Althouse: 32 million extra males.

April 11, 2009

32 million extra males.

In China.

70 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...: Looks like China needs:

-A war
-Bride imporation
-A more open policy towards homosexuality
-Polyandry; 4/11/09, 2:05 PM
The Dude said...: Government never makes a mistake that more government cannot fix.; 4/11/09, 2:10 PM
JAL said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 2:12 PM
JAL said...: So that's what happens when a society tries to load the dice.

Makes this speculation about seeding the atmosphere to adjust global warming even kookier.

Seems like it's not a good idea to try and fool around with Mother Nature.

Grim consequences.; 4/11/09, 2:13 PM
Bissage said...: This comes as welcome news as I have long been searching for an affordable manservant who can: (1) prepare my meals, (2) cultivate my gardens and (3) teach me Crane Strikes Like Dragon.; 4/11/09, 2:32 PM
The Dude said...: Don't forget the benefits for Ms. Bissage in our brave new battery-free world.; 4/11/09, 2:36 PM
rhhardin said...: A journey of 32 million males begins with a single step.; 4/11/09, 2:38 PM
Unknown said...: Suddenly, the Center for Reproductive Rights finds an abortion it doesn't like---and calls it infanticide. (link) I thought it was a choice?; 4/11/09, 2:43 PM
Balfegor said...: 32 million extra males this generation, sure, but if China continues to develop normally, that preference will probably revert to biological norms, as is happening in South Korea, and as happened in Japan a generation ago. It looks worse, because China is so big, and it's dicier, also because China is so big and development has been so uneven, but if the Communists can manage to progress to fascism smoothly, it probably won't be as bad as it looks right now.; 4/11/09, 2:46 PM
Ron said...: There must be at least 25 million female Chinese lawprof bloggers for these "wannaMeades" to hook up with, right? So what's the problem?; 4/11/09, 2:46 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 3:09 PM
Cedarford said...: 32 million men extra. If we are to assume that each little yellow member is 4.5 inches when erect, that is still 12,000,000feet of fallow penises, or 2,273 miles of unused little dinks.
_____________
JAL said...
So that's what happens when a society tries to load the dice.

Makes this speculation about seeding the atmosphere to adjust global warming even kookier.

Seems like it's not a good idea to try and fool around with Mother Nature.

Grim consequences.

Hardly. Grim consequences are what occur in nature with overpopulation. Herd population boom, then bust as a mass die-off kills a good portion of the herd quickly and rather nastily.

Humans are not immune to that phenomena. Certainly not the Chinese - that have had catastrophic population collapses causes by the famine and civil wars from overpopulation that killed 12-20% of their population off in a few short years in past Dynasties.

China is one of the smarter nations that knows they cannot be sustainable without population growth limitations and strict control of their borders to block mass immigration. The Earth had 1.2 billion people in 1900. We have 6.7 billion now and could reach 12.7 in 2100 unless the herd collapse starts earlier. Resource studies scientists say, barring dramatic new unanticipated technology like cheap abundant fusion, the Earth is already past environmentally and resource constraint limited sustainable human population - which they put at 2-3 billion people.

Lest people think America is far, far removed from such problems and birthrate issues - our own demography is fairly scary. We had 225 million in 1970 and were self sustainable in energy, food, and most resources. Now we are 306 million, and no longer self-sustainable even in agriculture (we import 40% of our food, in value, from other countries. In 2030 we are projected, mainly on unchecked mass immigration, anchor baby chain migration, and high breeding rates of immigrants to reach 368 million, 438 million in 2050, and 720 million in 2100.

720 million is more than lived in India and China combined in 1950.

Other nations, including the US eventually, will follow CHina in population limits. They have to, barring a "technological miracle".

And those that blithely assure us that "man will always find a way to innovate and Growth will lift all boats ignore that all past mass famines and other causes of human population collapse happened just because man was confronted with a crisis and failed to "innovate" enough to stop the mass human die-offs.; 4/11/09, 3:17 PM
Revenant said...: mcg,

Suddenly, the Center for Reproductive Rights finds an abortion it doesn't like---and calls it infanticide

You misread their comments. They aren't calling abortion infanticde. They referred to "sex-selective abortion and female infanticide". Two different things, both of which are practiced in China.

