 |
| |
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
Not will, could. It's simple math. At 4 children per couple, each generation doubles in number of children. If the rest of the world has stabilized their population, only the unstabilized portion will continue to grow, right?
Take 11 million at 4 children per couple, give them 20 years (a generation) and it becomes 22 million + 11 million. The next generation is 44 million + 22 million + 11 million. The next generation see's the demise of the first 11 million (assuming 60-80years average lifespan), so you have 88 + 44 + 22... ect. Granted it will take several generations (which I noted in my original statement) to reach a point where it really becomes a problem. By the 9th generation you have 2.8 billion + 1.4 + .7, which is where problems would start to really show up. By the 11th the 'exception' has surpassed the rule (with ~9-11 billion as the stabilized population for the rest of the world).
This is of course very simplified, there are other factors involved. More people could start leaving the church, or more start joining. I'm just using membership trends that have occured throughout the church's history.
The assumptions being made are that those trends would continue, and that the promotion of large families (and the effect it has on the number of children per couple) would as well.
The entire example just being used to show how a relatively small group of people could affect the whole when dealing with population growth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
They actually aborted an 8 months pregnancy? And I thought that once child policy was merely a question of economic support for the family rather than a strict prohibition of a second, third etc. child. That surprised me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
I allowed for that though. I was using membership number to derive an approximate number of children per couple. The membership has exceeded a doubling per generation. The actual number of children per couple who stay in the church is probably higher than 4.
Having grown up in the LDS church, and lived in LDS communities both in and outside of Utah, I can assure you that your 'few' in the second sentence should be 'most' or 'many'. I one of 9 siblings, and most everyone I grew up with had at least 3 or 4 children in their family. In the end it doesn't really matter though, the membership numbers give good hard evidence of the population growth rate within the church.
Example:
During the 80's there was an increase in LDS membership from 6 to 9 million. That fits very well with doubling per generation. There were 300,000 converts, which only make up 10% of the increase. Which would mean there were at least 2.7 million births (actually, baptisms at age 8, but it's the same people, just 8 years later) into the church during that time. Now the number who left the church would only add to that 2.7 figure. I have no idea how many that would be, but the overall figures are still pretty close to the doubling per generation number which the overall membership has been keeping up for 170 years.
See, it doesn't matter if one couple has one child, and another has seven, it still averages out to 4 per couple, which is the number that closely relates to the membership figures.
The Catholic example you brought up is one that shows the effect of economic pressures. I am using the Mormon example as one that has circumvented those pressures through an overriding pressure, LDS values in this case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
That surprised me too. But as mindseye said, that was carried out by local officials without state sanction. |
Wouldn't you agree, though, that official policy lends itself to various interpretations, and regardless of supposed intent, it could be interpreted to condone forced abortions?
Further, is there any law, mandate, rule, even memorandum directing officials never to conduct a forced abortion/sterilization? If not, why do you suppose that is?
My guess would be that the central government actually has little problem with those measures, yet can't be seen to publically support them, so they found the middle ground. Just a guess though, I really have no idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
That surprised me too. But as mindseye said, that was carried out by local officials without state sanction. |
Oh, come on. If it didn't even have tacit approval from higher up, the Chinese government could stop it more easily than the Falun Gong movement.
Last edited by DinoDoc on 18-06-2002 at 05:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
My guess would be that the central government actually has little problem with those measures, yet can't be seen to publically support them, so they found the middle ground. Just a guess though, I really have no idea. |
I agree. You have no idea. 
quote:
Oh, come on. If it didn't even have tacit approval from higher up, the Chinese government could stop it more easily than the Falun Gong movement. |
Sorry, Dino, but I'm afraid you don't understand how things work here - and neither did I before I moved here. The hierarchy of authority here quickly becomes very frayed as you move downward. Local officials sometimes have shocking amounts of authority, and little or no accountability. I have seen this first-hand, even here in Shanghai. Last year's EP-3 fiasco was probably a huge example of this.
The difference between a few isolated cases of forced abortions and Falun Gong is that the latter is seen as a direct threat to the continued rule of the Party. The former is just another example of small-scale corruption and abuse that one can encounter anywhere in China (especially in the countryside), and as such gets little attention from higher-ups, who have their hands full with other problems and priorities (which can range from the welfare of the public to lining their pockets). Consider it yet another indictment of Communism as a political system.  
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
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. |
The communists were willing to gamble the lives of their citizens on a lot less justification, and the results were tens of millions starved. Their continued fascination with an unproven economic system made the one child policy possible, and in the eyes of the communist leadership necessary. All Dan S. and company are arguing for is the use of proven capitalist methods for increasing the value of labor by improving the efficiency of that labor, which translates into higher salaries and less population growth (or none) down the road. Interestingly the government has swallowed some of it's pride and adopted some capitalist methods over the last 30 years.
Unfortunately China is still ruled by a communist oligarchy, which acts as a lodestone for both the economy and individual rights. China has shifted from a communist economy where it barely produces enough to survive to a semi-capitalist system where a surplus is created, but it won't be able to evolve into a society which is thriving politically, artistically or economically until the shadow of the communist party is permanently eradicated by the light of freedom.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chrono353
|
|
I think it was a good call for the communists. Population was a problem. Although Mao eradicated 25 million, that didnt even dent the problem. This one child policy has worked so far. But its still a problem. Considering the wages are p!ss poor in China and there screwed up economics at the moments. They should shed off a few hundred million more before they can really become productive and thrive. Right now, there is a huge labor pool looking for somthing to do. I read that china dumped 10 million state workers 6 months ago from inefficient state industries that cost more to keep running with subsidies, then they make selling products. Its a good idea, there moving towards western economics now.
one child is good policy for the next 20 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
Wait guys... 8 months... that child was able to live. They actually ABORTED that?
