Quantcast
China officially ends three-decade-old one child policy

Forums - Politics Discussion - China officially ends three-decade-old one child policy

NobleTeam360 said:
Why don't the just let people have as many as they want instead of forcing them to have "x" amount of kids.

They're in somewhat of a lose-lose situation right now. They want to limit the number of kids being born to control the speed their already massive population grows (closing in on 1.4 billion right now), but doing so results in a plethora of other issues. The gender imbalance isn't helping.



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 said:
Why don't the just let people have as many as they want instead of forcing them to have "x" amount of kids.

Well, for a real sustained development, we should use the same one child policy in the whole world. We are too many on Earth, that's well known, and a lot of people will die one day because of this (wars, hunger, sickness.... Pick your poison!).



Uhhh the world has finite resources and with the quality of living going up every day that means more resources being used/wasted. Literally there are only so many fish in the sea and animals on land how to we presume to feed 7+ billion people in the next 30 years? The world is in a population crises and people either don't know about it, don't care, or don't think there is a problem at all. I just don't understand human's, were on the brink of killing off the planet entirely. When all he animals start dying off (already are) it's an unbreakable chain effect. You couple that with pollution, economic troubles, atomic bombs, and social hate and fighting because of culture, color, or interest differences the world is madness and everyone has went out and bought giant rug's to sweep it all under. I feel bad for the future generation's because it's gonna be scary. It's so sad...



I predict divorce rates sky rocket due to nagging women wanting more children.



Luke888 said:
On one side I''m happy for chinese couples that they're now free to have at least 2 children, on the other I'm kinda concerned for the demographic jump we'll see in the next few years, especially because of the current climate situation of Earth and the fact that China is one of the countries that pollutes more :/
SuperWatch111 said:
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing....

I mean the one child policy is the reason why China's Population hasn't surpassed 2 billion yet. ( Even without it when you combined the populations of China and India they both account for over 36 percent of the world's population)

The World barely has enough resources For the 7 billion plus that already lives on it. :/
finalfantasystud said:
Uhhh the world has finite resources and with the quality of living going up every day that means more resources being used/wasted. Literally there are only so many fish in the sea and animals on land how to we presume to feed 7+ billion people in the next 30 years? The world is in a population crises and people either don't know about it, don't care, or don't think there is a problem at all. I just don't understand human's, were on the brink of killing off the planet entirely. When all he animals start dying off (already are) it's an unbreakable chain effect. You couple that with pollution, economic troubles, atomic bombs, and social hate and fighting because of culture, color, or interest differences the world is madness and everyone has went out and bought giant rug's to sweep it all under. I feel bad for the future generation's because it's gonna be scary. It's so sad...
Faelco said:

Well, for a real sustained development, we should use the same one child policy in the whole world. We are too many on Earth, that's well known, and a lot of people will die one day because of this (wars, hunger, sickness.... Pick your poison!).

I was going to ignore these posts at first, it usually just isn't worth it. But seeing that so many people seem to have this belief, I'd like to point out the fallacy.

Human population is NOWHERE near the earth's capacity. Seriously, people have been worrying about this for over a century now. And yet, we live in more abundance now than ever.

The people who have little in this world is not the result of over-population. It's a result of under-development. There are plethora of reasons why those regions are under-developed, but global overpopulation is not one of them.

Humans could, right now, double, triple, quintuple, what ever is needed, food production within just a few years, if the profit motive was there. People starving in this world is not because of others overeating, or wasting food, or just too many rich people. Did you know that European and American Governments pay farmers to NOT produce food?

Disease is another common misconception. I think this is a population-density thing. If people are all crowded together, then it must be easy for diseases to spread? I live in Hong Kong. Did you know that in some districts of Hong Kong, there are almost 35,000 people per square mile? By comparison, New York City has a mere 1,300 per square mile. Hong Kong does not suffer from any plague like events. You could increase the population of NYC by a factor of 25, and viral disease would not be much of an issue (for population reasons alone, of course, vaccine programs and the such play a role in this).

Remember, the worst plague in human history was the Black Death, from the 1300s. The total human population at that time was estimated to be between 300 and 400 million. Human population has increased by a factor of 20. By many estimates, more people live in the USA now than lived on the entire planet at that time.

War is another one. As if war is some product of over-population, it isn't. That's such a cartoonish view of things, it almost doesn't even warrant mention. I will point out that at the time of WW2, the largest war in human history, human population was 2.3 billion.

This post is getting a bit long, so I won't carry on. But I can keep going on, in relation to water, oil, etc. I won't, but I will summarise: people have been complaining about over-population for more than a century. Those people have been wrong for more than a century. At this point, it's like betting against the Harlem Globetrotters.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
 
 
 
 

I was going to ignore these posts at first, it usually just isn't worth it. But seeing that so many people seem to have this belief, I'd like to point out the fallacy.

Human population is NOWHERE near the earth's capacity. Seriously, people have been worrying about this for over a century now. And yet, we live in more abundance now than ever.

The people who have little in this world is not the result of over-population. It's a result of under-development. There are plethora of reasons why those regions are under-developed, but global overpopulation is not one of them.

Humans could, right now, double, triple, quintuple, what ever is needed, food production within just a few years, if the profit motive was there. People starving in this world is not because of others overeating, or wasting food, or just too many rich people. Did you know that European and American Governments pay farmers to NOT produce food?

Disease is another common misconception. I think this is a population-density thing. If people are all crowded together, then it must be easy for diseases to spread? I live in Hong Kong. Did you know that in some districts of Hong Kong, there are almost 35,000 people per square mile? By comparison, New York City has a mere 1,300 per square mile. Hong Kong does not suffer from any plague like events. You could increase the population of NYC by a factor of 25, and viral disease would not be much of an issue (for population reasons alone, of course, vaccine programs and the such play a role in this).

