E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Andy Wong / AP
Chinese families bring their babies to the Ritan Park in Beijing Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2012. A government think tank says China should start phasing out its one-child policy immediately and allow two children for every family by 2015. It remains unclear whether Chinese leaders are ready to take that step.
BEIJING -- A Chinese government think tank is urging the country's leaders to start phasing out its unpopular one-child policy immediately and allow two children for every family in the country by 2015.
Some demographers saw the timeline put forward by the China Development Research Foundation, which is close to the central leadership, as a bold move. Others warned that the gradual approach, if implemented, would be insufficient to help correct the problems that China's strict birth limits have created.
Xie Meng, a press officer with the foundation, said the final version of its report would be released "in a week or two," but Chinese state media were given advance copies.
The official Xinhua News Agency said the foundation was recommending a two-child policy in some provinces from this year and a nationwide two-child policy by 2015. It also proposed all birth limits be dropped by 2020.
"China has paid a huge political and social cost for the policy, as it has resulted in social conflict, high administrative costs and led indirectly to a long-term gender imbalance at birth," Xinhua said, citing the report.
The foundation's press officer told NBC News that the report was "the result of two years of effort."
"China's demographic changes were analyzed in connection with seven areas," she said, citing the challenges of aging, unemployment, child and women's welfare, urbanization, education, health and family planning.
But it remains unclear whether Chinese leaders are ready to take up the recommendations. China's National Population and Family Planning Commission had no immediate comment on the report Wednesday.
'Change is inevitable'
While they are known to many as the one-child policy, the actual rules are more complicated. The government limits most urban couples to one child, and allows two children for rural families if their first-born is a girl. There are numerous other exceptions as well, including looser rules for minority families and a two-child limit for parents who are themselves both singletons.
Cai Yong, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said the report carries extra weight because the think tank is under the State Council, China's Cabinet. He said he found it remarkable that state-backed demographers were willing to publicly propose such a detailed schedule and plan on how to get rid of China's birth limits.
Gruesome photos put spotlight on China's one-child policy
"That tells us at least that policy change is inevitable, it's coming," said Cai, who was not involved in the drafting of the report, but knows many of the experts who were. Cai is currently a visiting scholar at Fudan University in Shanghai. "It's coming, but we cannot predict when exactly it will come."
Adding to the uncertainty is a once-in-a-decade leadership transition that kicks off Nov. 8 that will see a new slate of top leaders installed by next spring.
Cai said the transition could keep population reform on the back burner or changes might be rushed through to help burnish the reputations of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao on their way out.
There has been growing speculation among Chinese media, experts and ordinary people about whether the government will relax the one-child policy — introduced in 1980 as a temporary measure to curb surging population growth — and allow more people to have two children.
Though the government credits the policy with preventing hundreds of millions of births and helping lift countless families out of poverty, it is reviled by many ordinary people. The strict limits have led to forced abortions and sterilizations, even though such measures are illegal. Couples who flout the rules face hefty fines, seizure of their property and loss of their jobs.
Read more international stories on NBCNews.com
Many demographers argue that the policy has worsened the country's aging crisis by limiting the size of the young labor pool that must support the large baby boom generation as it retires. They also say it has contributed to the imbalanced sex ratio as some families abort baby girls, preferring to try for a male heir.
The government has recognized those problems and has tried to address them by boosting social services for the elderly. It has also banned sex-selective abortion and rewarded rural families whose only child is a girl.
Outdated or engine of growth?
Many today also see the birth limits as outdated, a relic of the era when housing, jobs and food were provided by the state.
"It has been 30 years since our planned economy was liberalized," commented Wang Yi, the owner of a shop that sells textiles online, under a news report about the foundation's proposal. "So why do we still have to plan our population?"
Ren Hao, a Chinese journalist who recently married, told NBC that he welcomed the proposed policy change but suggested that it be accompanied by new measures in education, health care and economy in order to succeed.
Read more China coverage on NBC's Behind The Wall
"Raising a child is quite a burden nowadays so, in the end, it's up to the couples to decide whether they want to have one child or more based on their conditions," he said.
Ji Jianming, a Beijing construction project manager, argued in favor of the policy. "The one-child policy was good," he said. "It allowed China to develop rapidly and improve people's lives faster."
Though open debate about the policy has flourished in state media and on the Internet, leaders have so far expressed a desire to maintain the status quo.
President Hu said last year that China would keep its strict family planning policy to keep the birth rate low and other officials have said that no changes are expected until at least 2015.
Wang Feng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy and an expert on China's demographics, contributed research material to the foundation's report, but has yet to see the full text. He said he welcomed the gist of the document that he's seen in state media.
