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.

You presume that the rest of the world will continue to allow the West to have a share of resources and wealth vastly out of proportion its the population. It's hard to stay on top when everybody else is clawing their way up.

JohnHwangDD wrote:You presume that the rest of the world will continue to allow the West to have a share of resources and wealth vastly out of proportion its the population. It's hard to stay on top when everybody else is clawing their way up.

There's enough stuff in the ground to last us forever (oil excluded) and since chinas rise includes a massive increase in the number of goods china produces the resources aren't really that big of an issue. As for wealth, we're not really pulling wealth out of a big jar and just keeping it ourselves. Wealth is a derivative of resources and capability, and the rise of wealth in the east doesn't necessitate the fall of wealth in the west. Two wealthy countries trading with each-other makes two wealthier countries.

dogma wrote:Your comment about naivete is certainly true. Though there is something to said for cultural variance when it comes to determining what a given society can tolerate in the course of its development. Forced sterilization would certainly never work in a Western society. But in a nation with state-controlled media, a broadly trusted government, and an incredible rate of economic growth the extent to which brutality will be overlooked would seem to increase. At least in the short run.

I think this is where the differences in our viewpoints become obvious. For you 'work' seems to mean something that improves social stability. For me 'work' means an increase in quality of life, and so I can't see any system that dictates the number of children a couple can have to 'work'.

But I will certainly agree the Chinese government will be able to get away with it for an indefinite time to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Well i figured , Chinese government isnt exactly naive.

No, but they are infamously authoritarian and corrupt, which has resulted in a policy with authoritarian and corrupt execution. If anyone in this thread thinks a wealthy or connected family can't avoid the policy and have as many kids as they like they're kidding themselves - the policy only impacts urban working class families.

So i guess the ultimate question is from the chinese governments point of view:

a) Choose 1 child policy , have some complaints from the nation

b) No such policy , population explosion , country cannot sustain its people anymore
result? if i have to guess , it'll be atleast worse than choice A.

You're ignoring the alternative policies, such as birth control programs and improved social security. Many of the benefits would have been achieved through the economic emancipation of women that is already undergoing.

You have to remember , China is still very much a 3rd world country in its rural areas.

The policy doesn't apply in rural China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

Travelled? For a US domestic issue? This isn't one of those things where US citizens consider someone who's been to the East and West coasts travelled?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In the US, we're staring down massive problems with sustainability on all fronts, and haven't really done a damn thing about it. China appears proactive, but still has to deal with a massive peasant population. In the mean time, the world is a far more competitive place, with less time remaining for anybody to get their gak straight.

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think China has any kind of control on resource and environmental sustainability. The only limit on environmental damage in China is their relatively low living standard - if they were comparable with Western standards their environmental impact would beat the rest of us combined.

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Everywheres got issues, your best bet is to move to one of the member states of the EU that doesn't suck. We could all be living the swiss dream!

I recommend New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Everywheres got issues, your best bet is to move to one of the member states of the EU that doesn't suck. We could all be living the swiss dream!

I recommend New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.

Was australia the ironic entry?

Bondi Beach suffers no irony.

ShumaGorath wrote:Was australia the ironic entry?

We're better than New Zealand. Unless you really like sheep, of course.

New Zealand has a hell of a recruiting system for American/European professionals. Its reminds me of study abroad its so easy to immigrate.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

Why do you say im ignorant shuma? because of the red hight lighted part?

*giggles

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

Why do you say im ignorant shuma? because of the red hight lighted part?

*giggles

I didn't name any names or give any reasons. Nor will I. I can see where that cliff goes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I didn't name any names or give any reasons. Now will I. I can see where that cliff goes.

Is that "nor will I" or "Now i will" ?

Say shuma , if you dont mind can i see the link you read where you quoted earlier ( and i highlighted in red ) ?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I didn't name any names or give any reasons. Now will I. I can see where that cliff goes.

Is that "nor will I" or "Now i will" ?

Say shuma , if you dont mind can i see the link you read where you quoted earlier ( and i highlighted in red ) ?

Your right! It was nor. My bad.

Link please shuma ^-^?

LunaHound wrote:Link please shuma ^-^?

