China to begin two-child policy • Hacker News Board

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#141

Post by bko » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

dyeje wrote: post #110

bko wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human ingenuity is the world's greatest resource and leads to wealth creation and advancement of living standards. Limiting population growth would be ill-advised.

I suggest you read up on the carrying capacity of Earth.

I would put any research or estimates into perspective. We have well surpassed predicted carrying capacities, but maybe these estimates are different?

Example:

> In a 1994 study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million

The dangers of over-population myth assumes a naive view of a static society. For instance, we can reasonably have X land for food production, from that we can grow Y food and that can feed Z people so anything above Z would be harmful. The problem is that Y is dependent on human innovation and technology. Same can be said for most resources. We never did reach peak oil.

These predictions of inevitable decline have been wrong for a long time. I don't know why you put so much faith into the modern day equivalents.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#142

Post by Keyframe » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

o0-0o wrote: post #126

chriskanan wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

In my personal experiences dating women from China that now live in the US: There is also a loneliness, depression, and generalized malaise to their thoughts due to being an 'only child'.

If we take that observation as general rule (not that it is, but let's pretend) - wouldn't that make for a stronger collective then? In order to mitigate those issues. Lots of interesting speculations can be made. Sociologists and psychologists must have a field day there.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#143

Post by mkaziz » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #128

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.

China managed to succeed in increasing people wealth and loosening laws (still bad for Western standards, but huge step comparing to China 30 years ago). Only because West thinks this is "brutal and cruel" dosent mean our laws would ever worked there. Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really wanted it and most of the dictators were much better alternative (still bad, just better…

Democracy is typically a thing that is grown at home, not a thing that is "given".

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#144

Post by tremon » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #86

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…

What are the "modest levels of first-world consumption" in the estimates you mention? And how recent are these estimates? There are many factors that likely will contribute to a smaller first-world footprint, e.g. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-will-burn-less...

http://agrpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AGR-Though...

This has a survey of capacity estimates on page 10. I took the median of those, which more or less matched the sources I've encountered over the past year.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#145

Post by th0waway » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

dyeje wrote: post #110

bko wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human ingenuity is the world's greatest resource and leads to wealth creation and advancement of living standards. Limiting population growth would be ill-advised.

I suggest you read up on the carrying capacity of Earth.

lol - I suggest you read history: every time we come close to a 'carrying capacity' human ingenuity finds a better way. Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#146

Post by funkyy » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:06 PM UTC

mkaziz wrote: post #143

funkyy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China managed to succeed in increasing people wealth and loosening laws (still bad for Western standards, but huge step comparing to China 30 years ago). Only because West thinks this is "brutal and cruel" dosent mean our laws would ever worked there. Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really wanted it and most of the dictators were much better alternative (still bad, just better…

Democracy is typically a thing that is grown at home, not a thing that is "given".

It should be that way. But some cannot understand that some countries do not want Democracy. Its not that they don't matured - they just don't want it. Even in some European countries we can see the move to shift much more power to presidents (Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#147

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

electricblue wrote: post #122

bilbo0s wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have any proof that rape makes a significant contribution to population growth or just grasping at straws?

Rape was the major contributor to population growth in Eastern Kivu back when Nkunda was running rampant. And, to keep everything honest, it still is. (Particularly in Goma). It's not like rape and massacres went away because the Rwandans decided to replace their warlords. The Rwandans still do what Rwandans do I'm sure.

I'm only saying that you ascribe certain properties to the populations you are dealing with. And there are definitely places in the world where your assumptions fail to hold up. But biology ALWAYS holds up.

By the way... I was being kind. Rape is only ONE whole in your plan. There are many. For instance, your plan also assumes women will never simply get horny. Or that they will only "get off" in certain predetermined ways that your plan deems acceptable. Your plan assumes a lot ... and all of it from your own perspective and belief system. If we work within biological limits... we achieve our goals regardless of the local belief system.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#148

Post by hodwik » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #120

bigfudge wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In this case they're not totalitarian though. China is a Republic, it's just a Republic with a taller pyramid than our own.

You elect district leaders, who elect state leaders and the congress, and they elect the president and prime minister.

Technically, that's roughly the same system we have here with the electoral congress and faithless electors. The difference is that in the US, faithless electors are much less common than in China.

But you can look here and see that there is a history of faithless electors in the US too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_fait...

China's system is actually not so different from ours was 150 years ago, so they're not that far off all-told. Or, actually, in a sense even more recently when the congress decided between Bush and Gore.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#149

Post by bhouston » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #128

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.

China managed to succeed in increasing people wealth and loosening laws (still bad for Western standards, but huge step comparing to China 30 years ago). Only because West thinks this is "brutal and cruel" dosent mean our laws would ever worked there. Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really wanted it and most of the dictators were much better alternative (still bad, just better…

> Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really wanted it and most of the dictators were much better alternative (still bad, just better - to clarify)

That is highly contentious statement.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#150

Post by sooheon » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #31

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

I love Rosling's talks.

This specific talk I feel he panders too much. The British surveys, for example, seem to have been made to take advantage of the anchoring effect to elicit more wrong answers, to the delight of the giggling audience.