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

401–410 of 455 posts

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#401

Post by afarrell »

mikeyouse wrote: post #336
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

If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend the book, "The Alchemy of Air" about the invention of Haber-Bosch.. It was unbelievable what they went through to fix nitrogen, they literally invented new fields of study in materials science and chemistry. The perils of a Jewish inventor creating a new method for making explosives under the Third Reich is a side story in the book but another fascinating historical anecdo…

> under the Third Reich

I think you mean under the Kaiser, not the Third Reich.

Hitler was made Chancellor on January 30th, 1933. Fritz Haber died on January 29, 1934 in Switzerland. Carl Bosch was not Jewish.

Here is a quick intro to Fritz Haber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdEE5uvFhOM

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#402

Post by fineman »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #359
funkyy wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that current democracy is no democracy at all in most countries. It support corruption, the governments are barely changing (same deputies, the name just changes), total detachment of administration from real human problems, hostile approach towards small businesses. The thing is that true patriot and authoritarian government for a decade can fix many problems that democracy cant handle. Once again - n…

> The thing is that true patriot and authoritarian government for a decade can fix many problems that democracy cant handle. Once again - not everywhere though. Exactly this. And isn't it the reason so many people here are into startups? Technology is inherently undemocratic, and so are tech startups that succeed - but we don't call it that because this is "private land", not "politics land". And even ignoring the pr…

Sure, in many places, for some time, a benevolent dictator in tune with the needs and desires of their people might best approximate a democratically chosen ideal. And in other times not.

The point though, is that nobody can choose to not have the freedom to choose. And as such, we all wish to choose the best government for us - whatever form that may appear. But when it stops serving us...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#403

Post by TeMPOraL »

clock_tower wrote: post #389
TeMPOraL wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that all those middle-eastern countries were failed states, ruled by hordes of warlords? For instance, I vaguely remember Iraq being a pretty fine country; for decades, a lot of engineers from my country went there, and we had a pretty good economic cooperation. Then the US came and bombed the living shit out of it. As for Africa, isn't most of the mess the result of Europe coming there, destroying t…

Iraq after the invasion sort of was. No civil society existed, but there were plenty of bands of guerillas and local religious extremists who'd been fighting Saddam; they inherited the state when we destroyed the Baathists. (The CPA tried to create a civil society, but that can't be done artificially.) _The Prince of the Marshes_ is a good book to read on this subject.

Please don't recommend me any more books today. I already bought one because of this discussion[0].

But more seriously, thanks for the recommendation :).

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10474120.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#404

Post by hightechlowlife »

jquery wrote: post #346
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The latter experience can be given to the former's population. How? Keep in mind only a small fraction of the world's population is even capable of being a tourist. Imagine how that changes when everyone is well-off enough to travel at will. Imagine your favorite beach, favorite museum, or your favorite national park and multiply the number of visitors by 10, 20, 40, etc. Waiting-lists for years to visit the Louvre…

Most of us discussing this are already living a Matrix-like reality. 80%+ of life in front of a screen, with that last bit of time at the gym (with screens), cafe/bar (with screens), or maybe an inner-city park (with cellphone screen out). A diet primarily consisting of processed grain, factory meat and barren vegetation. Blaming our inevitable neuroticism on a chemical imbalance or moral failure, not the alienated zoo life we live -- or worse, distracting ourselves so thoroughly we don't notice it. Of course this kind of person is going to think we can fit billions more on the planet.

Our wellbeing probably does rely on technology like VR and automation, but with so many mentally ill, I would say our current situation is already unacceptable (and has been for thousands of years). Adding billions more to the equation isn't going to help.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#405

Post by gnaritas »

c0achmcguirk wrote: post #374
gnaritas wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rationality requires laws of logic--which do not exist in a humanistic, materialistic world. And how do you suppose that? Materialism doesn't deny the existence of logic; you seem to not really know what materialism is. > Tell me, can you stub your toe on the law of non-contradiction? No? How does it exist then? Yea, you don't know what materialism is. I can't stub my toe on hacker news either, nor any website, but…

> To a materialist, mind is simply what the brain does. You're adorable. If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right? Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then. I again assert: rationality is impossible without laws of logic. With conventions of logic, you just have strong opinions.

> You're adorable.

And you're bad at this.

> If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right?

If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic.

> Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then.

It's not my view, it's simply the way it is. Different rules of logic exist [1]; such systems are axiomatic and obey their own rules. There is no one "correct" system of logic, there are many competing systems. The term law is meaningless, logic isn't a law in the sense you seem to think, it is merely a system of formalized thinking according to rules.

> I again assert: rationality is impossible without laws of logic. With conventions of logic, you just have strong opinions.

