The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The ecological imperative of the one-child family is also better for children > Comments

The ecological imperative of the one-child family is also better for children : Comments

By Tim Murray, published 3/6/2009

Surely extinction is too high a price to pay for parental self-indulgence? We must stop at one child. For their sake if nothing else.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
What a steaming pile of rubbish.

All the population growth is occurring in the poorest of the poor countries, and where there is wealth population is stable or decreasing. Increasing their wealth is certain to bring stability and population control.

As to the benefit to the kids, they are slight, and hardly compensate for the lack of social skills.

China's population under the one child policy has increased by nearly 50%, so someone must have slipped the leash. Along with all the other issues it has not been a great success.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 4 June 2009 12:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As Yabby pointed out, it is not wealth per se, but the availability of contraception that allows populations to stabilize. I would suggest that affluent nations might be observed to be "breeding like rabbits" were contraception unavailable.

The truth is that without contraception, we breed like humans.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 4 June 2009 10:55:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister says "China's population under the one child policy has increased by nearly 50%, so someone must have slipped the leash. Along with all the other issues it has not been a great success."

Actually, given an understanding of demographic momentum, that outcome was predicted. China's population also did NOT increase by an additional 300 million or more (I think I got that number right, but it was from memory) as a result of this policy. It is a clear example that, even with some pretty drastic population control measures, our populations will continue to increase significantly, and the predictions from the demographers are that that will only finally level off after about 20 to 30 years.
Posted by Rick S, Friday, 5 June 2009 3:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A valid comparison would be poverty striken China whose population as recently as 1950 was a mere 563, with any of the OECD countries whose native populations are decreasing.

As china becomes wealthier, its growth is slowing.

The one child policy is not as effective as wealth generation.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 5 June 2009 8:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This news item gives some insight into the thinking of the Chinese government officials themselves

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23326985-12377,00.html

They essentially introduced the one-child policy when they did because they felt that they had no choice and no time to wait for the demographic transition. They were concerned about stalled development, not to mention famine and the risk of collapse. Their very big young adult generation (partly due to Mao's policy of encouraging large families) guaranteed massive population growth from demographic momentum, even with a low fertility rate. It is true that once development took off, fertility would have started to fall by itself. The truth undoubtedly lies between the Chinese government's claim that the one-child policy averted 300-400 million births and Shadow Minister's claim that it made no difference at all. It is unlikely, however, that the Chinese government would have maintained a policy that must have been difficult and expensive to enforce and has had some nasty side effects if there were no need for it.

I have worked with a lot of Chinese scientists and engineers over the years. Some were migrants, while others were only here temporarily. None of them were at all shy about criticising their government, usually about tolerating corruption from low and middle level officials, although they were proud of its achievements. I can't recall any of them criticising the one-child policy. Some actually told me that they believed it was necessary, although they are glad that it is now being relaxed somewhat.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 5 June 2009 11:42:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

Wealthy nations might have lower birth rates, but it is impractical where population growth is greatest. For example, what is the infrastructure cost per person for a living standard equivalent to Australia's? Add to this the cost of educating the population to an equivalent standard. Then you are in a position to estimate the cost of making the world wealthier.

How much would it cost to give Ethiopians an Australian living standard? Well over 50 trillion dollars is my guess. So providing contraception to these countries is a realistic means of improving living standards. High living standards would not be achievable in a time frame short enough to avoid a catastrophic population collapse.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 5 June 2009 6:30:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy