Social Engineering: China will license 2nd child if....

[SteveGrenard]

One-Child Policy Lifted for Quake Victims' Parents


By ANDREW JACOBS

Chinese officials said that parents whose only child was
killed or grievously injured in the May 12 earthquake could
apply for legal permission to have another child.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/world/asia/27child.html?th&emc=th

[Wolfman]

Actually, there are quite a few exceptions to the one child law:

* members of Chinese minority groups (there are 56 recognized minorities in China) can have 2-3 children
* a married couple who are both only children are allowed to have 2 children
* in the event of the death of a child, a couple can apply for permission to have another

In addition, the government is currently talking about dropping the one-child law altogether, and instead instituting a system of offering financial rewards (cash bonuses, decreased taxes, etc.) to those who have no children, or one child.

[ravdin]

Actually, there are quite a few exceptions to the one child law:

* members of Chinese minority groups (there are 56 recognized minorities in China) can have 2-3 children
* a married couple who are both only children are allowed to have 2 children
* in the event of the death of a child, a couple can apply for permission to have another

In addition, the government is currently talking about dropping the one-child law altogether, and instead instituting a system of offering financial rewards (cash bonuses, decreased taxes, etc.) to those who have no children, or one child.

*shudder*

I hate totalitarianism.

[Wolfman]

May I point out that it is easy to take a stance when you don't have to deal with the consequences of that stance. From 1960-2000, China's population more than doubled (from 600 million to 1.3 billion). India, which is a democratic nation (not a totalitarian dictatorship) still has unrestrained population growth that will soon see them surpassing China as the world's most populous country.

Have you ever gone to India, or China, and looked at the abject poverty in which the poorest people live? Now consider how much worse that situation will get if unrestrained population growth continues.

By restraining population growth in China, the government has been able to more adequately address the needs of its poorest people (improvements in education, health care, and many other such things for the poorest people have improved in China much faster than in India).

Advocating unrestrained population growth -- which is what will happen in China if the gov't does not have such policies -- means likewise advocating literally tens of millions of children born into abject poverty, with little or no hope of improvement. It means advocating continued destruction of arable land in order to create space for a rapidly growing population -- increasing population while decreasing farmland.

There is no Western democracy that faces a situation even remotely similar to that in China. India is a democratic nation, with a situation similar to China, and unrestrained population growth there is proving to be disastrous, particularly for those already living in poverty.

Its easy to simply condemn; since you've stepped up to the plate, how about you try offering reasonable solutions. How a country that is already by any reasonable measure overpopulated, with decreasing arable land, increasing pollution, inadequate money (to meet the development needs of the country)...how it is supposed to react.

I think that a change in policy -- to offer economic incentives to have no kids, rather than simply outlawing having more than one kid -- is a big improvement. But whatever the policy may be, I do believe very strongly that the government does need to exert some limiting control on the continued growth of the population.

Failing to do so doesn't make them democratic, or humanitarian. It makes them irresponsible.

To put the numbers into perspective -- Canada is larger than China; yet the population of one Chinese city, Chongqing, is equal the the entire population of Canada (32 million). Or put Beijing and Shanghai together, and you have more than the entire population of Canada. Even in Canada and the U.S. -- where we have far, far smaller populations, and far, far more money -- we have difficulties addressing the educational needs of our children, the health needs of our children, etc.

Now, picture increasing the number of children ten-fold, while cutting our financial resources in half. And consider what state our countries would be in then.

The greatest crime in regards to childbirth policies in China is not the one-child policy. The greatest crime was Mao Zedong's policy in the 50s-70s of telling the Chinese people to have as many children as they could, in order to "make the nation strong". That policy led to a situation where, today, there is little real choice other than to find the best way to prevent further significant population growth.

So far as I'm concerned, there's no question of whether or not population growth must be controlled/limited; the only question is how best to accomplish that goal.

[luchog]

May I point out that it is easy to take a stance when you don't have to deal with the consequences of that stance. From 1960-2000, China's population more than doubled (from 600 million to 1.3 billion). India, which is a democratic nation (not a totalitarian dictatorship) still has unrestrained population growth that will soon see them surpassing China as the world's most populous country.
It's also true that nations with the highest levels of education also have the lowest birthrates. Increases in education typically result in concomitant increases in prosperity and decreases in birthrates. But China has never been a huge proponent of universal education; at least not to the degree seen in Europe, North America, and other parts of the Far East like Japan and South Korea.

