Is China's one-child policy really a good idea?

[brandonb]

I believe this policy is really bad.

When you have a stable society, the age range pyramid looks like a typical pryamid, with the youngest on the bottom, oldest on the top. Youngest being more population, oldest the least populated, and it pretty even to creat a pryamid shape.

The idea is that there will always be more younger than older people. More younger to tax to pay for the older. More young to help nurse/take care of the old.

When societies start to fail is because the pryamid starts to invert, or turn into a diamond, or whatever. What happens when the pryamid is inverted. As found in places like Germany, Japan, China, and starting in the USA. That means the young cannot support the old. The first thing the country does is open the borders to immigration to get more young people to move in. Young people have a tendency to move, seek new challenges in new countries, old people don't. Which is one reason why our politicians have the US borders open at the moment, because the white people here are not reproducing anymore, and there was alot of baby boomers. It will bankrupt the social security network if it continues. It also changes the demographics of the country and causes other hardships related to that.

Maybe at the current rate, China is doing ok, but if it continues it will crash in 50 years or less.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Dari
Depending how long they keep it, their population could collapse. Considering you need 2.1 children per woman to keep the population stable, a one-child policy will put a huge burden on the young as more people go into retirement.

It's just going to be rough for a couple decades while China gets its population problem under control. Having children for the purpose of supporting the elderly is similar to a ponzi scheme--eventually you'll have a huge overpopulation problem or too many old people and not enough young people to support them. The later is the problem that China now needs to deal with.

At least China is trying to decrease its population density and improve the long-term quality of its citizens lives. In contrast, I haven't heard of a one-child per couple policy for India, which could really use it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
If the one child law was applied here, you wouldn't have people getting big enough welfare benefits to buy Escalades.

My personal belief is we shouldn't have more than enough kids to replace ourselves. My wife and I only have 2.

Not to worry folks, our nation probably has lots of crack addicts out there having litters of crack babies, say ten or twelve per crack addict. As much as people may have written off the basic premise (dysgenics) of the dumb movie Idiocracy, it could prove to be prophetic.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
China needs to decrease it's population, and quickly. Food isn't the issue, raw material is. As China increasingly industrializes the needs for fuel, and especially metals will skyrocket. Can you imagine another country three or four times our size with a standard of living of say 3/4 of ours? We'd have to strip the planet bare to support it.

On a larger issue, the entire planet is overpopulated, and badly. Even if energy and food were no problem, people's standard of living will increase over time. There isn't enough iron, copper etc to supply all the people who will one day want transportation other than by mule and foot. Than means cars and all the infrastructure that goes with it. It just isn't possible with the billions we have.

Are you sure your name isn't Thomas Malthus? I agree with you and it's sad to see just how many optimistic Americans do not have the intellectual capacity to understand all of this. The United States has a population explosion problem itself, btw, and the U.S. population is projected to be around 450 million by 2050. Yes! You to can enact policies of mass immigration and transform your country into an overpopulated, impoverished third world country.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: SocioThe whole world would be better off limiting human reproduction in all countries in all areas of the world whose economical infrastructure can not afford the growth. Not only to stave off extremely unfair burden that the people of the nations being invaded are having thrust upon them. It would ensure that there would be plenty of food, water, shelter, education, medical care, jobs, for all not to mention the astronomical ecological ramifications that would be avoided.

If only we could figure out a way to put contraceptives in the water and then make people who want to have children and who are able to care for them pay for an expensive antidote to counteract the contraceptives.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
No it's not good for anybody.

1 Child policy has created a gender imbalance. Country is more aggressive than it should be because of lopsided sexes...men can't find wives so they channel their whatever into other crap.

Plus it's resulted in mass infanticide, like millions of abortions a year..and hundreds of thousands of orphans..

India is the same.

Originally posted by: magomago
China has ALWAYS had a female infanticide problem. These ridiculously twisted ratios (Mother nature prefers to get very close to 1:1) of 120:100 and 150:100 have long been a feature of Chinese society.

Nice to see you actually read threads.

This policy never created one - Chinese history is one always marked by chronic shortages of women due to female infanticide. Rich men marrying multiple wives in a society with already chronic shortages of women only made things even worse for unmarried men.

That's bulls**t.

China's ONE CHILD POLICY has resulted in infanticide and abandoned children on a scale never seen before in past dynasties/leaders.

Nice rationalization.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I believe this policy is really bad.

When you have a stable society, the age range pyramid looks like a typical pryamid, with the youngest on the bottom, oldest on the top. Youngest being more population, oldest the least populated, and it pretty even to creat a pryamid shape.

The idea is that there will always be more younger than older people. More younger to tax to pay for the older. More young to help nurse/take care of the old.

When societies start to fail is because the pryamid starts to invert, or turn into a diamond, or whatever. What happens when the pryamid is inverted. As found in places like Germany, Japan, China, and starting in the USA. That means the young cannot support the old. The first thing the country does is open the borders to immigration to get more young people to move in. Young people have a tendency to move, seek new challenges in new countries, old people don't. Which is one reason why our politicians have the US borders open at the moment, because the white people here are not reproducing anymore, and there was alot of baby boomers. It will bankrupt the social security network if it continues. It also changes the demographics of the country and causes other hardships related to that.

Maybe at the current rate, China is doing ok, but if it continues it will crash in 50 years or less.

Opening open the borders to immigration to get more young people to move in is a disaster in the making. Look at the US we have 20-50 million illegal\legal immigrants most of whom can't even support them selves let alone contribute enough to support the elderly.

Those 20-50 million will give birth to 80-250+ million more and most of these children will not be much better off than their parents financially. In a since the open borders are replacing the middle class, with poor the pyramid is becoming so bottom heavy that can not support it's own weight.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One benefit for us is that China will grow old long before they can grow rich and really challenged us on the world stage.

Eventually this policy will cripple them as they try to take care of all the old people.

Yes, because a government that kills its prisoners to harvest their organs, a country that lets poison be put in peoples food, a country that uses slave labor and a country that allows the air to be so poisonous civilized people won't breathe it will surley take care of the eldery.
NOT.

Where do you get your views of China?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
That's bulls**t.

China's ONE CHILD POLICY has resulted in infanticide and abandoned children on a scale never seen before in past dynasties/leaders.

Nice rationalization.

Bwahaha...wait till I get home and pull out some information for you. You should really be careful about making up crap...95% of your posts are like this!

The only difference between now and the past is that the government is forcing the amount of children a couple can have. In the past they chose it voluntarily - and female infanticide was VERY common among peasants (which was 90%+ of the Chinese Population).

 

[Vic]

Obviously it's not working as China's population continues to grow at an alarming rate.

 

[maddogchen]

China's ratio has gone from 108.5 boys per 100 girls in 1980 to 111 boys per 100 in 1990 to 116 boys per 100 girls in 2000. Now its estimated at 120 boys per 100 girls. There will be 30 million more men than available women in 2020.

 

[piasabird]

No.

China's policy of One Child is the work of the devil. It is pure evil incarnate.

 

[imported_Imp]

Works great for keeping the food supply sufficient and the place sustainable. Socially, it's a big cluster ****. Just watch some of the documentaries out there about hooker-dom now that the ratios are completely off.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
That's bulls**t.

China's ONE CHILD POLICY has resulted in infanticide and abandoned children on a scale never seen before in past dynasties/leaders.

Nice rationalization.

Bwahaha...wait till I get home and pull out some information for you. You should really be careful about making up crap...95% of your posts are like this!

The only difference between now and the past is that the government is forcing the amount of children a couple can have. In the past they chose it voluntarily - and female infanticide was VERY common among peasants (which was 90%+ of the Chinese Population).

Bwahaha YOURSELF.

 

[piasabird]

Yes it is a great idea. We should use this rule in America.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Yes it is a great idea. We should use this rule in America.

Sarcasm.

And the last thing we need is less children brainiac.

Same for Europe.


Idiot.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Yes it is a great idea. We should use this rule in America.

Let's hope it never comes down to that, but who knows. Perhaps in 100 years China will be the first world country and the U.S. will be the overpopulated, impoverished third world country.

 

[Stunt]

Implementing a 1 child policy makes a lot of sense considering the unsustainable growth of the world's population. In practice it's very difficult to do without encroaching on people's rights and freedoms. Considering Americans and other first world nations consume 32 times more per capita relative to third world nations; therefore for every person that emigrates to the US from China will consume 32 times more resources than in China. Therefore the population control in the third world for the sake of environmental, sustainability goals is seriously misguided.

Unfortunately with all of our entitlement programs and large debt load, we must grow out population through either immigration or naturally to pay for the expenses.

 

[Vic]

Parents of teenager daughters everywhere eagerly await news of China's success in artificially curbing human reproductive urges.

The fallacy of each and every poster arguing in favor of China's 1-child policy in this thread is that they assume that it has actually succeeded, or that such a policy actually can succeed.

