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

221–230 of 455 posts

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#221

Post by tormeh »

bilbo0s wrote: post #147
electricblue wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can have sex with an infertile man. Vasectomy does not make the man lack lust, it just makes the man infertile.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#222

Post by UK-AL »

electricblue wrote: post #58
r-w wrote: post #36

The Giver ’s portrayal of systematic euthanasia of the elderly comes to mind. I really hope we never have to make that kind of decision. After all, what choice could possibly be compatible with our principles of liberty, equality, respect, and fairness? This may be the hardest ethical problem we can’t afford not to solve.

Seems fairly easy to me. Pay 18 year old boys $10k to get a vasectomy. Watch birth rates plummet. Captialism gives us systematic inequality, we should use it to fix more problems

Birth rates drastically plummet simply by becoming wealthier. I don't what causes it? More education? I don't know.

But it's a well documented effect. Seems to me the easiest way to cut reproduction is to simply develop countries.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#223

Post by emergentcypher »

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…

There is a lot more at play in the middle east than "they never really wanted it".

As I wrote elsewhere, it's hard enough in a vacuum to overthrow a dictatorship and start a free and functional democracy. It's even harder when there are a multitude of foreign powers interfering in your country preventing this from happening. Democracy is failing in the middle east because there are a lot of powerful people and nations who don't want it to succeed, want the region to remain unstable, and want the region to remain within their respective spheres of influence.

And finally, how does anybody know "what they really want" unless you ask the entire country in a free and fair manner? This is the big fallacy behind "the people prefer the lesser evil of dictatorship." You can't say that. You don't have a clue what the people prefer. This is the whole point: if the people want a dictatorship, give them a free, fair, democratic vote and let them choose dictatorship.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#224

Post by code4life »

fsloth wrote: post #186
code4life wrote: post #156

"A Christian Manifesto" by Francis A. Schaeffer gives a reason why. Our creator inspires freedom and love. When we follow him we seek to spread freedom to not only ourselves but to others as well. A population willingly adopting the new testament Biblical principles will spread freedom willingly. The humanist world view on the other hand has no moral absolutes and must enforce the popular or elected rules onto the ma…

"A population willingly adopting the new testament Biblical principles will spread freedom willingly." I think you need to specify which principles exactly one wants to adopt in a society. All the european states were devoutly christian for 2000 years and I would not call e.g. 15th century Spain the epitome of human rights and freedom. "America has been slowly transitioning from a Bible believing nation to a humanist…

Our founders did that hard work for us. The Bill of Rights and the constitution explain what freedoms we are granted and as well why we are granted them (inalienable rights from our Creator). Previously throughout history, rights were granted to people from their government, through laws.

These concepts were flipped upside down, and if you study why, you'll see the reason is Biblical principles. All you have to do is read many founding documents to see this.

John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Why would he say this? Think about it.

I'm not experienced enough to describe or explain why America has done bad things throughout history. We all make mistakes, and we are all unique. I'm sure corruption existed throughout our history. My personal feeling is that between 1900 and say now, Americans are more willing to reject the reasoning that gave it freedom to accept the reasoning that will take it away.

This rejection starts not only at the bottom but at the top. Many Ivy League colleges were founded to educate and raise missionaries. Why? Perhaps to spread the message of freedom and liberty. What are they doing now? The exact opposite. Think about that.

Many here will argue it's a good thing. So be it, but it doesn't make it anymore true than the message I'm sharing.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#225

Post by laotzu »

netcan wrote: post #204

China's 1 child policy (now 2 child, I guess) is a difficult to fully form an opinion on. On one hand, "population crisis" is something a lot of people are concerned about^ and the policy was a direct and practical way of tackling it. On the other, it is unmistakably totalitarian. Going to 2 is a strange choice. It's just as totalitarian, but probably has a fairly negligible effect on average fertility rate. I guess…

We've definitely got the space and the resources. The demographic-economic paradox shows that solving the problem of overpopulation is simply a matter of distributing the renewable surplus we have of food water and shelter to the close to 50% of the world which struggles to obtain. This would create a positive feedback loop which would in turn pay for itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox

>There exists a realizable, evolutionary alternative to our being either atom-bombed into extinction or crowding ourselves off the planet. The alternative is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation to accommodation of all humanity at an aerospace level of technology, with the vastly larger, far more enduringly profitable for all, entirely new World Livingry Service Industry. It is statistically evident that the more advanced the living standard, the lower the birth rate.

-Buckminster Fuller, Foreword to Grunch of Giants

https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-giants.pdf

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#226

Post by moistgorilla »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #220
moistgorilla wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a death row inmate is killed the executioner is without doubt responsible for the death. Just like the judge that sentenced him is responsible. Now whether they were justified or not is a different question (which many would argue there is never good enough justification for the death penalty) Anyway, it's not interesting, the only thing the parents are responsible for is having a second child and breaking the l…

If you don't consider any punishment the responsibility of a criminal, then I think you're using a different definition of 'responsible' than most people, and this might actually be a semantic argument rather than anything meaningful.

> responsible : having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.

The criminal is only responsible for breaking the law, the only thing he had control over before he was caught (assuming he was caught for the sake of argument). We as society are responsible for dealing out the punishment.

How could the criminal be responsible for the punishment when he is not the one inflicting it on him/herself.

edit: To make my argument slightly easier to understand I'm going to give an extreme example

Let's say it's illegal to be a certain religion. Is it the insert religion here person's responsibility that he is punished and sent to a death camp?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#227

Post by Dylan16807 »

throwaway_789 wrote: post #73
[deleted] wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

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

I don't know what exactly you replied to, but the entire category of 'eugenics' should not be tainted forever.

Heritably curing the cystic fibrosis gene with an injection? That's eugenics.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#228

Post by laotzu »

nabla9 wrote: post #20

Once-child policy was brutally enforced and cruel. It was also highly effective way to reduce poverty. China vs. India: GDP per capita versus fertility rate http://www.google.se/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ct...

On the contrary, it is the elimination of poverty which lowers the birth rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#229

Post by ZenoArrow »

MC7447a wrote: post #207
ZenoArrow wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world" What do you expect is causing this? Isn't a large part of the reason for this due to changes in society rather than a synchronised biological trend? For example, couples choosing to have children later, if at all. If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates (I'm using the term birth rates a…

> What do you expect is causing this? - enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself > If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates can't increase in the future. Sure, a…

> "- enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer

I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself"

Those aren't the only trends that matter. How about:

* Reduction in working hours/increased leisure time.

* Possibility for development of life extension technology (so long as this comes with an increased window of opportunity for raising kids).

* Changes to family structures (for example, an increase in popularity in tribe-like family structures, which reduces the burden on individual carers).

The point is if birth rate is only slowing down because of how our society currently is, then birth rate predictions are based on that society staying the same, and we have no guarantee of that being the case. Even if you think it's unlikely to change in the near future, humans will hopefully be living on Earth for thousands of years to come. If you were born 1000 years ago, do you believe you could predict how society would turn out in 2015?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#230

Post by logfromblammo »

lostInTheWoods3 wrote: post #180
rtpg wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Same with China - imagine them exploding with an extra 1 Billion people over next 20 years. Who will feed them? What would be social implications of such a move? Well for one thing, you'd have a billion more potential farmers... Population growth is a pretty old problem, and if recent developed nations' demographic reports show, it solves itself once you reach a certain level of development. China's success is not n…

a billion more potential farmers yes, but land and water are finite resources

The quantity of the available resources is not nearly as much of a problem as the allocation. Subsistence farmers are not as productive on the same plot of land as industrialized commodity farmers.

We have more than enough land and water to feed everyone, but the (simplified) problem is that when one person does all the farming for the whole world, nobody else can afford to trade for any of it from them.

Post reply on HN