3 ms·

Apparently without the one-child policy the population would have been ... roughly the same? Looks like most the demographic trends were already locked in befor

Apparently without the one-child policy the population would have been ... roughly the same? Looks like most the demographic trends were already locked in before and didn't change much after it ended either. But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. Greater population has both helped drive innovation, economies of scale and innovation. What we need to do is direct our attention and fiscal polices to where this fails. Like pollution, carbon emissions, overfishing, etc ... If we can either tax these failures, or set up sustainable markets, or innovate our way out of them we should. We should be putting tremendous amounts of time and money to these problems (and we are, but clearly not enough). If the price the trust cost of the problems, you'll get behavioral changes throughout the economy. That will include choices like how many children to have, but also industrial policies and practices that probably have more direct impacts on our ability to sustainably thrive on this planet.

baybal2 6y ago
> But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. They were not wrong at all if their goal was to stem all of what you listed. They just knew from the beginning that all of what they said is not true. What they were saying was a lie. The Population Council, eugenics freaks, and other yellow menace panickers were funded by the very same people who were running natalist policies in the West, and were trying to ban abortion, and women rights movements. It's not correct to call them "Malthusians." The best name for them will be Luddites, and massive beneficiaries of economic status quo classes.
- someperson 6y ago
  You're making a big accusation / conspiracy theory: that the proponents of "population bomb" arguments were also domestically anti-abortion and womens rights to increase the number of births in the West and decrease it in Asia (and presumably, Africa) due to reasons of race and racism. Such a comment needs a lot more supporting evidence to be considered anything but an outlandish conspiracy theory.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation#Eugenic... All on record, and US congressmen panicking daily on "yellow menace" was on record as well.

baybal2 6y ago

> But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. They were not wrong at all if their goal was to stem all of what you listed. They just knew from the beginning that all of what they said is not true. What they were saying was a lie. The Population Council, eugenics freaks, and other yellow menace panickers were funded by the very same people who were running natalist policies in the West, and were trying to ban abortion, and women rights movements. It's not correct to call them "Malthusians." The best name for them will be Luddites, and massive beneficiaries of economic status quo classes.

someperson 6y ago
You're making a big accusation / conspiracy theory: that the proponents of "population bomb" arguments were also domestically anti-abortion and womens rights to increase the number of births in the West and decrease it in Asia (and presumably, Africa) due to reasons of race and racism. Such a comment needs a lot more supporting evidence to be considered anything but an outlandish conspiracy theory.
- baybal2 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation#Eugenic... All on record, and US congressmen panicking daily on "yellow menace" was on record as well.