An educated population is far more difficult to control; which is why one of the first things a totalitarian government does is control and suppress education; and very frequently promote an idealized version of the uneducated/poorly educated "peasant" or "worker" as the preferred standard; often creating or reverting to a quasi-feudal social structure.

India is still struggling up from abject poverty; and is still dealing with a legacy of corruption in various levels of government which has retarded it's otherwise substantial educational and economic growth. As that situation slowly resolves itself, the Indian birthrate is very likely going to level off to match that of the US and Europe.

[aquitaine]

But China has never been a huge proponent of universal education; at least not to the degree seen in Europe, North America, and other parts of the Far East like Japan and South Korea.

An educated population is far more difficult to control; which is why one of the first things a totalitarian government does is control and suppress education; and very frequently promote an idealized version of the uneducated/poorly educated "peasant" or "worker" as the preferred standard; often creating or reverting to a quasi-feudal social structure.


That hasn't been true for almost 30 years. Education is seen as something highly valued in Chinese society.

[geni]

An educated population is far more difficult to control; which is why one of the first things a totalitarian government does is control and suppress education; and very frequently promote an idealized version of the uneducated/poorly educated "peasant" or "worker" as the preferred standard; often creating or reverting to a quasi-feudal social structure.


Nyet. Those old soviet regimes tended to rack up impressive literacy levels. Since education is the method by which you indoctrinate poor education is very dangerious since you wake up one morning to find that those poorly educated peasents have become militiant islamists. Remeber if they can't read they can't read your properganda.

Secondly educated people are useful. They can keep your bureaucracy ticking over they can keep your infrastructure intactact and build more of it and they can allow you to use better technology.

Sure you get the odd student revolt but well all systems get those and they are generaly fairly easy to deal with.

Of course this isn't universal. Your average cold war african dictator tended to be too busy robbing the country to get a worthwhile education system going and there were a few who's idiology favoured the rual idel but equaly there were those who's idiology favoured a reasonable level of education.

[Wolfman]

An educated population is far more difficult to control; which is why one of the first things a totalitarian government does is control and suppress education; and very frequently promote an idealized version of the uneducated/poorly educated "peasant" or "worker" as the preferred standard; often creating or reverting to a quasi-feudal social structure.Luchog,

I am entirely unsure as to what data or 'facts' you are basing this conclusion on. China has placed a phenomenal emphasis on education; in fact, their accomplishments in this regard are nothing short of amazing. No country in history has increased literacy rates as quickly as China has. Standards of education across the country are increasing steadily. Considering the significant challenges facing it, China's done an admirable job in this regard.

And to add to your comments...

1) I find that economics play a far greater role in birth rates than does education. Poor people with good educations still tend to want more children; whereas those who are wealthy, regardless of their level of education, tend to want less.

2) In cities like Beijing and Shanghai, middle and upper class Chinese are already seeking to have fewer children. However, these represent 5-10% (at most) of the overall population.

3) There is still and AWFUL long way to go until China reaches the point where this trend will penetrate all levels of society; until that time comes, some sort of population control is still necessary (without it, development will be even slower)

[Beerina]

*shudder*

I hate totalitarianism.

Notice the handing out of liberty to politically favored groups.

[ImaginalDisc]

That hasn't been true for almost 30 years. Education is seen as something highly valued in Chinese society.

Valued, perhaps, but not accessible everywhere. Education is not free, so huge numbers of poor, rural farmers are unable to afford to educate their children.

[Wolfman]

Valued, perhaps, but not accessible everywhere. Education is not free, so huge numbers of poor, rural farmers are unable to afford to educate their children.You know, I don't mind differing opinions. But I do mind opinions based on complete ignorance of what people are talking about.

Education in China is 100% free for primary school, junior high school, and senior high school (that is, all the way up to college/university level). This includes tuition, textbooks, etc.

There are two significant factors that work against those in rural communities. First is the fact that many families feel that it is better to have their child at home working (and helping the family make money), rather than sending them to school. Second is the fact that, especially when considering junior and senior high school, there often are not local schools available, so students must travel and/or board in another town/city...and that cost must be covered by the family.

Nobody's saying the situation is perfect. But literacy rates in rural communities have gone from under 40% in 1960, to over 80% today (and over 90% of those under 35). The Chinese gov't has invested massive amounts of time and money in improving the education system.