It says the government "should return the rights of reproduction to the people," he said. "That's very bold."
But Gu Baochang, a professor of demography at Beijing's Renmin University and a vocal advocate of reform, said the proposed timeline wasn't aggressive enough.
"They should have reformed this policy ages ago," he said. "It just keeps getting held up, delayed."
NBC News' Eric Baculinao and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Analysis: Should next president treat Russia as friend or foe?
- Meet Afghan female rapper, colonel who defy the odds
- China considers ending unpopular one-child policy
- Expert: Tourists threaten Sistine Chapel's famous paintings
- Oasis of tolerance or 'Republic of Shame'? Two faces of gay life in Lebanon
- The secret to a perfect smile? Chopsticks, Chinese officials are told
- After decades of oppression, Kurds get taste of freedom in Syria
- Outrage after video shows Chinese teacher abusing kindergarteners
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Great idea. That's all they need to an over populated area.
Having two children per couple will only maintain the current population, not add growth.
China, two children for 2015? this will a big problem for the rest of the world. if right now India and China combined are 2/3 of the world population; do you imagine if they start multiplying their population. This is a every country concern. On the other hand, Russia is nobody friend and United States should pay more attention to this sleeping monster. Just remember they were sharing the world with us one time and power allways is a wanted cake. this country can not be trusted.
Richie,
Two children per couple does not add growth to population. Check the math: Two people making two more people. That's called population replacement.
lol, I think you need to do the math. You start with 2 having 2, that makes 2 new people with a total population of 4. From there you have those 2 children growing up and having 2 each, that's 4 new people and a total population of 6. From there you have those 4 children growing up and having 2 each, that's 8 new people and a total population of 12.
I think you can see the pattern. This planet is already overpopulated to the point that we cannot reverse the damage we've already done to our species. Lifting this law will now speed up the process.
Richie, India and China represent a little over 1/3 of the world's current population. Still, the demographics of these two countries will dominate the global economy well into this century. The trick for us is not how to make it 1950 again but how to take part of a natural change in global economics, politics and culture. Go with the flow baby!
@Darwin Where did you learn you math? or biology?
It take 2 people to make 1 child... we aren't chicken after all LOL
However, with the today's divorce rate, I am not surprised ppl start to accumlate children as they have a few marriages
Darwin,
did you realize that people die? The original 2 who made the new 2 will die, therefore they are not permanently part of the population.
That's why I used the word "replacement."
Darwin- maybe this will help a bit:
Year 0- let's start with 100 20 year olds, 50 couples. Each couple has a set of twins. Total population: 100 20 year olds, 100 newborns, 200 total (assuming everyone over 20 died off for some reason)
Year 20- the next generation has twins too. 100 40 year olds, 100 20 year olds, 100 newborns, 300 total
Year 40- same deal. 100 60 y/o, 100 40 y/o, 100 20 y/o, 100 newborns, 400 total
Year 60- give this group a life span of 80 years, the first generation now dies off. We still have 100 60 y/o, 100 40 y/o, 100 20 y/o, 100 newborns, 400 total.
Year 80, etc- see year 60.
That's how having 2 kids per couple works out to a stable population. Of course, that doesn't take into account premature death, infertility, or any other reason why one wouldn't reproduce. A max of 2 kids actually works out to a slow decline in population in the long run.
Some people were forced to have one child, while others were allowed multiple children. How do we know this? Simple math: China couldn't be bigger now than it was before if everybody had only one child. The increase can only be explained by massive deceit, probably caused by enforced laws instead of a personal choice. When religion was allowed, some chose a monastic celibate life, but now that isn't happening.
To look at an example of one or two children, look at Brazil. Birth control is easily available, and as a result, both in the cities and countryside, its population has decreased, and the poverty is much less. Why? TV shows have career women with small families that other women want to emulate; there is no government program to force people. See the National Geographic issue on population. Countries next to Brazil however are having a population problem.
Everywhere that women are given dignity (such as Brazil and many countries in Europe) the population stabilizes or decreases; the worse women and girls are treated, the earlier they are forced to marry, the less education girls are given, the more children and the worse population problem.
China has left themselves with a situation where they do not have enough young people to support their aging population and replace them as they retire. In addition, there had been a major imbalance toward males so that they do not even have enough women for every man to eventually get married and have kids unless they marry someone from another country. Unless they change their policies, and fairly soon, they run the very real risk of seeing their population collapse, that exact opposite of the out of control growth they were trying to prevent. A one child policy results in population shrinkage as you need to have each couple having an average of two children to have any hope of a stable population. In reality, you need more than two children per couple to account for children who die before they reach adulthood and have their own kids and for people who may be infertile. The reality is that you need a birth rate with and average in the range of 2.1 to 2.2 children per couple just to keep your population stable.
JS: But China has an increasing population, which means that the myth that the population is all elderly or male just isn't true.
Elizabeth, there is going to be a massive die-off of old people in China (no one lives forever--it just seems that way), and the population will plummet.
But as in the United States, Iran and Japan and many other countries, a huge amount of resources are being consumed by the retirees. In the past, most people died before they hit 60. Now it's not uncommon to hit 90. And while there used to be a dozen people contributing to one person's Social Security or its equivilant payout, soon there will be only two people
Elizabeth - post the sources for your statements. No, it doesn't count if you just think that what you say is true. It only counts if you can post reliable references. Also, try actually reading the article. It clearly states that "the government limits most urban couples to one child, and allows two children for rural families if their first-born is a girl". The reason that rural families are allowed a second child if the first is a girl is because traditionally, the male is responsible for caring for aging parents. Rural peasants don't have the security of the government caring for them in old age as much as the city dwellers do. Also, religion does not play a factor in population growth. The number of people choosing a "monastic celibate life" is inconsequential when it comes to population control, especially when one is talking about hundreds of millions of people.
Removing the one child policy in China now is likely to result in birth rates more close to other Western countries.
I hope they dont cancel the policy for a long while, at least until there population is at a sustainable level. We also need to implement a 2 child policy here as well as in most other countries as well!
We should alter our tax policy. A base $number with number of children as the exponent.
No child, no tax. 1 child, base tax. 2 children, base squared. 3 children, base cubed. etc...
That would motivate religious fanatics and poor people to limit their over-breeding.
they will still breed and not pay tax, what you gonna do then.... take away their children? jail them? think before you write, maybe you'll grow a brain someday.
Which is only slightly higher than 1 in most developed countries, and even here in the U.S. has dipped below replacement rate. Here in the U.S. women are free to have as many children as they wish, but most still only choose 1 or 2 (if they have kids at all). Out of all my cousins (aged 31 through 40), I'm the only one to have 3 kids, and only one other has 2. Those that have only 1 child are not planning on having more.
China feels as most Corporations feel in America, the more people the more competition for jobs the cheaper the labor. China is running out of cheap labor. To much exporting of labor and not enough to fill all the American jobs Romney/Bain are moving there. China can't handle unrest without like America more people to take those jobs empty from people on strike. Our answer to lack of employees is importation of workers whether they are legally import or illegally imported. I read some where that Romney thinks illegal workers are better workers and cheaper than American workers. But what he really liked was the idea he could go to Latin America (the new China) and find even cheaper labor. Does he need to be President to do what he's been doing with Bain for years or have they run into a President that wants to put a stop to it? Get out and vote!
If the level of affluence in China continues upward, then so will the level of expectation, which may include the number of children, much as the trend has similarly been in many Western economies. Greater expenses (and taxes) may serve to put a damper on this effect (as is currently the case with the birthrate of the US), but it would almost certainly generate a bubble first.
And please, let's dispense with all the intergenerational garbage about how much more older people consume than their younger counterparts. I can only report on what I've seen in the US and Japan from personal experience, but based on those, I'd say it's exactly the opposite of the popular but bovinely accepted logic. If younger people had the resources (which is really the crux of the friction), it would be a 24/7 party.
Well, they will need more workers in the future, esp. if Romney is elected and he and his billionaire "job creator" friends start sending all of the USA work over to China!! So screw China - do not vote for Romney!!
Like Romney sent all of the U.S. jobs to China, get a grip! How much Chinese carp have you bought? You and everybody else are the reason jobs went to China. If you didn't buy the crap, the business people wouldn't have imported it and U.S. workers could have kept their jobs. How about screw China, don't buy Chinese crap!
I wish it was possible to NOT buy Chinese made Crap. But when just about everything is made there now instead of here...How do you avoid it?
As far as China changing there policy goes.......What the Hell....Might as well quicken the pace to the end....the planet already has WAY too many people....
The whole of earth's population needs to enact the Chinese one child policy if the future of Humanity is to stand a chance. If you don't believe that then "Your" God help you. ( And the multitudes who come after us )
Honestly...we are as Locusts....and you know what happens to them.
