Spare a thought for the Chinese

Quote from the a link to Global Cooling reads "By 2025, the earth will be home to nearly eight billion people – two billion more than today "
1. As an aside, I recall a few years ago China hit the 1 billion, now its much more (sorry if Im being vague here - but the numbers are not pivotal to what I want to say). I mention a couple of observation which has more to do with the Chinese policy of single child per couple that the global problem of overpopulation.

a. no siblings
b. no cousins
c. no relatives other than your mum and dad (and theirs before them)
d. make the best of the time you have bringing up your one and only child

2. Have you ever considered what the Chinese are giving up in being limited to one child? Not only will the next generation not have any brothers, but the one after that won't have any cousins either !! Think about that for a moment . Surely we gain a massive dimension to life by the fact that we have relatives - a recent Time magazine claimed that our siblings have a massive effect on us, our personality, how we view ourselves, socialise, slot into social roles, "games" etc.

3. Single children in Aus "often" (ok sometimes) tend to introduce themselves almost selfconsciously (wild generalisation I know) as " an only child" - they are frequently keen to marry and have a large family (imho). - Lol while those from larger families tend to have fewer kids (again imho). But in China every child is a single child (with a few excptions in the provinces).

4. In old times, Family trees expanded (going up the page). The font used for each generation started large - slowly decreased - until only the smallest font could be used after a few generations in the topmost braches. Obviously with the one child policy it's the reverse. Many trunks culminating in a pinacle - 16 families being fed in at the bottom, one child at the pinacle (after 4 generations - let's say a male) and looking around for another clumb of 16 trees from which a single member (hopefully female) might be available.

5. Good news I suppose is that if you dont have any relatives, then there's no chance of marrying one accidentally - lol none of those little complications that start to make a family tree look a bit like an ivy vine. (Everything's relative - where I come from we're all relatives too - go to family reunions to pick up on chicks etc THe good news is that every child in China will know they had 16 great-great- grandparents whereas we in aus might have just 14 or 15 lol. (especially around the time of the Rum rebellion lol).

6. Then there's the effect on the joy of parenting. I met a young Chinese Engineer working for the Chinese Govt Overseas Engineering Corporation - posted to Polynesia to construct some bridges. He was out there on a 3 year contract. Whilst he was away his wife had their child and brought her up to the point where she could say goo, crawl, make mum and the gradparents laugh, first funny steps in wide eyed wonder, etc. Meanwhile he was not allowed leave back home - and his wife and child were not allowed to come to see him. He considered himself lucky to have a prestigious job sweating away in the tropics - though over a brandy I think I detected a hint of pain in his face - I felt pity for him. This cruelty that was being inflicted upon him.

Hey - I dont expect this to be a long thread, but I couldn't find another arena that fitted this topic. Maybe others haven't realised these little points either. Anyway

a) enjoy your kids, if you're lucky enough to have them, and
b) spare a thought for the Chinese (and other nations eg parts of India) adopting this policy.

I think we'll see many other countries adopting similar policies in due course. Either that or we're about to see a truly dramatic reduction in per capita consumption of practically everything (in Australian terms, that is effectivley taking a massive pay cut).

Alternatively, we're going to see the environment get steadily worse in the absence of some massive technological breakthroughs rather quickly.

I'm not against children, far from it. Just posting what I see as inevitable.

Keep increasing the population and keep increasing the rate of consumption per person and that equals massive pressure on resources and the environment. We ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to pollution etc...

Smurf1976 said:

I think we'll see many other countries adopting similar policies in due course.

Click to expand...

A friend from India told me the same was happening there - I was surprised , had only heard about the Chinese predicament.

But Smurf, try to recall family reunions when you were a kid - maybe parents, including grand and great-grand. kids, cousins all over the place to play with. These chinese kids will just have to sit by themselves, while 8 or 10 or whatever of the collective gene pool that went into that one child sit around and stare at you.! Talk about the centre of attention ! sheesh.

A collection of triangular families, with all the apexes pointing at you! Heck they might as well stand in a circle and really make you relax !

Imagine if you failed Maths - or Chinese cooking or whatever - at school. everyone pointing their finger at you! God (bhudda?) the responsibility!

I'm amazed more Chinese don't want to leave for the west. (and of course thousands used to come over the wall into Hong Kong in the old days - hence why the Brits abandoned the place despite the economic benefits and despite the ethics.)

The Brits who "talked the Chinese into" giving them HK after the Opium war - when even missionaries were peddling herion to get the Chinese "interested" in the deal - gave it all up, and walked away after 100 years in 1997. Obviously, China is a bouyant growing economy, and when we're growing we are usually happy - but I still have to wonder about the situation in the homes - in those small triangular families that is legislated upon them, where a child can never kick his brother or sister under the table. All those things that an aussie kid needs to be normal

Heck - what are the chances of finding a kid in the street your own age to play cricket with ...(well that would be the equivalent problem if hypothetically transfreed to Aus) ....

oops .... I take that back .
Parts of Mon Kok have 1,000,000 people to the square mile. - problem then is , they have 1 cricket pitch per 1,000,000 sq miles.