Seriously...try actually finding out what the hell you're talking about before you say stuff like this. Education is one of the fields I am most active in within China (including a non-profit organization to improve education for one of the Chinese minority groups, and serving as a consultant on national education policy).
Notice the handing out of liberty to politically favored groupsI'm curious as to what those "politically favored groups" are. Are you referring to the minority groups, who are allowed to have 2-3 children per family? The same minority groups who, until 15 years ago, were terribly oppressed, with massive government efforts to eradicate their cultures entirely? Would that be the "politically favored groups" you are referring to?

Or perhaps you are referring to those couples where both the husband and wife are only children; except that this rule applies equally to all Chinese, regardless of economic or social level.

Or perhaps you are referring to those who have had a child die...yeah, we certainly should criticize the Chinese government for giving some of those families a chance to have another child! Oh, wait...

The mindless bigotry, and the determination to cling to stereotypes and biases that have no basis in reality of what the actual situation is here in China, absolutely disgusts me. The people making these statements are people who tend to consider themselves 'skeptics', yet freely offer up opinions, statements, and judgments that have no basis on anything other than some imaginary perception that they have in their mind, and have mistaken for reality.

China's got ****-loads of problems. I talk about those regularly, and have never denied it. But those problems are not going to be solved by idiots pronouncing judgment on a situation that, by the very content of their statements, they don't have a freakin' clue about.

[ImaginalDisc]

You know, I don't mind differing opinions. But I do mind opinions based on complete ignorance of what people are talking about.

Education in China is 100% free for primary school, junior high school, and senior high school (that is, all the way up to college/university level). This includes tuition, textbooks, etc.

That's really strange. If I am misinformed, I'm misinformed by Frontline documentary a someone posted here a while back that went out of its way to say that eduction was a huge financial burden on rural farmers.

[Wolfman]

That's really strange. If I am misinformed, I'm misinformed by a Frontline Documentary (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/view/) someone posted here a while back that went out of its way to say that eduction was a huge financial burden on rural farmers.
Unfortunately, I cannot access that link; but here are the facts on education in China.

1) If you do not have a school in your own town (which, for rural communities, is often the case for junior and senior high school), then the costs for transportation to the nearest school, and/or boarding at that school (if it is too far away or too expensive to commute each day) can be prohibitive.

2) The costs for college/university are quite high, and many families cannot afford it. Therefore, they may consider it pointless to get much education in junior/senior high school, since they feel there is too little chance of getting into university.

3) The greatest economic burden on rural families is the loss of their children from doing work around the home. That means that the family cannot raise as much food, or generate as much income. The Chinese government is actually, in some cases, beginning to set up programs where not only is education free, but families are given a small economic subsidy to counteract the perceived loss of having their children in school.

So yes -- education can be a significant economic burden on rural families. But it is not because education is not offered for free. And, again, the government has, in the face of very significant obstacles, done a hell of a lot to improve educational opportunities for children in even the poorest communities.

[ImaginalDisc]

Unfortunately, I cannot access that link; but here are the facts on education in China.

1) If you do not have a school in your own town (which, for rural communities, is often the case for junior and senior high school), then the costs for transportation to the nearest school, and/or boarding at that school (if it is too far away or too expensive to commute each day) can be prohibitive.

2) The costs for college/university are quite high, and many families cannot afford it. Therefore, they may consider it pointless to get much education in junior/senior high school, since they feel there is too little chance of getting into university.

3) The greatest economic burden on rural families is the loss of their children from doing work around the home. That means that the family cannot raise as much food, or generate as much income. The Chinese government is actually, in some cases, beginning to set up programs where not only is education free, but families are given a small economic subsidy to counteract the perceived loss of having their children in school.

So yes -- education can be a significant economic burden on rural families. But it is not because education is not offered for free. And, again, the government has, in the face of very significant obstacles, done a hell of a lot to improve educational opportunities for children in even the poorest communities.

Oh, I expect you wouldn't be able to access that link. In fact, I'm go back and delete the URL from the post on the basis that it might wind up getting the whole thread blocked for you.

It's in reference to a certain 1989 event in a prominent quadrangle that the Great Firewall doesn't allow searches of or access to.

Thanks, it serves me right for letting one shallow source form my impression.

[Safe-Keeper]

The PBS FRONTLINE documentary I posted is what came to my mind, too, when I read the post above about education. Both the documentary and the web site' background info (in this case an interview with, I believe, the filmmaker), state that all levels of education, including elementary school, costs money, which many can't afford. Same with medical assistance. To paraphrase an interview subject from the movie, "If [the poor] get sick, [they] depend on remedial herb and folklore medicine or... die".

Edit: Read Wolfman's reply above. Thanks, wolf. The documentary is from 2006, so is the free education something that's arisen after that? Just wondering.

