 |
| |
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
They aren't. It's all advertising. Only the crackpots are turning towards organic farming. Well, them and the people who are making big money off of it. It's all in the advertising and the ignorance.
Organic farming is actualy a lot more resource intensive than the current high-yeild mentions, and even more so than genetically engineered products. |
Depending on what kind of resources. Regular farming degradates the land, so more and more fertilizers are need to sustain the yield. Not only this completes the vicious cycle, but fertilizers carried into surface water by run-offs cause all sorts of problems.
Then there is the problem with synthetic insecticides, herbicides, what else have you. These things don't degrade in nature, ultimately turning our bodies into toxic waste dumps. 
Then there is gene pollution, a whole can of worms opened by genetic engineered, um, variations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
The UN mentions "reproductive rights", source:
Population and Development, vol. I, Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994. Sales No. E.95.XIII.7. (the quote is from this UN site but this document refers to the Cairo conference)
quote:
The definition of reproductive rights recognizes the basic right of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence (United Nations, 1995a). |
Since noone here cares about the UN anyway  this is probably not the best argument, but good to discuss about...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:20
|
|
Wow, a lot to reply to here since I left last night ...
quote:
Do the ends justifying the means nowadays? |
In this case, heck yeah! The means are hardly draconion, mostly tax incentives and fines (why do so many of you keep ignoring this?). As I mentioned before the forced abortion and sterilization horror stories are exceptional.
quote:
Of course, I'm not surprised it is universally supported in China, seeing as how the Chinese aren't generally known for having or even really wanting individual rights as opposed to societal control, if I may generalize. |
Feel free to generalize, but it would be more helpful if you knew something of which you were speaking.  The Chinese I know (friends, students, co-workers, etc) are not reluctant to state their opinions on things they don't like about their gov't, etc. Thus, I have heard many complaints about, say, the quality of the press, but none over the One Child policy.
quote:
We have both stability and liberty and the people of China have a right to demand likewise. |
I agree 100%, although I will note that from my experience Chinese in general place a higher value on social stability than westerners. IMO this is because they know from all-too-recent first-hand experience the reality of the prices that may be paid when social order breaks down.
quote:
If you are a truly moral person (which I doubt you are) |
Actually, I think he is, he just has a very different viewpoint from others here. So much the better for worthwhile discussion. 
quote:
They have a society where being a woman is not as advantageous as a man, so many girls are aborted in favor of a male. All of a sudden you have a large mainly male population with very few selective mates, what will this society be like? |
This is in fact changing steadily. These days women in cities like Shanghai are doing pretty well, and very many couples no longer worry over having a daughter. You are wrong in the second prediction ("suddenly", "largely male"), but what you have instead is an unbalanced population that is about 52% male, although this does mean a lot of bachelors - or perhaps, "opportunities" if you happen to be a gay foreigner living in China.
quote:
 I just realised why mindseye moves to China.... |
Yep, just do the math ...
quote:
China could very easily afford food from the United States |
Actually, I'm pretty certain China is currently a net food exporter! Contrary to where this thread has been going, the real problem is not imminent starvation, it's other problems caused indirectly by overpopulation, such as deforestation, desertification, air & water pollution, dropping water tables, overgrazing, traffic congestion, overwhelmed social services, etc.
quote:
If you have more people you also have more bodies to work the land and, much more crucially, more minds to think up better ways of working the land. |
China's arable land is already about as labor-intensively farmed as is conceivably possible. In fact, most "farms" here would seem to westerners more like very large gardens in terms of size and cultivation techniques. What China does not need is more farming. As I already mentioned, the effects on the water table, deforestation, filling in of lakes, etc is already terrible.
quote:
When it requires forced abortions (...) The fact is that China's method of enforcing its one child policy violates individual rights. |
Sigh. This strawman just won't die! How do tax incentives violate individual rights?
quote:
I also question wheather government should even have the authority to police individual citizens bedrooms. |
Hey, shouldn’t this comment be in the thread about sodomy still being illegal in many US states?
quote:
Sexual freedom and reproduction is by definition an individual right. |
Uh, you mean by your definition, right? What happens when my freedom of reproduction seriously threatens the most basic quality of your life?