As far as buying American: When jobs in America have flatlined in income since 1980 (relative to the inflation rate, many now pay much less than they did), the only choice many people have is to buy cheap or not have any clothes for the kids. Always the fault of the poor in America, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the company sending those jobs overseas make bigger and bigger profits. There is another reason for the huge markups: any big store. If stuff sits on shelves (or hangs on hangers), the person who produced those goods isn't being paid between the time they made the items and the items are sold to a customer. The store doesn't have to pay until the goods are sold; basically, department stores of all kinds are big consignment shops. So, the manufacturer has to get loans to cover their worker's wages while the stuff sits on shelves at the stores; this causes a huge amount of bank interest to be added to the price before you even buy the item, and this is why the businesses try to find the cheapest labor they can. It is called mercantilism, and it destroyed the economy of England in the 1700ds, and it is destroying our economy now. And it doesn't make sense at all anymore, now that there is the internet, and most goods can be produced just before they are sold, and in no greater quantity than needed.
Post your sources. Your logic is very twisted.
It took 2 comments to turn this into an anti-Romney rant. That's pathetic.
The real story here is the girls born in the rural areas aren't valued as a person, so they don't count towards the 1 child limit. That's even more pathetic....
The real story here is that China's population is already 1.3 billion. How many people can the planet support?
We keep finding new ways to overcome barriers to population growth so I'd imagine we could cram quite a few more on this rock...
...the question is whether overpopulation and the subsequent alienation from traditional modes of life degrade the quality of human life.
Travis you do realize that we as a planet are quickly ,givin current population growth, towards critical mass concering fresh water not to mention food. Personally I think every country in the world needs to start the one child policy. At best estimates it will still be almost a hundred years before we begin to see a drop in population. I realize that what I say may sound cold hearted but if we have any desire what so ever for future generations to survive in something other than apoclytic hollywood style world we have to quit thinking about ourselves iniviually and start acting in unison. Although I know this is a pipe dream I just fear for what my girl chloe and her childern will have to endure if we don't start now.
I think a lot of people need to realize it's not the population size that is the problem, it is over consumption that is what needs addressing. That is the major problem we have. When a family of 4 has a large home, 3 cars, takes out the trash 3 times a day, constantly buying new clothes, throwing away some 30% of their food, etc., is where you have a problem with major environmental problems and such. An interesting graph I once saw showed.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=963&tbm=isch&tbnid=vVcREITZT4lmFM:&imgrefurl=http://www.tumblr.com/ZTdYWy2t6VMJ&docid=BVdYKKwRo_xTkM&imgurl=http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lffz7pCvEu1qd3bpyo1_400.png&w=400&h=474&ei=W5CRUPj8EMnkyQHcpIHwDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=187&vpy=132&dur=359&hovh=244&hovw=206&tx=129&ty=81&sig=106057861034502342790&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=135&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,i:72
Bob, It's listed currently around 1.7 Billion....It's not exact....Like the Debt clock.
You could've ignored the political posts, but since you haven't:
America will be China or India in 20 to 40 years. At one point, most families limited themselves to 2 to 4 children, and there were some who didn't have children. Now, however, I am suddenly seeing families with 4 or 5 children again, and that means that America's resources will be strained and all of us will be living in poverty. Don't blame those who are retiring for what is happening to America.
Neko: While I agree that one child is best for the country and world, it can't be done as a government policy, but as an ideal goal. Give girls more opportunities in education, not just steeper bank loans for higher education, and more job opportunities. Make birth control free and easily available, not just "the pill," but more effective methods such as the better I.U.D.s. Those government policies will bring down the abortion rate as well as the birth rate. People push back against forced laws.
Let old folks die. That will bring down the population. Just see how small the population would be if there were fewer people over the age of 70. (I'm headed there myself.)
(Cheney should not have had a heart replacement at his age. He shouldn't have had one due to a lot of other factors, of which I'm sure everyone has his or her favorite.)
Elizabeth - again, post your sources for your statements. Just because you think you are seeing families having 4 or 5 kids does not mean it is actually happening. Refer to accurate census information and other reliable sources.
Speak for yourself, ElkMeadow! I don't have all that many years before I reach 70, but I don't want to die. I'm healthy, active, and still have a lot to offer. I hope to be working at age 70 and beyond. My mother is 88 years old, active, healthier than I am, and still works several days a month keeping books for a small law firm. If you want to die, go ahead, but don't assume that all of us boomers want to give up so easily.
Where are you living that having 4 kids is common? Salt Lake City? There were a LOT more families with 4+ kids when I was growing up in the '80's than there are today. According to the Census data, in 1980 56% of 45 y.o. women had three or more children, but by 2010 the percentage had fallen to only 28%. I couldn't find data for the number with 4+ kids.
Elizaibeth i agree with you which i said it was just a pipe drem.
Elizabeth- most people I know stopped at two. A few have more, a few have one or none. Unless you know these people personally, it's quite possible that you're seeing more than one family in a group.
One possible scenario- one of my sisters is currently a stay-at-home mom, as she has a 4 year old and newborn, and daycare would completely wipe out any paycheck she could bring home. On days school is out, she watches our other sister's kids, age 6 and 11. If you saw her with the whole bunch at the store, it would be easy to assume that they're all hers.
how are you going to feed this Chinese people when you end the one child policy? safe to say the population will Explode 10X in 5 yrs if you end that policy ..LOL
China and India still need the one-child policy, but they have to convince the people to do it without force. Raise the marriage age and give opportunities to girls. India tried forced sterilizations, and it caused a backlash, but now its population has exploded. The culture must change, and elderly must receive care, or families will continue to have as many children as they can.
If adults were taking care of their parents in China as they used to, they'd be too exhausted to have children.
Average fertility in India was 2.6 in 2011, so that's hardly an "explosion" in the population. It is down from ~6 in the 1950's and is on track to reach replacement rate in the next decade. Why all the fearmongering????
"A Chinese government think tank is urging the country's leaders to start phasing out its unpopular one-child policy.."
Hard to believe that China ever thought that an unpopular one child policy could be a reality. Some families have several children who are unpopular.
We are already seeing the negative results of population decline in developed nations.
The problem is having enough people to support those who came before them. When a population declines the prior social contracts made with earlier generations bankrupt the society, simply because there aren't enough people to support such generous deals.
China's policy of one child would lead to the total collapse of their nation in time.
not sure why people can make deals based on the projected earnings of the next generation? Who are they to assume all will be well in the future. Infinate growth is the only way any current economic model can sustain itself. Yet logic would dictate that infinate growth is not possible in a enviroment that has limited space and resources.
I propose that it is the social contracts forced upon unborn generations that will bring down nations and not the draconian population control methods.
Given the revolution of automation that the Chinese have undergone in the past generation there will not need to be as many people to support the older population. The question of when the time is right to let the population rebound is a hard one and is certainly outside of the scope of my knowledge. I'll leave that kind of speculation up to the more "enlightened" posters.
So you're saying the problem is the generous deals?.....Hmmmm, sounds vaugely familiar....lol
The "social contracts" are not in play here: China's expansion could not be due to a "one child policy" or else the country would not have grown. People are so afraid of "Social Security" or something like it, but without some form of social contract a country has little plots of land that are over-farmed and children begging in the streets.
??????
@Hambone You are mostly correct that having two children would maintain the current population. Question. How did China's population grow by hundreds of millions while the one child policy was in effect then? Having a two child policy would be way worse for Chinese population growth if you consider that a bad thing, which I do.
@Phil You are correct. The other side of the coin though is a population ponzi scheme in developed countries which is definitely unsustainable. Imagine 1 or 2 billion more people vying for oil, clean water, food, gas, land etc.
you see if you have a one child policy in place yet you have never had a decrease in population I would say that the system does not work! But just imagine if they did not hae the policy over the last 30 years? Time has proven that monetary restraints dont stop people from having children and since we are geneticly wired to procreate laws like the one child law are going to be the only way to curb the growth of population (that and WW3) The real problem is that people in China do not believe that a female can continue the heritage of a family though time. Untill the culture is changed to support women the main argument for more choice in reproductive rights will continue.
There has been massive lying about the one-child policy, simple mathematics says that China has had a lot more than one child per family. If they were serious, they should have at least said one child per woman, or even two children per woman, no matter what region they come from, and enforce that. They should have also enforced later marriage, women's rights, education for girls and women, etc.
While we moan about China though, America could do some of these same things for women to prevent us from becoming China or India within a few years. Right now in America women do not have equal pay for equal work; nobody can get a higher education without massive loans; and birth control is not as accessible as it should be. It isn't the elderly that are going to destroy our country.
This is sponsored by Apple, in anticipation of increasing the number of employees at Foxconn.
Actually, Apple is looking more to automation to decrease the need of people on the assembly line. A good move on their part, if you ask me.
Foxconn is a Taiwan owned company.
This decision will come back to haunt them. They already can barely feed the 1.2 billion they have now. Throw in general resource depletion, pollution damage from an industrial base supporting 1.2 billion people, overworked farmland, and you'll have complete collapse.
They are headed for major civil unrest no matter what they do. They have a population with around 30 million excess males. That is to say that there is around 30 million males with a really hard time finding a mate. This is likely one of the driving reasons this is becoming important to China, they know they are in for a vary hard time due to past birth polices and it scares them silly.
Not to worry...They'll just pump up the military 100M strong and send them here. lol
edohio: I agree, up to the lol. It really isn't funny, and historically, it is the reason for all wars: overpopulation with an excess of males. All that testosterone creates a powder keg.
I think there is more of a threat of those 30 million men causing problems in China, and I think china knows it.