[ravdin]

The greatest crime in regards to childbirth policies in China is not the one-child policy. The greatest crime was Mao Zedong's policy in the 50s-70s of telling the Chinese people to have as many children as they could, in order to "make the nation strong". That policy led to a situation where, today, there is little real choice other than to find the best way to prevent further significant population growth.

So, the antidote to heavy handed government policy with bad results must be an different heavy handed policy in the opposite direction.

It's true that I have no love for the CCP. Call it "mindless bigotry" if you will, but I don't mistake them for a group of high minded humanitarians. (Of course, I'm making a distinction between the CCP and the Chinese people- not a position the CCP approves of very much, I know).

It's clear that you're very well informed, Wolfman. So you must already know about the gender gap (120 boys were born for every 100 girls, as of 2007). Is this a recipe for a more harmonious society?

On a final note, I'd like to point out that just because I dislike the CCP doesn't mean that I think that everything they do is bad. Maybe the end even justifies the means in the one child policy (although I'm sure you'll agree that its benefits aren't without a price). But I have a profound philosophical difference about our individual choices (what to read, how to work, and how and when to reproduce) being the sole prerogative of the state to decide. That's why I made my earlier comment about totalitarianism.

[Wolfman]

The PBS FRONTLINE documentary I posted is what came to my mind, too, when I read the post above about education. Both the documentary and the web site' background info (in this case an interview with, I believe, the filmmaker), state that all levels of education, including elementary school, costs money, which many can't afford. Same with medical assistance. To paraphrase an interview subject from the movie, "If [the poor] get sick, [they] depend on remedial herb and folklore medicine or... die".

Edit: Read Wolfman's reply above. Thanks, wolf. The documentary is from 2006, so is the free education something that's arisen after that? Just wondering.It is very true that medical care is not free, and in fact can be prohibitively expensive.

In regards to education, as I said, the largest financial difficulty derives from the loss of labor at home, when children are sent to school.

There is another factor, but this is one that is related more to local policies and/or corruption, than to national policies. The Chinese government guarantees payment of teachers' salaries, and of students' tuition fees. However, the payment that the government offers for teachers may not be high enough to attract teachers to rural areas, or to pay for enough teachers for the school. And the government doesn't pay for other costs, such as new buildings to house increasing numbers of students.

The schools in this situation face a very difficult choice. One is to offer education for free (all tuition fees paid by the gov't); the other is to charge additional fees...fees that allow them to hire more/better teachers, and thus provide a better education, but fees that also may make it too expensive for some children to attend.

This is actually a question that is being faced all across China right now...until a few years ago, the cost of university was also largely subsidized by the government, making it available to most students. However, the extremely high cost of paying for university educations left little money to pay for new equipment, research, top-quality teachers, etc. So you had a situation where students had more equal access to university, but received a poorer-quality education.

This is the question that faces China today -- and there is no good answer. There is just a choice between increasing costs for students, and offering a better quality education to those who can afford it; or keeping the costs as low as possible to give everyone an equal opportunity, but offering a much lower quality of education to those students.

Short-term, the latter is the 'easier' answer; but long-term, the former is the better answer, in my opinion (and is the position that I advocate in my position as a consultant on such issues). Producing students with a higher level of education will result in more rapid development of the country, which will in turn provide more money and resources to provide greater assistance to those in rural communities. Keeping a lower standard of education may give everyone access because of the lower costs...but also helps ensure that the situation does not improve much.

There are efforts to offer a middle road...to find a way of charging more money from those who have it, while paying for those who don't. Efforts are under way to gradually implement a system like this, but it is presently still in its infancy.

Hope that helps offer a broader perspective on the situation here.

[Wolfman]

So, the antidote to heavy handed government policy with bad results must be an different heavy handed policy in the opposite direction.You have a better suggestion, perhaps? I assure you that myself, and the entire Chinese nation would be happy to hear it. Not just a "let them have as many children as they want" answer, but an answer that provides a realistic long-term strategy to prevent the problems that further overpopulation will cause, as outlined in my arguments above. It bugs me to no end how people feel so free to criticize, without being able to offer any better solution.
It's true that I have no love for the CCP. Call it "mindless bigotry" if you will, but I don't mistake them for a group of high minded humanitarians. (Of course, I'm making a distinction between the CCP and the Chinese people- not a position the CCP approves of very much, I know).I don't have a lot of love for them either...I've seen plenty of abuses, many of which have affected myself and close friends. But neither do I see them as some sort of ultimate evil. I have the perspective of having seen China 15 years ago, and being able to compare how much better it is today than it was then...and all that improvement was made under the auspices of the CCP.
It's clear that you're very well informed, Wolfman. So you must already know about the gender gap (120 boys were born for every 100 girls, as of 2007). Is this a recipe for a more harmonious society?Of course I'm aware of the gap. I'm also aware that the gap has nothing to do with a gov't policy that favors males. Quite the opposite. The Chinese gov't has made numerous laws to try to prevent this, from making ultrasounds to determine gender illegal, to outlawing abortions based on the gender of the baby (ie. you can easily obtain an abortion of a male fetus, but abortion of a female fetus requires a doctor's approval that it is necessary). Which raises a whole new debate -- people go from complaining that the gov't forces people not to have children, from forcing them to have children if they happen to be female.