Logic is merely a branch of philosophy concerned with valid reasoning. Reasoning is not in opposition to materialism. Materialists do not argue that thoughts don't exist and logic is merely a formal method of thinking. You're objecting to materialism when it's quite clear you don't understand what it is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#406

Post by AnimalMuppet »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #381
bigfudge wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being down voted, but I don't know why. The tone of the debate is surprising to me too.

Maybe because "it's eugenics , and eugenics is bad, just look at the history!" appeal to 'historic tone-deafness' is not a valid argument. Yes, Nazi Germany did some shitty stuff for ideological reasons and tarnished the "eugenics" label, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of influencing human reproduction and/or selecting for preferred traits and/or direct DNA interventions.

That's like saying "Lenin and Stalin did some bad stuff, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of Marxism" (which Marxist True Believers still assert). After seeing too many examples of it working out badly and none at all of it working well, we regard the idea as invalid.

In practice, eugenics seems to move from "some genetic makeups are more fit for the current environment than others, and we should strive for those in future generations" to "some genetic makeups are better than others, and we should strive for those", to "some people are better than others, and we should strive for those", to "some people are better than others, and we should force there to not be so many of the others". There doesn't seem to be any clear point at which you can say, "No, you've gone too far", and explain to the true believer why the step they took is too far. They'll just tell you that it's logically implied by the steps that you are in agreement with.

And if you disagree with this, show me historical examples of eugenics movements that stopped at reasonable places. (I probably need to qualify that with "eugenics movements that had some influence", because if you don't have enough influence to get people to accept step 1, you don't move on to step 2. And that may be begging the question on my part, because Nazi Germany may be the only historical example where the ideas got taken seriously and actually influenced much of anything.)

Unrelated comment: Another danger of eugenics is exposed by my wording of the starting point: "some genetic makeups are more fit for the current environment than others..." That's clearly true. But the current environment is not necessarily the one that future generations will face; leaving them some genetic diversity (even if it creates some disadvantages) may be a net win. Remember sickle cell anemia.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#407

Post by ef4 »

superuser2 wrote: post #363
lotharbot wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

population doesn't keep doubling over and over again. It follows a logistic curve ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function ). Human population probably reached the midpoint of the curve around 1980 ( http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... ) and is expected to become fairly level between 9 and 13 billion ( http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/ select Population -> Total Population -> WOR…

Yes, it follows a logistic curve because it hits carrying capacity. The top of that curve is not a pleasant place.

Several advanced economies like Japan have already hit the top of the curve. No starvation needed.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#408

Post by ZenoArrow »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #396
ZenoArrow wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting most people have the same level of attachment to SUVs as they have to their fellow human beings?

I'm suggesting people have a smiliar level of attachment to being allowed to buy a SUV as they have to being allowed to have a child in the future. Which is pretty visible in the West; every time the government tries to limit access to something, you get a stream of arguments that look exactly the same as those against one child policy that are posted here.

Would people miss what they never had though? What if public transport was so good that people just didn't need to buy cars anymore? As in, so good that there wasn't any practical reason to own a car. Would a generation of people raised with a strong public transportation system still find enough of a reason to use a car (aside from as a form of recreation)?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#409

Post by UK-AL »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #394
UK-AL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows what its capable of sustaining. There's stuff like using resources more efficiently, recycling etc. We aren't good at these things yet, consumption could go a lot higher with improvements to those.

> We aren't good at these things yet, consumption could go a lot higher with improvements to those. That's an Malthusianism[0] right here. Why recycling and increased efficiency themselves aren't a solution? Because people will increase their consumption to offset all the gains. C.f.: "Why are even some affluent parts of the world running out of fresh water? Because if they weren’t, they’d keep watering their lawns u…

Increasing consumption isn't necessary a bad thing.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#410

Post by Laforet »

nrser wrote: post #197
haukilup wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context you likely have is that of the more urbanized parts of China - not the rural towns and villages where most of the more extreme ("brutal and cruel") practices take place.

yeah, i know, i live in a big city. but i'm talking to some people that came from rural areas... no one's even heard of this stuff. that in no way means it doesn't happen - China's a really big place - but it certainly doesn't seem to be the status quo. friends actually said the opposite: people in rural areas would tend to have a lot of kids trying for a boy (something about boys getting to go to school and being ab…

Enforcement have been fairly lax in the last decade or two across the country. For every "unplanned" childbirth you can pay a one-off fine (Social Maintenance is the current euphemism) which is probably more like a poll tax based on your income (with caps in certain regions) and your offspring is readily accepted into society.

The main contention is that people who work in the public sector (which is giant in China) does not have the option because it is still, technically, illegal and will ruin your chances of promotion within the party or any state-owned enterprises. The law change merely levels the playing field for public sector workers so they have one less incentive to leave.

Post reply on HN