Besides, if they where to attempt to send even a fraction of 100 million troops at us, they would have around 700 or 800 million less people at home. Unlike Russia, China dose not have enough long range ICBMs to overwhelm our missile defenses and we have enough ICBMs to level the world many times over.
It would be unwise of them to even think of an invasion. Even with a 100 million man army.
Elizabeth - really? ALL wars? Gee, I thought the American Revolution was fought to obtain freedom from an oppressive England that was overtaxing the colonies without giving us adequate representation. I thought the Civil War was fought to rid the country of slavery. I thought that WWI and WWII were fought against European tyrants. After all the years of history courses in K-12 and college, I suddenly learn that ALLwars are fought due to "overpopulation with an excess of males". BTW, how was a country with the land mass of the USA overpopulated at the time of the American Revolution?
I believe it was England and Ireland that were feeling the pressure of overpopulation at the time of the American revolution. They made the mistake of dealing with their overpopulation problem by dumping the most revolting members of the population on America.
It is the classic self centered values versus society based values. (See Book 4 'On Human Values' in andgulliverreturns.info for a complete exposition of the problems.) According to China's official statistics more than 400,000 children have not been born. This is directly responsible for their economic and education boom. It has brought hundreds of millions out of poverty and in the last 2 years has allowed for minimal pensions for 240 million more retirees. This is to say nothing about the reduced contribution to climate change, water pollution and the use of natural resources.
The older idea of a replacement rate of 2.1 children per family was true when it was calculated in the 1930s and lifespans were about 50 years. With today's 80 year life expectancy There will be 4 to 6 offspring living concurrently with the original 2--depending on the age at childbirth.
If more workers are needed immigrants can be allowed into China. But the Chinese, as all other cultures, are xenophobic and would fight mass immigration.
The one child policy was probably the most enlightened legislation of the century for the planet. But self-centered values when cried loudly will direct democracies and will influence plutocracies.
The only problem with democracy is that population is encouraged; kissing babies on campaign trails is a reminder of future voters.
Sure, the forced MURDER of untold numbers of babies in utero was "enlightened". Sounds like something the Nazis would've loved...
China's answer to 'No child left behind' is:
'No child left'
Chinas' "one child " policy is a perfect example of how governments can never get it right.Chinas' ruling class only thought about its' 5 year,10 year or 20 year plan and forgot that if you limit the number of children that are to be born to 50% of the existing populantion,when the current workers get to old to work,there will not be enough workers to replace them or to pay for their retirement.China's in a pickle or will be in 25-30 years.The state is already forced to contribute certian amounts to retirement accounts of the existing workers.If there are no wage earners to keep up with the neccessary needed supply of labor,there will be an acute shortage of labor.Most revolutions start out having difficulties with labor.Even if they start allowing multiple births today,in 25 years they are going to have a severe problem.Classis government mismanagement!You would swear they took lessons from the Obamy administration!
How can an increase from 1 billion to 1.3 billion be caused by a one-child policy? They didn't do it, no matter what their hype says.
Elizabeth, stop posting for a minute and actually take some time to think it out in your head...or get a pen and pencil if that's too hard for you.
Say for argument's sake, 1982, one child policy starts, and that there is a population of 1 billion adults aged 30, who will live to be age 75 and that every 30 year old couple mate and have 1 child when they are 30 years old.
Then we have 500 million couples having 500 million children.
Now in 2012: 1 billion parents (aged 60) + 500 million adults (aged 30) = 1.5 billion population. (note > 1 billion)
Furthermore, by the end of the year, those 500 million adults will now also have children; 250 million more couples having 250 million more children = 1.75 billion population in 2013!!
In before the other people that can't do math start going off about how this means the world will end due to overpopulation of trillions and trillions of people: carry the math out a few more generations:
2013: 1 billion grandparents, 500 million parents, 250 million babies = 1.75 billion people
2027: the 1 billion grandparents reach 75 years of age and all die, leaving 500 million parents aged 45, and 250 million kids aged 15 = 750 million people
2042: 500 million parents aged 60, 250 million adults aged 30 about to have more kids
2043: 500 million parents turned grandparents, 250 million adults turned new parents, 125 million babies born = 875 million people
2057: 500 million grandparents aged 75 die off, leaving 250 million adults (aged 45) and 125 million kids (aged 15); total population = 375 million.
.... take it out a few more generations if you feel curious.
Now you see why 1 child policy is unsustainable. For your information, most industrialized countries have about 1.5-1.7 kids; the U.S. is among the highest near 2, while certain European countries and Japan have about 1.1
How ironic and hypocritical.
