Unlimited population growth is unsustainable so the one child policy is a counter to china having over 1/5th the world population. A little background, the government ultimately became communist so they banned the abortion and the import of contraceptives. This lead to a population boom which after years of wars, unrest, and epidemics was welcomed. Unfortunately the population explosion lead to a drain on china's resources mainly food and now oil. Also adding to the fire Mao tried to have industrial revolution without a farming revolution leading to mass starvation.

So yes it does work but there are other ways other than the one child policy as shown but India. Also does the one child policy create gender inequality, exacerbate the old, but on the other side it helps with china's economy and population problems, as well as most families can help focus on one child instead of spreading there efforts.

The one child policy gives lots of chinese families many benefits that most simply can't turn down without facing harsh life

I gandered at the wiki article. It has some important things to mention.



Your videos make some bold claims that are quite far from the actual truth, and even equates fetuses to have full person rights, which has not even been established by philosophers. Sounds like a scare tactic for a policy that has largely helped people.

@Sac
well the videos i found were all making alot of strong claims; I'll put a warning about it.

Well if the one child policy worked as it should you should expect the population to drop by 50% eventually.

A one child policy would eventually lead to extinction lol.

If you ask me, a one or two child policy should be considered worldwide in the near future, otherwise global overpopulation will become a serious problem.

Keep in mind that as countries industrialize children become a burden rather than an asset, when developed far enough they stop sustaining their own population internally.



One child policies have notable negatives morally (in the act of forced sterilization or euthanasia), and would likely meet quick defeat in stable democracies. It may be wise, however, to shift incentives more towards not having children and work at decreasing the cost of contraceptive until worldwide population growth stabilizes.

There are many problems with the one child policy from a long term perspective. Russia awards mothers with many children with the title Mother Heroine, because they know that Russia is in trouble population wise. A lot of the exceptions to the rule in China (such as families are allowed to petition for more than one child) have just come about recently, because they foresee the problems a small population could have on their economy. Chin has relied on their oversized population to generate cheap revenue for them by sending everyone to work at a factory for below a living wage. As the population drops, demands for better treatment rise- and China will soon have to listen, or else the country will lose all revenue. Either way, it will the Chinese economy back in line with the rest of the world, because the one child policy makes them destined to raise wages therefore raising the cost of goods produced. Not to mention the gender embalance - according to the CIA Factbook, there are 27,372,694 more males between the age of 15 and 64. That is a huge discrepancy, and what that means is that women are bought at a high social premium (or literally, depending on your view)...the end result being women don't usually work. So you have these huge stresses on the labor pool - a naturally shrinking market, a socially shrinking market, and a high demand for products. The one child rule is very volatile, and only succeeds in bringing temporary economic relief.

Global overpopulation already is a serious problem.

What is this I don't even

Either kill the babies or we all starve...?

Is that a succinct representation of the problem?

I agree the videos weren't of great quality, but I should point out that forced abortion violates both major positions in the (american) debate; namely pro-life and pro-choice.


I take issue with this concept, I know not of any objective moral code that has been established by philosophers, each attempt I've combed over failed to achieve a great confidence and has significant objections.

If subjective morality is what we're talking, then the significant purveyors are those that establish the law - eg: legislators.

While those who advocate anti-abortion policies are certainly against the idea of forced abortions, the same cannot be said of the opposing group. While pro-abortion policy advocates may or may not support the idea that women have a right to choose, I won't bother with those who do not and instead focus on the group that support the notion that women have an unalienable civil right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

The important distinction to be made is that even if someone believes that women do have a right to choose, it does not entail that they believe women have the right to choose unequivocally (Not all A's are B's). For example, being forced to choose before a specific period in the fetus's development or being forced to if it is a child under a specific age at the wish of the parents. The more relevant example is if it is at the behest of the government.

Forgive me, but I needed to state all of this to point out the logical error in your statement. Allow me to leave you with tougher moral questions.

Should the government have the right to order women to have an abortion?

If yes, then what is the extent of this power, and where is the line?

If no, then suppose a drug addict mother is pregnant, her child, if born, will live in agonizing and terrible pain all of his life. He will have a number of genetic defects and will live to 12 years old at most. He will, in addition to being in constant pain, be completely paralyzed. Should the government force the mother to abort the child only a month into this pregnancy? What if this is discovered one week after conception? Is there a line?


Legislators operate off of philosophy. Forgive me for not clarifying.

I was referring to the argument, "life begins at conception." Which slips in something philosophers have been in debate about: personhood. With personhood comes specific rights for all people (and they need not be human). For example, there is a group that advocates giving person rights to dolphins, being that they are self-aware and rather intelligent. I'll forgo much of the dialogue on this subject however, since exactly what the qualifications of a person is can be a messy subject.

The compromise, as pointed out by some philosophers, is that a fetus could be considered a potential person (which has its own problems, to be sure). And that being a potential person may grant you some rights entitled to persons, but not all of the rights. This, like most topics in philosophy, gets sticky very, very fast.

What I mean to say is that the debate in the public square is really only the surface, and the real is issue is whether a fetus is a person or not -- or how much of a person. But allow me to bring you up to speed on the latest developments. The idea that these potential people have a right to live is a very hard to thing to defend, and the side that says it doesn't over the rights of a full person seems to have the upper hand.

But of course, we're left with the same problem: where's the fine line?

---

In China, one could argue, the rights of future potential people are being protected -- their right to live a prosperous life free of disease and starvation that would surely befall an overpopulated society.

This just isn't as cut and dry as some may think.

I referenced the 'pop' positions in this case (ie: the majority) - I don't think I err'd given my semantics, though in hindsight I probably shouldn't have used the word 'debate' - I know that said position's commit oversimplification.

Anyways given your evident (in the change to 'legislators') adoption of subjective morality for this discussion - several of the questions posed become largely redundant.

If a entity has no objective moral duty to A or ~A, then asking whether it has the right to do something would be a question of what I feel it should have the right to do - which is addressed by examining illustrations and self-reflection rather than logical reasoning - an extremely iffy position for moralists to take, which makes it rather impossible to practice moral reasoning (in the sense that you conclude an act as 'right' or 'wrong' via logic).

Rather, I think to meaningfully answer moral questions we need to, at the very least, posit that some acts are truly right and some are truly wrong ie: has objective moral character (an axiom few actually choose to reject; common illustration: torturing children for fun). Then we can meaningfully answer moral questions and sensibly establish rights for what-have-you.

---

Somewhat ironic morality tangent aside, I believe an abortion debate largely belongs in it's own thread.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 10 2012, 9:09 am by jjf28.

Well, if we're to return to the issue. How far does the right to bear children stretch?

If everyone was having eight children the population would explode and crash. The only answer to such a scenario is to prevent people from having eight children. Without any natural predators to keep us in check and our increasing medical knowledge, it's imperative we take responsibility for our reproduction and not act with avarice. I respect the Chinese for attempting to do so, but I find it very sad that it promotes female infanticide.

It's a shame that Chinese culture has not developed as much as their policies have.