QuoteThe war on baby girls
Gendercide
Mar 4th 2010
From The Economist print edition
Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising
IMAGINE you are one half of a young couple expecting your first child in a fast-growing, poor country. You are part of the new middle class; your income is rising; you want a small family. But traditional mores hold sway around you, most important in the preference for sons over daughters. Perhaps hard physical labour is still needed for the family to make its living. Perhaps only sons may inherit land. Perhaps a daughter is deemed to join another family on marriage and you want someone to care for you when you are old. Perhaps she needs a dowry.
Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?
For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys' greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.
For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" (to use Bill Clinton's phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic. China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—"bare branches", as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity (see article).
It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death. In 1990 an Indian economist, Amartya Sen, put the number at 100m; the toll is higher now. The crumb of comfort is that countries can mitigate the hurt, and that one, South Korea, has shown the worst can be avoided. Others need to learn from it if they are to stop the carnage.
The dearth and death of little sisters
Most people know China and northern India have unnaturally large numbers of boys. But few appreciate how bad the problem is, or that it is rising. In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America's population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike.
Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones. And China's one-child policy can only be part of the problem, given that so many other countries are affected.
In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.
How to stop half the sky crashing down
Baby girls are thus victims of a malign combination of ancient prejudice and modern preferences for small families. Only one country has managed to change this pattern. In the 1990s South Korea had a sex ratio almost as skewed as China's. Now, it is heading towards normality. It has achieved this not deliberately, but because the culture changed. Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference seem old-fashioned and unnecessary. The forces of modernity first exacerbated prejudice—then overwhelmed it.
But this happened when South Korea was rich. If China or India—with incomes one-quarter and one-tenth Korea's levels—wait until they are as wealthy, many generations will pass. To speed up change, they need to take actions that are in their own interests anyway. Most obviously China should scrap the one-child policy. The country's leaders will resist this because they fear population growth; they also dismiss Western concerns about human rights. But the one-child limit is no longer needed to reduce fertility (if it ever was: other East Asian countries reduced the pressure on the population as much as China). And it massively distorts the country's sex ratio, with devastating results. President Hu Jintao says that creating "a harmonious society" is his guiding principle; it cannot be achieved while a policy so profoundly perverts family life.
And all countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police. Mao Zedong said "women hold up half the sky." The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.
Stupid cultures? You are racist.
Wait, what?
How on earth are you in anyway middle class, let alone the new developing world middle class, if hard physical labour is the only way to make a living?
But meh, I'd rather they abort than they kill babies. Better for the woman too.
On China: Isn't the one child policy becoming looser these days? I'm sure now in many provinces they let you have a second kid if the first is a girl and other exceptions.
Quote from: Tyr on March 05, 2010, 06:41:27 AM
But meh, I'd rather they abort than they kill babies.
I'd rather they all get bathed in nukular fire.
So the problem is?
Quote from: Tyr on March 05, 2010, 06:41:27 AM
But meh, I'd rather they abort than they kill babies. Better for the woman too.
:huh:
A child's death is a child's death to a lot of women, before or after birth.
With a little luck, they'll gendercide themselves out of existence. <_<
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack, what would it be?
QuoteMost obviously China should scrap the one-child policy.
The entire world should take up this policy
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack, what would it be?
marty's not gay -- he's an onanist with homo fantasies :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 08:46:26 AM
:huh:
A child's death is a child's death to a lot of women, before or after birth.
With a little luck, they'll gendercide themselves out of existence. <_<
Carrying a baby to term and giving birth is quite a hard thing to do from what I gather (understatement of the year). Far far better to be rid of it as early as possible if you don't want it. To give birth then decide 'nah, I dont want it, take it back' is a bit silly.
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
I suspect that Alexandru, being a Romanian, dislike Hungarians as much as he dislikes Marti.
Gendercide is an interesting term that I haven't heard before. But it is sadly fitting for this immense tragedy. :(
Wonder when supply and demand takes over?. When the lack of girls makes them a valuable commodity, so it pays to have baby girls. Both in therms of prestige and money payed by rich people to allow their sons to marry your daughter...
Ofcourse this will just result in young girls being locked up so no one steals them... :glare:
Quote from: Tyr on March 05, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Carrying a baby to term and giving birth is quite a hard thing to do from what I gather (understatement of the year). Far far better to be rid of it as early as possible if you don't want it. To give birth then decide 'nah, I dont want it, take it back' is a bit silly.
When you consider that gender can't usually be determined until 20 weeks gone, it's not an "early" abortion. These are fully-formed babies, though tiny. I can assure you that most mothers are attached to the infant by the time they're at 20 weeks.