I don't know what link you're talking about..? Your last highlighted quote wasn't even something I posted and it wasn't in reference to a link.

Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

LunaHound wrote:Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

I'm just gonna go to bed now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

I'm just gonna go to bed now.

Alright :') Just remember i always provided you links when you asked.

Gnite shuma

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

I'm just gonna go to bed now.

Alright :') Just remember i always provided you links when you asked.

Gnite shuma

No you don't and you asked me for a link that doesn't exist in a post I never made. I go sleep nao.

Additional Info for topic.

Chinese government have indeed declared the law even on rural population contrary to what you claimed and called me ignorant for.
Here are the details
They kept strict tracking of urban policy because from office its easiest to do so.

Keeping the policy on urban populace are more lax due to 2 issues.
a) The officials cannot properly enforce rural areas , too far away.
The rural populace ended up hiding their extra children in fear of paying for penalties they cannot afford

b) The rural close knit populace ( as the government called "backwards" ) have tradition of having a son no matter what in order to keep the family blood line.
The enforcers knowing this and when found / snitched upon the ones breaking , the government provides the rural population with "choices"
Which is to chose sterilize or pay penalty equivalent of Five Years Wages.

The consequence of the inconvenience and unable to enforce rural population getting away with it ,
the government produced 120 mil population surplus of work force .

Why the Chinese govt insist on this policy is also explained. Many of the ridicules and insults thrown at me from my post back in page 3...

Read it for yourselves. http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/familypanning/

And just for the lolz ( at my own expense again )
http://boards.4chan.org/lit/res/571199

Have fun , take care guys.

@Luna

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

This is what I was talking about. The balance between finding/creating people jobs that pay enough to allow citizens to eat, and that allow for post-'victorian' working conditions is in my opinion, not an issue that will be solved by sterilising people. Which is the point you seem to be arguing, or at least that there seem to be no other alternatives. Does this mean China knows something most of the rest of the world doesn't?

Albatross wrote:@Luna

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

This is what I was talking about. The balance between finding/creating people jobs that pay enough to allow citizens to eat, and that allow for post-'victorian' working conditions is in my opinion, not an issue that will be solved by sterilising people. Which is the point you seem to be arguing, or at least that there seem to be no other alternatives. Does this mean China knows something most of the rest of the world doesn't?

Hold on albatross , take a look at that link i pasted. Not saying it'll convince you but , worth a read first i think.

Whether or not the Chinese gov't says that their version of state-enforced 'family-planning' works is irrelevant - it's a violation of someone's human rights to forcibly sterilise them. It's not about population control, it's about populace control.

Im sorry i dont know the difference between the term population vs populace control.

@Luna

wiki wrote: A populace is a group of people forming the total population of a certain place.

Controlling the people vs. controlling the number of people.

I believe China's policy is more about the former than the latter.

What do you think is the reason behind this version of populace control Albatross?
why did China pick this specific form?

Firstly your arguing about a country which over the last 40 or so years has become big enough to do what it wants when it wants.All the ranting and raving you want isnt going to work China takes human rights (No offense to anyone who is Chinese) and chews them up and spits them out.

Then points and laughs at them they are like a gang that when you argue with them they go........

"And" shrug and walk off sniggering China is so efficent and so self sustaining that they dont care when some whiney human rights group have a rant they have nothing to fear they are a economic superpower emergent.

The population control works Im going to go straight up and say its worked for China made more living space and has saved them from having to make a benefits system which is quite frankly derogatory to state economics.

If many other countries took that route then we wouldnt have such a strained and abused benefits system in Britain two children really should be enough especially for this generation who doesnt know how to look after children efficently.

Oops double post

But if one day it fails to sustain itself , then what would the people think? Just what have they been slaving away for? They'll totally rebel against the government no?

Luna wrote: What do you think is the reason behind this version of populace control Albatross?
why did China pick this specific form?

Because a bunch of poor, disenfranchised people, with relatively little in the way of personal freedom might decide they've had enough of being dominated by a brutal authoritarian government and decide to take matters into their own hands. If they can slow the growth of this particular demographic group then the Communist Party can increase it's chance of clinging onto power.

I mean, they've had a revolution within living memory, it's bound to be on their minds, rightly or wrongly. Communist regimes are notoriously paranoid.