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.

Im half asleep atm , but if im reading right, you believe as of now , there isnt enough people to rebel against gvt if they felt like it? So you believe they want to keep the populace down to prevent it?

Albatross wrote:

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.

Id have to agree

anyone say Stalin=purges


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Im half asleep atm , but if im reading right, you believe as of now , there isnt enough people to rebel against gvt if they felt like it? So you believe they want to keep the populace down to prevent it?

No people arent going to rebel full stop.

LunaHound wrote:Im half asleep atm , but if im reading right, you believe as of now , there isnt enough people to rebel against gvt if they felt like it? So you believe they want to keep the populace down to prevent it?

It doesn't have to make sense - that's the beauty of communist paranoia.

The argument that China needs to control population growth to avoid overcrowding doesn't bear out in the numbers. They are behind Netherlands, Israel, Monaco and any number of other countries and principalities by land mass per person.

I can't help but think that some other motive is behind this population control other than conservation.

Albatross wrote:- it's a violation of someone's human rights to forcibly sterilise them.

If children really were "free", and didn't require massive state support for upwards of 20 years before becoming a "productive" citizen, then you might have a point. And that takes us back to page 1 with what China is doing.

It has been quite a while since China has had official policy to sterilize people against their will. China may well put people between a rock (*choice* of sterilization) and a hard place (no housing, no schooling, no state-provided job), but that's their prerogative. But that is still a choice.

And it's not like kids pop out of nowhere. Nor are the consequences coming out of the blue. Contraception is cheap and broadly available. So is abortion. You've got months to decide and plan on what to do. People willingly choose to have more kids and do without state support. That is their choice.

If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules".
____

Albatross wrote: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.

It appears that you don't know the difference between China and North Korea. North Korea has a brutal, authoritarian government over a bunch of poor, disenfranchised people with practically no personal freedom. However, have practically no outside contact, and no mobility. Hell, they barely can eat. Nevertheless, they also have no chance to take matters into their own hands. If anybody really wanted to reduce human suffering, the correct action would be to overthrow the North Korean government and have China & South Korea run things for a century or so, before merging the Koreas.

Like it or not, there is more than political freedom, and China isn't a Soviet state. From a practical standpoint, the average Chinese has less poverty, less oppression, more freedom (primarily economic) and more opportunity than in any time in Chinese history.


Now, Alba, I don't know how many Chinese citizens (passport holders) you know, but when you say things like that, you reveal yourself to be totally ignorant, grossly uniformed, lacking in knowledge, and generally foolish. I won't say "stupid", as it's entirely possible you possess normal (or higher) intelligence, but certainly you're intellectually lazy and merely perpetuating stereotypes that haven't been true in 30+ years. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

If you actually knew, or bothered to speak with some actual Chinese (from China), it's clear that they operate under different political rules (i.e. don't ask, don't tell, STFU n00b). Aside from that, they can have and run their own businesses, and travel pretty broadly if they can afford it. That includes overseas.

For the most part, the limits on Chinese foreign travel and emigration aren't by China, but by other countries. Perhaps the best solution would be for the West to simply grant unlimited emigration rights to Chinese citizens. Or at least, to relax immigration limitations. Then, those poor, huddled masses of disenfranchised Chinese could come to enlightened Western countries and enjoy true freedoms - permanently.

What? You say your country isn't ready to support several dozen millions of poor Chinese peasants? Really?

Then WTF are you expecting China to do about their hundreds of millions of poor Chinese peasants?

Realistically though, you have to do SOMETHING about over population. I mean our resources can only do so much. If youve ever seen Soilent Green then you have an idea of how bad itll get with over population.

Your somewhat partisan in this John...

JohnHwangDD wrote: If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules". ?

Balderdash.
Those in poor strata do not have the ability to elevate themselves out of it.
Comparing the Chinese Gov to parents? Which parents do you know who sterilise their children. And we aren't talking about children, we are talking about adults, who have had their elderly parents imprisioned.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Like it or not, there is more than political freedom, and China isn't a Soviet state. From a practical standpoint, the average Chinese has less poverty, less oppression, more freedom (primarily economic) and more opportunity than in any time in Chinese history.
Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

This isn't the first time the Chinese Gov. being criticised by someone in OT has heralded a call of racism from you John, I've come under fire from you for the same thing. We criticise a governmental stance by a nation, not the race or colour of skin of it's inhabitants.
Don't play the race card, you insult those who actually suffer at the hands of racists.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you actually knew, or bothered to speak with some actual Chinese (from China), it's clear that they operate under different political rules (i.e. don't ask, don't tell, STFU n00b). Aside from that, they can have and run their own businesses, and travel pretty broadly if they can afford it. That includes overseas.

So, for an unbias opinion, we should consult those citizens who own their own businesses and travel internationally...
We can only hope they would portray the Administration positively...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
For the most part, the limits on Chinese foreign travel and emigration aren't by China, but by other countries. Perhaps the best solution would be for the West to simply grant unlimited emigration rights to Chinese citizens. Or at least, to relax immigration limitations. Then, those poor, huddled masses of disenfranchised Chinese could come to enlightened Western countries and enjoy true freedoms - permanently.
What? You say your country isn't ready to support several dozen millions of poor Chinese peasants? Really?
Then WTF are you expecting China to do about their hundreds of millions of poor Chinese peasants?

Let's consider your previous analogy to a parent and their house.
Saying 'I've turned my house into a gakhole but you have no right to criticise how I treat my kids unless you're prepared to have them live with you instead' is a load of rubbish. China breaches the international laws on human rights like it's going out of fashion. That isn't racism, that's fact. If this were a 'Parent', China would be standing trial for neglect and abuse.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This isn't the first time the Chinese Gov. being criticised by someone in OT has heralded a call of racism from you John, I've come under fire from you for the same thing. We criticise a governmental stance by a nation, not the race or colour of skin of it's inhabitants.

Don't play the race card, you insult those who actually suffer at the hands of racists.

If it quacks like a racist, it's a racist.

In this case, its not quacking.

John, I know your argumentative style so I'm not suprised at your posts, but if you have some sources of information to help dispel our shocking ignorance that'd be really nice. I mean, we can't easily travel to china, and our apparent racism must taint what we think, but what sources would you recommend that would educate us?
I'll read them, I promise (once I get paid this summer I plan on getting some books on China to read, so if you can recommend some good ones that'd be great, I don't want a heavily biased approach.)

This seems like a pretty poor way to handle your citizens and tackling issues. Forcing elderly people into basically concentration camps for sterilization seems grossly inefficient and looks like a huge violation of human rights.

Not sure what can be done about this if anything at all...:(

The Green Git wrote:The argument that China needs to control population growth to avoid overcrowding doesn't bear out in the numbers. They are behind Netherlands, Israel, Monaco and any number of other countries and principalities by land mass per person.

The number shrinks significantly when account for the fact that nearly half of the country is uninhabitable. Note this density map.

Yay maps!
Thanks Dogma!

Ah here we go:
Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population. Of this approximately 1.4 million square kilometers of arable land, only about 1.2% (116,580 square kilometers) permanently supports crops and 525,800 square kilometers are irrigated.[14] The land is divided into approximately 200 million households, with an average land allocation of just 0.65 hectares (1.6 acres).

China's limited space for farming has been a problem throughout its history, leading to chronic food shortage. While the production efficiency of farmland has grown over time, efforts to expand to the west and the north have held limited success, as such land is generally colder and drier than traditional farmlands to the east. Since the 1950s, farm space has also been pressured by the increasing land needs of industry and cities.
There you go , the 1.2% out of the 15% are stable. The rest are what you see every year during summer. Floods and destroyed crops. Or temperature fluxes of no rain in 6 month.

@JohnHwangDD - I think this thread has already established pretty firmly that China could do pretty much anything and you would still defend it. With this in mind, it seems pretty pointless to get into an argument with you about it. A nation isn't a football team - you shouldn't blind yourself to it's failings and support it no matter what.

Just FYI, a good mate of mine lives and works in China, and has done for some time. One of his colleagues went missing after writing an article which was less than complimentary about local Communist Party officials.

So, if it quacks like brutal and authoritarian...