Is it better to abort these nearly viable babies than to kill one that's already been born? Easier to push out their bodies, perhaps, but I can't imagine it being any easier to get them out of your heart. Of course, if they had hearts, they wouldn't be killing them simply because they lack a penis.
Quote from: Zanza on March 05, 2010, 09:15:03 AM
I suspect that Alexandru, being a Romanian, dislike Hungarians as much as he dislikes Marti.
Then it was a better insult than intended. :D
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 05, 2010, 09:20:50 AMmoney payed by rich people to allow their sons to marry your daughter...
Rich dudes will never have a problem finding wives. It will be poor underclass that is unable to find mates.
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 08:46:26 AM
A child's death is a child's death to a lot of women, before or after birth.
Crazy women. It's shit like that that will cost women the vote in the end.
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:21:43 AM
When you consider that gender can't usually be determined until 20 weeks gone, it's not an "early" abortion. These are fully-formed babies, though tiny. I can assure you that most mothers are attached to the infant by the time they're at 20 weeks.
Is it better to abort these nearly viable babies than to kill one that's already been born? Easier to push out their bodies, perhaps, but I can't imagine it being any easier to get them out of your heart. Of course, if they had hearts, they wouldn't be killing them simply because they lack a penis.
As early as possible != its a "early" abortion.
But nah, they're not kids at 20 weeks. Sure, some women may still get attached to them but those that aren't should be free to be rid of the parasite if they want. Its legal a few weeks after 20 iirc.
The tragedy here is that they're messing up their demographics by only chosing to have boys. Nothing to do with abortion.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
All right, all ready! :Embarrass:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 05, 2010, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 05, 2010, 09:20:50 AMmoney payed by rich people to allow their sons to marry your daughter...
Rich dudes will never have a problem finding wives. It will be poor underclass that is unable to find mates.
I was thinking more about the growing and newly emerging middle class. When they finds out there is no girls for highly educated sons and they find out that they have to use imported peasant girls...
Quote from: Tyr on March 05, 2010, 09:32:00 AM
As early as possible != its a "early" abortion.
But nah, they're not kids at 20 weeks. Sure, some women may still get attached to them but those that aren't should be free to be rid of the parasite if they want. Its legal a few weeks after 20 iirc.
The tragedy here is that they're messing up their demographics by only chosing to have boys. Nothing to do with abortion.
I'm only addressing your statement that it's easier and better to abort than to carry to term. In many cases, that is not true. They are equally bad for many.
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:34:30 AM
I'm only addressing your statement that it's easier and better to abort than to carry to term. In many cases, that is not true. They are equally bad for many.
I think that you are correct, and that abortion is, in fact, worse for a woman than carrying to term in some cases. Don't expect most people to understand that intuitively, though.
The key to stopping population growth* is very simple: educate the females. This is far easier and cheaper than absurd "one child per family" laws and the like.
*and, for that matter, a whole host of the world's problems
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2010, 09:41:37 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:34:30 AM
I'm only addressing your statement that it's easier and better to abort than to carry to term. In many cases, that is not true. They are equally bad for many.
I think that you are correct, and that abortion is, in fact, worse for a woman than carrying to term in some cases. Don't expect most people to understand that intuitively, though.
The key to stopping population growth* is very simple: educate the females. This is far easier and cheaper than absurd "one child per family" laws and the like.
*and, for that matter, a whole host of the world's problems
I am less than shocked that a teacher would think that education is the answer. I spy more than a bit of self-interest there.
No, the only correct answer is dramatic, forceful population reduction. Half a billion people could live quite comfortably.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2010, 09:52:21 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2010, 09:41:37 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:34:30 AM
I'm only addressing your statement that it's easier and better to abort than to carry to term. In many cases, that is not true. They are equally bad for many.
I think that you are correct, and that abortion is, in fact, worse for a woman than carrying to term in some cases. Don't expect most people to understand that intuitively, though.
The key to stopping population growth* is very simple: educate the females. This is far easier and cheaper than absurd "one child per family" laws and the like.
*and, for that matter, a whole host of the world's problems
I am less than shocked that a teacher would think that education is the answer. I spy more than a bit of self-interest there.
No, the only correct answer is dramatic, forceful population reduction. Half a billion people could live quite comfortably.
I am less than shocked that a nazi thinks that genocide is the answer. I spy more than a bit of self-interest there.
Eh. I used to against abortion, then I realized it lowered my taxes.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
Isn't he ethnically Magyar? Or maybe it was German. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2010, 10:15:38 AM
I am less than shocked that a nazi thinks that genocide is the answer. I spy more than a bit of self-interest there.
