4 ms·

Your proposed (not illegal, not unethical) explanation does not work out mathematically. Even in the extreme scenario where all families stopped would stop hav

Your proposed (not illegal, not unethical) explanation does not work out mathematically. Even in the extreme scenario where all families stopped would stop having kids after the birth of a daughter, the expected number of male children would equal the expected number of female children. And even if say 52 percent of babies born are boys, you won't ever get a male excess of the discussed magnitude (1100 men for every 1000 women) this way. You can try a Scala simulation here: https://pastebin.com/4US9a6aE https://pastebin.com/4US9a6aE.

kamaal 6y ago
Mine was just an anecdotal evidence. Also that 52% boy babies count itself is too low. The real scenario for my comparison is 3 boys for every 1 girl born. It's also way more complicated than your simulation. Say the first kid was a boy and the second kid was a girl, people don't stop. They think their risk(Having a boy to provide in old age) is hedged and are likely to try for one more kid. If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon. Also note, just a small imbalance is not enough to cover for marriages. In India getting married is a long series of AND conditions you have to pass through. Religion, Caste, Language, Skin Color, Dowry affordability, Age, Social Standing etc etc. You are likely to end up a section of society that just doesn't get any girls. India is a society where a daughter means a huge wedding expense, plus dowry. All this a drain to your retirement savings, plus now not having a provider in old age(which you would have one if you had a boy instead of a girl). That's how screwed up the society is. It's really one of the worst places on earth for a woman to be born in. You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades.
- saithound 6y ago
  > You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades. I agree. I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations. > If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon. No, this is precisely the kind of "family planning" that mathematically won't be able to affect the expected gender ratio at all. The ratios are skewed in India, but that's definitely caused by something else. Is it the conception of male children being more likely? No, probably not, we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male. So it's caused by something else. Selective abortions would be my best guess, but that's not "not illegal, not unethical".
  - kamaal 6y ago
    >>I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations. They are not killing or aborting anything. They are opting to not have kids. Another section can opt to not even have a single kid, or not even marry. None of this illegal, or unethical. It's not exactly a crime for opting to not have kids, or refusing to marry. >>Is it the conception of male children being more likely? Yes. Because it's being carefully done so. On the very larger view of things, birth of a boy vs girl appears random(Or by your admission slightly skewed towards boys) if left to nature alone(that is precisely equal percentages). But on individual couple level, very clearly some couples only have boys, and some only have girls. Some have 1 boy and 1 girl. Some have 2 boys and a girl, and some 2 girls and a boy. This is for 1 - 3 kids per couple(The avg Indian family). The ones that are only likely to have girls, or more than one girl, are now opting to not have anymore after the very first one. The couples who now have 2 - 3 boys will struggle to find brides. Your argument about randomness doesn't hold at the individual level. And the balance that needs to arise at a larger level doesn't work if the rules of impartiality are not adhered equally by each participating couple. >>we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male. That is if you leave nature to take its own course, of course.
manquer 6y ago
you don’t understand babies are killed (rares Nowadays) and selective abortions (million a year ) if it is not boy. while the national average is 1100 , there are already states where it is 1250 or more , they already import brides from other states because finding a match is harder . sex detection although illegal still happens , and abortions follow The numbers are real for both countries and are well verified over last few decades the problem is also well reported . Sadly it found to be actually correlated with higher income and material income , states with higher per capita income have more sex selective abortions
- saithound 6y ago
  > you don’t understand babies are killed (rares Nowadays) and selective abortions (million a year ) if it is not boy. I do understand. I know that the skew exists. I'm saying precisely that the propoposed "not illegal, not unethical" explanations do not explain the skew; in fact, it's mathematically impossible for the style of family planning strategies (e.g. stop having children if the first one is a girl) to cause this kind of skew.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Illegal certainly, but hard to enforce as knowing the sex is not difficult at all(although illegal), ultrasounds are cheap devices do not even need a lot of expertise to handle . How will you even control abortions ? It is not like the U.S. where abortions are a political issue and ppl make it intentionally difficult , everyone is in favour of terminating unwanted pregnancies, it is just that is unwanted because of the sex many times and that’s hard to enforce as a law.
- kamaal 6y ago
  >>Sadly it found to be actually correlated with higher income and material income , states with higher per capita income have more sex selective abortions The more your income is perceived to be, the more dowry you have to pay. Plus you feel the need for a male heir to inherit all that money. That explains it.

