Population control in China
Offline Okay Gauche I took the typical route by citing Wikipedia on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Fell free to cite more academic sources if you desire or even rely upon your personal observations since you said you'd been to China.
My only contribution to this thread will be to quote you "My question is in what fantasy world is everyone going to willingly sign up for your extinction agenda. ? " and compare it this quotation from the wiki article "Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center showed that over 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy."
I am aware that their system makes exceptions for particular circumstances and that variables are an integral part of the population control policy.
From here on out I will lurk and consider your arguments and hopefully others on the forum will choose to participate....
- Login to post comments
If 76% of people agree then 24% don't agree. You don't want to talk about the measures taken against those people in polite society because it's forced surgery, taking children out of their mother's arms and heavy fines all for wanting to have a family. Instead you just want to talk about the numbers so let's talk about the numbers from the mouths of Chinese "officials" as reported by the BBC
You get that? According to their estimates the population of China would have dropped by 400 million anyway because of industrialization but they came in ahead of schedule because of oppression. But are they even correct in that assessment? Possibly, but as I said it's debatable. From the same article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7000931.stm
And again from your source:
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
OK, so the chink dipshit has a number for what the population would have been had they not done what they did. He may even be somewhere close to correct but I fail to see how it is possible to know that.
Now Gauche, I will grant you that people in industrialist economies often have fewer kids. However, it is not the country that makes that happen. Rather, it is the level of personal wealth. I submit that Mike Judge got it right in the opening to “Idiocracy”.
If you have lots of stuff and having kids means you have to live a bit smaller, then you are less likely to have kids. On the other hand, if you are already living small, then why not have kids with abandon?
If you check the stats for world population over time, you will see that access to food is a huge factor as well. When agriculture is developed, population spikes. With other huge developments in access to food, population also spikes. Currently, we are in the middle of a spike and the cause is largely the development of modern transportation networks and food production.
Sure, there is evidence that population increase levels off at the end of the cycle but for the major part of the world, industrialization will cause an immediate increase in population that will not level off for a century or so.
=
http://www.infowars.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures/
I don't see what's wrong with telling people to only have two or three kids. Why on earth anyone would want more, I can't imagine, but even if you did want more than that there are plenty of children up for adoption.
Lol, we don't have to imagine, we can ask them.
Catholics, Mormons, etc. etc.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Bloody Catholics!
Well that's all well and good, but you'd think they'd just stop having sex after the seventh or eighth or ninth? Much more efficient than selling them to be tested in medical experiments, am I right?
........Right..........?
Nobody has the right to tell any other person how many kids they're allowed to have.
Because YOU don't dictate MY life. Why do people around here dislike freedom so much?
Define freedom.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
After all, you just spent several posts here dictating to Cat how s/he aught behave. Do you not see that, hater of ClockCat's freedom?
At least from what I know, people who have more than just a few kids aren't particularly capable (or even willing, sometimes) to care for and raise said kids. As I've stated before, if what these people want is to actually care for children they should adopt the ones who have already been recklessly conceived and then likewise recklessly abandoned.
i don't think most people here have any problem with "freedom" in its various popular definitions. i think they just mean your statement is too subjective to have any relevance to anything.
or that's what i mean, anyhow.
there are plenty of devices that could give anyone the "right" to dictate your life, or at least end it if you don't cooperate. the whole idea of a "right" is totally arbitrary.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
We have neither the space nor the resources for people to just do whatever the fuck they want. I the Duggar's having 20 kids in some way takes food away from others (and it does) then it is not reasonable or ethical to keep popping them out. If people like the Duggar's won't realize it on their own, then perhaps others should step in and compel them.
Look at it like this, you're at a BBQ, and some guests who have RSVP'ed have not gotten any food yet. There's only so much available and some fat, self-centered bastard is getting back in line for another helping while there's still food on their plate. Who are we to "ration" the food? Shouldn't this individual be allowed to do whatever they want? Or should we take into consideration the other people at the party?
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
Isn't this why we have wars?
Eugenics, anyone?
<ducking>
believe how fast it goes sideways once we get off the "there's no god", "I hate god" and "fuck you god" side of things.
Personally I'm not sure there is all that much freedom in world, or even that the concept of freedom functions effectively given the presence of responsibility.
I imagine most of the rest of you folks are in fiscal servitude in some way or another. Though having said that I am free to kick in the job and go surfing until
the money runs out. Interestingly people do tend to call their particular position 'freedom' but they're usually not free to reject it/capable of rejecting it.
Adherence to a particular set of social mores is loaded in at the bios level. Half the time we aren't even aware of the subtle controls that govern us.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Come now, Big E. This is the last place you want to be tossing strawmen around.
A thought just came to me while reading this thread. Instead of instituting "policies" regarding reproduction, why not just pay people to get sterilized? That way it's completely voluntary, and a ton of people would do it for the cash. If the goverment paid, say, $500 to any person, male or female, who agreed to be sterilized, I would guess that would result in many times that amount of social cost and resource savings...
Just thinking out loud.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
That's what being an atheist is all about. That's why it's the group for me. That's why it's the group for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in 1517, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing. But four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas. And Atheism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
=
Geirj has an interesting idea, but I think population control is only as difficult as you make it out to be. One of the biggest factors is quality of life and education. With a good education and QOL, a significant number of reasons to mass produce children have been mitigated. For the rest, indirect controls should be sufficient. Instead of actually banning children, a limit on use of consumables and land per family unit would exert pressure to have less kids or have less resources for yourself. Without actually telling people they aren't allowed a tonne of children, they can decide whether to live crowded or not. Some will undoubtedly choose to live in bunk beds and eat mac & cheese instead of steak, but others won't have children at all, conserving their resources for themselves. The only real trick would lie in not overdoing it, or risk the majority not having kids.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Instead of actually banning children, why don't we conserve them as a valuable resource and put them on farms.
After proper nutrition and care in raising them as livestock, we can utilize them to continue being the breadbasket of the world. "A modest proposal" clearly outlines this utopia.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
We actually have a chinese au pair living with us right now and she's talked about the one child policy. She thinks it is sad sometimes because of people who cannot keep their children (their child bearing laws are pretty strict and it's not just about having only one child). She also knows plenty that have "illegal" children and skirt around it, especially in the country, far away from the cities.
She would be eligible though to have two children without additional fines if she marries another single child.
The one child policy has also contributed to a huge human trafficking business in China.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
Say what?
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Man + Woman under chinese law have a child
This child grows up into (another man in this case)
If the woman Sapphire talks about, marries this man, shes able to have 2 children, lawfully, without repercussion
No child-molestation here!
What Would Kharn Do?
Are you saying that a woman can have 2 children if she marries her son?
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
/facepalm
...yes... yes, that is exactly what i am saying... good reading comprehension
What Would Kharn Do?
Lol.
A couple without siblings can have two children instead of the one they're allowed if either of the couple have siblings.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That's what I was trying to convey. If she marries a man who also was an only child, she is legally allowed to have two, since the parents are both only children.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!