quote:
I don't particularly care if they are the norm or not. The very fact that they happen at all and with State sanction is abominable. |
Of course it's abominable ... but it's not the national policy! These cases (at least as far as I can tell) are the product of abusive local (usually rural) officials acting beyond their authority. Beijing has far less control over the country than most westerners realize, leading to many mischaracterizations of "China" (IMO the unaccountability of local officials is one of the worst problems with China's present political system - whatever it is). Many of my students have siblings, their parents were not sterilized or forced to have abortions. They are simply willing to pay the price for extra children.
quote:
Of course it's morally wrong! |
What's morally wrong with tax incentives?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
--"I'm sure you can see how a population of ~6million could increase rapidly doubling every generation."
Look at it another way. The Mormon religion has been around a long time, with those same strictures in place, and there's still only that many of them. Your assumption that all (or even most) of the children of such families will automatically become Mormons as well is not true.
--"The statement you quoted was about any hypothetical situation"
I started by arguing against this hypothetical situation. As I said earlier, population growth is leveling off. Food production advances are not.
--"So the country is going to depend on the international market for food?"
Many have in the past...
--"Fourthly, most of the money China takes in through trade goes not to the government, but to private corporations."
So you're saying China doesn't have taxes?
--"Depending on what kind of resources."
Manpower is the biggest, of course. However, "organic" farming is nowhere near as light on the fertilizers and pesticides as you seem to believe.
As far as "gene pollution"... 
Ah, well. At least you didn't call them frankenfoods.
--"Well, for one, I respect my fellow man (and woman) enough to NOT do something like that."
You respect your fellow virii too much, eh? :roll: At least the ELF type nutters are consistent in their beliefs, however crackpot they are.
--"How do tax incentives violate individual rights?"
Taxes always violate individual rights. They're a forced takings.
Using those proceeds to perform social engineering is just compounding the problem.
--"Hey, shouldn’t this comment be in the thread about sodomy still being illegal in many US states?"
I think you'll find that many people arguing against governemnt population controls are against this as well.
And will everyone please stop assuming zero-sum economics?
--"The UN applauses the One Child Policy"
So the UN is contradicting something else it said? What a shocker... :roll:
Wraith
Maybe I'll become an evil genius and destroy the world and THEN I'll feel better
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
"it's other problems caused indirectly by overpopulation, such as deforestation, desertification, air & water pollution, dropping water tables, overgrazing, traffic congestion, overwhelmed social services, etc."
I think these are very real challenges, but to give it the moniker "overpopulation" is giving the challenges way too much respect. Necessity is the mother of invention and I have a good idea that the Chinese will figure out a reasonable way to move forward on these issues. With increased wealth comes increased leisure, which in turn leads to innovation and scientific progress.
Urban: Most pesticides on the market (at least in the States) break down into metabolites very quickly. For instance, glyphosate (Roundup) the most commonly used pesticide breaks down fully in about two days, IIRC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
I just had a chat with my chinese co-worker about this, and he said that in the cities the people dont have a problem with the one-child policy(because their lives are busy and they have less time for children), but in the countryside many chinese break the law because they know they can get away with it and because they have a greater desire for children.. The policy is more easily enforcable in the cities you see.
He also said that in the cities the government has recently made a modification in policy that allows couples to have two children if they are both the only child of their parents.
His opinion is that the policy violates "human rights", but he sees it as a necessary evil.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
Jeez, you stay off OT for a weekend and an interesting thread develops. Where to start??
Visualizing the Problem
China has almost exactly the same land area as the US but has almost five times the population. Start with a map of the US. Move Michigan and Wisconsin next to New England (Manchuria). Dump Alaska and Hawaii into the Gulf of Mexico (Guangzhou / Hong Kong area). Now put about five times the current US population into states that are on or east of the Mississippi River (eastern China), plus Texas (Szechwan) and the Gulf of Mexico. Leave the rest of the country largely depopulated (Tibet, Xiniang). You now have almost the exact size, location, and population distribution of China.
