posted
I have outlined how I would like it done. With voluntary contraception, implemented along with education and healthcare. A natural slow decrease in population, no caps required, and certainly no sterilization. Yikes!
The only reason the population of Canada is increasing is immigration, and yet families are still valued, people still like children, and there are still larger non-immigrant families around.
Reaching a certain point of education and opportunity, people stop having six or seven (or fifteen or sixteen...) children by mistake, and start having roughly the size of family they set out to have. Mistakes do happen, but the population can absorb that 'extra' child. And it feels perfectly natural.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you and me, we come from the same nation. We already have a lot in common-language, culture, legal system, government, etc. Certainly vastly more in common than some dude growing up in Calcutta, for example, with either of us. So if I would violently resist your effort, what do you think he'll do?
Dude, I lived in Calcutta. You won't find anyone more horrified by overpopulation than them. Part of the hatred against Muslims by Hindus and Christians is that they're still permitted to have up to four wives, and each wife is expected to be extremely productive. (Hindus and Christians are also mad productive, but whatever.) They're starving the city, and everyone knows it.
People live in huts papered with newspaper, and children are everywhere. Cows and old women pick through the piles of garbage left everywhere because what few social services exist have to devote their funds to feeding Calcutta's enormous population rather than establishing any form of waste disposal. The city is covered in layer after layer of thick soot, because too many people need to travel for the government to enforce its anti-lead gasoline regulations.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: We have already had at least 50 years of population control experiments.
Experiment, singular by my count (if even that, not much of an experiment).
quote: Although I don't have any specific information, what I seem to recall is that it has only slightly been decreasing.
Technically, the fertility rate has dropped dramatically to 1.75 (below replacement rate) which is technically between the Canada and the US at 1.53 and 2.04 respectively. This is from around 6, 3.65, and 3.45 respectively in 1950.
Now, the question as to whether that is more due to economic progress, education, or explicit population control is an interesting question.
What is not in question is that whatever is that something happened and to illustrate this turnaround IIRC, by UN estimates China will have less children per year than the US by 2050.
In fact, has been suggested that this rate of decrease has been so drastic that it may cause any number of demographic problems and that the Chinese government should increase the fertility rate.
quote: In some ways that is good because short of "that evil capitalism" it needs a robust work force to maintain its communist ideals. That hasn't worked out very well either because it has introduced some slight capitalist practises
Huh? Maintain what Communist ideals exactly? By most objective measures* such as access to universal health-care, redistribution of income, and so forth, Canada, Europe, and yes, even the US are more Communist than China these days.
* some non-objective measures too like most amusing financial and automobile nationalizations Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That you can't imagine any solution to trash in the streets other than mass slaughter is your own problem.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Lalo: it would never happen willingly with anything like what you have proposed.
Besides the obvious war it would lead to, it would also lead to starvation and poverty, btw. Can you imagine trying to support that many elderly people on so few young people? Even comparably slight declines in birth rates in places like Japan are causing major problems (and just wait until twenty years from now); major declines in birth rates around the world would trigger mass deaths and probably result in a major geopolitical reorganization.
And the alternative is to have increasingly larger young populations?
I've heard these Ponzi arguments before, and they don't make sense. Yes, you and I will suffer slightly as we get older -- but it's well worth the sacrifice of one generation to improve the lives of the rest.
You won't be suffering slightly. You'll likely lead a life of abject poverty and disease because the collective young population that would take care of the collective elderly population would be very small compared to the older population, with a corresponding smaller base of funding and other resourses. What is not to understand?
This is why I believe that thinking about people as a collective and not also as individuals is immoral. When viewed as a collective, the individual is lost, therefore the life of one person is meaningless among billions. Who has the right to determine which life is worth keeping? In reference to your proposal, who has the right to decide which people do and don't get to remain fertile?
