China to begin two-child policy • Hacker News Board

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#311

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

WildUtah wrote: post #300

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are too many people on the planet to start with Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.

Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources. What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is e…

> We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax.

A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's population.

More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#312

Post by zhemao » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #293

Before commenting on this, there are two things you need to read. "China - total fertility rate (graph)"[1] "List of famines in China."[2] "China - Population 1950 - 2015" [3] In 1970, the fertility rate (babies born per woman) was 6. That's huge but not untypical for an undeveloped country, where a lot of people die young. Once some basic modern medicine was deployed, the number of people surviving went way up, and…

The absurdly high birth rates of the 1960s were due in no small part to government policy. The communist leadership under Mao Zedong encouraged people to have lots of children, believing that a large population would power economic growth. While I agree that controlling population growth is necessary, it could have been done without the draconian and invasive measures imposed by the one-child policy. With proper government incentives for having smaller families, widely available birth control, and decreased infant mortality rates, people would have chosen to have only one or two children.

Compare the mainland's One-Child Policy with the similar "Two is Enough" and "Stop at Two" campaigns in Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively. Those campaigns were successful in reducing the birth rate (too successful, in Singapore's case) without the abuses and demographic issues that plagued China's implementation of the one-child policy.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#313

Post by adamnyberg » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:43 PM UTC

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #253

erispoe wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there too many people in China? What is the standard to determine the right population?

There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature" and in their own living spaces) is atrocious, but there are too many people to reasonably switch to a sustainable model. Additionally, if you account for the fact that a gigantic portion of their land is basically uninhabitable (the Gobi Desert), they have an unreal…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#314

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #310

jquery wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral hazards of uncontrolled population growth are far more severe. The only question is whether we control population via a statutory law (as China did), or through extreme costs-of-living (as "liberal" Western countries do). I'd argue a statutory law is far more humane . Not only more humane, but more fair. Why should the people who provide the least resources to their children be the ones to create the most h…

Given that coercive abortion and gender selection are realities and the problems of overpopulation are more theoretical, I wonder what your definition of humane is. And again, who decides which is more humane? If you and your cohort wants to stop reproducing as a good example, nobody is stopping you.

> who decides which is more humane?

Your elected government? Isn't that what you elected it for? Or just hold a referendum or something.

The "who decides" question is a problem here. It doesn't matter who, it only matters that the decision has to be made and then carried out. The coordination has to arise or be enforced, but happen the coordination must. What you're implying by asking this question has many names. In politics, it's "total anarchy". In biology, it's "cancer". In infrastructure projects, it's called NIMBYsm. Imagine trying to run a large company with the rule "we're all equal, who gets to decide?" - how long would it survive?

Like it or not, Earth will have to have a "top management" layer. Run it top-down, run it co-op style, whatever - but after some size, you can no longer ignore the looming coordination problems and their deadly consequences.

Yes, as with everything, there are failure modes. Coercive abortion and gender selection happen mostly because of misalignment between "one child rule" and the economics, so the people selfishly prefer to spawn an offspring that will give better economic payoff. But incentive structures we can manage. We could manage it better if we stopped just asking "who gets to decide?" and instead picked someone to decide.

Also, the only problem with "coercive abortion" is the "coercive" part; if you believe that abortion is ok, then gender selection via abortion is also ok. If you don't believe gender selection via abortion is ok, then you also must disagree with general abortion as a practice.

EDIT:

Also2, we have a "who gets to decide?" problem when it comes to inconvenience ourselves and spawn less children, but we do not have that problem when it comes to decide who to bomb the living shit out of, killing their children, along with parents, grandparents, livestock and future. Strange, isn't it?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#315

Post by jquery » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #310

jquery wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral hazards of uncontrolled population growth are far more severe. The only question is whether we control population via a statutory law (as China did), or through extreme costs-of-living (as "liberal" Western countries do). I'd argue a statutory law is far more humane . Not only more humane, but more fair. Why should the people who provide the least resources to their children be the ones to create the most h…

Given that coercive abortion and gender selection are realities and the problems of overpopulation are more theoretical, I wonder what your definition of humane is. And again, who decides which is more humane? If you and your cohort wants to stop reproducing as a good example, nobody is stopping you.

What's theoretical about the high and unsustainable cost of living in high-population areas?

>And again, who decides which is more humane? If you and your cohort wants to stop reproducing as a good example, nobody is stopping you.

This argument is such a canard. If someone is blaring loud music throughout a neighborhood, the solution is to force them to stop, not to tell everyone else who finds it annoying to just be quiet.

EDIT: I can't reply to the below comment, except to question whether it is equating fines for extra children with being a murderous dictator. That is quite a hyperbolic comparison. The road to hell is already being paved by those who advocate a cancer-like approach to human population growth.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#316

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #286

Dylan16807 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is direct genetic manipulation. Eugenics is, in many people's mind, limiting people's reproduction to breed them like they were pets. One is unfocused and hard to target genetic manipulation via reproduction incentives and force, the other is a choice for very targeted and obvious things.

It's all a blurry mess. Choosing who has children vs. financial incentives for who has children vs. paying for "high quality" sperm donors.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#317

Post by zhemao » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

neolefty wrote: post #116

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 feasi…

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

Rural families have largely been exempted from the one-child policy for a while now. This new development won't change anything for people living in the countryside.

> I think China's demographic future looks a lot like South Korea's or Japan's

Yeah, China already has an issue with a rapidly aging population. It's called the 4-2-1 problem (4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child). But this happens in most developed countries. For instance, the average age in the US would be much higher if it weren't for immigration. The native birth rate isn't very high.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#318

Post by dang » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:54 PM UTC

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10470922 and marked it off-topic.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#319

Post by dang » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:54 PM UTC

it_learnses wrote: post #177

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…

wtf are you babbling about? this is hacker news, not reddit. stop posting made up stuff.

This comment breaks the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#320

Post by TTPrograms » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #292

nickbauman wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably 1/2 of the molecules in our bodies come from the artificial nitrogen extraction process developed during WWI. Without that, Earth's human population would have been limited to half of what it is now back in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process

The earth could probably support 100+ billion people at reasonable comfort levels with slightly better technology as long as we give up the idea of life outside of zoo's. That said, past experience has demonstrated the Human population can easily grow at 5% per year. At that rate it's doubling every 15 years. Trying to double the universes food supply every 15 years is just not possible indefinitely. PS: 2^n is crazy…

Uh, the current growth rate is around 1% per year, and it's decreasing as countries enter the first world. That's a doubling every 70 years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

We've got a lot of efficiency left in terms of agriculture as well, so there isn't much reason to think reaching the carrying capacity of the planet is a particularly pressing issue. The amount of food that we already grow that we don't eat roughly 1/3 already, and the vast majority of land doesn't contribute to agriculture.