China to begin two-child policy • Hacker News Board

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#71

Post by IkmoIkmo » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:04 PM UTC

trymas wrote: post #52

Mimick wrote: post #47

Overpopulation isn't that of a big problem as the politics make it seem.

Why (I am serious, as IMHO today's global population is too big)?

Hans Rosling has a documentary about it, check it out via Google, it's on youtube of vimeo or something.

It's not so much that overpopulation isn't an issue, of course it is (that's why it's called 'over' population), but rather that the trend line is that population growth is very rapidly slowing, that people tend to overestimate population growth, are unaware of big population centres that are shrinking, that the average worldwide children per woman rate is 5 just 50 years ago) and that population will likely decline after we add a few billion more.

That's not to say that it isn't an issue, but traditionally we held some really weird views about overpopulation. Basically we looked at this graph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Po...

and extrapolated the exponential growth, and ended up with scenarios of doom, war etc. Food shortages for example are consistently predicted, but food production growth has outstripped population growth substantially and food security is better than any time in the past (yet far from perfect).

Obviously there are huge sustainability concerns, but the biggest source is our level of consumption levels and patterns, not our population numbers, which comes in second.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#72

Post by Keyframe » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:04 PM UTC

Are there any psychology/sociology studies how one-child policy impacted China's society? It has been documented how having one child vs siblings impact one's psyche. I wonder what kind of impact it has on a culture/society as a whole if most are from single-child families.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#73

Post by throwaway_789 » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:05 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #66

adrianN wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A less severe form would be financial incentives for licensed parents. You're still free to have children if you want, but you're only supported by the state if you got a license. Pair this with free birth control implants and abortions for everyone who wants them and you get most of the effect without the use of force. You could even pay men to get a vasectomy.

[deleted]

That would be eugenics. The how-to gusto and historical tone-deafness of three commenters in this chain are flabbergasting.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#74

Post by vincentkriek » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:06 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #56

From the article "All couples will now be allowed to have two children". So it seems China isn't so much ending its one-child policy, as augmenting it by one to a two-child policy. This means the brutal and cruel enforcement will continue, only it will kick in at the third child instead of at the second.

Brutal and cruel? I agree it's a severe limit on the personal freedom but China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does. Brutal and cruel is not the right terms for this in my opinion, you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less. You can plan to have just two children (up to some point).

Also, I think it could benefit the earth if more countries would limit children.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#75

Post by flgb » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:06 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #62

MC7447a wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation is a non-problem. Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world, except Afrika (which will likely follow in the next decades.) A nice talk from Hans Rosling on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8

You mean, it is not a problem because the planet can support that many? Or do you mean it is a problem, but it will solve itself? I don't think either is correct. The first is only true today because non-First World inhabitants are living on a much smaller ecological footprint than Europe and the US. However, that footprint is increasing rapidly. The second reading at least acknowledges there is a problem, but I thin…

The earth doesn't have a "carrying capacity" or a "maximum population". The earth has resources that are used more or less sustainably at different times and in different places. If we all still lived like hunter gatherers we would have run out of resources and become extinct thousands of years ago. Luckily we've had social, economic, and technological development.

As soon as anyone frames sustainability challenges in terms of the earths "carrying capacity" they are revealing a bias that is unhelpful. Even if you accept the premise that the earth does have some 'maximum population' then so what? It's a useless proposition -- what are you going to do, force everyone to only have one child, that is unsustainable as China discovered.

Luckily, as the parent pointed out, overpopulation is not a problem. The rate of growth continues to decrease, and global populations will peak in my lifetime.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#76

Post by rubidium » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:06 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #56

From the article "All couples will now be allowed to have two children". So it seems China isn't so much ending its one-child policy, as augmenting it by one to a two-child policy. This means the brutal and cruel enforcement will continue, only it will kick in at the third child instead of at the second.

The most disgusting thing about the policy is that the citizens let the state have that much power.

It's a terrible thing to let economic concerns so dominant the public arena and politics that people let the gov't decide how many kids they have.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#77

Post by EStudley » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:07 PM UTC

vincentkriek wrote: post #74

sethbannon wrote: post #56

From the article "All couples will now be allowed to have two children". So it seems China isn't so much ending its one-child policy, as augmenting it by one to a two-child policy. This means the brutal and cruel enforcement will continue, only it will kick in at the third child instead of at the second.

Brutal and cruel? I agree it's a severe limit on the personal freedom but China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does. Brutal and cruel is not the right terms for this in my opinion, you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less. You can plan to have just two children (up to some point). Also, I think it could benefit the earth if more countries would limit children.

No one's denying that. "Brutal and cruel" was referring to forced abortions of pregnant women with more than one child.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#78

Post by tgb » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:08 PM UTC

anunderachiever wrote: post #55

trymas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why (I am serious, as IMHO today's global population is too big)?

If you place all 7.3 billion people onto an area of the size of Austria, every one has more than 11m² to their own. Of course this illustration is a simplification but it brings the world population back to perspective.

This is obviously not at all the concern that people have regarding overpopulation.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#79

Post by anonyfox » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:08 PM UTC

anunderachiever wrote: post #55

trymas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why (I am serious, as IMHO today's global population is too big)?

If you place all 7.3 billion people onto an area of the size of Austria, every one has more than 11m² to their own. Of course this illustration is a simplification but it brings the world population back to perspective.

And you need space to plant stuff to feed everyone. Can 11m² be enough to feed an average person through the whole year?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#80

Post by trymas » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 1:09 PM UTC

anunderachiever wrote: post #55

trymas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why (I am serious, as IMHO today's global population is too big)?

If you place all 7.3 billion people onto an area of the size of Austria, every one has more than 11m² to their own. Of course this illustration is a simplification but it brings the world population back to perspective.

But problem is resource consumption, no?

It's a complete speculation, because I can't cite this, but isn't Earth not capable of sustaining 7+ billion people? Exponential population growth brings even greater exponential rise of greenhouse effect, oil consumption, deforestation, etc. IMHO it is the main problem of overpopulation.