You certainly seem willing to accept the grim fact that war over this is inevitable. You seem to see the option of war as a necessary evil to achieve your ends. I think war is possible, not guaranteed, without some kind of population "control." It is unavoidable if a form of involuntary contraception and/or sterilization is introduced, and would fight that war. Access to contraception and providing a better quality of life will probably provide a greater chance for future generations to reduce population voluntarily.
The terrible sacrifice of a single generation isn't required. A slight improvement of living standards passed through several generations will work far better. I think that several statistics have been provided already that prove this, such as what Mucus and fugu13 have linked to.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
*sigh* What, when I said people seperated by language, culture, and religion from you would be even angrier at you than I would be were such a monstrous program ever enacted?
Yeah, I'm crazier than a sh@#house rat for thinking something like that, no doubt *rolleyes*.
Here's a better idea than yours: let's get the hell off this planet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like P.J. O'Rourke's thoughts on the population issue in All the Trouble in the World. His chapter on overpopulation is called "Just Enough of Me, Way Too Much of You."
quote:The idea that too many people exist leads to unfortunate and even lethal plans for those people. One of Thomas Malthus's motives for writing An Essay on the Principle of Population was to argue against the Poor Law of his time, which gave aid to pauper families in accordance with the number of their children. This, thought Malthus, bred more paupers. Malthus was also writing in support of Britain's Corn Laws, which imposed large tariffs on imported grain. During the potato famine of the 1840s, these laws would contribute to the deaths of more than a million Irish. Malthus didn't mean any harm, of course. He was a clergyman. "I would never wish to push general principles too far," he said, "though I think they always ought to be kept in view." So we shouldn't actually shove paupers and Irishmen into the grave, but we shouldn't lose sight of the option either.
What ken-in-sc wrote earlier is right on:
quote:Some of the most prosperous parts of the world are the most populous. Think of Singapore and Tokyo. The poverty of the third world is not caused by overpopulation. Bad government and corruption cause it.
[ May 26, 2009, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you and me, we come from the same nation. We already have a lot in common-language, culture, legal system, government, etc. Certainly vastly more in common than some dude growing up in Calcutta, for example, with either of us. So if I would violently resist your effort, what do you think he'll do?
Dude, I lived in Calcutta. You won't find anyone more horrified by overpopulation than them. Part of the hatred against Muslims by Hindus and Christians is that they're still permitted to have up to four wives, and each wife is expected to be extremely productive. (Hindus and Christians are also mad productive, but whatever.) They're starving the city, and everyone knows it.
People live in huts papered with newspaper, and children are everywhere. Cows and old women pick through the piles of garbage left everywhere because what few social services exist have to devote their funds to feeding Calcutta's enormous population rather than establishing any form of waste disposal. The city is covered in layer after layer of thick soot, because too many people need to travel for the government to enforce its anti-lead gasoline regulations.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
My husband is Bengali, and grew up all around India, including in Calcutta, where his family's ancestral home is. So, first off, Rakeesh, I gotta say that you're greatly exaggerating the differences between Bengalis and Americans. People really aren't that different from place to place.
And, second, Lalo, I have never heard an Indian imply in any way, shape, or form, that tensions between the two religious communities is partially because Muslims may have four wives. At best, you can get some disgruntlement from those who think that there should be no distinction in Indian law between different religious groups - & the legal distinctions are quite a bit more than just the number of wives a man is permitted.
Also, Calcutta is the crappiest of India's many cities not because of overpopulation - there's plenty of that in any Indian city - but because they have had one of the crappiest regional governments I have ever heard of holding sway since India's independence. We're talking about a government that took 20 years to install less than 18 km of metro line - and the sections don't even match up so, get this - they have a crane pick up a rail car to transfer it from one section to another to finish its run.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: And, second, Lalo, I have never heard an Indian imply in any way, shape, or form, that tensions between the two religious communities is partially because Muslims may have four wives. At best, you can get some disgruntlement from those who think that there should be no distinction in Indian law between different religious groups - & the legal distinctions are quite a bit more than just the number of wives a man is permitted.
