Hasbeen
The one-child policy was disastrous for China. That is not the way to go about population policy nor is it to use force or any other form of dictatorial programs. There are better economic and social mechanisms that affect population growth than forced interference in people's private lives.

This type of policy in a place like China where sons hold the position of head of house was disastrous for baby girls, many being left in orphanages or worse killed. China would have been far better providing some form of retirement pension. The population was merely replaced when millions of male babies grew up to find there were not enough women to marry, and hence led to the influx of foreign wives which merely increased population.

The debate also talked about increasing humanitarian intake as opposed to skilled migration once domestic training policies take effect.

There seems to be some impasse in people's minds between sustainability and humanitarian policy. It can work together and makes sense to take the world's neediest people, provide education and training, health care etc which has positive benefits in the long term.

*The population was merely replaced when millions of male babies grew up to find there were not enough women to marry, and hence led to the influx of foreign wives which merely increased population.*

Not so Pelican. Some of the stuff I've seen, claims that its made
a net difference of around 300 million to their population.

To understand the reasons why, try and see the world from their
perspective at the time, not your perspective here and now.

The Chinese were literally starving at the time. Farms were becoming
smaller and smaller, with each generation. Much like happened
in Rwanda. There was no industrial base to send workers to.

When things become that serious, it becomes all about survival, not
rights. We see similar problems in India, where the population
keeps growing, farmlets become even smaller, poverty increases even
further in rural areas.

Free and available contraception, the availability of abortion if
women want the service, those are the sorts of voluntary
possibilities which can be introduced, before overpopulation
becomes a disaster issue, as in Rwanda. The results were not
pleasant.

Once again, whilst the global population keeps increasing at
250'000 a day, all your feelgood ideas about conservation and
frugal living, are basically a waste of time, they won't make
a scrap of difference.

"Once again, whilst the global population keeps increasing at
250'000 a day, all your feelgood ideas about conservation and
frugal living, are basically a waste of time, they won't make
a scrap of difference."

Yabby you mistake me for a growthist.

When did the environment become a feelgood idea? That is like saying research on cancer is a waste of time because it is a feelgood idea. I love the way you continually use derogatory language to avoid actually discussing any issue on a factual basis.

Frugal living is not what I am advocating - who defines what is meant by frugal. What I am talking about is consumption - it is a fact that if the developing world begins to equal the consumption rates of the developed world, there won't be enough resources if population continues to spiral. In fact there won't be enough now with current population levels.

Logically it will mean that the rest of the world will have to decrease consumption (what you call frugal living) if we are to reach some semblance of equity at the global level.

That is why it is important to get the population strategies right now. It will happen as a natural consequence of development and democracy to a large extent.

Regarding China - this from the linked article:

"The collection of population statistics in China is known to be subject to manipulation to conform with family-planning regulations, since the process is overseen by officials who are often unwilling to uncover any violations of the rules..."

From: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833

Yabby,
Re not following US original immigration policy.

Please think things through before acerbic comment.
Things like their colonial now capitalist hegemony, their unrealistic forced exploitation of others . Remember the slavery....
Then the poor Irish, Italians, Jews and Chinese...oh yes the Evangelical enterprises (aka evangelical churches) and Entrepreneurial excesses..But don't forget their attitude of "we'll fight to save you to the very last drop of *your* blood"
Come to think of it *you are right* the problem did start with the immigrants....the first white ones!

*That is like saying research on cancer is a waste of time because it is a feelgood idea.*

No so Pelican. What it comes down to, is will whatever you or
anyone else does, actually make a scrap of difference, if we look
at the big picture. The bloke who cycles to work to save the
planet, might feel good about himself for all that cycling,
but he's not going to make a scap of difference, if China is
building another 5 coal fired power stations a week. The
same point applies to the 250'000.

Feelgood is in fact a huge human motivator. The brain rewards us
with chemistry and it drives much human behaviour.

* there won't be enough resources if population continues to spiral. In fact there won't be enough now with current population levels.*

In that case we are wasting our time, unless we address population.

*It will happen as a natural consequence of development and democracy to a large extent.*

Nope, it will happen when all women have access to family planning
and abortion services, as the Western World has. Interesting that
your China link claims that 43% of US women have had an abortion.

*since the process is overseen by officials who are often unwilling to uncover any violations of the rules..."*

Sure, that is China for you, we know that. So what?

"So what?"

Yabby you raised the population statistics on China not me.

What has some guy cycling to work got to do with anything - he may feel good about it - that is his right - but what has it got to do with China's population? I have obviously missed the point of your original post.