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.

ShumaGorath wrote:
As a counterpoint there are strong incentives to avoid children in first world nations, especially at the poverty threshold yet the same trends still bare out.

But first world nations have far lower fertility rates in aggregate. And, given that much of China lives in third world conditions, the fact that their birth rate is lower than that of the US speaks at least partially to the effectiveness of their birth control measures.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Wait.. Did you just disagree with me than explain my point as your point? I'm confus.

No, I disagreed with you and then wondered if selective coercion (as opposed to market forces) can serve to alter the natural birth rate amongst the impoverished. I'm not convinced that it can, at least not in total, as the incentives to produce children in a 3rd world economy are not necessarily trumped by access to education and the ability to own land. Unregistered children can still learn the family trade while registered children go to school. Of course, that's where monetary assistance comes into play.

Ive been saying we should sterilise people forcibly for years!

Once again the Chinese astound me with their "can do" attitude!

Just out of curiosity for the people against this new discipline.

What do you suppose China should do instead for people that breaks such laws?

LunaHound wrote:
Just out of curiosity for the people against this new discipline.

What do you suppose China should do instead for people that breaks such laws?

If they want to force sterilisation onto people then they should at least do it temporairly via the jab. Permanent sterilisation is going a bit far IMO.

You keep your mouth clean

I LOVE this. I'm going to start saying it to people.

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. I wonder how many of you would accept such a system in your country of residence?

It would be interesting to test the devotion of the Chinese population to their political system by making the top 10,000 Communist Party officials live in a flooded quarry which is now an illegal toxic waste dump until the peasants give up their daughters to be forcibly sterilised.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

Given chinas immense population issues I understand on a logical level the concept of enforced curbs on childbirth. Their methodology though is barbaric and idiotic in many cases.

More ignorant words were seldom spoken.

China has huge population issues, and is forced to confront them out of necessity. Population drives land and energy, with tremendous cost. As a third world country, an unlimited population is a luxury that they cannot afford.

China uses carrot (cash) and stick (NO free education, NO housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

One imagines that China would love to be rich enough to afford an unlimited population. Perhaps you'll cede land (and China needs a *lot* of land) and then subsidize their energy needs to support such a population?

You stand in defence of the indefensible.

I dunno. Cut the UK incomes by a factor of 10, and you tell me how defensible it might be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I dunno. Cut the UK incomes by a factor of 10, and you tell me how defensible it might be.

So you are saying that what is right with money is wrong without and vice-versa, a sort of flexible morality that is income based? Relativism with a price tag?

I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

wizard12 wrote:I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

I don't believe anyone was arguing that overpopulation was not something that needed to be addressed in China, but that forced imprisonment of possible offenders, forced sterilization of possible offenders, and creating a large mass of uneducated and poor may not be the best solution.

wizard12 wrote:I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

Aluminium is what a large amount of the earths crust is made out of... that wont be running out any time soon.

Wars are always good for getting rid of people. Plus you may grab yourself some resources into the bargain.

Though as KK says, it certainly seems to be a "do what I say and not what I do" policy. It would be great if China could bring every up to the same level of wellbeing as everyone else, rather than keeping large numbers of people in poverty and ignorance.

But I guess their system is not set up for that. It would be a very brave government which even attempted to tackle bringing about 1.3bn people into line with the developed world, and it would take a long time.

In terms of sterilizing people, feel free to do it to the criminals (in a traditional sense - robbers, murderers etc) in a permanent fashion, but as others have mentioned, ordinary people should be given temporary versions. After all, you never know when you will need to repopulate the world after a zombie outbreak...

I can kind of see what they are doing in punishing those who are related to those who try to break the population rules in order to get the "guilty" to come forwards. For all the children who will not be educated by the state, we have plenty of school children here who seem to be more than happy not to go to school, so perhaps we should conduct a trade?

Kind of off topic (but this my thread and it's the off topic forum, so it's allowed) but I do wonder about the return of some kind of National Service.

Unemployed 16-20 year olds not in education would be obliged to go through compulsory military training. Once training is completed, they have the option of joining the army, whilst any that don't will at least have picked up some useful life skills and might not be so unemployable.

Strict gender separation as well, that should cut down on a few pregnancies.

I always find it appalling how many people advocate sterilisation in countries like the UK. I mean, I find it really disgusting and offensive. China is a different kettle of fish, I'll admit I'm too ignorant to comment usefully (though I feel that what is going on is wrong from my perspective of limited knowledge.)