Those condemning for the relaxation of its one-child policy are the very same people that condemned China for its steriization and abortion-on-demand policy in the implementation of the on-child policy.
China is in a no-win situation.
I hope they are prepped for exponential population growth...and wide spread famin and hunger...and not just in China.......
I hate to sound callous, but if we don't volunteer this for ourselves, we're going to face either mandatory child limits or mass famine in the future. We've seen it in nature countless times. When a species depletes its available resources in an area it either migrates, evolves or dies. There really isn't a fourth option.
John bean! Obviously you never read anything except emails! If you ahd,you would know the problem in America is the population of our youths is being depleted(not a bad idea).Seems America is getting older and there are fewer babies being born everyday.The nmuber of workers needed to support the aging population is going up and the number of workers is going down.Another major problem for you losers 30 years and younger,which ,i'm positive, you will never find a solution to.Don't worry,i'm retired but you spend very little money on me.I worked hard in my life,saved and don't need government help like you and your basement bunker friends./i didn't spend all my money on every single new Apple product that came on line nor did I live large.I never stayed with my mommy or in her house since I was 16.You will be my age and will still be living on the dole because you never learned the meaning of the word, responsibility!
mas: You haven't seen the large families in America that are out there then. There are plenty of children in America, which is why our population is growing rapidly, the fastest growing population among developed nations.
As far as responsibility goes, I have worked for many years, and I am now a caregiver. My husband has always worked. If you looked at statistics, those who are unemployed are not deadbeats, but people who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing to countries that have cheaper labor.
This affects you too, because if there are fewer American jobs, there will be less in your savings account even if you do not have Social Security or other benefits. Banks work that way: they require investments in order to be able to pay those who have saved money; that's the way bank interest works. If banks invest in China, they may or may not be able to get their investment back, since many of the developing countries, including China, have a history of not allowing investment money to leave their country. So the banks just reinvest the money in China, and beyond a few executives getting some money, your dividends and interest will go down. That has also happened: in the 1970s, bank interest on a simple savings account was 6 percent. You know that if you are my age. Now see what the interest is on a CD (certificate of deposit) account: it is half of that. Sure, there are other investment options (without Federal Deposit Insurance), but those other investments also go up and down with the stock market, and you will lose everything whenever there is a monetary "adjustment" like the ones in 1987 and 2008.
I am not trying to make a political statement, but trying to help you, to prevent you and everybody else from being ripped off. Meanwhile, there is a much greater population, including of children, in America than ever before, and it is a serious concern.
@Mas
Pop another pill. Your blood pressure is up. I'm not under 30 and I don't own a single Apple product. My wife and I both work our @$$es off, paying taxes, including your beloved medicare and social security payroll deductions (two programs that WE will likely never be able to take advantage of) so we can pay the mortgage, keep the lights on and have something to eat. You can take your "lazy younger generation" diatribe and can it. I've had it up to here with you aging boomers telling me how lazy I am. Frankly, I can't wait until another couple of decades pass. May your bloated egos condescension die with you.
Minor details that average fertility in the U.S. is now BELOW replacement rate. The big reason we are experiencing a population increase is because of immigration. If we're so concerned about overpopulation, then we need to do something to fix our borders so that we don't have 350,000 illegals crossing into our country per year (yes, it's down from the peak in 2007 but that's still a ridiculously high number)
All the industrialized nations populations are shrinking, not growing. Russia has the worst problem of population shrinkage. The industrialized nations depend on immigration for a sustainable population. The forward thinking countries like Canada & Israel are scooping up the best & brightest immigrants from around the world, while USA, England, France, Australia, etc. are so caught up in political correctness they wind up with disproportionate number of "other" which don't contribute their fair share of a healthy population growth & economy.
Why don't they just increase the incentive to have multiple baby girls. Sounds more like the imbalance is related to girls not the policy.
Girls increase the population, because only girls are able to have children. (If there are 30 men and 2 women, the resulting progeny, no matter what, such as the men dying and the women remarrying 15 times, will only be the children the women are capable of having. If there are 30 women and 2 men who remarry 15 times, the resulting progeny, no matter what, will be much greater unless those women are not capable of having children). This is the reason why China favors boys; it was an ancient form of population control. However, China dropped the other ancient form of population control, which was that the various religions had celibate monks and nuns. Right now they have nothing to prevent a population explosion.
China still has problems feeding some of its' citizens.China has to introduce 1 million new jobs a month to satisfy the needs of peasents moving from the rural areas to the cities.Recently the ruling partyhas stopped any migration from the rural areas to cities because Chinas' economy has cooled down substantially.China spent hundreds of billions buying natural resources of other world countries,especially in South America and Africa,only to see the resouces value substantially drop.They seem to have a problem with attitude towards some the host countries rank and file.The last thing China needs is additional heads to feed and care for.The last ting the world needs is another billion Chinese.