Food Production
China has been able to feed itself since about the late 1970's. This is justifiably regarded as one of the great achievements of the Communist regime. (Passes smelling salts to Chegitz and other leftists.  )
The One Child Policy
My understanding is that the policy is enforced primarily by local officials, with relatively little guidance from Beijing. As a result, enforcement of the policy can vary widely. Forced abortions and monitoring of women's menstral cycals are among the abuses which have been reported. The primary impact of the policy is in central and southern rural areas, especially areas away from the economically developed areas along the coast. Northern areas do not have as great a population problem, because wheat production in the north is dependent on available moisture, where rice production in the south is dependent of available labor. Urban areas do not have as great a reproduction problem because agriculture is not as important.
Economic Issues
Economists and demographers have long known that the numberof children per family decreases as income rises. Thus China's population growth rate would gradually could be expected to have gradually declined even in the absense of a one-child policy.
Most of the penalties for having additional children are economic in nature. These penalties can still be severe in an economy where the state provides virtually all of the social services, and still exerts substantial control over economic activity. For example, in order to live within city limits, a person must have a valid identity card. Lack of a valid identity card means no social services such as schools or medical care, and much greater difficulty in finding a job, since a valid identity card is required for officially sanctioned employment. Children who are not compliant with the one-child policy either have no identity card, or their families must pay huge sums to obtain one.
Demographic Issues
Traditional Chinese society has long had a preference for male children. Part of this is due to the fact that male children are better able to work on the family farm. Part is due to the fact that the Chinese, lacking a central retirement system, live with their oldest son's family when they are no longer able to work. A family without a son could find itself destitute in old age.
Most demographers have found that the preference for boys has already seriously skewed China's demographics. The exceptions to the policy for children who are themselves only children is one clear example. A child who is the only son of two only child parents would find himself supporting two parents and four grandparents, which is clearly an impossible task.
The one-child policy has also led to other demographic consequences. For example, even with the exception for farmers whose first-borne child is a daughter, and in spite of strict laws against the practice, there are thousands of infant girls abandoned in China each year. (Looks fondly at pictures of daughters on desk  ) A farm family whose first two children are girls often abandons the younger girl to avoid economic sanctions or in hope of having a son. One study found that approximately 90 percent of Chinese grils adopted in the US have an older sister (jeje) in China.
I have bunch of links on the one-child policy and Chinese demographics. I will try to post them when I get a chance.
edit: the usual typos and wording issues
Last edited by Adam Smith on 17-06-2002 at 20:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Ugh, now the arguments from the opponents of the OCP has turned into, "We should let them have as many children as they want, as this is a fundamental right. The problems will be worked out later....."
DanS & co:
Do you realize what kind of gamble you're taking here?
A myriad problems arrive with overpopulation. This is especially true for China, where it is already overpopulated, with massive rural migration to the cities and environmental deterioration going on as we speak.
As far as I can see, I haven't seen magical, snap-the-finger solutions for most of those problems I've mentioned (employment, social services, environment, etc etc). In fact, it is entirely possible that for some of these problems, there aren't any solutions available to us with our current technology.
If you're willing to gamble an entire nation's quality of life and happiness over the issue of having children, fine. But human rights were created to safeguard the quality of life of all humankind, not destroy it. Thus they shouldn't be used, in this case, to put an entire country's life and happiness on the line for certain idealistic concepts.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
"Do you realize what kind of gamble you're taking here?"
The gamble is that China will innovate to ameliorate or solve the problems that you mention. If you have no faith in that equation, then China is doomed anyway. Doesn't matter the population base.
Not surprisingly, I see the gamble as an almost sure thing. Furthermore, whatever risk there is should be weighed against the very real risk that China will experience population contraction. I consider this a graver threat.
Even though population pyramids are speculative (I know, I know, ef ), China's doesn't look too hot.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC...nim/pop_ani.htm |
But dropping the OCP will exacerbate the problem - one that is already grave in China. True, problems need to be solved, but these problems vary with the population you have, and the greater the problem, the greater the problems of social services, employment, environment, etc.
Besides, I see no major problems with the population pyramid. No more problematic than any aging Western country.
