Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's no question that China's one child policy influences political activists, one major example is Chen Guangcheng who has opposed the one child policy* for many years. This is interesting in itself, but I've also heard it argued that young Chinese men, faced with a significant gender imbalance, might turn to political and social activism in order to replace the satisfaction they would ordinarily result from sexual or familial pursuits**. The idea being that China's one child policy may have, if not revolutionary, significant political ramifications for the Communist Party.

Anyway, Relapse thought it would be something interesting to discuss, so I thought I would leave this open to thought while I track down what is mentioned at ** below.



*UK source because every American source I could find focused on how his words were used by the pro-life movement.
**Note: I'm still looking for a public article I can cite for this, its proving difficult.


Repeated Edits: I somehow forgot the link code.

Interesting point. When you have no family of your own political intimidation doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight.



I've often found it interesting how harmonious China is portrayed as being. Well, not by the Chinese government, who obviously have a vested interest in presenting it as such, but the media and people in general just seem to accept it. The riots in the wake of the GFC, or the ethnic clashes involving the Uyghars barely made the news, and where they did the focus was almost entirely on government crackdown and not the actual grievances.

dogma wrote:There's no question that China's one child policy influences political activists, one major example is Chen Guangcheng who has opposed the one child policy* for many years. This is interesting in itself, but I've also heard it argued that young Chinese men, faced with a significant gender imbalance, might turn to political and social activism in order to replace the satisfaction they would ordinarily result from sexual or familial pursuits**. The idea being that China's one child policy may have, if not revolutionary, significant political ramifications for the Communist Party.

Anyway, Relapse thought it would be something interesting to discuss, so I thought I would leave this open to thought while I track down what is mentioned at ** below.



*UK source because every American source I could find focused on how his words were used by the pro-life movement.
**Note: I'm still looking for a public article I can cite for this, its proving difficult.


Repeated Edits: I somehow forgot the link code.

Its my understanding importation of foreign asian femmes is the new thing.

I'm all for 1-2 kids per family. Where do I sign the petition?

kronk wrote:I'm all for 1-2 kids per family. Where do I sign the petition?

here.

Population control laws are so pointless. You either end up like China, where the sex-ratio goes completely out of wack, like Africa, which couldn't implement the law anyway, or the US and Europe, who don't need it.

What happened to Fen Jianmei btw is disgusting. The picture is heartbreaking.

How can we tie the population control with stupid people? There's got to be a way.

I think a two-child policy works just fine as a method of limiting population growth.... one-child though is a way to reduce the population, rather than limit growth.

If you have 3 kids, you have to enter the extras into the Hunger Games.

I was just speaking from a purely practical standpoint, myself.

kronk wrote:How can we tie the population control with stupid people? There's got to be a way.

That would be genocide.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I think a two-child policy works just fine as a method of limiting population growth.... one-child though is a way to reduce the population, rather than limit growth.

Western populations are limitting themselves anyway. Hence why we need a gak load of immigration to stop us going bankrupt. It's Malthusian bollocks to suggest otherwise.

There's got to be a way to do it without putting a negative spin on it. Genocide just sounds like a downer and will keep the movement from getting off the ground.

Perhaps: Stupid Tax. Nah, that's a national lottery.

We need to think on this...

Melissia wrote:I think a two-child policy works just fine as a method of limiting population growth.... one-child though is a way to reduce the population, rather than limit growth.

The size of the average American family is 3.14-3.4. This is actually high across the developed world. In the UK, its 3.6. In Italy its 2.5.

The places where population is rapidly growing is the third world, which can't implement population control effectively.

I.E. What's the point in having population controls to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the only places actually capable of implementing such laws? Even in China, only a few areas are actually have 1 child to a family (especially since the law contains an exception for farmers, which most Chinese are). Barely a third of China's population is subject to the OCP and oddly enough, China's population has been fairly stable the last 20 years as birth rates even among people not subject to OCP have started decreasing.

A lot of people point out that rapid population growth is common in countries that are coming out of the third world into the developed world, but that ultimately birth rates tip off and start dropping after about 120 years.

Why bother fixing something that known social patterns suggest will fix itself within another century (in some places like China, patterns suggest it'll start fixing itself in the next 50 to 60 years)?

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:I think a two-child policy works just fine as a method of limiting population growth.... one-child though is a way to reduce the population, rather than limit growth.

The size of the average American family is 3.14-3.4. This is actually high across the developed world. In the UK, its 3.6. In Italy its 2.5.

The places where population is rapidly growing is the third world, which can't implement population control effectively.

I.E. What's the point in having population controls to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the only places actually capable of implementing such laws? Even in China, only a few areas are actually have 1 child to a family (especially since the law contains an exception for farmers, which most Chinese are). Barely a third of China's population is subject to the OCP and oddly enough, China's population has been fairly stable the last 20 years.

A lot of people point out that rapid population growth is common in countries that are coming out of the third world into the developed world, but that ultimately birth rates tip off and start dropping after about 120 years.

Why bother fixing something that known social patterns suggest will fix itself within another century?

Because Malthusian doomsaying is easier than an objective evaluation of the facts?

LordofHats wrote:The size of the average family... In the UK, its 3.6.

Don't know where you sourced that but I'm fairly sure it's incorrect.

The UK Office for national statistics have it at 2.4.

The fears discussed in the OP are ... is the right word "classic"? Since the Qing dynasty, the powers that be in China have been extremely worried over single males (sometimes called "rogue males") -- 光棍, guang gun, literally "bare sticks" but translated in English by some American scholars of Imperial law as "rootless rascals."

I'm pulling this from memory from 3 semesters ago So I wouldn't be shocked if numbers were off. I'm trying to find the number right now actually but all I can find is the 1.8 children stat and I'm not confident enough with math to say the answer is 3.8 (especially since there's surely some single parents out there)

The UK Office for national statistics have it at 2.4.

That is lower than I remember. By a lot... But that only helps my point, so I won't complain

Glorioski wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The size of the average family... In the UK, its 3.6.

Don't know where you sourced that but I'm fairly sure it's incorrect.

The UK Office for national statistics have it at 2.4.

While we're at it, a google search says the U.S. family size is at 2.6.

Which is fine for me. I don't like people much. And we would finally get to see how the business philosophy "there's too many people" plays out when there isn't.

Malthusian doomsaying

You really like that term ,but I don't think you understand what it means.

Melissia wrote:

Malthusian doomsaying

You really like that term ,but I don't think you understand what it means.

I do. It means rich white people complaining about poor brown people having lots of babies.

I didn't see a single woman who wasn't dressed like a big black postbox when I was in Afghanistan for 6 months, and it didn't make me into an activist, I just resolved to masturbate more furiously and often.

So I don't buy it.

I'm sure he does, I'm just not really sure its relevant cause the food supply isn't the only resource that gets stretched by population growth (and a lot of resources can't be grown in inventive new ways to increase the supply).

EDIT: Or maybe he doesn't XD Or maybe he's being sarcastic lol

Testify wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Malthusian doomsaying

You really like that term ,but I don't think you understand what it means.

I do. It means rich white people complaining about poor brown people having lots of babies.

Then you don't.

In fact, the reasons why richer countries in general aren't overpopulated are considered "preventative checks" in Malthusian thinking-- abstinence, delayed marriage, access to abortions, and a cultural change away from wanting large families, and so on and so forth. The other type of check would be positive checks, which involves things which might cause premature death; disease, starvation, and other kinds of catastrophes. To some extent, these are actually in place already in third world countries.

Not that I expect you to care about Malthusian philosophical concepts, when you can instead just misuse the term to arrogantly attack people while feeling smugly superior to them.

I'm pretty sure his comments were in reference to Malthus' famous quote about food supplies (which have been disproven by about 3 agricultural revolutions thus far).

But then Malthus didn't live in an age when the global economy was dependent on supplies of gold, silicon, and rare earths (which are called rare for a reason). Plus, I doubt the energy supply was much of a concern in 18th and 19th century.

Melissia wrote:I was just speaking from a purely practical standpoint, myself.

Explain how its practical in a non totalitarian state?

A lot of things are not practical from a non-totalitarian state, hehe.

Like freedom of speech. Zing!

kronk wrote:There's got to be a way to do it without putting a negative spin on it. Genocide just sounds like a downer and will keep the movement from getting off the ground.

Perhaps: Stupid Tax. Nah, that's a national lottery.

We need to think on this...

Know what would qualify as stupid? We would need to find a objective view of what is and isnt?
Would reality TV sstars count as stupid? Would parents who leav their kids locked in aa car stupid?
Would grown men who like a little girl show be considered stupid?

Exactly, HSM1. We need a questionnaire. That's brilliant!

But how can we be sure someone smart isn't telling them the right answers? Hmm... Yes, more ideas along this line. Treat it like a standardized test...

We have plenty of places to give the SATs.

To be honest I feel population should be curbed.
I think what would be best would be 1 Pregnancy, and for every pregnancy afterward a cost fee that would represent the cost they might impose, like water and the NHS.
That would be fairer, and since I see no culture of having boys for the surname to carry on I would hope it doesn't throw the gender ratio out of kilter.

That way they put less strain on the funds.
Immigration should be limited, now I love people from abroad but we're sort of draining other countries work force/skilled workers.

Anyway that's another matter, stupid phone being a pain to type things. :/