Nazi? I'm not even a German. Isn't that a bit of a strawman?
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
:menace: Twas a good day today...
Tamas, don't worry about it. My best friend is a stupid Magyar...
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
Well Romanians are higher up on the food chain of Eastern Europeans. They do speak a Romance language.
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
What's the difference? :D
Their gypsies are more violent than ours, yet our gypsies make better beggars!
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 04:06:56 PM
Their gypsies are more violent than ours, yet our gypsies make better beggars!
Multumesc, dominul!
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 04:06:56 PM
Their gypsies are more violent than ours, yet our gypsies make better beggars!
Funny you mention that, because in Polish slang, the word "Romanian" has become a catch-all phrase to describe any beggar that does not obviously appear to be Polish.
As for the article posted, it's hardly surprising. The Middle Eastern and South Eastern Asian cultures (with a possible exceptions of countries like Japan and South Korea) have consistently proven to be barbaric, savage and idiotic. The only thing shocking and surprising is the continuing insistence of some part of the public in the West that despite all evidence to the contrary "they are reforming".
Trust me, they are more hated here than in other parts of the world. And the worst part is that you're not safe even abroad: if they hear romanian language, they flock like hungry sheep in your direction.
My group plays airsoft in a deserted gipsy town, built for them by the government. Suffice to say they are all in Western Europe...
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
The Middle Eastern and South Eastern Asian cultures (with a possible exceptions of countries like Japan and South Korea) have consistently proven to be barbaric, savage and idiotic. The only thing shocking and surprising is the continuing insistence of some part of the public in the West that despite all evidence to the contrary "they are reforming".
Heh, unlike the Japanese and Europeans, who have always been so reasonable. :D
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:21:43 AM
Of course, if they had hearts, they wouldn't be killing them simply because they lack a penis.
If I had a heart I might love women. Unfortunately, I do not and they lack penises. :(
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2010, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2010, 10:15:38 AM
I am less than shocked that a nazi thinks that genocide is the answer. I spy more than a bit of self-interest there.
Nazi? I'm not even a German. Isn't that a bit of a strawman?
Many past and present Nazis are/were not German, just as many Republicans are/were not from Phoenix.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2010, 03:59:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
Such people should be shot. If you had to choose between a cute girl and a boy that will grow up to be a gay Polack stupid Magyar, what would it be?
:)
Well Romanians are higher up on the food chain of Eastern Europeans. They do speak a Romance language.
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
I agree it is a problem, though there are millions and millions of unreported girls born in the countryside. Why? Because many peasant families will keep having babies until they get a boy, and many of those families will keep the girls. Of course, given the huge cultural and educational gap between the cities and the countryside these days, I don't imagine importing a peasant wife would be the most desirable option.
Incidentally, based on anecdotal observation, I'd say about 20% of Chinese families ignore the one child policy.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 04:06:56 PM
Their gypsies are more violent than ours, yet our gypsies make better beggars!
Organized begging will soon, fortunately, be outlawed in Vienna. Turns out when they disallowed little kids to be used (usually it'd be a gipsy woman with a small, malnourished kid), the gangs moved on to cripples who stick their malformations in your face when begging for scraps. So now they drafted a more general law.
Quote from: Syt on March 06, 2010, 12:04:24 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 05, 2010, 04:06:56 PM
Their gypsies are more violent than ours, yet our gypsies make better beggars!
Organized begging will soon, fortunately, be outlawed in Vienna. Turns out when they disallowed little kids to be used (usually it'd be a gipsy woman with a small, malnourished kid), the gangs moved on to cripples who stick their malformations in your face when begging for scraps. So now they drafted a more general law.
When emperor Franz Josef celebrated his 60th year on the throne of Austro-Hungary, Hitler, who was there at the time of the events, remarked that "thieving and begging gipsies are everywhere in Wien right now". Would you accomplish Hitler's dream and get rid of beggars? :hug:
I don't even know why westerners are so afraid in enforcing strict regulations about beggars. In my mountain town, every beggar that arrives at our doorsteps is immediately placed in a train and sent away.
Quote from: Lucidor on March 05, 2010, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
What's the difference? :D
Look behind your back when typing something like that :P
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 03:39:06 AM
even know why westerners are so afraid in enforcing strict regulations about beggars. In my mountain town, every beggar that arrives at our doorsteps is immediately placed in a train and sent away.
Sounds like a good way to do some traveling on the cheap.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 03:39:06 AM
Would you accomplish Hitler's dream and get rid of beggars? :hug:
[...] In my mountain town, every beggar that arrives at our doorsteps is immediately placed in a train and sent away.
