Author: iluv2fish

one child policy, where will it lead? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-14 01:36:36 |Display all floors

to karenb

"why one"?

In the 1970s (maybe also 1960s ) people in cities are allowed to have up to 2 children. But this plan proved to be not effective to keep down the growth rate. That is why later one-child policy was brought about.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-14 01:36:51 |Display all floors

to karenb

"why one"?

In the 1970s (maybe also 1960s ) people in cities are allowed to have up to 2 children. But this plan proved to be not effective to keep down the growth rate. That is why later one-child policy was brought about.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-14 05:24:49 |Display all floors

Men are from Mars, are they not?

karenb:  there is no question whatsoever that men are the cause of the bulk of conflicts, aggresssion and wars. This is of course simply nature's way of ensuring the viability of the species. The testosterone levels are there originally to faciitate prowess in hunting and fending off potential or real enemies. So whereas these requirements for the survival of the species have drastically altered the testosterone has not. The world would certainly a far more peaceful, reasonable and fairer place if more leaders are women.
The galling phenomenon about male aggression nowadays is that male leaders who have never been to war although they had a chance in their younger days are the ones who goad others to offer the ultimate sacrifice; his life. These ' chicken hawks ' have a lot to answer for.

As to ' one child '. It was the intention to REDUCE the population. The one child theme was needed when reinforced by the dropping infant mortality rate and the increased life expectancy as medical delivery improved. Later on I can see a relaxation of the 'rule' as situation permits. "Little emperors" have been with Chinese families since time immemorial. There can be 5-6 emperors in a family if the indulgence permits`. It has only a small relationship with just the number.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-14 07:58:39 |Display all floors

Thanks Kwok Ho

As usual, everything you just said is logical and reasonable, and you, along with didiha (sp?) gave me some information I didn't know.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-14 09:38:50 |Display all floors

To KwokHo

You said, "China has taken the problem of overpopulation by the scruff of the neck and dealt with it precisely, in a focused and disciplined way with the maximum education possible. The result over a period of 25 years is astounding and pleasing. There have been huge issues of culture, tradition and superstitions to be overcomed and we did it , not perfectly, but more than creditably. The whole world should rejoice with us."

I congratulate you for having the guts to tackle a huge problem.  Of course, there are difficulties, as there are with any large change.  It would be good if India and other countries would take a similar approach.   Given the exceptions that there are to the one child policy, and the willingness of some to pay the penalties for additional children, any overall policy more lenient than one child would probably result in unacceptably large population growth.

Regarding the idea that a stable or declining population would force people to finance their own retirement, what's wrong with that?  Why should we older people depend on an ever increasing pool of workers to pay for our retirement years?  The present social insurance schemes of the US and other western countries are a giant pyramid scheme, relying on constant increases in the number of people paying into them.  As with any pyramid scheme, the pool of contributors can't increase forever.  China has wisely made pyramid schemes illegal.

Population limitation is absolutely necessary if the poorer people of the world hope  to improve their living conditions, and if those already enjoying decent standards of living hope to maintain them.  While China's policy may not be perfect, I don't know who is doing a better job on a large scale.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2004-10-15 02:08:58 |Display all floors

Humans are from earth.

"The world would certainly a far more peaceful, reasonable and fairer place if more leaders are women."

This isn't supported by the evidence.  The United States has more women elected and appointed to positions of significant authority than ever before.  Despite this fact, the USA ignored most of its allies plus the UN, and invaded Iraq when Iraq had not attack it.  Even the USA's President, George W. Bush, has as his National Security Advisor a woman named Dr. Condellesa Rice.  However, it isn't one woman or women in authority that causes men to die in war.  It is the adulation and approval of war by women that contributes to men dying on the field of battle.  

It is offensive to all men to say that war is their creation and that all the violence, death, and destruction that ensues is the fault of men.  Soldiers don't fight for Generals or medals or money.  They fight out of fear that they will be labeled cowards by women in their home communities.  Let's stop blaming the victims of war and cast a critical eye on those who never face an enemy in battle.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2004-10-15 03:05:49 |Display all floors

Fighters...

I don't know where you live but USA, Israel and many other countries now have women in their armies and not just for support.
There are women fighter jet pilots!

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.