7 ms·

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 moth

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 works in the very poor area. It's common to have 3+ children there.) In recent decades, China becomes much richer and people have better education. Many families (in cities) get used to having only one child and don't want to have the second child because the cost of raising a child becomes very high. Two-child policy should come earlier.

erispoe 11y ago
Why is there too many people in China? What is the standard to determine the right population?
- jdavis703 11y ago
  The kinds of socio-economic figures measured by NGOs like per capita GDP and infant mortality and life expectancy. If you increase GDP you can give your people healthier/better lives.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > If you increase GDP you can give your people healthier/better lives. Sort of. You'll still bump up against physical system constraints, at least until we're swimming in an excess of renewable, clean energy. It would take many Earth's worth of resources to have the quality of life American's have. Clean energy goes a long way to solving that, but again, physical systems have limitations.
- BookmarkSaver 11y ago
  There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature" and in their own living spaces) is atrocious, but there are too many people to reasonably switch to a sustainable model. Additionally, if you account for the fact that a gigantic portion of their land is basically uninhabitable (the Gobi Desert), they have an unreal population density (among non-trivial sovereign nations). If their population keeps expanding unchecked, they'll stop being able to feed everyone.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > there are too many people on the planet to start with Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.
    - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
      At the trajectory we are going, there are too many people. Rather than simply assuming a solution would appear, China took action.
    - WildUtah 11y ago
      Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources. What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is enough.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
        > We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's population. More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.
        jquery 11y ago
        > The latter experience can be given to the former's population. How? Keep in mind only a small fraction of the world's population is even capable of being a tourist. Imagine how that changes when everyone is well-off enough to travel at will. Imagine your favorite beach, favorite museum, or your favorite national park and multiply the number of visitors by 10, 20, 40, etc. Waiting-lists for years to visit the Louvre. Prices so high that only the 1% of the 1% can afford to visit Maui. Maybe you are assuming that VR will solve these issues? Perhaps a Matrix-like future awaits us.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Ecosystems have carrying capacities. There is only so much water and arable land. There are only so many resources in the mines/oil wells waiting to be extracted. Technology (like GMOs) can help you make incrementally more efficient use of those resources, but not as fast as unbounded exponential population growth. At some point, the average standard of living has to come crashing down. The biologically necessary quantity of food and water is not available for everyone. Even with unlimited labor to supply factories, there are no more raw materials to make gadgets and medicine out of. A country in that situation has basically one reasonable course of action: kill the neighbors and take their resources. China is arguably being a good world citizen by trying not to put itself in that position. You may find this statist interference with a natural process distasteful, but consider the alternative: only the fittest get to survive.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    Arguably 1/2 of the molecules in our bodies come from the artificial nitrogen extraction process developed during WWI. Without that, Earth's human population would have been limited to half of what it is now back in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process
    - Retric 11y ago
      The earth could probably support 100+ billion people at reasonable comfort levels with slightly better technology as long as we give up the idea of life outside of zoo's. That said, past experience has demonstrated the Human population can easily grow at 5% per year. At that rate it's doubling every 15 years. Trying to double the universes food supply every 15 years is just not possible indefinitely. PS: 2^n is crazy. It takes less time than you might think before the mass of humanity is growing faster than a sphere expanding at the speed of light could support.
      - TTPrograms 11y ago
        Uh, the current growth rate is around 1% per year, and it's decreasing as countries enter the first world. That's a doubling every 70 years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth We've got a lot of efficiency left in terms of agriculture as well, so there isn't much reason to think reaching the carrying capacity of the planet is a particularly pressing issue. The amount of food that we already grow that we don't eat roughly 1/3 already, and the vast majority of land doesn't contribute to agriculture.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  The problem isn't really population per se, it's population growth. China instituted the one-child policy so they could slow down their population growth to more manageable levels. We could have 10 billion people on this planet and we'd be fine, so long as we were resource-efficient.
  - 5h 11y ago
    Lots of people alive now will likely live on a 10 billion person earth http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+population+1900+to+2050 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+population+1900+t...
- vinceyuan 11y ago
  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 http://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/country.htm [2] http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/shanghai-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/shanghai-popul...
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  Here is an incrementing population tally; note how fast its growing: http://m.worldometers.info/world-population/ http://m.worldometers.info/world-population/ Its not current population so much as the growth rate. China is 2/11 of the World. That's between 1/5 and 1/6, so small changes they make have dramatic effects decades down the road. Our current population is almost certainly not sustainable doing things the way we are now, but we are changing that. Population growth is only sustainable with dramatic changes in the way we live, yet we are adding people by the billion.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  > What is the standard to determine the right population only someone who's never been to china would ask about the 'standard' for determining overpopulation. it's abundantly clear as soon as you step off the airplane and take a look around. it's just too damn crowded. what is the standard for determining that water is wet?
  - jquery 11y ago
    When I visited China with my wife, she had told me beforehand her parents lived in a "rural" area. What I imagined was acres of farmland and long dirt roads. The reality of "rural" China was closer to the density of Bay Area. It was incredible how dense everything was, even in the less dense areas.
- 6t6t6 11y ago
  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.
dreaminvm 11y ago
Pretty much the same story here except I was the third child. I feel fortunate that my parents wanted to welcome another troublemaker into their life. The scary part was learning later on that the policy pushed many Chinese families to discard their female offspring since boys could earn better.