I agree that it is silly to say that abortion is a choice all women should have and then insist that women who have abortions for the "wrong" reason be prosecuted. But infanticide is a different matter; virtually nobody supports infanticide.; 4/11/09, 3:31 PM
Revenant said...: Chinese female immigrants to US are greater than male immigrants by at least a factor of five.

Huh, that explains a lot. I had wondered why I knew so many more Chinese women than men, especially since women are relatively rare in my line of work.; 4/11/09, 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: India is next on the list for this
sexual preference problem. The traveling sonogram operators get to even the remotest regions so female fetuses can be aborted.; 4/11/09, 3:39 PM
Matt Eckert said...: "But infanticide is a different matter; virtually nobody supports infanticide."

Except for Barack Obama who voted for a bill that would allow a doctor to kill a baby that survived an abortion. Not that you would have heard anything about that from the main stream media.; 4/11/09, 3:52 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Having a lot of young men who can't get women seems appropriate for a country that's known for its dungeons and dragons.; 4/11/09, 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...: In some corners of the blogosphere (e.g. Roissy's), there is a concern that we may be developing a similar situation in America even with equivalent number of males and females. The culprit is soft polygamy, also known as de facto polygamy, in which Alpha men take two or even more women for themselves, leaving fewer women for ordinary men. The classic example is the married executive who keeps a mistress, effectively taking two women out of circulation.

Some of the more dire predictions say that we may soon end up with a large pool of men who will have little chance of marrying or having children and who may end up creating all sorts of social turmoil.

I used to be quite concerned that soft polygamy indeed posed a grave threat, though gradually I've been getting less worried - the phenomenon certainly exists, but may be much less widespread than its proponents claim.

Peter; 4/11/09, 4:20 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 4:33 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: Except for Barack Obama who voted for a bill that would allow a doctor to kill a baby that survived an abortion. Not that you would have heard anything about that from the main stream media.

This lie was covered in the Washington Post. That's pretty mainstream.

How about when the candidates talked about it in one of the presidential debates? You can't get more MSM than the presidential debates.; 4/11/09, 4:34 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Hey,
Maybe Obama can send Caroline Kennedy to tbe the Ambassador to the PRC. The PRC would not object like that old meanie Pope guy.; 4/11/09, 4:42 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Does the PRC make enough bicyces to accomodate the fish?; 4/11/09, 4:47 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 5:07 PM
Unknown said...: This lie was covered in the Washington Post. That's pretty mainstream.

Agreed. He didn't vote for a bill that allowed a doctor to kill a baby. He voted against a bill intended to prevent the practice. It's important to keep these things straight!; 4/11/09, 5:09 PM
Unknown said...: You misread their comments. They aren't calling abortion infanticde. They referred to "sex-selective abortion and female infanticide". Two different things, both of which are practiced in China.

Ah, I did misread it indeed. Thanks for pointing it out. Of course, it still seems rather rich for a pro-choice outfit to suggest there are valid reasons for governments to ban abortions. I thought governments were supposed to stay out of the matter?; 4/11/09, 5:11 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Hmm, looks like Chinese porn may be a good investment.

I guess they have to start aborting male babies. And fast.

To paraphrase Daniel Moynihan, a society that has raised a generation of young males with no chance of marriage is a society asking for trouble.

Marriage? Hell, female companionship. Chemical castration?

Yeah, a stream of consciousness post.; 4/11/09, 5:17 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Damn Althouse could have saved some time fnding a husband if she had been blogging in China.

Heh.; 4/11/09, 5:22 PM
srfwotb said...: Some of you are making the glaring error of assuming the main reason a female would leave China is that there aren't any marriageable males.

I'd do anything to get out of a country that was so clearly biased towards males that it ended up with numbers like that. I also might consider aborting my female child or not having kids at all if I lived there just to save her suffering - not because I didn't want her.

In India where they have a similar situation, I thought the disparity in numbers might lead to greater power for females but it hasn't. They've just become fodder for sexual speculators (a couple from the country sells their daughter to some guy who "marries" her for a few months than resells her closer to the city - the cycle continues) because they aren't even in control of their own economic value .