So, without taking the time to equivocate, can anyone here say that they are in favor of forced sterilization? Just a yes or no will do. I would like to see people write out one of the following sentences: "I think people should not be forcibly sterilized." or "I think people should be forcibly sterilized." You can write an essay about why or why not afterward.

It has been quite a while since China has had official policy to sterilize people against their will. China may well put people between a rock (*choice* of sterilization) and a hard place (no housing, no schooling, no state-provided job), but that's their prerogative. But that is still a choice.

I know what you mean John , but i think people are mad probably because you chose the word choice.
Its not a choice for chinese populace , its an option.

And it's not like kids pop out of nowhere. Nor are the consequences coming out of the blue. Contraception is cheap and broadly available. So is abortion. You've got months to decide and plan on what to do. People willingly choose to have more kids and do without state support. That is their choice.

If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules".

I understand this as well , but you have to remember people out of asia arnt used to the idea of human beings been born into a position ,
grow old and die to that very same position. Where the only chance to break out is through bribery kidnapping , human trafficking.
When majority of chinese citizen are born into the life of submissive workers , yes i understand you.
____

Like it or not, there is more than political freedom, and China isn't a Soviet state. From a practical standpoint, the average Chinese has less poverty, less oppression, more freedom (primarily economic) and more opportunity than in any time in Chinese history.

While this is 100% true , ( and chinese populace in their long history has been known for to be conserving and submissive type generally tolerated / accept what they face )
The modern time now would say "get with the program" which of course is why chinese government kept censoring media , because they fear the populace will indeed get with the program
which the country isnt capable of supporting that standard.

Now, Alba, I don't know how many Chinese citizens (passport holders) you know, but when you say things like that, you reveal yourself to be totally ignorant, grossly uniformed, lacking in knowledge, and generally foolish. I won't say "stupid", as it's entirely possible you possess normal (or higher) intelligence, but certainly you're intellectually lazy and merely perpetuating stereotypes that haven't been true in 30+ years. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

If you actually knew, or bothered to speak with some actual Chinese (from China), it's clear that they operate under different political rules (i.e. don't ask, don't tell, STFU n00b). Aside from that, they can have and run their own businesses, and travel pretty broadly if they can afford it. That includes overseas.

The recent rapid development of their economy have break free from the old stereotypes of chinese. Some are not ready to accept / adjust to it.

For the most part, the limits on Chinese foreign travel and emigration aren't by China, but by other countries. Perhaps the best solution would be for the West to simply grant unlimited emigration rights to Chinese citizens. Or at least, to relax immigration limitations. Then, those poor, huddled masses of disenfranchised Chinese could come to enlightened Western countries and enjoy true freedoms - permanently.

Damn it John! ok , you know im not racist ( even though others in this thread called me racist against chinese )
but i still need to say this. NO JOHN NO MORE IMMIGRANTS!!!!!! waaaaaaaaa
Ok , Vancouver ,has been flooded with chinese immigrants , there are more asians here then anything else , they are the majority now!
But the bad part is , the immigrants doesnt treat Vancouver like part of Canada , they treat it like part of china!.
All the things they do , all the bad habit and value they hold , are bothering the Canadians!
Very no desu!

What? You say your country isn't ready to support several dozen millions of poor Chinese peasants? Really?

Then WTF are you expecting China to do about their hundreds of millions of poor Chinese peasants?

No one knows , i asked the question back in the beginning of this thread , there has been zero answers.

All we do know is , according to our standards , its wrong and i agree its wrong.
But as i said in my first posts here , different society , different value , what works in A wouldnt always work in C.
I guess Chinese govt just chose the path of dealing with direct problems of feeding a starving nation and worry about morality later.
I mean the generation that faced the famine are still live and well , and the incident is probably always in China's mind.
To have 30 million die in 3 year span really is scary. No?

Manchu wrote:So, without taking the time to equivocate, can anyone here say that they are in favor of forced sterilization? Just a yes or no will do. I would like to see people write out one of the following sentences: "I think people should not be forcibly sterilized." or "I think people should be forcibly sterilized." You can write an essay about why or why not afterward.

I do not think people should be forcibly sterilised.

Sterilization? pfft, they need good ol' fashion summary executions and purges of old/sick/non-productive people, 40k style!!!

LunaHound wrote:
I know what you mean John , but i think people are mad probably because you chose the word choice.
Its not a choice for chinese populace , its an option.

If someone has options, then they also have a choice. The Chinese population can choose between forced sterilization, and access to housing in the same sense that a person in the United States can choose to pay his taxes, or go to jail. Its consistent with the freedom of action in a strict sense, but not one which is useful in doing anything beyond elucidating the nature of freedom.

Regardless, simply arguing that a choice exists does not address the issue of the quality with respect to those options which present the choice. No one in their right mind would claim that a person given the choice between killing his father, and killing his son was in an acceptable situation because he has been given a choice.

@dogma i typed that sentence based on the explanation on

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_choice_and_option

There is no reason to assume that an option must be the result of external constraints.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Holy crap. There it is. The rich are allowed to have as many children as they want and the poor are not.

And people are alright with it.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules".

Now, Alba, I don't know how many Chinese citizens (passport holders) you know, but when you say things like that, you reveal yourself to be totally ignorant, grossly uniformed, lacking in knowledge, and generally foolish. I won't say "stupid", as it's entirely possible you possess normal (or higher) intelligence, but certainly you're intellectually lazy and merely perpetuating stereotypes that haven't been true in 30+ years. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

I've been there. I have no idea why anyone would argue there isn't an impoverished underclass in China, when you can walk down the street and see them.

I have no idea why you'd compare China now to China in the past - it may well be better off but this isn't the 12th century - there are liberal democracies that don't enforce arbitrary human rights abuses on it's citizens. Perhaps a reach target is in order?

I have no idea why you'd claim an argument wanting greater rights for Chinese citizens was racist. That's simply pathetic.

Really, I have no idea why you've chosen to defend China in all matters, but I am left shaking my head at the ridiculous arguments you've concocted to attempt it.

KingCracker wrote:Realistically though, you have to do SOMETHING about over population. I mean our resources can only do so much. If youve ever seen Soilent Green then you have an idea of how bad itll get with over population.

Think about the resources required to feed and clothe you to a minimum standard. They're pretty negligible. Now think about the resources used by the average person in the western world - think about the resources used in powering his computer and wide screen television. Think about him driving a four person car to work by himself every day. Think about the electrical appliances he throws out instead of repairing. Think about the amount of clothing people buy that is worn once or twice, ever.

Think about the vast increase in resource consumption in China, miles above the growth in population. It’s all driven by increases in consumption, not population.

So, I mean, just, at the end of the day it makes no sense to talk about sustainability in terms of population, when population growth is such a trivial portion of resource use. The problems of sustainability are problems of resource consumption.

Soylent Green is a fun movie. It really isn’t much of a guide to solving the modern problem of sustainability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:John, I know your argumentative style so I'm not suprised at your posts, but if you have some sources of information to help dispel our shocking ignorance that'd be really nice. I mean, we can't easily travel to china, and our apparent racism must taint what we think, but what sources would you recommend that would educate us?

I’ve been, it’s a really fascinating place full of great people and I’d recommend it to anyone.

None of which has anything to do with the cold reality that the Chinese government has a really ugly history of human rights abuses.

Albatross wrote:

Back on topic, I find it interesting that the dakkites of east asian descent are leaping to the defence of a country which has seemingly had enforced sterilisations/abortions, amongst other atrocities. Tribalism continues to fascinate me.

Hey, I live in Hong Kong, which is about 2 steps away from China, and you would NOT BELIEVE how much we criticize the mainland over this kind of stuff. But then it's a good thing Hong Kong and China are A and B. If some government official saw this thread and showed it to the CEO guy of China, dd would be band over there as well as Facebook and everything else. China would do ANYTHING to not have to bury it's face in shame. come to think of it, Google's smart to have pulled out of China.

真是令人失望

sebster wrote:
Holy crap. There it is. The rich are allowed to have as many children as they want and the poor are not.

And people are alright with it.

I'm not a nice guy. I'm entirely fine with all of the policies which China has instituted. However, I would never pretend that they were nice and shiny. The Chinese state is brutal, and authoritarian. What baffles me is the extent to which some will go in order to try and remove those qualifiers from that state. It betrays a level of moral insecurity which is exceptionally profound.