But Chinese culture -- dating back to far, far, far before the time of the Communist Party -- predicates that, when married, a woman leaves her family and becomes responsible for her husband's family. In the past, when people could have many children, having a female child wasn't so bad...you could have more children, presumably some of them being male. However, when you're only allowed one child, then for poor families, the importance of that child's gender is increased significantly.

This is almost entirely an economic and cultural issue, not political. In families that have more money, they care little about the gender of the baby. While it is a very important and controversial issue in China today, I don't see how it can be blamed on the current Chinese government (unless you're going to argue for unrestrained childbirth...which brings us back to the question I asked at the beginning of this post)
On a final note, I'd like to point out that just because I dislike the CCP doesn't mean that I think that everything they do is bad. Maybe the end even justifies the means in the one child policy (although I'm sure you'll agree that its benefits aren't without a price). But I have a profound philosophical difference about our individual choices (what to read, how to work, and how and when to reproduce) being the sole prerogative of the state to decide. That's why I made my earlier comment about totalitarianism.I have a profound problem with this, too...and look forward to the day when it will not be necessary.

It is a standard principle that in even the freest societies, there are times that the government must step in and take control, and override individual freedoms. We saw this happen, for example, when martial law was declared in New Orleans after the hurricane destroyed much of the city. There are times when it becomes necessary for the government to override individual rights, due to a larger overriding societal need.

China is in such a situation now; its gigantic population, in and of itself, represents a significant threat to the future development of the country. Sure, it'd be great if the Chinese people would voluntarily agree to stop having so many children, but that's just not gonna' happen...not in the current situation.

Like I said -- if you can offer a better solution, I'm all ears. I don't like the current solution...but have yet to hear anyone suggest an idea that offers any better results.

[Wolfman]

One further comment -- it is interesting how my two posts above essentially juxtapose two fundamentally opposed positions. One position argues for greater education for children in China. The other position argues for greater freedom to have as many children as you want.

However, fact is, you can't have both. If you get rid of the one-child policy, then the population explodes, and there is less money available to educate a much larger number of students.

I have personally seen and lived in these communities...the poorest communities, the ones that find it most difficult to get a good education for their children. I believe that one of the most fundamental principles for China's development must be to improve both the quantity and quality of education. And if we are forced to choose between quantity (how many students can get an education) and quality (how good that education is), I would choose quality as the greater priority.

Unrestrained population growth virtually guarantees failure in this regard. You hold up a "principle" of freedom that may offer some degree of moral/philosophical solace, but that in practical, pragmatic terms guarantees that a far larger number of children cannot get a decent education, and are doomed to continue living in poverty (and their children, and their grandchildren)...it is a self-replicating cycle that is extremely difficult to stop.

I say let's first deal with the existing population, and find a way to solve the current problems. Once things have improved to the point where all children across China can have access to a decent education, then let's talk about the possibility of increasing that population.

But doing it the other way around? That is simply sacrificing real peoples' lives to vague political ideologies...chanting mantras of "freedom" and "choice", while the reality is that people suffer more. And I don't see how people can condemn the Chinese gov't for its policies, when the policies that they support/promote would result in even greater problems and suffering for the Chinese people.

[aggle-rithm]

The greatest crime in regards to childbirth policies in China is not the one-child policy. The greatest crime was Mao Zedong's policy in the 50s-70s of telling the Chinese people to have as many children as they could, in order to "make the nation strong". That policy led to a situation where, today, there is little real choice other than to find the best way to prevent further significant population growth.


In fairness to Mao, he was probably planning on going to war a lot more than he ended up doing. When your entire military is composed of infantry, you got to make babies.