But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

Da Boss wrote:I always find it appalling how many people advocate sterilisation in countries like the UK. I mean, I find it really disgusting and offensive. China is a different kettle of fish, I'll admit I'm too ignorant to comment usefully (though I feel that what is going on is wrong from my perspective of limited knowledge.)

But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

It also speaks to a lack of knowledge concerning economic stability and the adequacy of social systems. The UK like much of europe is in a bit of a demographic crisis and attempting any level of population control within its own population would be idiotic in the long run.

I know, yeah. I didn't bother mentioning it, but believe me, the problems western europe faces in terms of it's aging population are not lost on me.
Absolutely mindboggling.

Da Boss wrote:But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

Certainly it should never be forcefully done in the UK, but the option should be available to the people concerned (which it is anyway). The issue in my eyes is how to stop girls aged 10-16 getting pregnant because they know the government will hand them a free existence (albeit a rubbish one) for the rest of their lives. You know we pay out more in benefits than we pay in income tax right?

My controversial view as expressed earlier, is rather than offering girls incentives to get pregnant, it should be made clear there are preventatives available and anybody who rejects them and subsequently gets pregnant will not receive a free council flat and benefits. Or if they do, it would be for a maximum of two years in order to sort their lives out.

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

Not being educated and well off doesn't mean you can't work, which really is my point. To be honest, I'm not desperately well off at the moment and I have a baby is due in six weeks, but it is not my intention to survive off government hand outs. Yes, we all get unlucky from time to time (especially at the moment) and that's when a helping hand from society is justified,

You will have to do some pretty impressive sums to convince me that a person whose net contribution to society is zero or less than zero is any kind of benefit for a country.

Flashman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

Not being educated and well off doesn't mean you can't work, which really is my point. To be honest, I'm not desperately well off at the moment and I have a baby is due in six weeks, but it is not my intention to survive off government hand outs. Yes, we all get unlucky from time to time (especially at the moment) and that's when a helping hand from society is justified,

You will have to do some pretty impressive sums to convince me that a person whose net contribution to society is zero or less than zero is any kind of benefit for a country.

Well then start killing people when they retire too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Flashman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

Not being educated and well off doesn't mean you can't work, which really is my point. To be honest, I'm not desperately well off at the moment and I have a baby is due in six weeks, but it is not my intention to survive off government hand outs. Yes, we all get unlucky from time to time (especially at the moment) and that's when a helping hand from society is justified,

You will have to do some pretty impressive sums to convince me that a person whose net contribution to society is zero or less than zero is any kind of benefit for a country.

Well then start killing people when they retire too.

Hmm... depends on how long they intend on living. Seriously, I'm not massively into internet arguments. So at this point, I'll acknowlege your point of view and bow out.

So wait, does this mean that Communism isn't fuelled by babies?


So this is all a lie?

SilverMK2 wrote:It would be great if China could bring every up to the same level of wellbeing as everyone else, rather than keeping large numbers of people in poverty and ignorance.

But I guess their system is not set up for that. It would be a very brave government which even attempted to tackle bringing about 1.3bn people into line with the developed world, and it would take a long time.

You mean like India? Compare literacy rates between China and India, or even GDP (PPP), and it's pretty clear that China has been advancing human development pretty strongly. If you look back to the 1980s, China has done more to eliminate global poverty than any other country in the world. Not bad for 30-odd years worth of progress, considering that China pre-1980 was roughly equivalent to pre-1850s agrarian America and is now roughly comparable to 1940s America...

JohnHwangDD wrote:But I guess their system is not set up for that. It would be a very brave government which even attempted to tackle bringing about 1.3bn people into line with the developed world, and it would take a long time.

You mean like India? Compare literacy rates between China and India, or even GDP (PPP), and it's pretty clear that China has been advancing human development pretty strongly. If you look back to the 1980s, China has done more to eliminate global poverty than any other country in the world. Not bad for 30-odd years worth of progress, considering that China pre-1980 was roughly equivalent to pre-1850s agrarian America and is now roughly comparable to 1940s America...

Da Boss wrote:I always find it appalling how many people advocate sterilisation in countries like the UK. I mean, I find it really disgusting and offensive. China is a different kettle of fish, I'll admit I'm too ignorant to comment usefully (though I feel that what is going on is wrong from my perspective of limited knowledge.)

But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

What makes you say people have the "right" to reproduce? How about regarding reproduction as a privilege that you earn by demonstrating the ability to support and raise each of the children you want to have?

That is one view however it isn't the one advanced by the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Flashman wrote:What I consider to be a fair solution would be to offer teenagers from certain sections of the populace the injection (makes you sterile for a year or so). If they turn it down and subsequently get pregnant, no benefits & definitely no free house either.

Which is completely and totally awesome for the child that had no say in the matter, but is no to be raised in abject poverty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:Its not exactly unique to china, India did a very similar thing in 70's.

The US used forceful sterilisations up until the 1970s.

Its impact falls overwhelming onto the poor and onto ethnic minorities. Anyone who's read anything substantial about it's application anywhere cannot support it. It is nasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I don't believe that was being disputed. I do believe it was being judged on moral grounds. That doesn't make the argument ignorant, though it might render it naive.

Somewhat, though I will point out there is a general tendency to assume a high minded method is naive, while a harsh method is pragmatic. I find the idea of forced sterilisation to be so problematic in its application that it's supporters must be utterly naive about how it actually works in practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:What do you suppose China should do instead for people that breaks such laws?

The shouldn't have such laws. Their application is shockingly selective and unjust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wizard12 wrote:I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

I think with around 90% of resource useage coming from the richest 10% of the population, pretending resource consumption is an issue of population and not sustainable living by the West is grossly disingenuous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:You mean like India? Compare literacy rates between China and India, or even GDP (PPP), and it's pretty clear that China has been advancing human development pretty strongly. If you look back to the 1980s, China has done more to eliminate global poverty than any other country in the world. Not bad for 30-odd years worth of progress, considering that China pre-1980 was roughly equivalent to pre-1850s agrarian America and is now roughly comparable to 1940s America...

Economic progress was a crap excuse for human rights abuses when the USSR used it, and it's a crap excuse when China tries the same.

SilverMK2 wrote:China has, as you say, made great strides towards bringing itself into modern times, and some of the vast sums of money its economy generates manages to find its way into the hands of the "people". A lot of it goes on public works (roads, phones, power, etc), and I will not deny that they are making progress.

However, my comment was made regarding the system they have now - the poor remain poor while industry and State Owned Enterprises appear to get all the major investment.

Their model is built on continued growth, which cannot realistically be sustained for too much longer.

They need to create something like 10 million jobs a year in order to employ all those entering the work force each year.
This is part of why, I believe, China is so worried about its population. It knows that in order to progress and modernise, its population must fall (or at least remain roughly the same).

I'm not going to debate this too much, as I don't know a great deal about the matter. If you can show that my thoughts are wrong, I will happily concede and go about my way enlightened.

I'm not going to say you're wrong per se, because there's a lot going on in the Chinese economy. Hell, the US economy is far more transparent, with (supposedly) the best minds money can buy, and nobody seems to have clue 1 about how to "fix" it. I do believe that you have some points, and there are a lot of obvious things that the Chinese leadership are trying to be proactive about. Population, pollution, green, energy independence, land use, etc. all come to mind. The thing is, with 1.3B people, China is like an ocean liner: a *LOT* of inertia and a lot of warm bodies to take care of - changing course is tough work.

China is making progress, mostly because their government is getting out of the way and letting those millions upon millions of smart Chinese do those things that they think best, based on providing infrastructure to allow progress.

When you say "poor remain poor, and SEO's get all the money", isn't that similar to how the US has huge income disparity, and is being further socialized? Anyhow, the "poor" are getting better lives and have real hope going forward - if they weren't, things would turn upside-down in a hurry. However, SEOs reflect a view of the old Soviet-style command economy, something that is probably a small portion of the overall economy.

Actually, when you consider that China is catching up on 100 to 200+ years of economic development, and is only 30-odd years in, it's plausible that they can keep it going for another 20-50 years.

I think 10M jobs is low - they have a lot of people to employ...

Anyhow, all good.

Unemployed 16-20 year olds not in education would be obliged to go through compulsory military training. Once training is completed, they have the option of joining the army, whilst any that don't will at least have picked up some useful life skills and might not be so unemployable.

You speak of bringing back national service? love the idea, i really do.
Would cut down alot of crap that happens here too.


OT: Why do people judge china?
None of us are fit to decide how to handle a crisis such as over-population, so i dont see why people give it a crack.
To be honest, it may seem extreme to some, but what other options are there? due to the growing population it will end up leaving the country in tatters, creating poverty throughout.

The UK is well on its way there now too, but ill leave that topic for now



Also flash: The service idea is great, bring back the DP for harsh crimes again?
Just little things like this really do bring down the population and help keep control of crime.