TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- China TWO CHILD POLICY?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee no i was talking about how china values males more than females...so much that couples actually kill their own baby girls and try to have another boy because of the regulations on how many kids they can have. and your fucking mom is an idiot. fag.

My aunt is from China, and when I first met her, I actually discussed this topic with her pretty in depth. Totally true, and not only that, but having a second child, while TECHNICALLY permitted if you get the okay, is basically only afforded to people with money.

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee no i was talking about how china values males more than females...so much that couples actually kill their own baby girls and try to have another boy because of the regulations on how many kids they can have. and your fucking mom is an idiot. fag.

I agree, she is pretty dumb.

Anyway sorry, I didn't realize what you were referring to. Yes you're right, I think it's because many believe that a male has a greater chance of making it through in life and support his parents at the same time.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam420 I agree, she is pretty dumb. Anyway sorry, I didn't realize what you were referring to. Yes you're right, I think it's because many believe that a male has a greater chance of making it through in life and support his parents at the same time.

It has to do with supporting the family.

who cares? i used to give a shit about war, disease, famine, and other such tragedies thinking there was some kind of idealistic solution to it all, but now i'm a bit more realistic about it and in the context of the population problem not opposed to any of it. we need to return to an age of survival of the fittest by tearing down all the social safety nets that allow the idiots to breed large families and survive to old age--where in a country like america half of the population doesn't even know that an electron is smaller than an atom and where a full two-thirds don't believe that all life today followed an evolutionary path. the less stupid people around, the better life will be for every other living thing on the planet. that's what people should be concerned with. if china is having trouble finding women to breed, is that really a problem? also this idea that everyone in china kills their daughter for hope of a son is a akin to the idea that everyone in america fucks their cousins.

quote:

Originally posted by [N]�k|��[Z] and who'd have thought it was all down to one man... ..... ?

Wait, pkc is blonde!

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH just because you can't identify them doesn't mean they don't exist or that their existence is even in question. take for example the the rise of the middle class in china, india and other exploding developing countries. hundreds of millions of people are now living with disposable income, developing a taste for american-style mass consumption including luxuries of obsolescence such as fashion, cars, suburban living, red meat diets, etc... all these behaviors increase waste, mining for resources, production of raw materials, manufacturing of disposable goods, habitat destruction, overfishing, not to mention the amount of food energy used to bring every pound of meat product to market.

You said it yourself, the problem is these people in developing countries want everything we have, not that there is overpopulation

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It's still very poor policy. China's future demographic problems will dwarf its overpopulation issue. Imagine a society in which 1/2 of all members are dependents (mostly seniors). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=89572563

I don't agree; continuous population growth is not a sustainable strategy over the long term, and any demographic problems will only be greater in a larger population.

I think calling the problem demographic is a mischaracterization, though. The problem is that the old paradigm of the relatively few elderly being supported by the relatively many young cannot be sustained indefinitely and must be replaced sooner or later. The transition will be far from painless in any case, but it would be more painful in an even larger population, so I would advise getting it over with.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't agree; continuous population growth is not a sustainable strategy over the long term, and any demographic problems will only be greater in a larger population. I think calling the problem demographic is a mischaracterization, though. The problem is that the old paradigm of the relatively few elderly being supported by the relatively many young cannot be sustained indefinitely and must be replaced sooner or later. The transition will be far from painless in any case, but it would be more painful in an even larger population, so I would advise getting it over with.

Well said; I tend to agree.

I think that in a way, that shift is already in progress. It was only fifty years ago that families of five and six children were commonplace in Western countries, whereas now they are relatively rare. In medieval times, families were even larger - firstly due to lack of contraception and high infant death rates (i.e more children born to compensate), but also because parents relied on their children to support them in later life. The more children one had, the greater their financial success in old age.

Contrast that to contemporary times, where people either work until much later in life or invest 'for their future' sometimes actually passing their wealth on to their children, and it becomes apparent that if this trend continues, the conventional model of 'few elderly, many youth' may actually change.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Step in the wrong direction. Most countries should have the one child policy and strictly enforce it. The planet is already overpopulated and this will just get worse.

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo You said it yourself, the problem is these people in developing countries want everything we have, not that there is overpopulation

quite the opposite. i said overpopulation is the heart of the problem. a number of ecologists have calculated that using current food crop technology, an earth in balance with stability for all species would have somewhere between 2-2.5 billion people. i added that the american-style mass consumption we're seeing from a growing number of newly middle-class people around the developing world is compounding the effects of the population problem, ie: resource depletion, habitat destruction, mass wasting, pollution, environmental degradation, etc.

most people don't realize the scale of waste the industrialized world produces. every week we put our garbage on the street for pickup and never think twice about where it goes or how much of it we account for individually every year. here's an idea...

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

http://matadorchange.com/intolerabl...ss-consumption/

and yet every day, more and more people begin living like us, and every day more and more people are being born into this way of life. within our lifetime we'll see the tipping point of it all.

quote:

Originally posted by ********

the Great Wall of text

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo You said it yourself, the problem is these people in developing countries want everything we have, not that there is overpopulation

So you think it's okay for Westerners to continue living the way we do, and that people currently living in third-world countries shouldn't be allowed to due to flagging resources?

No, of course you don't, which means that you must assume the world's population will continue to aspire the current Western lifestyle, which is unsustainable for 6 billion people.

