4 ms·

Maybe when they implemented the one child policy they thought they would be immortal by now? “For every two of us there should be one of us” doesn’t seem that

Maybe when they implemented the one child policy they thought they would be immortal by now? “For every two of us there should be one of us” doesn’t seem that wise in hindsight.

birdyrooster 3y ago
It's because corruption is baked into the system and so they set the number at 1 assuming people will break the law
lostlogin 3y ago
I think you misunderstand that flavour of communism. It’s ’for every two of them, there should be one of them’. The rulers weren’t putting limits on themselves.
ozim 3y ago
What would you expect from people who thought killing all sparrows will save the grain?
- expazl 3y ago
  By "people" you mean humans? You're a human, at least I suppose you are, my apologies if you're a ChatGPT bot. But assuming you are human, why did you people think killing all sparrows would save the grain? Seems arbitrary to equate all Chinese and not just equate all humans. There is no evidence to suggest stupidity is geographically constrained by concepts of nationality.
  - ozim 3y ago
    No I equate bad intention, bad incentives, bad decisions with communist party whatever country that communist party rules over. Take a moment to read the comment I posted under as a response or I'd say follow up to understand the context.
hakfoo 3y ago
Maybe it's not immortality, but just getting off the pyramid scheme of untenable growth. For a developing nation with a questionable future, one-child-per-family seemed a viable way to solve the problem of finite resources, particularly as a transient "we do this for N years then revert" model. I notice in the end most of the hand-wringing comes from the economic argument. It's not "Dad needs two children around to care for him in his dotage", it's "who will fill the factories" and "line won't go up without perpetually growing population." I suspect the loop can be closed with modernization and rising standards of living. If we have 50% fewer people than in 1980, but they're twice as productive, and per-person consumption doubles, aggregate demand remains flat. That can be an interesting play because it keeps demand flat on necessities -- you only need so much rice, so many apartments, so much transport capacity -- but allows for growth in the much more elastic, and less "if we stretch them til they break, our society crumbles", luxury sectors.

Maybe when they implemented the one child policy they thought they would be immortal by now? “For every two of us there should be one of us” doesn’t seem that wise in hindsight.

birdyrooster 3y ago

It's because corruption is baked into the system and so they set the number at 1 assuming people will break the law

lostlogin 3y ago

I think you misunderstand that flavour of communism. It’s ’for every two of them, there should be one of them’. The rulers weren’t putting limits on themselves.

ozim 3y ago

What would you expect from people who thought killing all sparrows will save the grain?

expazl 3y ago
By "people" you mean humans? You're a human, at least I suppose you are, my apologies if you're a ChatGPT bot. But assuming you are human, why did you people think killing all sparrows would save the grain? Seems arbitrary to equate all Chinese and not just equate all humans. There is no evidence to suggest stupidity is geographically constrained by concepts of nationality.
- ozim 3y ago
  No I equate bad intention, bad incentives, bad decisions with communist party whatever country that communist party rules over. Take a moment to read the comment I posted under as a response or I'd say follow up to understand the context.

hakfoo 3y ago

Maybe it's not immortality, but just getting off the pyramid scheme of untenable growth. For a developing nation with a questionable future, one-child-per-family seemed a viable way to solve the problem of finite resources, particularly as a transient "we do this for N years then revert" model. I notice in the end most of the hand-wringing comes from the economic argument. It's not "Dad needs two children around to care for him in his dotage", it's "who will fill the factories" and "line won't go up without perpetually growing population." I suspect the loop can be closed with modernization and rising standards of living. If we have 50% fewer people than in 1980, but they're twice as productive, and per-person consumption doubles, aggregate demand remains flat. That can be an interesting play because it keeps demand flat on necessities -- you only need so much rice, so many apartments, so much transport capacity -- but allows for growth in the much more elastic, and less "if we stretch them til they break, our society crumbles", luxury sectors.