Remember, the worst plague in human history was the Black Death, from the 1300s. The total human population at that time was estimated to be between 300 and 400 million. Human population has increased by a factor of 20. By many estimates, more people live in the USA now than lived on the entire planet at that time.

War is another one. As if war is some product of over-population, it isn't. That's such a cartoonish view of things, it almost doesn't even warrant mention. I will point out that at the time of WW2, the largest war in human history, human population was 2.3 billion.

This post is getting a bit long, so I won't carry on. But I can keep going on, in relation to water, oil, etc. I won't, but I will summarise: people have been complaining about over-population for more than a century. Those people have been wrong for more than a century. At this point, it's like betting against the Harlem Globetrotters.

I will chime in here also. There was a report done over a decade ago about the problem is Resource mismanagement and not having too much population. The went on to give the following illustration which I love. If ever person for the last 6 thousand years were still alive, roughly 10 billion people, and we give each person 5 achres of land each, which is about 5 city blocks for better visualization, for a house and food production use The entire population whould easily fit in an area  of North America, leaving the rest of the world untouched. (I adjusted the math because I found the illustration and people are forgetting the point it is an illustration.)

So it kind of drive home the point that we suck at managing our resources to almost a surperlative degree, and how destructive we are a species. I would also like to also point out that the reason we are so bad is we  usally put "profits" first and humanitity's well being second. Because the profits are not there we allow perfectly good food stuffs to go bad and get tossed when it goes bad, we dump out perfectly good food to drive up the prices when we do go over. We allow food stuff to rot in containers earmarked for other contries because of profits, tariffs and other political non-sense. And because of climate changes caused by our misamanagment the furtile regions are changing in already under-developed regions.



SamuelRSmith said:

Too little, too late. They need a full removal of the policy in its entirety. 2 kids is still way below the replacement level, let alone rebalancing demographics. This will just slow down the slip into economic stagnation, not reverse it.

I read that as a result of this policy, there are 60 million more young men than women. And for cultural reasons, wealthy men in China can still get away with having 2 or more women on the go at once. Not to mention swinging-dick Westerners like myself coming in and using my passport to lure their best women (my girlfriend is mainland Chinese).

What's going to happen to society when you end up with tens of millions of men who never had a woman to "placate" them? Not to mention, who's going to look after or fund these lifelong single men into retirement?

Wars solve this problem.

I know some eureopean countries after world war 2 still havent recovered men to female ratio. Those lucky few gutless men who didn't go to war got all the spare tang.





 

 

asqarkabab said:
2 billion chinese confirmed they conguer the world

they already conquered the world lol. They own land and mining resources everywhere.





 

 

Cobretti2 said:
asqarkabab said:
2 billion chinese confirmed they conguer the world

they already conquered the world lol. They own land and mining resources everywhere.



 


Yeah  they are really a freaking nation 



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

SamuelRSmith said:

I was going to ignore these posts at first, it usually just isn't worth it. But seeing that so many people seem to have this belief, I'd like to point out the fallacy.

Human population is NOWHERE near the earth's capacity. Seriously, people have been worrying about this for over a century now. And yet, we live in more abundance now than ever.

The people who have little in this world is not the result of over-population. It's a result of under-development. There are plethora of reasons why those regions are under-developed, but global overpopulation is not one of them.

Humans could, right now, double, triple, quintuple, what ever is needed, food production within just a few years, if the profit motive was there. People starving in this world is not because of others overeating, or wasting food, or just too many rich people. Did you know that European and American Governments pay farmers to NOT produce food?

Disease is another common misconception. I think this is a population-density thing. If people are all crowded together, then it must be easy for diseases to spread? I live in Hong Kong. Did you know that in some districts of Hong Kong, there are almost 35,000 people per square mile? By comparison, New York City has a mere 1,300 per square mile. Hong Kong does not suffer from any plague like events. You could increase the population of NYC by a factor of 25, and viral disease would not be much of an issue (for population reasons alone, of course, vaccine programs and the such play a role in this).

Remember, the worst plague in human history was the Black Death, from the 1300s. The total human population at that time was estimated to be between 300 and 400 million. Human population has increased by a factor of 20. By many estimates, more people live in the USA now than lived on the entire planet at that time.

War is another one. As if war is some product of over-population, it isn't. That's such a cartoonish view of things, it almost doesn't even warrant mention. I will point out that at the time of WW2, the largest war in human history, human population was 2.3 billion.

This post is getting a bit long, so I won't carry on. But I can keep going on, in relation to water, oil, etc. I won't, but I will summarise: people have been complaining about over-population for more than a century. Those people have been wrong for more than a century. At this point, it's like betting against the Harlem Globetrotters.

For the overpopulation :

http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States.

So yes, we can maybe feed 50 billions africans, but only 2.5 bilions americans. We are at 7.4 billions people now, and not all africans... You can also read about the http://www.overshootday.org/ to see that the human's demand in ressources is way too high already, and you can't solve that with a miraculous technology in just a few years, it's also a population issue. 

Wars and diseases are indeed caused by population density, but also population movements and needs. The population is really badly distributed, some populated areas will be drowned because of the global warming, and vital resources will become scarcer. So yes, it is known that there will be wars, nothing to do with WW2 here : http://www.gechs.org/will-global-warming-cause-more-wars/

I agree we could manage a lot bigger population with a perfect geopolitic peace, some technological breaktroughs, a well managed and distributed population, new ways of consommation for everyone... But that's not how the human population is and it won't be, maybe ever. So no, in this current state, the population can't grow too much without consequences.