kamaal 6y ago

Mine was just an anecdotal evidence. Also that 52% boy babies count itself is too low. The real scenario for my comparison is 3 boys for every 1 girl born. It's also way more complicated than your simulation. Say the first kid was a boy and the second kid was a girl, people don't stop. They think their risk(Having a boy to provide in old age) is hedged and are likely to try for one more kid. If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon. Also note, just a small imbalance is not enough to cover for marriages. In India getting married is a long series of AND conditions you have to pass through. Religion, Caste, Language, Skin Color, Dowry affordability, Age, Social Standing etc etc. You are likely to end up a section of society that just doesn't get any girls. India is a society where a daughter means a huge wedding expense, plus dowry. All this a drain to your retirement savings, plus now not having a provider in old age(which you would have one if you had a boy instead of a girl). That's how screwed up the society is. It's really one of the worst places on earth for a woman to be born in. You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades.

saithound 6y ago
> You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades. I agree. I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations. > If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon. No, this is precisely the kind of "family planning" that mathematically won't be able to affect the expected gender ratio at all. The ratios are skewed in India, but that's definitely caused by something else. Is it the conception of male children being more likely? No, probably not, we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male. So it's caused by something else. Selective abortions would be my best guess, but that's not "not illegal, not unethical".
- kamaal 6y ago
  >>I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations. They are not killing or aborting anything. They are opting to not have kids. Another section can opt to not even have a single kid, or not even marry. None of this illegal, or unethical. It's not exactly a crime for opting to not have kids, or refusing to marry. >>Is it the conception of male children being more likely? Yes. Because it's being carefully done so. On the very larger view of things, birth of a boy vs girl appears random(Or by your admission slightly skewed towards boys) if left to nature alone(that is precisely equal percentages). But on individual couple level, very clearly some couples only have boys, and some only have girls. Some have 1 boy and 1 girl. Some have 2 boys and a girl, and some 2 girls and a boy. This is for 1 - 3 kids per couple(The avg Indian family). The ones that are only likely to have girls, or more than one girl, are now opting to not have anymore after the very first one. The couples who now have 2 - 3 boys will struggle to find brides. Your argument about randomness doesn't hold at the individual level. And the balance that needs to arise at a larger level doesn't work if the rules of impartiality are not adhered equally by each participating couple. >>we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male. That is if you leave nature to take its own course, of course.

manquer 6y ago

you don’t understand babies are killed (rares Nowadays) and selective abortions (million a year ) if it is not boy. while the national average is 1100 , there are already states where it is 1250 or more , they already import brides from other states because finding a match is harder . sex detection although illegal still happens , and abortions follow The numbers are real for both countries and are well verified over last few decades the problem is also well reported . Sadly it found to be actually correlated with higher income and material income , states with higher per capita income have more sex selective abortions

saithound 6y ago
> you don’t understand babies are killed (rares Nowadays) and selective abortions (million a year ) if it is not boy. I do understand. I know that the skew exists. I'm saying precisely that the propoposed "not illegal, not unethical" explanations do not explain the skew; in fact, it's mathematically impossible for the style of family planning strategies (e.g. stop having children if the first one is a girl) to cause this kind of skew.
- manquer 6y ago
  Illegal certainly, but hard to enforce as knowing the sex is not difficult at all(although illegal), ultrasounds are cheap devices do not even need a lot of expertise to handle . How will you even control abortions ? It is not like the U.S. where abortions are a political issue and ppl make it intentionally difficult , everyone is in favour of terminating unwanted pregnancies, it is just that is unwanted because of the sex many times and that’s hard to enforce as a law.
kamaal 6y ago
>>Sadly it found to be actually correlated with higher income and material income , states with higher per capita income have more sex selective abortions The more your income is perceived to be, the more dowry you have to pay. Plus you feel the need for a male heir to inherit all that money. That explains it.