erispoe 11y ago

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

jdavis703 11y ago
The kinds of socio-economic figures measured by NGOs like per capita GDP and infant mortality and life expectancy. If you increase GDP you can give your people healthier/better lives.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > If you increase GDP you can give your people healthier/better lives. Sort of. You'll still bump up against physical system constraints, at least until we're swimming in an excess of renewable, clean energy. It would take many Earth's worth of resources to have the quality of life American's have. Clean energy goes a long way to solving that, but again, physical systems have limitations.
BookmarkSaver 11y ago
There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature" and in their own living spaces) is atrocious, but there are too many people to reasonably switch to a sustainable model. Additionally, if you account for the fact that a gigantic portion of their land is basically uninhabitable (the Gobi Desert), they have an unreal population density (among non-trivial sovereign nations). If their population keeps expanding unchecked, they'll stop being able to feed everyone.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > there are too many people on the planet to start with Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.
  - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
    At the trajectory we are going, there are too many people. Rather than simply assuming a solution would appear, China took action.
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources. What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is enough.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      > We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's population. More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.
      - jquery 11y ago
        > The latter experience can be given to the former's population. How? Keep in mind only a small fraction of the world's population is even capable of being a tourist. Imagine how that changes when everyone is well-off enough to travel at will. Imagine your favorite beach, favorite museum, or your favorite national park and multiply the number of visitors by 10, 20, 40, etc. Waiting-lists for years to visit the Louvre. Prices so high that only the 1% of the 1% can afford to visit Maui. Maybe you are assuming that VR will solve these issues? Perhaps a Matrix-like future awaits us.
superuser2 11y ago
Ecosystems have carrying capacities. There is only so much water and arable land. There are only so many resources in the mines/oil wells waiting to be extracted. Technology (like GMOs) can help you make incrementally more efficient use of those resources, but not as fast as unbounded exponential population growth. At some point, the average standard of living has to come crashing down. The biologically necessary quantity of food and water is not available for everyone. Even with unlimited labor to supply factories, there are no more raw materials to make gadgets and medicine out of. A country in that situation has basically one reasonable course of action: kill the neighbors and take their resources. China is arguably being a good world citizen by trying not to put itself in that position. You may find this statist interference with a natural process distasteful, but consider the alternative: only the fittest get to survive.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  Arguably 1/2 of the molecules in our bodies come from the artificial nitrogen extraction process developed during WWI. Without that, Earth's human population would have been limited to half of what it is now back in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process
  - Retric 11y ago
    The earth could probably support 100+ billion people at reasonable comfort levels with slightly better technology as long as we give up the idea of life outside of zoo's. That said, past experience has demonstrated the Human population can easily grow at 5% per year. At that rate it's doubling every 15 years. Trying to double the universes food supply every 15 years is just not possible indefinitely. PS: 2^n is crazy. It takes less time than you might think before the mass of humanity is growing faster than a sphere expanding at the speed of light could support.
    - TTPrograms 11y ago
      Uh, the current growth rate is around 1% per year, and it's decreasing as countries enter the first world. That's a doubling every 70 years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth We've got a lot of efficiency left in terms of agriculture as well, so there isn't much reason to think reaching the carrying capacity of the planet is a particularly pressing issue. The amount of food that we already grow that we don't eat roughly 1/3 already, and the vast majority of land doesn't contribute to agriculture.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
The problem isn't really population per se, it's population growth. China instituted the one-child policy so they could slow down their population growth to more manageable levels. We could have 10 billion people on this planet and we'd be fine, so long as we were resource-efficient.
- 5h 11y ago
  Lots of people alive now will likely live on a 10 billion person earth http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+population+1900+to+2050 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+population+1900+t...
vinceyuan 11y ago
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 http://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/country.htm [2] http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/shanghai-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/shanghai-popul...
CapitalistCartr 11y ago
Here is an incrementing population tally; note how fast its growing: http://m.worldometers.info/world-population/ http://m.worldometers.info/world-population/ Its not current population so much as the growth rate. China is 2/11 of the World. That's between 1/5 and 1/6, so small changes they make have dramatic effects decades down the road. Our current population is almost certainly not sustainable doing things the way we are now, but we are changing that. Population growth is only sustainable with dramatic changes in the way we live, yet we are adding people by the billion.
beachstartup 11y ago
> What is the standard to determine the right population only someone who's never been to china would ask about the 'standard' for determining overpopulation. it's abundantly clear as soon as you step off the airplane and take a look around. it's just too damn crowded. what is the standard for determining that water is wet?
- jquery 11y ago
  When I visited China with my wife, she had told me beforehand her parents lived in a "rural" area. What I imagined was acres of farmland and long dirt roads. The reality of "rural" China was closer to the density of Bay Area. It was incredible how dense everything was, even in the less dense areas.
6t6t6 11y ago
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.

dreaminvm 11y ago

Pretty much the same story here except I was the third child. I feel fortunate that my parents wanted to welcome another troublemaker into their life. The scary part was learning later on that the policy pushed many Chinese families to discard their female offspring since boys could earn better.