China to begin two-child policy • Hacker News Board

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#261

Post by joeclark77 » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

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

Mass sterilization of financially desperate young men. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#262

Post by fineman » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

> Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really wanted it

Does the presence of terrorists in developed countries prove "we" don't want democracy either?

Because I didn't see the people (of the middle east) choosing, I saw the same thugs and warlords of the past continuing to make the decision for them.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#263

Post by kailuowang » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

kailuowang wrote: post #165

zero_iq wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy itself isn't cruel or brutal, but the enforcement can be terrible. Brutal and cruel acts include: * Killing of child immediately after birth * Killing of child whilst being born, e.g. in birth canal during birth * Termination of pregnancy as late as 8.5 months * Forced abortions (incorporating kidnapping and assault) All of these things have happened routinely as part of enforcement of the "one child" poli…

Just to make it clear, these types of enforcement are not norms. The law never suggested such enforcement. The law is that you get a financial fine if you have more than one child, that's it. It's actually against the law to force any kind of abortion. That being said, in some rural area, some officials maybe so greedy to make achievement for their "career" that they "enforce" this policy by breaking the law. Some of…

Source: (in chinese, please use Google Translation) http://www.21ccom.net/articles/zgyj/fzyj/article_20120629627...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#264

Post by kailuowang » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

kailuowang wrote: post #165

zero_iq wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy itself isn't cruel or brutal, but the enforcement can be terrible. Brutal and cruel acts include: * Killing of child immediately after birth * Killing of child whilst being born, e.g. in birth canal during birth * Termination of pregnancy as late as 8.5 months * Forced abortions (incorporating kidnapping and assault) All of these things have happened routinely as part of enforcement of the "one child" poli…

Just to make it clear, these types of enforcement are not norms. The law never suggested such enforcement. The law is that you get a financial fine if you have more than one child, that's it. It's actually against the law to force any kind of abortion. That being said, in some rural area, some officials maybe so greedy to make achievement for their "career" that they "enforce" this policy by breaking the law. Some of…

Source: (in chinese, please use Google Translation) http://www.21ccom.net/articles/zgyj/fzyj/article_20120629627...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#265

Post by fineman » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

matt-attack wrote: post #190

nsxwolf wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, forced abortions and drownings of infants are sometimes necessary in some cultures. We shouldn't judge.

Couldn't the argument be made that the parents, in effect, did it to their own child? They knew the law and flaunted it. Not saying the law is just, but the parents did it to themselves.

If I was holding your fist, pushing it into your face, can't it be said that you were beating yourself up?

Why won't you stop hitting yourself?

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#266

Post by fineman » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #208

moistgorilla wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Couldn't the argument be made that the parents, in effect, did it to their own child No, it couldn't. The person responsible for killing the child is the person that enforces the law and the person that created the law.

Iteresting. It follows then the person that kills a death row inmate is responsible for their death, not the inmate for committing a crime in the first place.

Right, because if nobody killed the inmate they'd still be alive.

Your "need" to kill them because they crossed some line is your need, and you're the killer. (For better or worse...)

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#267

Post by vinceyuan » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

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?

China is a very big country. But only a small portion of the land is suitable for living. Almost 94 percent of Chinese people live in the Southeast part of the country which covers 43 percent of its land area; while the other six percent people live in the northwestern areas which cover 57 percent of the territory. [1] And people like to live in cities. Can you imagine there are 23.9 million people [2] in Shanghai City?

[1] http://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/country.htm

[2] http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/shanghai-popul...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#268

Post by ubercore » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #239

hguant wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the post is saying that defining the carrying capacity of a technological species is an exercise in futility. Malthus was writing about this many years ago - humans have a habit of raising the bar. In answer to your googolplex question - I think it's safer to bet on the technology developing to support such a population than against it. (Though I think we'll either be extinct or an interstellar species before…

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, and we can create our own ecosystems, so it's kind of a strawman to apply the wildlife biology concept to our understanding of how human populations will evolve in the future.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#269

Post by fineman » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #146

mkaziz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is typically a thing that is grown at home, not a thing that is "given".

It should be that way. But some cannot understand that some countries do not want Democracy. Its not that they don't matured - they just don't want it. Even in some European countries we can see the move to shift much more power to presidents (Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).

If someone truly doesn't want democracy then they are participating in it. Only some theoretical person without desires could be said to not want a system that lets them express them.

Now, it's debatable if a "representative democracy" would seem to offer that, but I wonder that myself from time to time...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#270

Post by fsloth » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

code4life wrote: post #224

fsloth wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"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."

I can give several counterexamples to that claim.

Racial segregation "ended" in the United States in 1964. I would claim the country was - at least from a legislative standpoint - more free after than before it. So starting from 1900 I would claim there is a trend towards more freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The recent years have seen the acceptance of more people as they are. Gay marriages are now legal which I think is a fantastic achievement in the history of human rights - no matter how long it took to get there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...

So, at least from the point of view of several minorities, United States seems to be more free now than ever. I don't know what the totality of the situation is, though (not an american).