:ph34r: Wait, where are those trains going?
Quote from: Lucidor on March 05, 2010, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
What's the difference? :D
Hungarians are too stupid to be effective beggars.
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.
Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 05:23:29 AM
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.
Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.
Surely 300 euros isn't worth the journey all the way to France?
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 05:23:29 AM
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.
Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.
Surely 300 euros isn't worth the journey all the way to France?
It cost about 800 euros to fill a bus and drive it all the way to France, so with a bit of organization no problem...
And if you plan on doing a couple of "jobs" and not just admire the local food and culture, then it will worth it very fast...
I guess all those EU bashers who think there's no labor mobility will have to shut up now.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2010, 09:59:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 05:23:29 AM
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.
Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.
Surely 300 euros isn't worth the journey all the way to France?
It cost about 800 euros to fill a bus and drive it all the way to France, so with a bit of organization no problem...
And if you plan on doing a couple of "jobs" and not just admire the local food and culture, then it will worth it very fast...
Yeah, people often forget that begging is not an art, but an industry.
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?
Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
Why would you share your resources?
We shall have to share the earth's resources with an ever-increasing circle of people whether we like it or not (and do we, or do we not, want development in the poor world?). More people means more people competing over these resources.
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?
Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
Whom is this post directed at? If anyone criticized the one child policy I missed it.
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?
Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
I think it's quite the opposite, having tens of millions of frustrated young men makes a society more unstable and violent, and thus more likely for them to be used in some sort of hostile endeavor.
It wasn't? Then I must admit to reacting prematurely.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2010, 09:56:22 PM
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?
Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
I think it's quite the opposite, having tens of millions of frustrated young men makes a society more unstable and violent, and thus more likely for them to be used in some sort of hostile endeavor.
Right, that is a problem, but I think it's a comparatively small problem as opposed to China's already very large population to keep on growing until there's quite literally no more room for them anymore. What you mention is a source of social friction, but not something, I think, potentially leading to war (are they going to go to war to conquer women, in this day and age?).
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 10:09:10 PM
Right, that is a problem, but I think it's a comparatively small problem as opposed to China's already very large population to keep on growing until there's quite literally no more room for them anymore. What you mention is a source of social friction, but not something, I think, potentially leading to war (are they going to go to war to conquer women, in this day and age?).
The issue of what makes populations grow explosively (which is to say, medical applications which reduce infant mortality while the customs still act as though infant mortality is high) are pretty well understood, I would think. China's one-child policy is a political act designed to buy time until the countervailing forces (women getting educated, and so able and desirous of having fewer children because they have other interests than just being moms) take effect.
As usual with political solutions, it has had unintended side effects.
I think it is a fascinating problem and solution. Every society that has undergone the industrial revolution has seen this kind of population growth, but few such societies have had a leadership that understands the dynamics and wants to shortcut the solution. The combination of rationality and irrationality in China's leadership makes any study of that country fascinating, and this is just an example. It is hard to say whether, in the end, their efforts will be more successful than would have been simply focusing on the long-term solution.
If only Kissinger had accepted Mao's offer of 10 million women, now there's a shortage and we'll never have that opportunity again. :(
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2010, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 10:09:10 PM
Right, that is a problem, but I think it's a comparatively small problem as opposed to China's already very large population to keep on growing until there's quite literally no more room for them anymore. What you mention is a source of social friction, but not something, I think, potentially leading to war (are they going to go to war to conquer women, in this day and age?).
The issue of what makes populations grow explosively (which is to say, medical applications which reduce infant mortality while the customs still act as though infant mortality is high) are pretty well understood, I would think. China's one-child policy is a political act designed to buy time until the countervailing forces (women getting educated, and so able and desirous of having fewer children because they have other interests than just being moms) take effect.
As usual with political solutions, it has had unintended side effects.
I think it is a fascinating problem and solution. Every society that has undergone the industrial revolution has seen this kind of population growth, but few such societies have had a leadership that understands the dynamics and wants to shortcut the solution. The combination of rationality and irrationality in China's leadership makes any study of that country fascinating, and this is just an example. It is hard to say whether, in the end, their efforts will be more successful than would have been simply focusing on the long-term solution.
Well put. I agree. As for reasons for ballooning population growth, I'd also include the desire, in many countries, to have children who care for you when you're old, especially in places where there are no institutions caring for the old, or where culture has not adapted to these institutions (or find them inadequate or does not trust them for other reasons).
People are still banging the drum of the overpopulation? I remember reading a novel a while back called "stand on the Zanzibar where the world groans under the overpopulation of a staggering 7 Billion people. This naturally creates a terrible dystopia. Looking it up it takes place in the far away date of 2010.