I still can't believe it. Must be 8 weeks. IT would not only be sick but rather perverted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
The difference between a few isolated cases of forced abortions and Falun Gong is that the latter is seen as a direct threat to the continued rule of the Party. The former is just another example of small-scale corruption and abuse that one can encounter anywhere in China (especially in the countryside), and as such gets little attention from higher-ups, who have their hands full with other problems and priorities (which can range from the welfare of the public to lining their pockets). |
That's pretty sick, that China would consider a non-traditional religious group is more of a problem than forced abortions and sterilizations. That might tell us something right there.
And little accountability/oversight is really no excuse. The central government knows it goes on, and if they really cared, they might step in and create some oversight and accountability.
Again, I really think that they just don't care.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
Any forced birth control is in fact a variation of fascism, like it or not. |
Huh? Are you talking about state-sanction forced abortions? Cuz we're not.
quote:
That's pretty sick, that China would consider a non-traditional religious group is more of a problem than forced abortions and sterilizations. |
Please don't tell me you are so naive as to consider Falun Gong "an alternative religious group". You need to vary your news services! Besides, Falun Gong is unquestionably a far greater problem than a few forced abortions - at least from the viewpoint of the party leadership, which is who we are talking about here, right?
quote:
The central government knows it goes on, and if they really cared, they might step in and create some oversight and accountability. |
Oh, sure maybe a few officials got reprimanded or something, but through the eyes of the Chinese leadership, a few forced abortions somewhere out in the countryside is simply not a problem that even registers on the radar screen. Seriously, if you spent a little time acquainting yourself with the problems facing China, you would gain a better perspective on the true scale of the matter. It won't excuse it, but it will put it in a more accurate perspective.
As for "creating oversight and accountability", well, that would require changes so fundamental that attempts at that kind of reform can only be made for problems viewed as truly serious and large-scale, where there is no alternative (e.g. banking reform).
Last edited by mindseye on 18-06-2002 at 22:59
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
To hear you tell it, they pose a danger to the CCP not seen since the days of Tiananmen. |
I would agree with that characterization - is this a serious question? I will to treat it as such, but I thought this was obvious.
Okay, officially, the FG's worst problem is probably the philosophy of eschewing medical care, which has alledgedly resulted in deaths. Promoting suicide and wacky beliefs about walking through walls, contacting aliens, enriching a kook hiding out in the US - all these things further the gov't view of FG as a bogus cult that the people should be "protected from".
But the real danger is FG's ability to organize on a scale that has clearly shocked the party leadership. The final straw was when approximately 10,000 FG adherants unexpectedly showed up one morning outside the leadership's domestic compound. The party was apparently freaked out that this level of organization could take place with such efficiency and secrecy. Further investigations revealed that not only was FG much larger than they thought, but membership included party and military members of unnervingly high ranks.
An organization of this scale and efficiency, acting completely outside the party's control, taking orders from a leader of dubious sympathies hiding out in the US, was cleary way, way over the top. Bear in mind that no organization of any size exists here without Party involvement, if not outright control. With increasing unrest in the northeast, the northwest, and other rural pockets, the party was simply not willing to tolerate a potential adversary of this size and nature, so it re-acted in a not unexpected manner - it moved to eradicate the potential foe.
FG has subsequently played right into the gov't hands with the orchestrated suicides in Tainanmen, tapping into cable tv to broadcast propoganda, children dieing from lack of health care, etc. It looks to me that FG has lost whatever sympathy it may have had, I have yet to meet a single Chinese who doesn't think it is a crazy cult that should be eliminated.
quote:
I know Chinese government have a history of not really caring about the lives of thier citizens |
I give the current leadership credit for caring about Chinese lives quite a bit more than its predecessors (not a difficult feat, granted). In fact, you can even find some admirable characters such as influential #2 leader Zhu Rongji (a big favorite with the public). Hopefully the upcoming leadership change late this year will improve things at the top further.
quote:
but to ignore such horrific abuses, regardless of how rarely they occur, in order to attempt to extinguish the odd religious movement whenever it strikes thier fancy is odd to say the least. |
I have to admit I don't understand this. What is the trade-off ("in order to") between the FG crackdown and a few incidents of abuse by family planning officials?
Also, you are applying your American values to a Chinese problem, which is distorting your perspective. What you call "horrific abuses" does not even register on the scale here, especially in light of what's viewed here as a very successful program.
As I mentioned before, Chinese in general place a higher value on social stability than westerners do, probably as a result of more recently and more keenly tasting the results of social breakdown. For example, I have met educated, kind, level-headed Chinese who believe the death penalty should be used more frequently here. In a land of so many people competing for limited resources, there is less tolerance for those who mess with the social order for their personal benefit. In this light, some peasant who was illegally forced to get an abortion because they already had six kids is not usually seen as a "horrific abuse". However, mothers lighting their daughters on fire in Tiananmen Square is met with horror.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-06-2002 01:29
.
|
|