Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China allows couples to have three children

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 339 posts

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#301

Post by [deleted] »

thinktankie wrote: post #296
beaunative wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with that report is that I can't find anywhere the exact number, it only states decline by 56.5% without showing any specific numbers. I'm mildly suspicious that they originally had a much higher birth rate than Han Chinese since the same policy allowed one kid for Han Chinese allowed two to four kids for minorities

Correct [1]. In addition, ASPI is notorious for being sponsored by the US, UK and Australian weapons industry who have a vested interest in drumming up this kind of thing. I would take anything they have to say with a massive grain of salt [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/drStuartGilmour/status/13938342716939632... [2] https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors

[deleted]

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#303

Post by frankbreetz »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #297

Imagine being the government official who proposed a policy to make sure the country eventually disappeared if carried out indefinitely.

I feel like a ton of government policy would be a disaster if carried out indefinitely. Look at this last year with covid, somethings are intended to be temporary

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#304

Post by throwaway894345 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #293
throwaway894345 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The comment I was responding to took issue with China dictating a number of children—I don’t have a problem with that. The specific enforcement (sterilization, abortions, etc) are grotesque. Conceivably you can enforce population control without resorting to those measures.

How?

Fines seem like the most straightforward approach, though there are certainly tradeoffs with anything.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#305

Post by chitowneats »

thinktankie wrote: post #296
beaunative wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with that report is that I can't find anywhere the exact number, it only states decline by 56.5% without showing any specific numbers. I'm mildly suspicious that they originally had a much higher birth rate than Han Chinese since the same policy allowed one kid for Han Chinese allowed two to four kids for minorities

Correct [1]. In addition, ASPI is notorious for being sponsored by the US, UK and Australian weapons industry who have a vested interest in drumming up this kind of thing. I would take anything they have to say with a massive grain of salt [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/drStuartGilmour/status/13938342716939632... [2] https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors

Incorrect [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1394089300199821313

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#306

Post by beaunative »

chitowneats wrote: post #298
beaunative wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you so much. The full report is much more genuine than the abstract from the press. For example, it writes 'in Kashgar prefecture in 2014, the birth-rate soared to nearly 68 children per thousand people' at the same time the national average was around 12, perhaps because people in those regions are allowed more kids and the policy are rarely enforced compare to other region. so if the birth rate in that region…

I’m glad you had time to digest that report thoroughly in the 11 minutes between my comment and yours. Of course, everyone here should be aware that you are cherry picking. The conclusion of the report is that on average , there was a steep drop in birth rate in minority counties. The report is named: "Family De-planning: The Coercive Campaign to Drive Down Indigenous Birth-rates in Xinjiang". This is not a case of m…

I don't mind to examine the full dataset if they are available. And the report is kind of only 20ish pages, excluding the references and covers.

After rereading as you suggested, it also said 'Urumqi is also a Han-majority city .... In 2018, the city’s birth-rate grew by about 25 percent compared to the pre-2017 baseline, from 8.5 births per thousand people to 12 per thousand.' So at the same time Han in Urumqi were having 8.5 per 1000 birth, Minorities in Kashgar were having 68 per 1000 birthrate. If that's anything, I'd say the CCP is genociding Han Chinese for selectively enforcing the policy.

I think the act to list only percentages without listing exact number is dubious, and I am confident the pattern would be similar.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#307

Post by justnotworthit »

unnamed76ri wrote: post #76

Gotta love HN comment section on a story such as this. People here solving math problems more than questioning the power of a government to tell people how many children they are ALLOWED to have.

Just wait a few hours before reading the comments and (as you see in this comment page) the ideology discussion will go above the computation.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#308

Post by faitswulff »

kbelder wrote: post #300
faitswulff wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The racist part is the simple unchallenged assertion that Chinese people are so inhuman as to kill their infant children en masse.

They indisputably did, though. No fact can be racist. Not because they're inhuman, of course; that sort of behavior has happened all throughout human history. It's just that, with China in the 20th century, the scale was huge.

Source on mass infanticide - not abortion - please.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#309

Post by chitowneats »

beaunative wrote: post #306
chitowneats wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad you had time to digest that report thoroughly in the 11 minutes between my comment and yours. Of course, everyone here should be aware that you are cherry picking. The conclusion of the report is that on average , there was a steep drop in birth rate in minority counties. The report is named: "Family De-planning: The Coercive Campaign to Drive Down Indigenous Birth-rates in Xinjiang". This is not a case of m…

I don't mind to examine the full dataset if they are available. And the report is kind of only 20ish pages, excluding the references and covers. After rereading as you suggested, it also said 'Urumqi is also a Han-majority city .... In 2018, the city’s birth-rate grew by about 25 percent compared to the pre-2017 baseline, from 8.5 births per thousand people to 12 per thousand.' So at the same time Han in Urumqi were…

Now you're comparing apples to oranges, in addition to cherry picking.

You're comparing birth rates of a major city full of unmarried Han who have been lured to the area by government incentives and other work arrangements, to a predominantly rural area. Those birth rates will always be divergent; anywhere in China, and most of the rest of the world. The part about Han being purposely incentivized to move to Xinjiang is explained in section 5 of the report.

The report does not dispute that Uyghur birth rates were higher relative to Han Chinese in the past. It makes a convincing case that Uyghurs are being targeted now, at the same time birth control policies are being loosened in Han Chinese parts of the country. That policy discrepancy is intentional, and we should expect it to continue unless we speak out against it.

Finally, we can agree that the Chinese government is also evil for controlling the births of Han Chinese and ruining life for generations of their own people who had to contend with the CCP's signature and unique natal authoritarianism.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#310

Post by nitrogen »

duped wrote: post #185
nitrogen wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the problem is in the use of force. Apart from that, if there's a group of people that would make better than average parents, and whose kids would be more likely to contribute more to society than they consume, then shouldn't that group be encouraged to have and adopt as many kids as they can afford to support?

Putting aside the ethics of eugenics, the tacit assumption there is that encouraging children is a good thing.

No problem was ever solved by deliberately reducing the potential number of people available to solve it. If humanity faces resource constraints, the way to solve them is to get as many net-positive-resource people as possible working on solutions.

One person could devote one lifetime to solving a problem. Or, they could have 4 kids, everyone devotes half of one life time (the other half to raising kids), and now there are 2.5+ lifetimes of effort spent on the problem.

Post reply on HN