8 ms·

Brutal and cruel? I agree it's a severe limit on the personal freedom but China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does. Brutal and cruel is n

Brutal and cruel? I agree it's a severe limit on the personal freedom but China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does. Brutal and cruel is not the right terms for this in my opinion, you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less. You can plan to have just two children (up to some point). Also, I think it could benefit the earth if more countries would limit children.

EStudley 11y ago
No one's denying that. "Brutal and cruel" was referring to forced abortions of pregnant women with more than one child.
- brlewis 11y ago
  Perhaps nobody's denying that China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does, or that you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less. Some, myself included, do deny that it could benefit the earth if more governments would enforce limits on children. I think humans are important to the future of the earth, and treating them in a cruel and brutal fashion will cause more problems than it solves.
  - Retric 11y ago
    US, Japan, and EU have negative population growth if you exclude immigration. What more do you want?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Africa and India to play ball. The wealthy West limiting its procreation doesn't buy much for the Earth when somewhere else, poor families are pumping out children by the dozens.
      - zhemao 11y ago
        Africa and India don't have widely available contraception, high levels of education, and low rates of infant mortality. Solve those problems and people will have fewer kids.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Exactly. I totally agree.
      - srtjstjsj 11y ago
        The westerners are consuming far more resources per family of 4 than the African family of 10
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Yes, but we are a) not growing, b) moving to greener energy sources. Compare with Africa and Asia exiting poverty with positive growth, lots of people, and little clean energy infrastructure. I'm starting to think it's in our best interest to start building nuclear reactors pro bono all over Africa - you don't want them all to rise their standards of living by burning coal.
  - navait 11y ago
    You're in luck. human overpopulation is mostly a solved problem thanks to modern contraception. To curb it all one needs is to build a robust economy and make it avaliable. No need for state policy beyond it, people will do it themselves. http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 http://www.economist.com/node/14743589
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      It solved the problem so well that the human race is actually likely to go extinct over the long run. Just need to get Africa and India on board with the program.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      This can be seen in the animal kingdom as well. Larger creatures, and those higher on the food chain, having greater access to resources and higher survival rates, invest more in fewer children. Smaller creatures, with lesser access to resources and higher mortality rates, invest less in more children. A rabbit doe can theoretically have 480 offspring, at 12 per litter, 10 times per year, over 4 years. That's the kind of thing you might do if 98% of your kids get eaten, because you will still have 10 left. Rabbits can also abort their litters when stressed. An elephant might have one calf every four years, over 55 years, or a maximum of 14 children. That's what you might do if only one other species can reliably kill any of you, and you expect all of your babies to survive to adulthood. With humans, the observed historical behavior is that poor or uneducated humans are relatively fecund, producing 8-30 children per pair, occasionally with multiple births. As wealth and education increase, and particularly when child mortality drops and elder care becomes socialized, birth rate drops down to the population replacement rate (or below). Middle-class first-worlders usually have 0-4 kids.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
sahreeg 11y ago
I completely agree with you. In terms of population alone, we are exceedingly multiplying; something that might not be of out best advantage. More even when you consider that there will be less opportunities for an increasing number of people, and we will lose this personal freedom you spoke of -to an extent- I am also pro child limit laws. I would suggest nothing too strict, just impose a tax on the third child and up. We know from psychology that little restrictions and the mere fact of a 'cost' would reduce the intrinsic desire of people to even take an action, in this case child bearing. Furthermore, I think a tax is a not an extreme measure, considering the fact that you would still be allowed to have children if you want. But do keep in mind that the poorest, less educated are often the ones to have plenty of children, which ends up harming the family, this might be good for them.
- bko 11y ago
  Human ingenuity is the world's greatest resource and leads to wealth creation and advancement of living standards. Limiting population growth would be ill-advised.
  - dyeje 11y ago
    I suggest you read up on the carrying capacity of Earth.
    - bko 11y ago
      I would put any research or estimates into perspective. We have well surpassed predicted carrying capacities, but maybe these estimates are different? Example: > In a 1994 study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million The dangers of over-population myth assumes a naive view of a static society. For instance, we can reasonably have X land for food production, from that we can grow Y food and that can feed Z people so anything above Z would be harmful. The problem is that Y is dependent on human innovation and technology. Same can be said for most resources. We never did reach peak oil. These predictions of inevitable decline have been wrong for a long time. I don't know why you put so much faith into the modern day equivalents.
zero_iq 11y ago
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" policy in China and have been widely reported on by human rights organisations. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Human_rights_violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Human_rights_... The policy has also encouraged infanticide/gendercide, corruption, child abandonment, neglect, and abuse.
- rottyguy 11y ago
  Also abandoning baby girls b/c they want a boy to carry on their name. Really interesting the effects of laws in the Macro.
- nrser 11y ago
  i've lived in China for a few years, and no one's ever seemed to care much about the one child policy. i just asked some people, and they said it depends on where you grew up, but that it hasn't ever really been a big deal for at least their lifetimes (~30 years). you have to understand that laws here usually range from completely unenforced to strong discouragement with possible financial implications. it wouldn't surprise me if there were incidents of the stuff you mention, but doesn't seem like any of it was ever common place.
  - haukilup 11y ago
    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.
    - nrser 11y ago
      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 able to work the farm), though i guess that's getting better with the education and gender equality stuff. did you grow up in one of those areas or something? or know people that did? which areas are you talking about?

