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

411–420 of 455 posts

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#411

Post by tremon »

xixi77 wrote: post #241
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…

Historically, all such "carrying capacity" estimates have been shown wrong. What makes you believe the 7.7 one is any better?

I don't. But I've always been a glass-half-empty kinda guy, so I tend to err on the side of caution (or, in this case, catastrophe).

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether the "real" capacity is 1 billion or 20 billion or 100 billion, as I don't believe we (as a species) have any chance of moderation in the face of opulence. As long as there's any surplus capacity left on this planet, we will find a way to use it. As fast and as wasteful as we can, until it all comes crashing down.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#412

Post by tremon »

ubercore wrote: post #268
tremon wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (think I) understood the GP post, I just have very little tolerance for idiotic and easily falsifiable statements. Therefore, I chose to respond to the first sentence only, and ignore the rest of the post. My use of that population number was simply that: a refutation of the assertion that the earth has no population limit, as it will be hard to argue that our planet can support 10^9980 humans per square millimeter…

I interpreted the opposition to using carrying capacity to mean that it's not helpful from the perspective of a technological species. If we had that many humans, the odds seem high that we would have a way to supplement resources available to use from outside Earth. Carrying capacity is really about an _ecosystem_ and the resources it can provide vs competition with other species. We effectively have no competition,…

Ah, but that would have been an interesting discussion. We could have discussed the merits of carrying capacity with respect to a species that builds its own ecosystem, or whether it makes sense to consider the entire planet a single ecosystem. We could have a meaningful discussion about the various population estimates and what they're based on. Or we could have discussed whether it makes sense to consider ourselves in competition with future generations.

But instead of that, the initial reply:

- refused the basic premise that would have allowed that discussion, by indirectly positing that space on earth is infinite

- followed it up with a very questionable assertion that earth's resources are used "more or less sustainably" (which is already at odds with the previous assertion that resources are infinite, and ignores the many species we've already hunted to extinction)

- added a non-sequitur that we would have run out of resources as hunter-gatherers (again at odds with the initial statement)

- justified the plain refusal of the basic premise with an ad-hominem about bias

- continued on with the apathetic rationalization that nothing can be done anyway

- concluded by reiterating the initial statement without further substantiation

Now, you may argue that my refusal to engage in that discussion is my weakness and it would still have been possible to salvage something positive, however my time is finite and there's better, less taxing discussions to be had.

(/me out, accepting that meta-justification is considered offtopic and will be downmodded).

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#413

Post by mikeyouse »

afarrell wrote: post #401
mikeyouse wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do indeed. Thanks for the correction.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#414

Post by curun1r »

emergentcypher wrote: post #212
tormeh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). A mistake was made. It was not understood that people in war-torn countries want peace and stability above all else, and are willing to hand in their liberties for it. It was also not understood that among people who don't trust news or…

Also, there is a lot more at play in the middle east than simply whether the people want democracy or stability. There is plenty of foreign interference going on from USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... it's hard enough to overthrow a dictatorship and set up a free and democratic replacement. It's even harder when several foreign powers are fighting to prevent this from happening.

For more background on what emergentcypher is talking about, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq-Syria_pipeline

As I understand it (probably needs some correction):

This is a cold war being fought over who will supply Europe with natural gas. Russia, the current supplier, makes a ton of money off the current arrangement and it gives Russia influence over Europe. Europe has largely stayed out of the fracas publicly, to avoid antagonizing Russia, but supports the US's efforts to get the pipeline built to have an alternate source for the energy they need. I'm unclear as the role of the US in all this, but we're tightly allied with Western Europe, so I imagine we're representing Europe's interests by proxy. But what is clear is that it's no coincidence that the countries where all this craziness is happening are the countries along the planned route for the pipeline. Seen through this lens, everything starts to make sense, including Russia's endeavors to support Assad, an opponent of the pipeline.

Expecting stability in a region where one superpower wants a pipeline built and another doesn't isn't reasonable, no matter how ready the population is for democracy. Add in that the region has a ton of people who believe in a medieval religion that advocates violence against non-adherents, and what little hope there was vanishes.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#415

Post by Retric »

lotharbot wrote: post #387
superuser2 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The top of the curve can be unpleasant. It doesn't have to be. The worst is when population goes past carrying capacity and then crashes. That's when you get mass die-offs. Population can settle down at carrying capacity simply through reduced birth rates matching up with death rates. That's the situation we see in much of the western world, with better availability of birth control etc.

The top of the curve is unstable. A new plant virus destroys a major crop and suddenly billions starve.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#416

Post by tremon »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #163
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…

> "Even the most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7 billion people." Can you show me these estimates? Do they take into account ways we could live with a smaller footprint (e.g. vegetarian/vegan diet) and/or advances in eco-friendly technology?

Sadly, no. I never bookmark or save articles as I come across them. It's a pity, as I've been searching for one specific article which compared our energy use with the total solar energy absorption of the planet (iirc, we were using more than 50% of total input).

As for your question, I doubt that they would include an all-vegan world scenario, as it's considered unattainable, regardless of whether it would theoretically help. Technological advances are generally included, but with very conservative gain estimates.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#417

Post by TeMPOraL »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #408
TeMPOraL wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

I think they wouldn't. That's why I find most of those objections silly - they're just something people got used to. It's like every time Facebook improves their UX, there's this huge uproar about the fact they dared to change things, but it dies out within a month as people get used to the new look and are still happy.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#418

Post by 6t6t6 »

erispoe wrote: post #248
vinceyuan wrote: post #244

One-child policy began in 1979. In 1980, My mother hid in her relatives' houses and finally delivered her second child - me. I was very lucky because if my mother was caught, I can't sit here to type these sentences. I do understand the one-child policy because there are too many people in China, especially in cities. The population should be under control. (However, as far as I know, one-child policy never really wo…

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

Malthusian catastrophe. Population tends to grow exponentially, but not the resources. Historically, the excess of population have been controlled through wars and famines. The CP wanted to control with laws instead...

The thing is that in developed countries this kind of laws are not necessary because people just don't have children because they are too expensive.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#419

Post by c0achmcguirk »

gnaritas wrote: post #405
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

> If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using,

Absurd. Knowledge is impossible if both are right. You're bad at this.

> but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic.

Says who? Your conventions? What if my "conventions" of logic say the can be compared if they're different systems of logic? You're imposing a "law" of "you can't compare when I say so."

Silly reasoning is silly.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#420

Post by crdoconnor »

vlehto wrote: post #256
crdoconnor wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL some people actually believe the things Mubarak says.

"Royalists" have been a phenomena everywhere. Then again population of a country is able to change it's mind. Just before WWI lot's of European intelligentsia favored communism. Same happened before WWII with fascism. It is still completely possible that spread of democracy is just multinational fashion trend. And something else will come after it. For any given moment, it's even probable that majority of some countr…

>"Royalists" have been a phenomena everywhere.

As has barefaced lying to the populace about their own dislike for democracy.

It seems particularly common in Egypt where the idea that "the people just aren't ready for Democracy yet like they are in the west" is commonplace among the country's elite.

>It is still completely possible that spread of democracy is just multinational fashion trend.

Nobody's ever voted democracy away and it's not fashion that causes it to end, it's violence.

Post reply on HN