 

[maddogchen]

Maybe instead we should look at countries with negative population growth and see how they do it, what factors into it. Maybe we can take something from that and run with it...

Here's the list of the countries with negative natural increase or zero negative increase in population...

Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050
Russia: -0.6%; -22%
Belarus -0.6%; -12%
Bulgaria -0.5%; -34%
Latvia -0.5%; -23%
Lithuania -0.4%; -15%
Hungary -0.3%; -11%
Romania -0.2%; -29%
Estonia -0.2%; -23%
Moldova -0.2%; -21%
Croatia -0.2%; -14%
Germany -0.2%; -9%
Czech Republic -0.1%; -8%
Japan 0%; -21%
Poland 0%; -17%
Slovakia 0%; -12%
Austria 0%; 8% increase
Italy 0%; -5%
Slovenia 0%; -5%
Greece 0%; -4%

 

[Stunt]

In third world countries people have kids to assist with income, help around the house and give support when they are no longer fit for work. Combine that with inadequate and usually unavailable birth control, you get excessive birth rates. It's not as simple as just looking at nations with negative population growth rate and learning from them...

Most of the US's population growth over the next 50 years is not from domestic population but from immigration, illegal immigration and the higher birth rates associated with those two groups. Fact of the matter is, the US will need these citizens to continue to grow their economy; lower their debt to gdp and help pay for the emtitlement programs of the retiring boomers.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Unfortunately with all of our entitlement programs and large debt load, we must grow out population through either immigration or naturally to pay for the expenses.

Again that has not and will never work in the US or Europe for that matter!

Having open borders allowing the free flow of immigrants who have come biblical proportions is an epic disaster by the US Government. They figured they would come in and have children and those children would become educated college grads and start replacing the middle class in the work place. They severely overestimated the immigrants/ children of immigrants desire to do this.

I can?t actually blame them, they are born to fail coming from generations upon generations of failures, in countries whose governments have done nothing but fail for eons. Failing is what they know, if they weren?t failures they would not come so expecting failure should have been an absolute given.

Now we have the middle class is dying off and immigration is exponentially producing lower class or poor. Their offspring for the most part are NOT bettering themselves, not seeking higher education, not replacing the middle class workforce but rather adding to the poor pool. It is much easier to gouge government services as their parents do than it is to go to school in this country.

There will be no one to take care of their children when they get old, no one to pay their bills, no retirement for them and even less for the next generation who will have at least triple their population by then. They will have exactly what their grand fathers had impoverished third world conditions except there will be no where for them to immigrate, no easy way out this time, they will have to wallow in the hell they created forever.

This same scenario applies to Europe as well because they are heading down that exact same road.

 

[chucky2]

Why would it be bad to have a negative population growth, providing wages and taxes increased as needed to offset the lost taxed income?

 

[theeedude]

I am for population reaching its carrying capacity naturally. Materialism is a better form of population control where people are more interested in using money on things and time for entertainment then they are on using it for raising children. That is what is happening in Europe. I am in Beijing, China now, and I see very upwardly mobile population here. Construction cranes everywhere. I think Chinese have aspirations for western lifestyle, and realistically, they can't have many kids and afford it, so at some point, they won't need the 1 child policy anyways.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I am for population reaching its carrying capacity naturally. Materialism is a better form of population control where people are more interested in using money on things and time for entertainment then they are on using it for raising children. That is what is happening in Europe. I am in Beijing, China now, and I see very upwardly mobile population here. Construction cranes everywhere. I think Chinese have aspirations for western lifestyle, and realistically, they can't have many kids and afford it, so at some point, they won't need the 1 child policy anyways.

That point is probably a long ways off in China. I don't like the one-child policy because it conflicts with the Chinese cultural desire to have a son. Which is leading to the big disparity among the sexes. But it has helped in slowing down the birth rate significantly in China. How they deal with their problems from the one child problem will be intersting to see. When 30 million men cant find wives, what are they gonna do?

Most couples that are skirting the one child policy are living in poor villages in rural areas. Its a vast difference from what you see in Beijing. They also don't have access or even able to afford the birth control in those areas. There are a lot of them too. You should travel around the countryside like I did. People living in mud/brick huts just a few miles from a brand new, state of the art town hall. Kinda weird. Its interesting that a lot of the wealthier families out in the countryside that I spoke to were allowed to have more than one child in order to get a son. It didn't really make sense to me why some families were allowed and others weren't. But I know that some families hid extra children they had or bribed officials.