THIS must be why the GOP is attacking birth control and abortion access.
Yes. Amen to the Chinese government for their mercy and grace. It is because no one can guarantee tomorrow. It is just happened in USA, the storm coming in a post-tropical strength, and it has killed dozen. What if the family has one kid, it must be the most terrible thing on earth.
Of course, it is definitely no one would like any disaster/accident happen to anyone. Thanks for the Chinese Government having the understanding of their own people's concern and having the consideration of their own people's need.
Please do end the one child policy ASAP. Thanks again for this effort.
China shouldn't end its one-child policy. In fact, just the opposite should happen -- it should be adopted worldwide. If the world population were 500 million, say, the problems would be manageable. But a global population of eight billion people and growing is not sustainable.
There are today in the third world several billion hard-working, capable people with rising material expectations whose hopes are going to be dashed because the necessary resources won't be available.
Shortages and environmental pollution (no water to drink, no clean air to breathe) will likely create tensions leading to war, famine, and disease by mid-century, and to a Great Mortality with unimaginable suffering. Nature cannot be fooled and in the end always redresses the balance.
Population must be controlled before it's too late.
The world does not have a population problem; it has a consumption problem. The world could support far more people if everyone adopted a "greener" lifestyle. Think of all the 1 child families here in the U.S. who have a ridiculously wasteful lifestyle- McMansion stuffed to the gills with things all purchased new, multiple gas-guzzling SUV's that each parent uses to commute solo an hour+ each way, a meat- and dairy-heavy diet with lots of takeout and "convenience" foods, jetting off to far-off locales, etc., etc. I may have 3 kids, but I make choices to deliberate reduce our "footprint". Sure, a 1 child family who does the same things *COULD* have an even smaller footprint- but most don't. In fact, most of the 1 child families I know use the extra disposable cash from having only a single child to fund a lavish lifestyle.
Our baby boomer's are lucky to be Americans. China would make the decision on killing them,because it's hurting their economy.
I can actually see it happening here and in other Western nations in 20 years or less. How difficult would be to develop a "flu" vaccine where one(the real one)to be given to those 50 and younger and VIP wealthy people 60 and older and a killer vaccine for everyone else, for instance? It could happen, if resources run short here and the younger population will be revolting against having most of their paychecks supporting retirees and older workers holding better jobs the younger population wants.
Cindi, you may be more right than you know. At one of his campaign stops, Romney said, "The problem with Social Security, is that old people are living too long".
Every culture that has a tradition of large families expects the children to take care of the elderly in their families. If you do not have enough children, as an elderly person, you will starve. The only way to stop the cycle of population explosion is to help families take care of their elderly. This is expensive, but in the long run saves resources and keeps a country out of poverty. Think of some countries where there are only small plots of land to farm, and in every generation those plots decrease in size because of the number of children. It is not only unacceptable, but leads to certain wars and famines, and the closeness of the population also leads to disease and disaster.
Humans are very intelligent, but when it comes to our countries and populations, we seem to be blind and deaf.
Smart girl.You make the world a better place. If I can help, let me know.
Rusty
Canadians fought in Nan too. Some of us came home, others didn't.
China's population is growing with a one child policy. To think that adding to the birth rate will not increase the population - Foolish. China will survive because they can tap the agricultural supply house which is America, where we will have cheap, ignorant labour to raise foor for export to pay off the debt.
They do not need an army to take over the Americas - they have the cash, ans as all proud Americans will attest, Money talks, the rest walk.
Do not know if some of the stories I hear are true(please correct me if I'm wrong), but in the 18-30 year old group, the Chinese population in the cities, especially, is so skewed in the favor of males, that young men have to look for potential brides in the rural and other areas that allow couples two children, if the first born is female. Supposedly, some girls and women are kidnapped(that one's hard to believe). I think it was on 60 Minutes some time ago, a story covering women in India were having ultrasounds to determine the baby's sex. If baby was a girl, the baby was aborted in most cases. When the reporter asked a native Indian, American educated physician when this would stop, the physician replied "When the culture starts to value girls."
Even in Western society, most women earn less than men. In all cultures where sons are expected to financially support their parents when the parents are too old to work, no wonder parents choose a son over a daughter.
There is a documented problem with sex trafficking of women from North Korea and other countries. Newsweek had an article on it a couple months ago.
I don't want to fight this war any more. Even on "The Vine" Lost too many friends already. Let them rest.
If you consider China as a threat then you should support their one-child policy. A great way to let them die off on their own.