@irons- the loophole is that the "married executive with a mistress" is only likely hooking into only young women for short periods of time (see above). Far from taking them out of circulation, they are circulating more.; 4/11/09, 5:34 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 6:02 PM
blake said...: Re soft polygamy: Even if it were going on, how much trouble are a bunch of "beta males" going to make?

But this is my "best of thread":

nearly all D&D players were Jewish or Celtic Asperger's sufferers who couldn't even say "hi" to a live girl.

Nice slur!

I'm still trying to figure out what Tyler is saying. Does anyone actually believe crime/gay stats coming out of a communist country? There's no shortage of mail-order-brides from all over former soviet bloc, to say nothing of various third world countries. All due to a shortage of men?; 4/11/09, 6:22 PM
blake said...: Oh, is anyone else surprised that it's only 32 million?; 4/11/09, 6:23 PM
Matt Eckert said...: Typical of the snot nosed liberal elites. Obama is all abortions all the time. He would not put any restrictions on any of it. He is 100% behind killing those babies. If a poor damaged and hurting baby survives an abortion and is gasping for life, would you try to save it or would you "terminate the pregnancy?" Kill the baby as someone with a human heart would say instead of trying to cover it up with boring phrases. What would you do kid? We know by his vote Obama isn't interested in saving that baby.

Of course that is only good for a few minutes on TV or a couple of lines in the paper. Any real questions or answers on that point would have lost him way too many votes. The media had to do its job and cover his tracks. It is no where as important as Sarah Palin's pussy.; 4/11/09, 6:27 PM
Chennaul said...: blake-

Ya, trust me two sentences in and I knew the guy didn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Anyway-

This is a DIRECT result of-

China's-

One Child Policy.

Like Revenant said-female infanticide is committed to comply with this because males are seen as more valuable as future support for the family.

Women are forcibly sterilized in China-to also "accommodate" the One Child Policy.

Now they have this-

the unintended consequence.

Again the STATE does NOT know best....; 4/11/09, 6:50 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 6:57 PM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: 30 million or so surplus males, who will be ages 18 to 28 -- prime war-fighting age -- in the late 2010s.

In a country which for at least 3000 years has always sought an external 'enemy' when things get dicey at home.

Anybody else see a problem here?; 4/11/09, 6:58 PM
Trooper York said...: Not a problem Bart, but an opportunity. Let's point them at the Russians and all that undeveloped land up in Siberia just waiting for someone to find the oil and dig out the gold and mine the coal and havest the timber. We need to cut a deal with the Chinese and turn them loose on the Russki's. Let's let Putin chew on that one for a while.; 4/11/09, 7:07 PM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: It's already a problem. Through vast areas of eastern Siberia the Russians are dealing with something like 50% illegal Chinese immigration. That's where most of the minerals are.

Meantime, the Chinese and Russians are having joint military exercises, during which the Chinks are learning Russian war-fighting techniques.

It's just about the same thing we pulled on Mexico 170 years ago.; 4/11/09, 7:15 PM
Balfegor said...: That Northeast Asians (NE) have more sex partners, have sex more often, yet suffer HIV infection at 1/30 [sic!] the rate of Americans provides indisputable proof of a very strong correlation, probable causation, between Race and Homosexuality.

Wait what? That conclusion sort of came in from left field.

In a country which for at least 3000 years has always sought an external 'enemy' when things get dicey at home.

Really? I don't really get that impression from my reading of Chinese history. There are a few periods where China is actively expansionist -- under the early Tang, for example, and under the Manchus -- but for the most part, China has not historically been a particularly expansionist empire. If you look at a map of China under the Han, 2000 years ago, it contains essentially all of China proper (with patches here and there controlled by other princes or somesuch). Modern China has only really had three significant territorial additions since then -- Xinjiang, which was first conquered under the Tang and then reconquered under the Qing; Tibet, which was conquered by the Qing; and Manchuria, which is where the Qing came from before they conquered all China.

Nor does Chinese culture seem to have developed a focus on external enemies, such as they are, until the mid 19th century, when that attitude was, frankly, entirely rational, given that external enemies were conspiring to carve China up like Africa or India, and took numerous steps in that direction too.; 4/11/09, 7:16 PM
Trooper York said...: But that works for us Bart. We just have to cut a deal. They can take over Sibera and we give them a free hand. They just have to keep the status quo on Tawian and not make too many waves in Tibet to keep the liberals quiet. Just sell us the minerals and stuff. Screw the Russians.; 4/11/09, 7:23 PM
Anonymous said...: @irons- the loophole is that the "married executive with a mistress" is only likely hooking into only young women for short periods of time (see above). Far from taking them out of circulation, they are circulating more.