So are you all saying that an only child in this part of the world isn't going to grow up to be "normal"?

Julia

Julia said:

So are you all saying that an only child in this part of the world isn't going to grow up to be "normal"? Julia

Click to expand...

LOL - hey - now youre misqouting me, but thanks for taking the hypothesis to another level. I had siblings but they are much older and to be honest if Id kicked them under the table - I'd have been flattened. Fortunately, "only kids" can find plenty of multi-sibling friends in aus .

But most aussies have cousins (at least) or (at least) uncles or aunts!. They say that a person will give their life for a sibling - because in their subconscious they represent an "equal dip in the gene pool". - and (therefore - hypothetically) presumably for two cousins who likewise have "equal value". (personally Ive always had a few reservations with this theory - would depend on which cousins etc )

Hek what does a Chinese kid have to look forward to - giving his life for his four grandparents!! or his 8 great-grandparents ?

I went to a talk in HK given by (Lord) Chris Patten the last Colonial Governor. He was keen that HK could hit critical mass and become the centre for Canton - but seems that Shanghai has already overtaken (critical mass is something that this lead is unlikely to achieve btw lol) :-

Anyway here's a quote from Wikipedia about Pattens provocative actions just before handing HK back to Communist China:-

"Patten's most controversial actions related to the election of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. ...Patten extended the definition of functional constituencies and thus virtually every Hong Kong subject was able to vote for the so-called indirectly elected members of the Legislative Council.

His measure was strongly objected to by the pro-Beijing political parties of Hong Kong, who suffered from the electoral changes, and he was criticized by the PRC government as an 'historic criminal/eternal sinner/sinner condemned for a thousand generations' (千古罪人). "

Well guess what - 1000 generations, there will only be 1/2^1000 = 9E-302 of the current Chinese population - thats' .00000000000000000000... etc for 299 noughts total ....0009% of the current polulation.
So big deal !!!

PS There wont be any more than a couple of chinese left to condemn him !!

Somehow all these old sayings - all these magnificent Chinese proverbs - all those confused Confusianisms - seem to lose their uummf yes ?

2020hindsight said:

'historic criminal/eternal sinner/sinner condemned for a thousand generations' (千古罪人). "

Click to expand...

hec - it will only take 31 generations to reduce 1.3 billion Chinese to just 1 !!!(2^31 = 2.1 billion)

Or 25 generations to reduce 20 million Aussies to just 1 !!! (2^25 = 33 million)

Another way to look at it is that after only 25 generations, there would be only 1 aussie and 38 Chinese!!

What's for dinner? rice?? - again !!! ahhh no probs !! Whose turn to put the garbage out ?

Freeballinginawetsuit said:

a. no siblings
b. no cousins
c. no relatives other than your mum and dad (and theirs before them)
No Uncles or Aunties as well ...
Pretty sad situation really, not much family structure at all.
...This raises the question of the male to female ratio in the present generation. Some serious social problems really!.

Click to expand...

I should add the following part correction - not that it is all that rivetting . Having said that, the Chinese have "opted" not to have the odd 300million people - "about the size of the U.S. population" - since introducing this policy.

Talking to someone who keeps a straight face and at least pretends she knows what she's talking about on this - she advises that the one child rule has been relaxed ... and that the children of one-child unions can now have two. One article predicts the population now expected to peak at 1.48 billion in 2038, but I'm not sure if that is allowing for vatican roulette etc.

http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/enews20051230.htm
Family planning becomes controversial topic (2005/12/30)
BEIJING, Dec. 29 - Future destiny of China's once-ambitious family planning policy has become a controversial topic in the academic circle. At a recent forum on China's population and economy hosted by the Beijing University, the family planning policy was challenged by a number of Chinese scholars and government officials.

An unanimous opinion from the forum showed China should mull its population policy in a more scientific way and seek a proper resolution. Existing population structure remains a challenging issue. Since China launched its family planning policy three decades ago, most couples have only one child. Disputes are now raised across the country over the expanding gray generation and skewed gender ratio. ........Official statistics showed that China now ranks in the low-birth-rate" club with a population natural growth rate of 0.9 per thousand. .......The gender gap among children born in China has been widened in recent years. Figures show that the average ratio of boys to girls was 117 to 100, exceeding the norm of 105 to 100.
............
China's one-child policy has successfully reined in its population growth and helped prevent 300 million births -- about the size of the U.S. population -- postponing the arrival of 1.3 billion population by four years.
....But most experts focused their attention on whether China should relax its strict family planning policy, changing the current policy of one-child-for-per-couple to the policy of two-children-for-per-couple. According to Zeng, his proposal may help slow down China's pace into an aging society and postpone the arrival of a population peak of 1.48 billion people to the year 2038.