What alternatives does China have anyway? A straight down triangle?! That's suicide.
edit:
in fact, it seems that by 2050, the Chinese population will begin shrinking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
Bet $1,000 on what?
Edit: I am willing to bet $1 million to all comers that India will have a higher Gross Domestic Product Purchase Power Parity than will China in 2052.
"the opponents are some Western conservatives who don't speak a single word Chinese, have never set a foot on China, and have never spoken to Chinese people directly"
You're never going to win this argument, Transcend.
Last edited by DanS on 17-06-2002 at 22:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
The last time that happened in China, 30 million people died. I'm sure none of us want that the repeat itself. |
No, that was the result of Mao's social engineering and communism, if you're referring to the Great Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward. If not one of those, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but those were certainly the fault of attempted communist "reforms".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
For me, it's very clear who understands China better. |
And for me, it's very clear which society values the individual and individual rights more than fictitious notions such as "the common good".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
And for me, it's very clear which society values the individual and individual rights more than fictitious notions such as "the common good". |
for me, it's clear who understands the true purposes of human rights and is willing to protect the lives and happiness of people, and who is willing to kill people and make them suffer in the name of idealistic utopianism.
About the common good - alright, since the "common good" is a fictitious concept, we should allow every single citizen to freely buy and own bazookas, anthrax, and ICBM's, right?
quote:
No, that was the result of Mao's social engineering and communism, if you're referring to the Great Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward. If not one of those, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but those were certainly the fault of attempted communist "reforms".
|
It's the Great Leap Forward.
That was to show the worst-case scenario that could very well come true again.
But as mindseye has said, food is not the only thing in question here. Lack of social services, unemployment, deterioration of the environment, civil strife, a myriad other problems can arise with overpopulation and overcrowding.
Last edited by ranskaldan on 18-06-2002 at 01:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What Adam Smith said.
The Mormons are the exception in the world. The exception does not prove the rule . Family size decreases as income rises for the most part. And it isn't just a Western thing. Look at Japan for instance. They don't have a One Child Policy, yet only want a few children. Why? Because of the high incomes in Japan the value of the peoples' time is great, and therefore they wish to spend less time on child rearing. |
My point was that the exception will continue to grow when compared to the rule as long as it remains the exception in this case. Eventually the exception could become the rule if it continues long enough.
My explainations below can also apply here.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
--"I'm sure you can see how a population of ~6million could increase rapidly doubling every generation."
Look at it another way. The Mormon religion has been around a long time, with those same strictures in place, and there's still only that many of them. Your assumption that all (or even most) of the children of such families will automatically become Mormons as well is not true. |
The Mormon religion hasn't been around that long from a generational standpoint. The LDS church was founded back in 1830, at 20 years a generation, that's not yet 9 generations. If you halve 6 million 8 times (first generation doesn't count as a doubling) you get 23437. This is far in excess of the population of the LDS church for quite some time after it was founded. In 1842, membership was at 20,856.
Of course it isn't a true exponential curve, there are people who join the church, and those who leave. Not everyone is born into it, and not everyone born into it stays.
The main point is that in 170 years the population of the LDS religion has exceeded a rate of doubling every generation. I think the 6 million figure is actually quite low as well, the official LDS website says over 11 million. If it continues at this pace, and the membership continues to have the number of children they currently average, they would eventually throw off the overall curve. This is a moral/religious pressure on population growth that isn't going to change due to economic pressures.
That all being said, I think the LDS church leaders are smart enough not to continue with doctrine that will eventually lead to overpopulating the earth by themselves. I'm using their growth rates as an example of population growth not inhibited by economic pressures.
quote:
I started by arguing against this hypothetical situation. As I said earlier, population growth is leveling off. Food production advances are not. |
I agree that we are not in that hypothetical situation. I've already stated that. My statements about how such a situation would occur were qualified ones, the required circumstances being other than are currently predicted.
The original context of the hypothetical was to refute an argument that if we were in such a situation that increasing population would not be a problem. I simply stated that if there was not food enough (or rather just enough) to feed a population, we shouldn't increase that population until we can provide for the increase in population as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2002 10:29
|