EStudley 11y ago

No one's denying that. "Brutal and cruel" was referring to forced abortions of pregnant women with more than one child.

brlewis 11y ago
Perhaps nobody's denying that China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does, or that you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less. Some, myself included, do deny that it could benefit the earth if more governments would enforce limits on children. I think humans are important to the future of the earth, and treating them in a cruel and brutal fashion will cause more problems than it solves.
- Retric 11y ago
  US, Japan, and EU have negative population growth if you exclude immigration. What more do you want?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Africa and India to play ball. The wealthy West limiting its procreation doesn't buy much for the Earth when somewhere else, poor families are pumping out children by the dozens.
    - zhemao 11y ago
      Africa and India don't have widely available contraception, high levels of education, and low rates of infant mortality. Solve those problems and people will have fewer kids.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Exactly. I totally agree.
    - srtjstjsj 11y ago
      The westerners are consuming far more resources per family of 4 than the African family of 10
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Yes, but we are a) not growing, b) moving to greener energy sources. Compare with Africa and Asia exiting poverty with positive growth, lots of people, and little clean energy infrastructure. I'm starting to think it's in our best interest to start building nuclear reactors pro bono all over Africa - you don't want them all to rise their standards of living by burning coal.
- navait 11y ago
  You're in luck. human overpopulation is mostly a solved problem thanks to modern contraception. To curb it all one needs is to build a robust economy and make it avaliable. No need for state policy beyond it, people will do it themselves. http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 http://www.economist.com/node/14743589
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    It solved the problem so well that the human race is actually likely to go extinct over the long run. Just need to get Africa and India on board with the program.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    This can be seen in the animal kingdom as well. Larger creatures, and those higher on the food chain, having greater access to resources and higher survival rates, invest more in fewer children. Smaller creatures, with lesser access to resources and higher mortality rates, invest less in more children. A rabbit doe can theoretically have 480 offspring, at 12 per litter, 10 times per year, over 4 years. That's the kind of thing you might do if 98% of your kids get eaten, because you will still have 10 left. Rabbits can also abort their litters when stressed. An elephant might have one calf every four years, over 55 years, or a maximum of 14 children. That's what you might do if only one other species can reliably kill any of you, and you expect all of your babies to survive to adulthood. With humans, the observed historical behavior is that poor or uneducated humans are relatively fecund, producing 8-30 children per pair, occasionally with multiple births. As wealth and education increase, and particularly when child mortality drops and elder care becomes socialized, birth rate drops down to the population replacement rate (or below). Middle-class first-worlders usually have 0-4 kids.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

sahreeg 11y ago

I completely agree with you. In terms of population alone, we are exceedingly multiplying; something that might not be of out best advantage. More even when you consider that there will be less opportunities for an increasing number of people, and we will lose this personal freedom you spoke of -to an extent- I am also pro child limit laws. I would suggest nothing too strict, just impose a tax on the third child and up. We know from psychology that little restrictions and the mere fact of a 'cost' would reduce the intrinsic desire of people to even take an action, in this case child bearing. Furthermore, I think a tax is a not an extreme measure, considering the fact that you would still be allowed to have children if you want. But do keep in mind that the poorest, less educated are often the ones to have plenty of children, which ends up harming the family, this might be good for them.

bko 11y ago
Human ingenuity is the world's greatest resource and leads to wealth creation and advancement of living standards. Limiting population growth would be ill-advised.
- dyeje 11y ago
  I suggest you read up on the carrying capacity of Earth.
  - bko 11y ago
    I would put any research or estimates into perspective. We have well surpassed predicted carrying capacities, but maybe these estimates are different? Example: > In a 1994 study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million The dangers of over-population myth assumes a naive view of a static society. For instance, we can reasonably have X land for food production, from that we can grow Y food and that can feed Z people so anything above Z would be harmful. The problem is that Y is dependent on human innovation and technology. Same can be said for most resources. We never did reach peak oil. These predictions of inevitable decline have been wrong for a long time. I don't know why you put so much faith into the modern day equivalents.

zero_iq 11y ago

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" policy in China and have been widely reported on by human rights organisations. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Human_rights_violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Human_rights_... The policy has also encouraged infanticide/gendercide, corruption, child abandonment, neglect, and abuse.

rottyguy 11y ago
Also abandoning baby girls b/c they want a boy to carry on their name. Really interesting the effects of laws in the Macro.
nrser 11y ago
i've lived in China for a few years, and no one's ever seemed to care much about the one child policy. i just asked some people, and they said it depends on where you grew up, but that it hasn't ever really been a big deal for at least their lifetimes (~30 years). you have to understand that laws here usually range from completely unenforced to strong discouragement with possible financial implications. it wouldn't surprise me if there were incidents of the stuff you mention, but doesn't seem like any of it was ever common place.
- haukilup 11y ago
  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.
  - nrser 11y ago
    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 able to work the farm), though i guess that's getting better with the education and gender equality stuff. did you grow up in one of those areas or something? or know people that did? which areas are you talking about?