Irrespective of whether you think it's a pure overpopulation problem or just one concerning rising wealth in developing nations, the outcome of both scenarios is the same: an unsustainable society and (probably) an eventual collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Only a fraction of those have resources - do you know what some of these countries per capita incomes are... they make less than I do, doing nothing and they are starving - meanwhile I don't even need to pay for food I can get it from the woods (for now...). Point being I have a seemingly higher quality of life here doing nothing than they do in their home countries working for their survival - not always the case, but resource distrobution varies, living circumstances vary. When you talk about sustaining population it automatically makes me think of the Ojibwe Windigo - fact is people can turn into windigos if they starve but there will always be food to sustain a portion of the population in high population issues - the point is that if the babies don't die and they grow up, some food sources are available - and ther are lots of food resources that are untapped, it is just there are national barries and individual interests that are preventing this. Sadly humans are mean. I'd gladly host a chinese person or two provided they intended to get the food from the thousands of kms of crownland north of my home. Countries like Russia are in this same boat, the land is there waiting to be taped and we can support larger populations but it isn't in our interests to do so because of rules of lordship - that being one must provide for the safety and wellbeing of their subjects. None the less there are other ways we can sustain the current population, but I think the population forcasts are not right - it CANNOT go up that high - it just isn't a posibility to sustain an increasing population based on current population placement - there is room for it to grow but not that much, because the food doesn't exist and won't exist. Until all the untapped land is used - eg Russia Brazil and Canada for instance actually opening up their land for agroforestry in an efficient way. Eg. bringing in 10 million chinese to plant and harvest. Or even getting the domestic population to do it. I contacted my local Natural Resources Ministry about this type of project that is conducting agroforestry activities planting and cropping etc. but it is the ecosystem right - sure i can gather food for myself but there are hundreds of kilometers of land - seeding by aircraft or otherwise is possible but these arn't the types of projects that the government needs because there is an abundance of food here. Likewise countries in africa arn't seeding by aircraft because they may think it will be ineffective - but the sad fact is there arn't effective enough strategies in place because of resource use. These issues are able to be solved, but there are more complex rationalities for maintaining these situations.

you would take all the remaining open space natural habitat on the planet and convert it into farm land just to try and support the continued growth of the human population to its absolute peak potential? in other words condemning to extinction all the tigers, wolves, elephants, giraffes, zebras, bears, apes, frogs, lizards and most other non-agribusiness animals just to replace them and their habitats with more buildings, more farms, more people, more cattle, pigs and chickens? sounds like a bleak, homogenized world and a failure in biodiversity.

the goal here shouldn't be so myopic as sustaining a human population. the goal should be sustaining the richness of life on the planet. being good shepherds and preserving the beauty that we inherited which took hundreds of millions of years to create. if not for altruistic reasons, then for selfish ones. we weren't born here to multiply uncontrollably. that's what tumors do. we weren't put here to destroy our surroundings. that's what viruses do. our aim shouldn't be to suck the planet dry of all its resources. that's what a parasite does.

i don't see the function of humanity as being tumorous, viral or parasitic, though that's what we've been conditioned as a civilization to become. but only because that's what drives power into the hands of the powers that be. like i said, realistically i don't think our world of nation states has the collective will to change our ways in time. too much self-interest is at play. it will take a massive die-off sparked by disease or war or famine to save the planet from our ways.

Rich: Just ignore ********. The guy is a nutjob.

Damn Chinese at it again!

If Mother Earth cannot control her children, she shouldn't have been a mother. Fuckin whore.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH no that seems to be your argument. my argument would be to reference the malthusian growth model which projects the world population will hit 9 billion by 2040 and continue on its exponential trajectory until it stabilizes around 11.5 billion and the world becomes a wasteland. the fact that the next 2.5 billion people will take only 30 years where the first 2.5 billion took over 50,000 is just one staggering fact within this reality. however i thought bill nye explaining this to you in lay terms with charts and diagrams would sink in better.

Malthus has been proven wrong at every turn thus far though. Overpopulation is definitely a problem, but not in the way that Malthus would warn.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/...p?story_id=4862

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH who cares? i used to give a shit about war, disease, famine, and other such tragedies thinking there was some kind of idealistic solution to it all, but now i'm a bit more realistic about it and in the context of the population problem not opposed to any of it. we need to return to an age of survival of the fittest by tearing down all the social safety nets that allow the idiots to breed large families and survive to old age--where in a country like america half of the population doesn't even know that an electron is smaller than an atom and where a full two-thirds don't believe that all life today followed an evolutionary path. the less stupid people around, the better life will be for every other living thing on the planet. that's what people should be concerned with. if china is having trouble finding women to breed, is that really a problem? also this idea that everyone in china kills their daughter for hope of a son is a akin to the idea that everyone in america fucks their cousins.

I think we should start with proper grammar. Failure to conform to grammatical norms will result in death. R1ch is up first.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't agree; continuous population growth is not a sustainable strategy over the long term, and any demographic problems will only be greater in a larger population.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. I'm merely stating that the one-child policy, as conceived, was remarkably bad policy, the outcomes of which will continue to adversely affect China well into the future. Is it better than unconstrained growth? Perhaps in the very long term. But it will inevitably constrict the Chinese economy in the next 1-2 decades, strangling their rapid growth rates. China hasn't figured out a way to balance urban swelling with good policy - the aging population is going to complicate this in a variety of ways as older citizens flock to the cities for care. The social burden will be high, and even if China had the resources to deal with it, it would be paralyzing.

We'll see the result of the policy in another 20 years, but demographically-speaking, China is in a whole heap of trouble.

That aside, I agree that we need to have some very smart people thinking about good policy options for maintaining a balance between growth and sustainability - thus far we've seen experiments with both extremes, and neither looks very good in the long term.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail How is it overpopulated? That's such bullshit.

Someone hasn't read the United Nation GEO-4 report.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.