For the time being, at least, the Alpha executive will have two women out of circulation - his wife and his mistress. If he goes through one mistress after another this situation can go on for years, albeit with different women.

Another complication is that the executive's former mistresses may be in no hurry to date and marry Betas. Having had a taste of an Alpha, even one who dumped them, the idea of dealing with introverted Beta nerds isn't too appealing.

Peter; 4/11/09, 7:29 PM
Chennaul said...: Screw the Russians...

Hey what you think Nixon was up to?; 4/11/09, 7:29 PM
Chennaul said...: Balfegor-

So you don't see China heading for some trouble?

Economically?

Or with internal cultural conflicts?

They are homogenous and there aren't histories between groups?

The recent protests at Japanese embassies are for show?

China's fixation on Taiwan is just show boating?

The uptick in China's defense spending which is now thought to be upwards of 15% of their GDP-is in preparation for internal struggles?

The external enemy or scapegoating is an age old technique granted it's not specifically Chinese but I would highly doubt they are ignorant of it.; 4/11/09, 7:38 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 7:46 PM
Trooper York said...: They are gearing up for something so let's point them in the right direction. All that land to be developed and with so many of their people with boots on the ground already it will be a breeze. What are those dirty Russki gonna do? Drop an A Bomb. So what? There are plenty more Chinese where those came from. It's gold I tell ya, pure gold.; 4/11/09, 7:48 PM
Chennaul said...: Trooper-

I know you say you hate politics...

but I think politics loves you.

Ya, the Chinese are more than interested in resources.

That's what they are up to in Sudan.

Of course they could just be giving them free electrical plants out of charity and with no thoughts of prid pro quo.; 4/11/09, 8:01 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 8:12 PM
Trooper York said...: Hey I do hate politics. That doesn't mean I don't know how to play it. I mean I hate fish but I still cook it for the family when they want a good Dover sole in a lemon butter sauce.

(That doesn't mean I don't love the fish taco, because make no mistake, I love the fish taco).; 4/11/09, 8:13 PM
Frodo Potter said...: Trooper York and Bart Hall, you may be on to something. When one considers that Siberia alone is just a little smaller than the continental United States, there would seem to be plenty of room to expand.

It is also possible it may be solved in a more peaceful method. China has an excess of males; Russia has an excess of females. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Chinese men partnering with Russian women. A friend of mine recently visited a Chinese city near the Russian border. He noticed two things: First, a lot of the prostitutes and B-girls were Russian. Second, he saw some regular couples where the man was Chinese and the woman was not only *not* Asian, but was also clearly Russian.

This may happen in natural cross-border romances, or it may involve mail-order brides, or both.; 4/11/09, 8:14 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 8:17 PM
Trooper York said...: That's where the next real big conflict can come from sort of out of left field. Let's hope they fix it by fucking and not fighting.; 4/11/09, 8:18 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Don't forget to factor in this. Alleged global warming could make Siberia more like our bread basket to the world.; 4/11/09, 8:19 PM
Chennaul said...: Aaaaaaaarrrrgh....
My eyes, my eyes or somethin'...

Anyhoo is it possible to beat a hasty pre-retreat...?

'cause I know if Balfegor comes back and bothers to respond...
let's just say I am sorta French and I surrender in advance...

Ya...; 4/11/09, 8:42 PM
Chennaul said...: cognitis said...
That both Russia and China produced more females than males has been proved exhaustively above. Learn to read and try to keep up.

Ya somethin' was proved "exhaustively" up thread but probably not what you think...

'bout a 90% chance you are Tyler's sock puppet.; 4/11/09, 8:47 PM
Frodo Potter said...: Madawaskan, re: your comment at 8:47, LOL! Well said!; 4/11/09, 9:19 PM
Skyler said...: Balfegor suggests that both Japan and Korea have had a misbalance of males before and no longer do.

Hmmm. I wonder if massive warfare had anything to do with that?