Also, Calcutta is the crappiest of India's many cities not because of overpopulation - there's plenty of that in any Indian city - but because they have had one of the crappiest regional governments I have ever heard of holding sway since India's independence. We're talking about a government that took 20 years to install less than 18 km of metro line - and the sections don't even match up so, get this - they have a crane pick up a rail car to transfer it from one section to another to finish its run.
Then maybe I was just living in a neighborhood of disgruntled Hindus -- but they really don't like Muslims. It has more to do with the history of Pakistan/Bangladesh and old customary hatreds, but that's carried over into a demographics war.
As my host put it, Muslims just reproduce until they have a majority. And though Hindu and Christian Indians have a ton of kids as well, I have to say there were a lot more street urchins in local Muslim neighborhoods than others. Maybe your husband didn't get involved in the Hindu vs. Muslim feuds, but population explosion is definitely one of their several simmering angers.
That said, public transportation in India is a blast.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that Muslims are disliked in some parts - or by some people - in India doesn't automatically imply that they're disliked because they're allowed four wives. And while a majority of India's Muslims live in eastern Indian states (West Bengal, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, they're far from the majority in any of those states, nor is there any chance that they'll gain majority there any time soon. Frankly, your host sounds like an ill-informed guy.
Living in Calcutta will not give you an even picture of India, anymore than living in, say, San Francisco will give you an even picture of the US. Probably worse, actually, since India is composed of numerous different ethnicity types, and Bengalis are one of the more "separate" ones. Bengal also has a particularly odd relationship with religion given that the region was split in half during Partition along religious lines into West Bengal & East Pakistan (aka Bangladesh). The fact that Calcutta and West Bengal in general are seeing high levels of (mostly illegal) immigration by Muslim Bangladeshis & poor Muslims from surrounding states to West Bengal compounds the issue further - it's not a matter of breeding but of immigration, in that region, really. That, and Muslims traditionally vote as a bloc in India. (I don't know how it looked in this last election, although I've read that the Communists took a beating in West Bengal, at last.)
More to the point of the thread, I'd expect a university graduate like yourself to know better than to generalize from an experience of poverty in one city - and also to know better than to blame poverty simply on overpopulation. Delhi - arguably the largest metropolitan area in the world - is a much cleaner, and generally has much better social services than Calcutta. Poor government is the main cause of poverty in Calcutta, plain and simple. It's a complete shame, too, since when the British left Calcutta was a jewel of a capital city.
ElJay, the crane is no longer a part of the metro system in Calcutta (tho it was around for at least ten years), so I'm not sure what happened to passengers. Whether they had to disembark or not, it was incredibly inefficient.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was working on this post right after Lalo's "Ponzi arguments" post, but work called.
First, it would be several generations of older people. Not to mention the incredible political upheaval of worldwide starvation, poverty, and war, all triggered at about the same time. And "suffer slightly" is laughably ludicrous. At least try to pretend you're acknowledging the likely outcomes of such policies.
Second, straw man much? I said a dramatic drop in population would be really, really bad. A leveling off, likely followed by a gradual decline, would virtually certainly be preferable, and is something we're well on the way to in the next hundred years due to increased development and education.
I would also like to note that the idea the earth is currently overpopulated is subject to considerable debate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My husband is Bengali, and grew up all around India, including in Calcutta, where his family's ancestral home is. So, first off, Rakeesh, I gotta say that you're greatly exaggerating the differences between Bengalis and Americans. People really aren't that different from place to place.
What? Sorry-I didn't mean to suggest Bengalis are so very different from Americans, all I meant was that cultural and religious differences would increase, not decrease, the anger felt. i.e. if an American would be mad, how would someone from another country feel if a foreigner came along and did this to him? Adds an additional layer of violation.
quote:I would also like to note that the idea the earth is currently overpopulated is subject to considerable debate.
No kidding. Haven't there been several 'we're doomed!' predictions based on overpopulation in the last century?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, okay. Misread what you'd written, Rakeesh.
I think doomsday predictions due to overpopulation have been going on since, at least, Malthus in 1798.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? [Confused]
False dichotomy. It's not either or. And you have yet to even attempt to discredit the idea that people will choose smaller families if given access to birth control, enough food, and good health care.
Why would I discredit it? That's what I've been arguing, pretty much! Widely available contraceptives tied with social incentives not to reproduce as much.
The social incentives you described as "buying childbearing rights." That's not a social incentive, it's government regulation of reproductive rights. Aesop's fable of the sun and the wind comes to mind: Persuasion is better than force.
quote:Experiment, singular by my count (if even that, not much of an experiment).
To be fair, China has made a realistic effort to control population, and India made some efforts, I think between the '50s and the '70s.
You may not want to call it an experiment, but scientific study of existing conditions can be framed as an experiment, as long as the hypothesis was properly formed and there is appropriate control data to compare with the test group. So yes, Europe and N. America have conducted an "experiment" in population control.
We have drawn conclusions from this study, and I haven't heard anyone claim it isn't scientifically valid.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
I can't say I would have the same objections because I don't know if anyone would be objecting as mockingly as me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you dislike what I propose so much? Is starvation and genocide preferable to the loss of tax benefits? [Confused]
False dichotomy. It's not either or. And you have yet to even attempt to discredit the idea that people will choose smaller families if given access to birth control, enough food, and good health care.
Why would I discredit it? That's what I've been arguing, pretty much! Widely available contraceptives tied with social incentives not to reproduce as much.
The social incentives you described as "buying childbearing rights." That's not a social incentive, it's government regulation of reproductive rights. Aesop's fable of the sun and the wind comes to mind: Persuasion is better than force.
Not buying from the government, buying from those who don't wish to use their own. This works as an incentive to work hard and make more money if you want to have more kids, instead of having a lot of kids, but being in a low-income job where you really can't afford to take care of them, so the government picks up most of the slack.
If you want to talk about government regulation, what about government taking money from taxes I pay, and giving it to parents in the form of reduced taxes per child (it's a fairly significant amount you don't have to pay), free education, government day care, food stamps, TANF, etc. etc. etc. This is all government incentive to have kids, even if you can't afford to.
What I'm suggesting merely reverses this. If you want to have a dozen kids, great! Get to work, and buy the right to from those who don't. At present, there's government regulation going on by forcing people like me with no kids to financially support other people's kids. The amount you pay me for the right to have my share of childbearing will simply equal the amount I'm paying.
I think that governments *should* continue to pay for education, medicaid, etc, simply because once that child's born, s/he has the right to succeed as much as possible. This system would merely force the parents to be a bit more wise/hard working before they have that kid.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
What would you put in the water? Female hormones? Wouldn't that be like steroids for all the guys drinking it? What would it do to small children exposed to all those hormones pre-puberty? What about cancer patients?
What if I stop drinking water and switch to soda or wine? Would it be there, too? What about people who drink tons of the stuff?
What about women who know hormonal birth control doesn't work for them?
Basically, you'd have to come up with better birth control than we have now, and you'd need a better way to distribute it. Then we can get around to the moral arguments.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You must be assuming a drug that won't cause permanent damage to people's reproductive systems. Even today, while some have oops babies while taking birth control pills, some have their fertility damaged for months after ceasing the drug. I would hope the antidote would be free for those trying for their government sanctioned only baby. What happens when the stuff in the water actually makes a person more fertile then they would be without the drug? I only ask this because I have a friend who only gets pregnant while on the pill because the hormones balance her out. Obviously, this situation would be very rare, but does this person then always get the antidote?
What happens when your one child dies before ever having a child? What if that child was a teenager or an adult? Maybe you can get permission to get the antidote, but will you be able to get pregnant again?
What about children with birth defects? I think a lot of people would have the baby tested prior to birth so that they will know whether they need an abortion in an effort to have that "perfect" baby.
I assume you would allow people to have their naturally conceived twins, triplets, and so forth.
What about infertile couples. I am assuming you would allow them infertility treatments, but some couples can never have a child due to their problems. Do you condemn them to barrenness? You say people could buy the rights to have someone else's child rights, but how many people would REALLY be willing to give up those rights? How much would those rights cost? Since you would have to buy rights off of one person of each gender for each child, how would this be accomplished? Is it fair that infertile couples with less money would probably never be able to afford those rights and would have to compete with rich couples who want 2 or more children? You say it would only be fair to pay for your rights because you would be paying into the system for the education and health care of the child you chose not to bear, but is it really fair for infertile couples to have to pay so much extra just for the right to one child. Would women be able to give birth knowing it is the only child they will ever have and they are giving it away. I am only going to mention sperm donation and egg donation, there would obviously be problems with those. (OK, so I am infertile and have to adopt to have children, so I care about this issue.)
How would you make sure that you could have "clean" water. There are medicines now that people have flushed that we are drinking everyday. Once this medicine is in the water cycle, can we get it out?
Would homosexual couples have to find a couple of the opposite gender so that they share child rights between the four of them?
My last question is why would you limit couples to one child, this is well below replacement rate especially considering death prior to having a child, infertility, and people who are simply not ready to have a child until they are to old to conceive the child themselves. Even China, while only allowing one child per family in the city, allows two children in the country.
Odd Thoughts:
On the positive side, maybe families would get stronger as people search for the person they think would truly be a good partner in raising a child.
I think this would create two dating scenes, one for people who had not had their child, and one for those who had had their child and divorced, or those who did not want a child.
Would people have children at younger ages (I am thinking early 20s) because they know they could die at any time and not have a chance to reproduce, or because they know that fertility drops with age?
Posts: 188 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would people have children at younger ages (I am thinking early 20s) because they know they could die at any time and not have a chance to reproduce, or because they know that fertility drops with age?
Do they now? Which part of "could die at any time" does not apply now? If you die at 25 and childless, you are currently missing out on an average of 2.3, ish, children. Why would losing only 2 children (counting your partner's birth-right) be a stronger incentive?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone mentioned that China's One Child policy has been a demographic disaster as couples rushed to abort their girls in favor of having boys? Their gender ratio is way out of whack now.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wondering if we instituted a one-child policy in America if we would see similar actions. I hate to admit it, but I think most people do want at least one boy. would they abort a female fetus if they could only have one? I don't know. I would hate to have to find out.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle: I don't think it would be as bad as what happened in China, but it would. A one child policy would doom many female babies to abortion and screw up our gender balance as well.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although having more men than women is clearly bad for the men, I don't see why it is a 'demographic disaster'. If anything it amplifies the intended effect of the one-child policy, by ensuring that many of the superfluous men will not become fathers. One might oppose the policy on grounds of liberty, but to oppose it on the grounds that it works better than expected seems a bit silly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, there are a lot of people in this country who prefer girls. There are also a lot who don't care what the gender of their baby is.
Posts: 188 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where I saw it (perhaps something to do with adoption rates of each gender?), but I believe a majority of Americans when asked what gender child they'd prefer to have & what they think Americans as a whole prefer, will answer, "Personally, I'd prefer a girl, but I think most Americans prefer a boy."
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But would anyone have the same objections to an agent in the water supply that requires an antidote to procreate? If that antidote were freely available to all for their first child only?
So, you're out to save the planet, and you're going to do it by jacking up the water supply? That's just insane. Every living organism on the planet is dependent on that water. Leaving aside whether or not population even needs controlling, we need LESS weird stuff in the water, not more. It's like trying to control your weight by smoking cigarettes.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to the gender imbalance, on one hand, the consequences seem pretty destructive. Reports of women being abducted for marriage and being betrothed at earlier ages (in exchange for money) by their parents who are noticing their higher value are ever-increasing in the countryside (not sure why the reports are usually in the countryside as opposed to the city). Increasing amounts of money going into prostitution and the like.
On the other hand, the normal marriage market seems to be getting increasingly competitive as women realize their greater range of choices due to the demographic squeeze and are starting to demand men with (men who can provide them with?) greater wealth, apartments, cars, etc. (A natural corollary seems to be that the men *with* wealth and power, hence making the decisions won't be the ones that suffer from the shortage)
Anecdotally, I've also been hearing an increasing amount about China's gay and transsexual communities recently which makes me wonder about how elastic sexuality may actually be.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want a job feeding the antidote to all the fish out there.
In the US we wouldn't kill off our baby girls. We'd just bring back Polygamy--or would that be reverse polygamy.
How many people know anyone who has adopted a child from China?
How many of those adopted children are girls?
It was a fact during the 90's--you go to China for a girl, since the one child only policy meant a lot of people gave up their girls secretly to get another shot at a boy. You went to Russia for boys, since the combination of equal rights in the job market, and mandatory male conscription, meant that girls were more likely to succeed than boys. Today, both trends have vanished as more conservative folks have taken over Russia, making it a boys game again, and dropping birth rates make China not so generous with the adoptees.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is all true - adopting from China is much more difficult than it used to be.
I think lots of people would say they want to have a girl...but how many of those would answer the same if the question were "Which gender would you choose if you could only have one child?"
I think there is still a lot of play out there for the old ideal of having a son to carry on the "family name" and Dads wanting football games to attend and little league baseball coaching opportunities. That's not to suggest all men are like that - my hubby certainly is not - but I think there are enough that a boy would be a bit more popular choice than girls. Then again, how much of a difference is necessary before it causes significant changes in our society? A 3-2 ratio of boy births to girls? 3-1? 5-1? Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Has anyone mentioned that China's One Child policy has been a demographic disaster as couples rushed to abort their girls in favor of having boys? Their gender ratio is way out of whack now.
The one child policy is actually very good at what it intends to do, which is help reduce population growth.
Not that I agree with it or like it at all, but I can't call it a disaster.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one child policy has had some effect, but there's a good amount of evidence that most of the reduction in births in China has just been the usual outcome of the economic development they've been experiencing. They were already dropping dramatically in births prior to the one child policy, and there have been large drops in birth rates in neighboring countries and among populations in China where the policy does not apply.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: ... Then again, how much of a difference is necessary before it causes significant changes in our society? A 3-2 ratio of boy births to girls? 3-1? 5-1?
Defining China as "significant change" and Hong Kong and Taiwan as not, and using the population under 15 according to the CIA WorldFact book it seems that the point is somewhere between 1.13:1 (boys to girls) for China and 1.09:1 Hong Kong or 1.08:1 Taiwan. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
So roughly, you need a difference north of 1.1:1 to start seeing these sorts of changes. For comparison, Canada and the US are currently roughly 1.05:1
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that statistic is misleading, Mucus, because the one-child thing was not evenly applied over China. You would have to look up the ratio in urban areas only, and it would likely be a lot higher.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, that was the proposal but traditional attitudes toward women have persisted more successfully in the villages as has the ability to get around measures aimed at preventing sex-selective infanticide. So I dunno.
It would certainly be interesting to see such a breakdown.
As I guessed, this suggests that the ratio at birth is 1.14:1, 1.17:1, and 1.22:1 for cities, towns, and rural areas respectively.
(As I didn't guess, this seems to note that the overall birth ratio at birth is 1.19:1 compared to the CIA figure of 1.1:1 at birth. This data is from 2004-2005 while the CIA data is marked as a 2009 "estimate.")
quote:Not buying from the government, buying from those who don't wish to use their own.
This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me. Your hand is yours, you don't need to buy it from anyone, unless you're talking about some kind of protection racket, which means there has to be a threat hanging over everyone's head if they choose to utilize their own biology. The only way that's going to happen is if the government regulates reproduction.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me.
Try it with kidneys, and then realise that there would be a lot more kidney transplants, and hence healthier rich people and richer poor people, if one could legally sell a kidney.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple more observations, if you compare figure 1 and 2, you'll see that the implementation of the strictest one-child policy and the highest sex ratios don't really overlap. The most strict implementation is towards the north east, in the areas that are both richer and closer to the bureaucracy in Beijing as you would expect.
The highest sex ratios are in central and southern China and conspicuously go around what looks like Hubei province which has a low sex ratio but strict one-child policies.
In fact, according to table 3, the highest sex ratios seem to be in areas where the one-child policy was relaxed to allow for a second child if the first is a female. Thus, while the first birth ratio is 1.08:1 overall and not significantly different between city, town, and rural, the highest ratios occur with the second child and third child.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not buying from the government, buying from those who don't wish to use their own.
This is equivalent to you buying your right hand from me. Your hand is yours, you don't need to buy it from anyone, unless you're talking about some kind of protection racket, which means there has to be a threat hanging over everyone's head if they choose to utilize their own biology. The only way that's going to happen is if the government regulates reproduction.
As I said, the regulation going on is government taking away tax reductions for children. Maybe tack on a large tax increase/fine for having a second child illegally, and make it significantly higher than the market average for buying childbearing rights.
I don't really think this is totalitarian, since the government has been using taxes to regulate a lot of human activity - look at cigarette taxes, gasoline subsidization (in the u.s.), crop subsidization, alcohol taxes, etc. It's all designed to discourage/encourage certain behavior.
Since at least one poster seems to have gotten us partially confused, I just want to reiterate that I'm not Lalo, and he's not me. We're two separate people, with two pretty much opposite arguments. (he's going for actual sterilization, I'm going to socially manipulating people into having less kids) I just say this because I saw someone using a part of my argument against Lalo as if it was his, and wouldn't want the same happening to me.
King of Men: excellent point! As a poor college student, I'd certainly be willing to sell a kidney for, say, $250,000. And I'm sure some upper-middle class old person would gladly pay $250,000 in exchange for their life.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm sure some upper-middle class old person would gladly pay $250,000 in exchange for their life.
No. Going rate for a kidney on the black market is less than $5,000.
And it doesn't make the recipient rich. The money is a blip - it doesn't permanently change circumstances. What does change is the donor's health. Many donors end up worse off because their compromised health hinder their ability to work.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I could have chosen, I'd have chosen to have a boy. But I didn't get a choice, so I have a daughter... and I am soooooooooo happy about it! I'm glad it wasn't up to me.
As far as population control, what's wrong with paying people to undergo voluntary sterilization? A sliding scale depending on age or number of kids you already have.
The poorest and dumbest would probably be the ones to jump at the chance for a $850 Walmart gift card in exchange for a free vasectomy, and they're the ones we can most readily benefit from not reproducing.
No force, no making it illegal, just everyone's free choice. All sterilization is 100% free, all the time... reversals quadruple in price though.
No one has to do it. But if they want it, it's free. And they even get some nice prizes.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've said for decades now that, instead of welfare, we should pay poor people not to have kids like we pay farmers not to grow crops.
However with the native birth rate below replacement and with white people looking at extinction in not-that-many generations I'm not so sure it's a good idea anymore.
Then again, we could set up White People reservations. It worked well for the Native Americans, right?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there's no more white people, so what? If no one is targeting them, but they just fade away, or have blended in with others to become Beige or something, what's the problem? Nothing lasts forever.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