..The government is greatly concerned with the balance between the advantage and cost of an readjustment to the family planning policy, said Yu, noting that it needs a scientific decision in China on whether the family planning policy should be changed or not. ....China launched the family planning policy in late 1970s, which requires one child for one family in cities, and allows two children for one family in rural areas if the first child of the family is a girl. The policy also lays no restriction to the number of children in families of ethnic groups. (Source: Xinhuanet)

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/argu/trends/trend_10.htm
China's population planners can do nothing about this structural increase. ... in a more liberal society many Chinese might not accept the government's strict one-child family policy. This policy has already been loosened for parents who were single children themselves, for farmers, and for ethnic minorities. In fact, most population projections for China assume that fertility will increase slightly to the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. Policymakers in China are of course aware of this challenge. The family planning program still has very high political priority, even under the most recent political administration.

Interesting that there is no restriction on the number of children in familes of ethnic groups - can't get fairer than that can you?

I can certainly see the point about the social aspects, but there just can't be infinite growth on a finite planet.

If the Chinese used resources at the same rate as those living in the US then they would consume practically the entire world production. The environmental consequences would be devastating to say the least.

If China achieved as US-style rate of resouce consumption and then kept on increasing population then the consequences are, well, not good...

They could start to trade reproductive right, like carbon credits.

If somebody doesn’t want any children, can sell rights to have a child, get rich and make couple little kids in another family being able to say – brother or sister to each other

Happy said:

They could start to trade reproductive right, like carbon credits.

If somebody doesn’t want any children, can sell rights to have a child, get rich and make couple little kids in another family being able to say – brother or sister to each other

Click to expand...

Interesting concept there. Sounds OK in theory and the objective is necessary whether anyone likes it or not.

But I'm wary of what might happen given that (1) it's a form of government meddling in the decisions of ordianary individuals and (2) government meddling usually has unintended consequences.

So I'd want to see a trial for a period of a few years and then reassess how it worked. I doubt that China's one child policy was intended to result in a predominance of males - the law of unintended consequences!

Our government is taking a very different approach...have 1 child for Dad, 1 child for Mum, and 1 for the country.

Thank god for the baby bonus

All of the problems in the world (ALL OF THE PROBLEMS) are due to overpopulation. The sooner we all start stop having kids for our own security and self actualisation needs, and start looking after the planet more, the better.

For some reason in Australia, every Government is fixated on population catch-up, so we have similar density to our neighbours.

In theory it looks reasonable, that neighbours will be less willing to invade, but as to quality of life I have some doubts.

Stop_the_clock said:

Our government is taking a very different approach...have 1 child for Dad, 1 child for Mum, and 1 for the country.

Thank god for the baby bonus

Click to expand...

Is this tongue in cheek, STC??

The problem with the government encouraging people to reproduce more is that those who heed the call and are motivated by the $4000 baby bonus (immense riches to someone on the dole) are on the whole not those who will in time to come most benefit our society.

Yes, I am being judgmental. And yes, I have good reason to be.

I see people all the time who freely admit they have got pregnant again purely to get the $4000 which will go some way to paying off their debts (often from drugs and/or gambling). So they have the baby, never have the remotest intention of being employed or making any contribution to the rest of society, and, voila, the child grows up to be the next generation of multi-generational unemployment. Anyone who is suggesting this benefits society as a whole has to be crazy.

The notion that we need more young people coming into the work force to support the inevitable social welfare bill for all the aged who have not accumulated sufficient funds to look after themselves in retirement is entirely reasonable.

But it all falls over when the "new generation", rather than contributing via their taxes from employment, is just a further drain on the public purse via their never ending drawing of unemployment benefits.

Julia

"1.48 billion people in the year 2038. "
When you write this you are tempted to round it off to 1.5 billion.
Then you realise that that is 20 million more than 1.48bill.
i.e. Australia's entire population is just an inconsequential rounding error to the Chinese. Still let's see how many gold medals we get in Beijing.

Julia said:

The problem with the government encouraging people to reproduce more is that those who heed the call and are motivated by the $4000 baby bonus (immense riches to someone on the dole) are on the whole not those who will in time to come most benefit our society... Julia

Click to expand...

Julia - wow if you're right - and if the market goes down any more, you'll be giving people ideas
Maybe the trading options become :-
buy, hold, sell, reproduce - if you really have a bad day on the market, have an extra kid to compensate.
Make that an extra 3 kids after the last fortnight