I society with far too many males is much more likely to be militarily aggressive. I've no data to back this assertion up, but it seems intuitively obvious.; 4/11/09, 9:26 PM
abequotes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/09, 10:04 PM
Eric said...: The culprit is soft polygamy, also known as de facto polygamy, in which Alpha men take two or even more women for themselves, leaving fewer women for ordinary men.

That's not really a problem - as others have pointed out eventually the mistress gets dumped and she finds a nice stable guy to take her to the fertility clinic. The polygamy comes in when the rich guys have two or three separate families in succession. This leaves fewer women who are available to start a family.

How much of a problem is it? Hard to say. There are always going to be guys who don't want to get married or don't want kids for whatever reason. Plus we lock up more men than any country in the world on a per-capita basis. It may just balance things out.; 4/11/09, 10:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Jewish or Celtic Asperger's sufferers

I don't think even Cedarford ever dreamed of this one.; 4/11/09, 10:22 PM
blake said...: cognitis/Tyler (You are the same person, right, since I addressed Tyler and got your insult that I was attacking your argument?):

I'm not trying to destroy anyone's argument. It's entirely possible--if entirely counterintuitive--that the female infanticide we've been hearing about for the past 3 decades is either not real, or not big enough to have much effect.

I had heard ten years ago, that the number of girls killed was somewhere between 15M to 100M. But I think one should be suspicious of such statistics, for obvious reasons.

I don't even now how severe a 2% imbalance, really.

Then you went off on a gay/HIV thing, which is meant to prove I have no idea what. Seems to me the highest HIV rates are in Africa and it's not so much about gay sex there as it is a penchant for dry sex. [shudder]; 4/11/09, 10:51 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/12/09, 12:44 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: cognitus,

Correlation does not imply causation.; 4/12/09, 2:45 AM
Saurabh said...: Did you guys check out the Polar Bear Attacks German Woman at Berlin Zoo. The Complete story with Images and Full video is covered Here.

I wonder what was this woman doing in the water.; 4/12/09, 2:54 AM
Fen said...: They are gearing up for something so let's point them in the right direction

Too late. We gave them the Pacific Rim, Hawaii and California as collateral. They will put boots on the ground under the justification that we have defaulted on our debts to them.; 4/12/09, 4:17 AM
The Dude said...: Saurabh - get a fucking life and peddle your garbage elsewhere.; 4/12/09, 7:14 AM
William said...: My guess is that if China becomes a society of only childs, there will be more inhibitions about sending them to wanton slaughter. No more human wave attacks as seen in Korea. Large families are more willing to sacrifice the younger son for high, patriotic purposes.....A woman's right to control her own body leads to the abortion of millions of female foeti (foetae?). Is there anywhere in America a feminist who sees the hideous irony in this?.....Cognitis: Scots/Irish are Celtic. I have a vague sense that some of your other arguments are also muddled.; 4/12/09, 1:59 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/12/09, 2:44 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: My guess is that if China becomes a society of only childs, there will be more inhibitions about sending them to wanton slaughter

As I understand it China has no safety net for seniors and the elderly.

So, parents in China, like in much of the world, have large families in order, in part, to help provide for them when they grow old.

When these 30+ million males get old, they're in big trouble.

If they're not dead before then.; 4/12/09, 4:27 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I do see a problem with the excess males. Typically, there have been two results of such, either them running in juvenile packs, terrorizing everyone else, or external expansion and/or aggression. Given that choice, I expect that the Chinese will pick the later.

And where are they likely to go or fight? As noted above, Siberia. It has low population and a lot of natural resources. My guess is that the big thing keeping the Chinese out is the aging Russian nuclear arsenal (which is one reason that Obama's call for a nuclear free world is going to fail).

I also though expect to see some adventurism or militarism in other adjoining areas, such as SE Asia, Taiwan, and maybe even with India (which may work out well, with India apparently heading towards a similar problem).

Keep in mind that China is trying to rapidly modernize its armed forces. Instead of the sea of armed peasants we faced in Korea, they are now trying to build a blue sea navy, complete with aircraft carriers, as well as improving their air force, etc. Sure, some of this is just for their ego, but I don't see them spending all that money on their armed forces AND having an excess male problem, without at least some use of that improved military.; 4/13/09, 1:28 PM
cognitis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/13/09, 6:25 PM