Did anyone from Britain watch Panorama last night??

Britains population is predicted to reach 70 Million what do half of that 70 million not do??....work as Kingcracker said earlier I think a population restriction is at hand.

China as much as i hate to admit it is onto a winner...They have a nicely subdued population that doesnt think too much and allows them to put a effective population restriction in place...

Plus sterilisation has to be better than being killed or culled isnt it??.....

Their version is better than the Nazi lets...kill....everyone...who...is...inferior....option


Automatically Appended Next Post:

some random necron guy wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Back on topic, I find it interesting that the dakkites of east asian descent are leaping to the defence of a country which has seemingly had enforced sterilisations/abortions, amongst other atrocities. Tribalism continues to fascinate me.

Hey, I live in Hong Kong, which is about 2 steps away from China, and you would NOT BELIEVE how much we criticize the mainland over this kind of stuff. But then it's a good thing Hong Kong and China are A and B. If some government official saw this thread and showed it to the CEO guy of China, dd would be band over there as well as Facebook and everything else. China would do ANYTHING to not have to bury it's face in shame. come to think of it, Google's smart to have pulled out of China.

真是令人失望

To be honest....To be a business in a totalitarian state is not good for the wonga but I believe that China is the only state that can do these things such as state censorship,Countryside based sterilisation and get away with it I think it would be wiser to get in bed with China and shut up then to kick against it....Too be honest the world especially the west has done too much kicking against...its time to calm down me thinks..

After all what have achieved America and Britain two false wars a lot of embezzlement in Parliament and general woe we have a population that breeds out of control hence adding to the 70 million that is coming China happens to be very efficent has a obdient population and appears to be doing more for itself as one party one state....

Take the general election over here jesus like watching grown men in nappies having a tantrum if this is democracy show me the way to communiststan.

Wow.

Demonslayer82 wrote:Did anyone from Britain watch Panorama last night??

Britains population is predicted to reach 70 Million what do half of that 70 million not do??....work as Kingcracker said earlier I think a population restriction is at hand.

China as much as i hate to admit it is onto a winner...They have a nicely subdued population that doesnt think too much and allows them to put a effective population restriction in place...

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

Plus sterilisation has to be better than being killed or culled isnt it??.....

Their version is better than the Nazi lets...kill....everyone...who...is...inferior....option

Umm... mandatory sterilisation was practiced by the Nazis. And what about options that don't involve mass killing or sterilisation? When women are educated and given economic emancipation the birth rate drops to replacement levels and even lower - why not just follow that?

And sterilisation programs, even when practiced by democratic governments with strong laws respecting human rights fall almost entirely on minorities and the poor. Look up the record of mandatory sterilisation in the US.

After all what have achieved America and Britain two false wars a lot of embezzlement in Parliament and general woe we have a population that breeds out of control hence adding to the 70 million that is coming China happens to be very efficent has a obdient population and appears to be doing more for itself as one party one state....

Take the general election over here jesus like watching grown men in nappies having a tantrum if this is democracy show me the way to communiststan.

Oh for the simple pleasures of a totalitarian regime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'm not a nice guy. I'm entirely fine with all of the policies which China has instituted. However, I would never pretend that they were nice and shiny. The Chinese state is brutal, and authoritarian. What baffles me is the extent to which some will go in order to try and remove those qualifiers from that state. It betrays a level of moral insecurity which is exceptionally profound.

Yeah, like I posted earlier in this thread I think we come from things from fundamentally different starting points. That's cool, you're consistent in your position. I mean, you'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes but I think you're honest enough to know why and that'll help you receive the people's justice with dignity.

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

You should probably do what I did and just wring your hands of this thread. Debating things like population and resource statistics with 14 year old wargamers and the insane, especially in reference to china, isn't particularly productive as you probably now can see.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

You should probably do what I did and just wring your hands of this thread. Debating things like population and resource statistics with 14 year old wargamers and the insane, especially in reference to china, isn't particularly productive as you probably now can see.

So what valuable insight have you brought to this thread so far other then screaming ignorance at others while
your own info you used to scream with is wrong?
Yes this is like page 7 , what alternative methods have you suggested other than sitting across the other side of the globe
criticizing others for their method?