[Wolfman]

In fairness to Mao, he was probably planning on going to war a lot more than he ended up doing. When your entire military is composed of infantry, you got to make babies.Mao was, at heart, a peasant, and had a peasant's mentality. He'd been born and raised that the larger a family is, the stronger and wealthier it will be. He extended that argument to the nation as a whole. Many rural Chinese still think this way today (and is one of many reasons why Mao is still largely adulated in rural communities, but disliked in urban areas).

[ImaginalDisc]

In fairness to Mao, he was probably planning on going to war a lot more than he ended up doing. When your entire military is composed of infantry, you got to make babies.

Even infantry fighting isn't merely a matter of money, but also tactics, training, fighting gear, logistics, support from the air and sea, and many other factors. Many a smaller force has run roughshod over a larger force.

Then again, I also think Mao expected China's economy to be a powerhouse as well under his brilliant guidance towards for a glorious future.

[quarky]

Gay marriage will help.

[Wolfman]

Even infantry fighting isn't merely a matter of money, but also tactics, training, fighting gear, logistics, support from the air and sea, and many other factors. Many a smaller force has run roughshod over a larger force.

Then again, I also think Mao expected China's economy to be a powerhouse as well under his brilliant guidance towards for a glorious future.Mao, and his cronies, were deluded and ignorant fools. In grasping atheism and rejecting all religion (which were central aspects of their policies at that time), they went to an opposite extreme of raising science to the level of a new religion. They believed that science gave man 100% control over their environment...you could grow as much food as you needed, overcome any problem. It was really the whole Biblical concept that, "You shall have dominion over all the earth", but from an atheist perspective.

The Great Leap Forward was the most obvious and disastrous result of this thinking. The government simply mandated production quotas -- for food, manufacturing, etc. -- that were impossible to achieve, but that they believed could be accomplished "through dedicated labor and adherence to scientific progress". Those quotas proved unsustainable, and caused an economic collapse that resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

The current gov't has, at least, learned to be more pragmatic in this regard, and to base policy on the reality of what the situation is, not some political ideal of how they think it should be. This is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between Mao, and his successors.

[Wolfman]

Gay marriage will help.Hey, this is something I've been advocating here for years! The gov't shouldn't condemn homosexuality, it should embrace it! Then the gender imbalance is not so significant...and there's no need to legislate birth control in same-sex couples!

[ImaginalDisc]

Mao, and his cronies, were deluded and ignorant fools. In grasping atheism and rejecting all religion (which were central aspects of their policies at that time), they went to an opposite extreme of raising science to the level of a new religion. They believed that science gave man 100% control over their environment...you could grow as much food as you needed, overcome any problem. It was really the whole Biblical concept that, "You shall have dominion over all the earth", but from an atheist perspective.

It was certainly atheist in that it rejected religion, but it also embraced nonsense, as you say. I suppose it's difficult for a Western atheist to disentangle the Enlightenment period, skeptical, and rigorously scientific heritage of atheism that is connoted in the use of the word from the word itself.

And by "Western atheist" I mean me, specifically, just so no one accuse me of proping up a strawman.

I wouldn't blame irreligious attitudes for China's problems any more than I'd recommend them as a panacea.

It's not enough to keep one set of bad ideas out of your head, one has to know how to tell the difference between good and bad ideas.

[ravdin]

Hey, this is something I've been advocating here for years! The gov't shouldn't condemn homosexuality, it should embrace it! Then the gender imbalance is not so significant...and there's no need to legislate birth control in same-sex couples!

It will also help with the excess of men in the population.

[Wolfman]

It was certainly atheist in that it rejected religion, but it also embraced nonsense, as you say. I suppose it's difficult for a Western atheist to disentangle the Enlightenment period, skeptical, and rigorously scientific heritage of atheism that is connoted in the use of the word from the word itself.

And by "Western atheist" I mean me, specifically, just so no one accuse me of proping up a strawman.

I wouldn't blame irreligious attitudes for China's problems any more than I'd recommend them as a panacea.

It's not enough to keep one set of bad ideas out of your head, one has to know how to tell the difference between good and bad ideas.Nowhere in that did I say that it was 'because they were atheist'. But it would likewise be pointless to deny the atheist aspect of their position. The radical degree to which they embraced science as the 'answer to everything' was, in large part, a result of their desire to eliminate 'superstition' from China. They sought to replace a theistic religion with an atheistic religion; to replace gods who could do anything, with a science that could do anything.

And for the record -- I doubt that there is any atheist on the entire planet that does not, to one degree or another, embrace beliefs or principles that are, in fact, nonsense. Myself included. :)

[SteveGrenard]

There have been some thoughtful and interesting replies on this topic. And while I don't want to be too cynical, a story emerged today in the NY Times which we heard about before and it concerns the inordinate number of children who died in the quake because they were in school. The cynicism being voiced is that granting permission to have replacement children may be the government's response to the following:



Parents' Grief Turns to Rage at Chinese Officials

By ANDREW JACOBS

Protests by grieving parents are forcing Chinese officials to address a growing political backlash over shoddy construction of public schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/world/asia/28quake.html?th&emc=th



Thoughts? Is this the government saying, to parents, don't worry, you can have another kid?

[Wolfman]

There have been some thoughtful and interesting replies on this topic. And while I don't want to be too cynical, a story emerged today in the NY Times which we heard about before and it concerns the inordinate number of children who died in the quake because they were in school. The cynicism being voiced is that granting permission to have replacement children may be the government's response to the following:



Thoughts? Is this the government saying, to parents, don't worry, you can have another kid?
One must first differentiate between national government, and local government. For example, in my NGO here, I work with both national government, and local gov't officials in Yunnan. The national gov't officials I deal with are generally quite honest, and have done a lot to assist me. The local gov't officials, by contrast, tend to be corrupt bastards who care only about themselves.

I could personally take you on a tour of local primary schools that are shoddily constructed, where local gov't officials have pocketed money themselves by cutting corners in the building of the schools. To make it more complicated, some of the schools were built by the current gov't leaders...but others were built 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, under different gov't leaders.

Yes, cracking down on this, and punishing local corrupt officials, should be a major priority. And in many ways, it is. But the task is gargantuan. The sheer size of the country, and the population, makes it virtually impossible to effectively police or monitor local leaders effectively.

Virtually every week, there are stories of local gov't officials being imprisoned or executed for corruption. But for every one imprisoned, there are another 10 still on the loose out there.

I'm very, very, very confident that heads are going to roll (quite literally) over this disaster. And that even in areas that weren't damaged by the quake, there's going to be significantly greater pressure on local gov't officials to improve the quality of schools. But I'm equally sure that there'll still be plenty more such buildings, and plenty more such corruption. It isn't a problem that is solved overnight; and is one of the larger problems facing the current gov't.

[Madalch]

When your entire military is composed of infantry, you got to make babies.

I think you meant "When your entire military is composed of infantry, you need infants."

[geni]

It's clear that you're very well informed, Wolfman. So you must already know about the gender gap (120 boys were born for every 100 girls, as of 2007). Is this a recipe for a more harmonious society?


Hardly a problem unique to china. India has simular issues and the problem has just started to appear in certian groups in the UK.

[Sherwood]

What is the estimated biological load limit to the Earth?

[Roboramma]

What is the estimated biological load limit to the Earth? You mean the number of people that can be supported with the resources of this planet?
That depends on a lot of things. What is per capita consumption? How efficient is our technology for extracting those resources and our methods of bringing them to the people who consume them? How much wilderness do we want to maintain? How much wilderness do we need in order for things to continue to 'run' right?

But all those issues are separate from the simple fact that China has more people than it can support well, and as population continues to grow (and it still is, in spite of the one child policy, and will for a little while yet) has a lot to deal with because of that.

By the way, thanks to wolfman for your posts.

[Wolfman]

What is the estimated biological load limit to the Earth?
I'm not sure. The limit could be significantly increased by the extensive use of hydroponic farming (which can be used pretty much anywhere, regardless of the quality of the land; and which produces significantly higher yields than traditional forms of farming), and decreasing meat consumption (producing meat consumes far more natural resources).

The latter is certainly possible...but depends on peoples' willingness to decrease their consumption of meat. At present, this does not seem to be a very realistic proposal.

Hydroponics, on the other hand, would be a MAJOR boon to a country like China. The problem is the significant cost involved in setting up and maintaining hydroponic facilities...rural communities wouldn't be able to afford it themselves, and it is prohibitively expensive for the government to take on on a nationwide basis.

Then there's another problem...hydroponics would employ far fewer workers/farmers, so by embracing hydroponic farming, you'd also be drastically increasing unemployment levels in rural areas.

As with so many things, the 'simple' answers are rarely simple; there are numerous different factors to consider, and one 'solution' may simply lead to new, bigger problems, unless it is thought out carefully, and implemented responsibly.

[bellonax]

*secretly thinks Wolfman is magnificent*

[aggle-rithm]

Hey, this is something I've been advocating here for years! The gov't shouldn't condemn homosexuality, it should embrace it! Then the gender imbalance is not so significant...and there's no need to legislate birth control in same-sex couples!

How about MANDATORY gay marriage for people who have more than one out-of-wedlock child?

(I don't know if that's as big a problem there as it is here.)

[aggle-rithm]

I think you meant "When your entire military is composed of infantry, you need infants."

Well, then what about adultery?

(there's a joke in there somewhere, I just can't find it.)

[aggle-rithm]

*secretly thinks Wolfman is magnificent*

Hey, nice work keeping that secret.

[Soapy Sam]

Given the price of oil, how many people here would rather Chinese families stick to the one child rule?

To state my own case- I never wanted children and have none. If I was Chinese, I might feel the government owed me at least a free travel card or something.
There are too many people on this planet. Global warming is not caused by too many cars, it's caused by too many people owning cars (among other things).
Anything short of infanticide that cuts the birthrate is potentially a good thing for us all - including the descendants of those of you who have them.
This is not a China issue, it's a world issue- one that so far only Chinese Politicians have been in a position to face. No democracy has had the guts to face it, because no democracy would re-elect any politician who suggested it- and because most democracies have falling birthrates anyway

[aquitaine]

The Great Leap Forward was the most obvious and disastrous result of this thinking. The government simply mandated production quotas -- for food, manufacturing, etc. -- that were impossible to achieve, but that they believed could be accomplished "through dedicated labor and adherence to scientific progress".

Given the lack of literacy of most of the people, how could it be possible to "adhere to the scientific process" when most people didn't even know what science was? It was really more of a result of massive economic mismanagement than anything else.

Actually I think that pushing science was, in the long run, the right way to go. Science can do a lot to benefit China, and help China contribute more to the world. Now compare this to the muslim countries where science is treated with suspicion and disdain and a superstitious religion is king. Which has a brighter future?

If I was Chinese, I might feel the government owed me at least a free travel card or something.

China doesn't have travel cards.

[Wolfman]

Given the lack of literacy of most of the people, how could it be possible to "adhere to the scientific process" when most people didn't even know what science was?
I didn't say it was logical.

I've shared these stories before, but will do it again. When I first came to China in 1993, the gov't was still rather caught up in the idea that there was a scientific solution to everything...but with little real understanding of what science actually was, or how to use it.

One gov't official in the province of Shandong ordered a study to determine how many pens an average teacher should use in one year. They figured it all out 'scientifically'...how much writing does an average teacher do in a day, what will they use their pen for (ie. grading papers, writing tests, etc.).

Based on this "scientific survey", this gov't official then mandated that all teachers were to be given a specific number of pens (the 'optimum' number concluded in their survey), and report on their usage of pens throughout the year. If a teacher failed to use all their pens, it was assumed that this was because she was not working hard enough, and she could face criticism and/or a cut in salary. If a teacher used more than the allotted number of pens, it was assumed that it was because either they were stealing pens, or their were using their pens for non-work-related writing...and could face criticism and/or a cut in salary.

Fortunately, this policy was abandoned after only one year.

This is how China worked for over 40 years. A gov't official would reach a conclusion based on something he called 'science'. He then set specific quotas for people to accomplish, and if they failed to meet those quotas, they'd be punished.

During the Great Leap Forward, some Chinese gov't officials decided that if x amount of fertilizer could increase crop production by 50%, then four times more fertilizer could increase crop production by 200%. So they set quotas for farmers to produce amounts of grain based on their theories. People who said it couldn't be done were called counter-revolutionary, and punished for questioning the scientific principles of their leaders. Everyone else, seeing this, just lied -- they claimed to be producing more grain than they actually were. The overuse of fertilizers, meanwhile, far from helping them grow more food, ended up destroying the soil, and their crops. The result was one of the worst famines in Chinese history, and the deaths of millions of people.

[ImaginalDisc]

Nowhere in that did I say that it was 'because they were atheist'. But it would likewise be pointless to deny the atheist aspect of their position. The radical degree to which they embraced science as the 'answer to everything' was, in large part, a result of their desire to eliminate 'superstition' from China. They sought to replace a theistic religion with an atheistic religion; to replace gods who could do anything, with a science that could do anything.

And for the record -- I doubt that there is any atheist on the entire planet that does not, to one degree or another, embrace beliefs or principles that are, in fact, nonsense. Myself included. :)

It's not possible to embrace "science as the 'answer to everything'." It's possible to embrace pseduoscience as the answer to everything. Science requires critical thinking and skepticism.