on average, had between 5.6 and 6.3 children. The number sharply declined in the 1970s and 1980s. For 1995 the UN Population Division estimated a Total Fertility Rate of only 1.8 children per woman
Yes the policy is draconian for those affected and westerners in spacious houses. Yes the policy created unforseen problems like more girls then boys. Yes I think Chinese society is going down the tube with bunch of pampered only child growing up. And Yes the policy wasn't 100% effective, no policy is. But back in 1979, that was the only choice China had to slow down their population growth. Their population grew from 540M in 1949 to 800M in 1979 and if they didn't do something, starvation, poverty, famine can all happen and that could cause tens of millions of death easy. Hmm...let's see, human right violation vs possible millions of dead people.....I'd say go with one child policy.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I prefer education and incentives. Yaknow, like what's already worked in the US (if you take out immigration) and most European countries.
But that's just me. Whenever we're talking about human beings, I prefer honey instead of vinegar, carrot instead of the stick.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter