Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China to begin two-child policy

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 455 posts

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#111

Post by adrianN »

kalleboo wrote: post #101
adrianN wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only certain people are encouraged to have children, you automatically have an underclass, no matter how it's implemented. I think that providing free (or more incentivized) birth control would lead to very few cases of unwanted children. IUDs and vasectomies are simple and effective.

> I think that providing free (or more incentivized) birth control would lead to very few cases of unwanted children. You'd be surprised

I don't have data at hand, so I can't contradict you with evidence, but you could also provide some numbers with your claims. I know of Project Prevention [1], which pays drug addicts for long-term birth control. The Wikipedia article doesn't provide data on effectiveness, but I guess they'd stop handing out money if it didn't work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#112

Post by chriskanan »

Keyframe wrote: post #72

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.

See this Science paper: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/953

Their main finding: "[We find that the one-child policy] has produced significantly less trusting, less trustworthy, more risk-averse, less competitive, more pessimistic, and less conscientious individuals."

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#113

Post by tremon »

flgb wrote: post #75
tremon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

"Ecologists define carrying capacity as the maximal population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future" http://www.dieoff.org/page112.htm

In the interest of (scientific) discourse, it is generally unhelpful to redefine or ignore generic definitions. Are you asserting that the earth doesn't support any species, or that is perfectly possible to have googolplex people living on earth without reducing earth's ability to support googolplex people in the future?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#114

Post by s_dev »

eru wrote: post #67
s_dev wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think perhaps you're conflating world population with the Chinese population. Overpopulation can occur in small areas without the world being too overpopulated as a whole -- most of them in SE Asia. If theres lots of people and limited resources, the math simply won't hold up. It affects issues like the environment and human health.

Singapore is doing fine at high population density.

Singapore is very developed. Overpopulation is more a problem for densely populated developing places - Bangladesh, Victorian London, South American shanty towns et cetera.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#115

Post by bilbo0s »

electricblue wrote: post #104
bilbo0s wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? That's not the way you control birth rates. You control birth rates by controlling FEMALE fertility... not male fertility. There are mathematical reasons behind this, but for the purposes of simplicity I'll give the lay explanation. ie - A female can only have one (or so) child every 9 months. A single human male can produce one every day. So having a population with only one male, but 100 females, allows for a F…

Vasectomy is currently the only permanent sterilization procedure without serious health risks. Barring some strange shift in cultural attitudes where fertile males suddenly become irresistible to every female on earth it should do fine until we find a better way for both genders. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In that case... I hope you have some strange shift in cultural attitudes planned for preventing females from being forcibly used by fertile males. I'm not saying we need a perfect method... I'm saying we need a method that acknowledges the realities that many populations around the world live in. Female victimization is a reality in a lot of places on this planet. (To be completely fair... it's a reality even here in the US. Even on the university campus I'm sitting on.)

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#116

Post by neolefty »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #39

The once-child policy has been gradually weakened for some time. It will be interesting to see the future population trend in China. I can see it going one of two ways: 1. Multiple children has previously been reserved to those with political connections or money. Now that everyone can have two they will jump at the opportunity. or 2. Almost every young person in China has grown up in a single child family and sees i…

I like that question, and I've asked a few people here (I live in Chengdu, China) about it. Anecdotally, it's some of both. City people tend to view raising a child as very expensive, mainly because of education, so many expect they can only afford one. And since that has become the new norm, they're comfortable with that. But many also plan to have two children.

Most I've met who already have a child and could feasibly have a second, don't plan to. I suspect they've already gone through the decision to only have one and don't want to revisit it.

However, I don't know what the rural attitudes are, since I haven't talked with people in the countryside.

I think China's demographic future looks a lot like South Korea's or Japan's, with a shortage of young people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#117

Post by Keyframe »

chriskanan wrote: post #112
Keyframe wrote: post #72

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.

See this Science paper: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/953 Their main finding: "[We find that the one-child policy] has produced significantly less trusting, less trustworthy, more risk-averse, less competitive, more pessimistic, and less conscientious individuals."

Excellent start! Thanks.

edit: This seems to be the paper that's not behind a paywall http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234104566_Little_Emp...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#118

Post by brlewis »

EStudley wrote: post #77
vincentkriek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps nobody's denying that China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does, or that you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less.

Some, myself included, do deny that it could benefit the earth if more governments would enforce limits on children. I think humans are important to the future of the earth, and treating them in a cruel and brutal fashion will cause more problems than it solves.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#119

Post by adaml_623 »

lalalandland wrote: post #98
paublyrne wrote: post #7

This has been expected for a while. Hopefully it can help address the increasing gender imbalance. It has reached 6:5 male to female births, resulting in huge numbers of Chinese men who cannot find marriage partners.

There are 9 million more boys than girls, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China . That is a massive number.

Sorry I'm not sure which bit of the article you are referencing.

The 2011 projection says 19 million more boys than girls (Age 0-14).

And 34 million more males than females if you look at the whole population.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#120

Post by freehunter »

bigfudge wrote: post #93
hvs wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a communist gov't. The people "letting the gov't decide" has little do with it.

No matter the history, using communist as a synonym for totalitarian is lazy.

No matter the history, using terms as they are applied in real life is generally accepted. The definition of communism means one thing, the real world applications of it are something else. How many communist governments have there been that weren't totalitarian?
Post reply on HN