I'm not painting any doomsday-scenarios or anything, I'm just saying that the fewer the people, the better.
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 11:02:51 PM
Well put. I agree. As for reasons for ballooning population growth, I'd also include the desire, in many countries, to have children who care for you when you're old, especially in places where there are no institutions caring for the old, or where culture has not adapted to these institutions (or find them inadequate or does not trust them for other reasons).
Indeed. I should have noted the importance of alternative methods of OAP support as one of the causes of limited post-industrialization population growth.
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 11:54:12 PM
I'm not painting any doomsday-scenarios or anything, I'm just saying that the fewer the people, the better.
Within limits, I agree.
You don't want too much population decline, else the structure for support of the aged collapses. Japan is toying with that now.
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 11:54:12 PM
I'm not painting any doomsday-scenarios or anything, I'm just saying that the fewer the people, the better.
Why?
Grumbler: Yes, the transition to a declining population can be problematic if it's going too fast (and I'm inclined to believe that much of our current financial turmoil is due to traditional economic models not taking this demographic transition into consideration: too many ageing people saving for their retirement and not enough young people to invest their money in = creation of bubbles). But for all the troubles in the transition phase I'd say it's something good in the long run.
Raz: Because there will be less competition over the earth's resources, and easier to provide good living standards to as many people as possible.
Quote from: Pat on March 07, 2010, 01:15:58 AM
Raz: Because there will be less competition over the earth's resources, and easier to provide good living standards to as many people as possible.
Everything becomes very expensive though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2010, 09:56:22 PM
I think it's quite the opposite, having tens of millions of frustrated young men makes a society more unstable and violent, and thus more likely for them to be used in some sort of hostile endeavor.
Just convert 'em all to Catholics. Then the Vatican can recruit 'em all as priests: "Look, you're never gonna get a woman anyway, so sign up with us. You still won't get any women, but you might manage to nail a girl, or a boy if that's your thing, and we'll look the other way". The Catholics solve their shortage of priests, the Chinese solve their excess young men problem, and since Marty hates Catholics, he'll have a cow over the sudden conversion of millions of Chinese, and then he'll post some overwrought, shrill stuff that we can all laugh at him for. It's win-win-win!
:)
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2010, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2010, 10:15:38 AM
I am less than shocked that a nazi thinks that genocide is the answer. I spy more than a bit of self-interest there.
Nazi? I'm not even a German. Isn't that a bit of a strawman?
Hitler wasn't either :p
Quote from: Tyr
But meh, I'd rather they abort than they kill babies. Better for the woman too.
If only. But abortions are really just the tip of the iceberg, I fear. :(
I am quite sorry to say that many chinese orphanages have 'dying rooms', destined to kill young girls, especially by starvation. Some are little more than death camps. They kill many thousands, if not millions, every year.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/c-wnhol.html
http://www.taliacarner.com/thedyingroomsspecialreport.html
http://www.unmadeinchina.org/galleria.asp?lang=en&idPag=206
The BBC also ran a story about this. But the West doesn't care one iota about the whole issue. The victims are not Jewish.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 07, 2010, 08:57:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr
But meh, I'd rather they abort than they kill babies. Better for the woman too.
If only. But abortions are really just the tip of the iceberg, I fear. :(
I am quite sorry to say that many chinese orphanages have 'dying rooms', destined to kill young girls, especially by starvation. Some are little more than death camps. They kill many thousands, if not millions, every year.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/c-wnhol.html
http://www.taliacarner.com/thedyingroomsspecialreport.html
http://www.unmadeinchina.org/galleria.asp?lang=en&idPag=206
The BBC also ran a story about this. But the West doesn't care one iota about the whole issue. The victims are not Jewish.
How odd, you'd expect government orphanages to be killing off boys and keeping the girls to try and fix their problem- they're not their heirs afterall.
They could copy Lexx and have wife farms.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 07, 2010, 08:57:55 AM
The BBC also ran a story about this. But the West doesn't care one iota about the whole issue. The victims are not Jewish.
Why is it the fault of the West that some Chinese can't be bothered to convert to Judaism?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2010, 10:39:02 PM
If only Kissinger had accepted Mao's offer of 10 million women, now there's a shortage and we'll never have that opportunity again. :(
They would properly all be ugly and indoctrinated in the "evil commie" way...
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 07, 2010, 08:57:55 AMBut the West doesn't care one iota about the whole issue.
That means you don't care. ;)
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 11:54:12 PM
I'm just saying that the fewer the people, the better.
Better get started. :P