by majc2 on 10/29/15, 10:47 AM with 432 comments
by vinceyuan on 10/29/15, 4:39 PM
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.
by sethbannon on 10/29/15, 12:32 PM
So it seems China isn't so much ending its one-child policy, as augmenting it by one to a two-child policy. This means the brutal and cruel enforcement will continue, only it will kick in at the third child instead of at the second.
by Animats on 10/29/15, 6:55 PM
"China - total fertility rate (graph)"[1]
"List of famines in China."[2]
"China - Population 1950 - 2015" [3]
In 1970, the fertility rate (babies born per woman) was 6. That's huge but not untypical for an undeveloped country, where a lot of people die young. Once some basic modern medicine was deployed, the number of people surviving went way up, and the population doubled in 50 years, even with the one-child policy. It would have been much, much worse without it. Something had to be done. China has a history of famines, and the last big one was in 1962, and 20 million to 40 million people starved to death. Keeping that from happening again is a major goal of policy in China.
The one-child policy worked. The population is leveling off. The fertility rate is now around 1.55, which is about typical for a developed country. Once a country develops, the fertility rate drops off without coercion. China has reached that point, and no longer needs a mandatory one-child policy.
India's population grew by a factor of 3.4 during that period, but India has more arable land. China is a big country, but most of it is desert, tundra, or mountains. The US has six times the arable land per capita as China. China has nothing like the Midwestern US.
Actually, the one-child policy was relaxed years ago. Only some provinces require it.
[1] http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TFR_1.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China [3] http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_Pop_WPP2006.htm
by s_dev on 10/29/15, 11:11 AM
by nabla9 on 10/29/15, 11:23 AM
China vs. India: GDP per capita versus fertility rate
http://www.google.se/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ct...
by Keyframe on 10/29/15, 1:04 PM
by paublyrne on 10/29/15, 11:09 AM
Hopefully it can help address the increasing gender imbalance. It has reached 6:5 male to female births, resulting in huge numbers of Chinese men who cannot find marriage partners.
by pmontra on 10/29/15, 3:58 PM
by austenallred on 10/29/15, 11:05 AM
(Yes, it's from a couple of years ago, but it describes China's thinking).
by Mimick on 10/29/15, 12:21 PM
by r-w on 10/29/15, 11:53 AM
by paradite on 10/29/15, 3:37 PM
Talk about good things about China -> Get downvotes and people rebutting you with clearly one-sided sources.
Am I surprised? No.
Am I pissed? No.
I believe time will tell.
by TorKlingberg on 10/29/15, 11:57 AM
1. Multiple children has previously been reserved to those with political connections or money. Now that everyone can have two they will jump at the opportunity.
or
2. Almost every young person in China has grown up in a single child family and sees it as the normal family. Social norms are also based around parents dedicating a lot of resources to one child. So they continue to have only one child. In about a decade China may have to start encouraging people to have more children, like Japan.
by netcan on 10/29/15, 3:16 PM
On one hand, "population crisis" is something a lot of people are concerned about^ and the policy was a direct and practical way of tackling it. On the other, it is unmistakably totalitarian.
Going to 2 is a strange choice. It's just as totalitarian, but probably has a fairly negligible effect on average fertility rate. I guess they don't see
^On a tangent, I don't totally buy population crisis and judging from how rarely I hear it mentioned these days I think I'm not alone. There is obviously some natural limit on human population, but I don't think we're near it.
The fact that we hear less concern about it is says something interesting about the zeitgeist. I think people believe in technological progress more in 2015 than they have since the space age and nuclear age of 50 years ago, maybe more than ever. At our current rate (ignoring the projected gradual reduction) we'll double every 65 years. I can certainly see us absorbing doubling population density in that time considering all the empty oceans, deserts, the potential for landless food productions, megacities and all that jazz. I mean, If the US & Australia went to the population densities of Germany and France (moderately dense with quite a lot of open spaces), we would be good for another 100 years.
Basically, I think we have the space.
by chaitanya on 10/29/15, 6:51 PM
by jobu on 10/29/15, 2:44 PM
It's often too expensive to have multiple children in a large city, and when infant and child mortality is reduced there's less incentive to have lots of kids (so people use birth control).
by tonomics on 10/29/15, 11:33 AM
With growth and technology, fertility rates goes down and emerging markets,specially BRIC nations, will be severely affected by this.
by known on 10/29/15, 1:27 PM
by theworstshill on 10/29/15, 8:01 PM
by hippich on 10/29/15, 7:07 PM
by alltakendamned on 10/29/15, 12:16 PM
by lugus35 on 10/29/15, 1:21 PM
bye bye green Earth, hello surpopulation and pollution...
by novaleaf on 10/29/15, 8:18 PM
by wangii on 10/29/15, 12:32 PM
by code4life on 10/29/15, 2:27 PM
Our creator inspires freedom and love. When we follow him we seek to spread freedom to not only ourselves but to others as well. A population willingly adopting the new testament Biblical principles will spread freedom willingly.
The humanist world view on the other hand has no moral absolutes and must enforce the popular or elected rules onto the majority by force.
America has been slowly transitioning from a Bible believing nation to a humanist world view. The result is predictable, the loss of individual freedom and the increase in the use of force to preserve the lack of these freedoms.
by eccstartup on 10/29/15, 1:14 PM
by nitin_flanker on 10/29/15, 11:24 AM
by b0ner_t0ner on 10/29/15, 11:10 AM
by ck2 on 10/29/15, 11:09 AM
(four times the entire population of the USA for perspective)
I guess the logic is it will help their economy?