A professor of demography at Peking University, Mu Guangzong, explained:
“I don’t think a lot of parents would act on [the new policy] because the economic pressure of raising children is very high in China. The birth rate in China is low and its population is aging quickly, so from the policy point of view, it’s a good thing as it will help combat a shortage of labor force in the future. But many parents simply don’t have the economic conditions to raise more children.”
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
This is unlikely to significantly increase the birthrate, but it may increase the number of girls brought to term. The sex imbalance is as serious a problem as the low birthrate.
Two separate issues - ending the 1-child only policy is a good thing, a step away from tyranny, towards freedom.
Whether parents choose to have more kids, given this policy change, is a separate question.
Wait, you mean it's possible for people to weigh their economic ability to properly raise children before giving birth several times? This can be a consideration?
China today has a population of 1.4 billion. In my grandfather's time, 400 million.
"Overseas Chinese" would be in addition to that 1.4 billion.
It's already too late for China to get rich before it gets old. I'm starting to think, though, that advances in robotics will soon make obsolete the traditional need for a particular minimum ratio of young people to support the old, helping industrial and post-industrial societies cope with shrinking, aging populations.
That said, the clock is ticking very loudly for some societies.
It doesn't end the shortage of females in any case. It reduces it somewhat. If you have a daughter already the second daughter gets aborted.
America continues with its selective-child policy under the State-established pro-choice doctrine. In fact, the choice of millions of Americans to abort their children -- and quietly replace them with alien people -- is evidence of a greater psychopathy than China's left-wing choosing the fate of the population.
Compared to where they were when Mao died, China is rich, very rich, and there is still lots of room to grow.
Americans are debt-laden. I wonder if the left-wing will cannibalize the politically unfavored rich as they have done with the politically unfavored children under their "planning" protocol.
Hagar said...Compared to where they were when Mao died, China is rich, very rich, and there is still lots of room to grow.
So? China's drive to get rich before it gets old was never tempered by "compared to how we were when Mao died." That's irrelevant. And the fact that there is still lots of room to grow is precisely the problem--far too much room to grow and they've run out of time to grow it.
One bright spot of selective-child policy, is that boys and girls may have been aborted in equal numbers.
many parents simply don’t have the economic conditions to raise more children
This explanation contradicts the conditions that existed with a high birth rate in the past. The likely explanation for a low birth rate is: debasement of human life; dissociation of risk; dreams of luxury, pleasure, and leisure (especially among the female population); and destruction of the nuclear (i.e. natural) family.
Something else to consider is that one-child policy was enacted to force self-moderating, responsible behavior. Whereas selective-child policy normalizes or promotes libertinism in the population and undermines the prerequisites for liberty. Selective-child policy was carried out as an indiscriminate capital punishment protocol of the wholly innocent, but unwanted or inconvenient American children, who were quietly replaced by an alien population (e.g. "Dreamers", unmeasured/illegal aliens, excessive immigration). However, the consequences of selective-child did not end with an anti-native domestic push, but extended to secure an anti-native foreign policy that leaves behind a wasteland (e.g. Middle East and Africa).
Here's the missing piece on the one-child policy: it was preceded by a "lots of children" policy. I can't cite a source, but I have read in the past that under Mao, families were encouraged to have lots of offspring as a patriotic duty (to absorb bullets in wars, I guess). Hence, despite the population losses of WWII and the Great Famine, population grew significantly.
China can still get rich before it gets old by simply importing millions of young hispanics, africans, and arabs, who once they arrive in China will be identical in values, abilities, loyalties, and culture to the han chinese. Diversity can be their strength, too!
I say this as someone whose brother is moving to China, so obviously I will be half-Chinese myself in a month's time and so I won't be listening to any racists who think they can 'whitesplain' my own half-culture to me.
At least China has lots of young men with no family to serve in the army. I guess that's a benefit. Societies with young men unattached tend to be violent and aggressive. For a while.
"Societies with young men unattached tend to be violent and aggressive."
We have plenty of women for our young men, yet we're still violent and aggressive. What's up with that?
combat a shortage of labor force in the future with robots
Michael K,
Well... yes and no.
There are a lot of families in China utterly dependent on that single son to be their lifeline in their old age.
If you're goal is to produce an army in a very short time, you're much better off following the Arab model than the Communist Chinese.
"So? China's drive to get rich before it gets old was never tempered by "compared to how we were when Mao died." That's irrelevant. And the fact that there is still lots of room to grow is precisely the problem--far too much room to grow and they've run out of time to grow it."
???
Are the women in the picture with the article actually Chinese?
I think it's too late for Bill and Hillary.
"We have plenty of women for our young men, yet we're still violent and aggressive. What's up with that?"
One may be the Warrior Gene. Another may be that there are so few black families that the young men are similar to the warriors of ancient times who got to rape the women and thereby perpetuated their genes.
They'll have to figure out how to take care of an aging population, but having a billion more people, compared to the US, is not a good thing & limiting people in their desire to breed like rabbits is a good thing. Society adapts. Over-population is a danger & a very real thing.
#ProChoiceSolution
ZPG was supposed to solve the world's problems. China, Japan, and Western Europe are facing a slide into demographic disaster. The US isn't there yet, but the top of that slide is visible in our future. Perhaps the declining nations can import young workers to substitute for their own unborn children, but will the vigorous young Syrians really be committed to working to support aged Germans, French, etc.? Will the vigorous young Mexicans and Hondurans work to cover my Social Security and Medicare costs?
I'm inclined to say that we are f*cked, but the problem is that we aren't doing enough productive f*cking.
The solution, men, is in your hands! That's NOT the right place for it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा