Time for China to invest in the sex change industry...maybe even push for more social acceptance of gays.

Sounds to me like they are trying to build an army.

I was also amazed at the lack of acknowledgement about the gender imbalance. They say it's worrisome. No, it's very real and its noticeable. I was in China last year and the gender imbalance is noticeable. Young men were everywhere and easily outnumbering women! No matter where you went. Also, at a museum for kids, almost all the children were boys. When we would see a girl, we'd point her out because there were so few. Scary.

One problem with the one child policy is the elderly parents having help from their children as they grow old. If the only child does die there really is nobody to care for the parents as they age.When you have population issues such as China drastic measures needed to be taken, the problem is that it has ruined the family dynamics.

With China loosening this rule, hopefully it will only take a couple of generations to start making a difference. I believe two kids is a good number. Those of you who say "who is anyone to tell me how many kids to have" well just look at parts of Africa and India,where many starve because they are still against using contraceptives, even as the Catholic church has lightened up on the use of them, in response to the famine and death of many children.

In stark contrast Russia has been promoting more births.

I think the solution is obvious - since there is an imbalance of boys/girls (men/women)...

Polygamy - women should have multiple husbands, and eliminate the one child policy, so that she can have lots of babies by lots of men, who then take care of her and the children (economically).

it seemed to work well (finanically) for the mormons as they built their ranks...

@Coral Taxi: Russia is promoting births because they're in a very steep population decline. A population needs a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain it's size. Russia's is ~1.6 in 2012 but that's an abberation at it was below 1.5 since 2000 and before 2006 was under 1.3! In fact, Russia has not had a sustainable birth rate since... 1988.

By 2030 they will have the same population as in 1930.

Give them credit for thinking through having a child !

@mark; Yes you are absolutely correct this is necessary to sustain themselves. I was not saying anything bad about it,just pointing out the contrast . Good info, very interesting.

Their Eugenics experiment and forced abortions... a big fat failure.... Call it what you may... that is exactly what was taking place. Planned Parenthood founder, and elements in the Obama administration actually thing that 1 child policies and variations of it would be a good idea for the US. I really hope that people understand that I'm for birth control but not Abortions. It will (and I believe have already) sapped the youthful energy that is the US future.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

@Mark from Bridgeport

You have to realize that back in 1988, there wasn't a Russia as we know today but rather the Soviet Union.

Having lived in both the Soviet Union for a time as well as the modern day Russian Federation, I have studied the demographics of Russia through individuals from that area of the world for a long time now.

The last Soviet census of 1989 concluded that the total population of ALL 15 Soviet Socialist Republics was roughly 300 Million. About 145 Million individuals lived in the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. Interestingly enough, the current population of the Russian Federation is 141 Million.

So really, Russia never suffered a massive population decline as many westerners may think. Yes, the population of the SOVIET UNION was 350 Million but only 145 Million of that lived in the RUSSIAN Soviet Socialist Republic.

PS: The total population of the entire Soviet Union in 1930 was 170 Million, Russia making up for 49% of that meaning there is no physical possibility that Russia had a population greater than 141 Million (Current Population Numbers) in 1930.

This is a good policy to have in the US. If you can't afford more than one child (and that includes illegals), the holy Obama government will intervene to make sure you don't have more than you can afford on your own! It would save the taxpayers billion$. Oops, what am I thinking? The Obama government holding people responsible for their own behaviors? No way.

niggapleeze, who said you know anything about the thought process. We don't have any laws about womens rights on birth control. First of all the laws are being written, by Republicans who want to legalize Rape and Incest. Republican Males of all things, not a woman on the board! Than you have this Clown that Romney supports, saying it is Gods Will! Romney is saying that he doesn't support everything the man stands for. Sorry, when you support someone you supporting the other part also, You cannot claim there is a disclaimer here. Lastly when your boss pays you for a job well done and you cash that check, whose money is it, yours or his? If you say yours, you are correct. so after you pay your taxes that money is no longer your, it is the Governments!! Like you, they will spend it as they see fit.

Well, I hope you like camping out on beach front property with no Ocean View because Draft Dodgen Romney beliefs in the Draft. He wants you to have an all expense paid trip to Iran. Redhot Days, Ice Cold Nights, Sand gets into places you didn't know you had. I wouldn't be slapping those Mosquitoes buzzing around your head, there not Mosquitoes. Have a good trip.

Who controls how many babies one has? Whose body is it? Who is responsible for overpopulating? Who or what sex suffers the most when population control is put in place?

Another example of when people create the very problems that they complain about.../sigh.

China has to figure something out quick. They are not as rich in resource reserves as the US, but are actively using those resources faster than us. The can choose to increase general worker pay to help support the strain they will soon be facing, but then their cheap wares will not sell. Lets be honest here, no one buys Chinese goods for their quality. If they do nothing about the population, their infrastructure will buckle. If they do limit population the quality of life for the youth will suffer until an inevitable revolt (they are not all that far from that point to begin with).

Honestly, looking at their situation I feel alot better about America.

@joe;

Yes this is a catch 22 for the Chinese very good point, and post.

@Brovin720: Interesting and great points!! The population numbers I am using are for Russia only, not inclusive of any of the previous USSR states... so this is not counting Byelorussia, Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, etc.

What's making up the difference? The same as in the US: immigration, especially in the the south. Since 1989 there has been ~3.7 million alone from previously non-Soviet states.

There are a number of things this article missed.

In China you CAN have more than one child. In rural (farming) areas you can have two. In urban, and most other, areas you can also have a second child. But it is heavily taxed, amounting to over $6,000 USD.

The contention that a population needs to have 2.1 births per couple to maintain itself is grossly wrong, too. If this is the case how does one explain China's population growth of hundreds of millions since the one child policy was enacted in 1979?

The fact is that humans aren't salmon. We don't die after "spawning." We have children and we continue to live. We continue to live when our children have children. And living longer and longer lives, on average, only exacerbates this problem.

The other issue is the aging population in China (and everywhere else). You have a relatively small working population that needs to support an increasingly large elderly one. This obviously is a big problem and one that is only getting worse. In an effort to solve this it is argued that we need to increase births to offset this. This means a continued population growth on an already hugely overpopulated planet.

To put overpopulation in perspective a study was done a few years ago (I forget who it was at the moment) to determine how much land, on average, a person uses to provide for their life. We may all live on a pretty small piece of ground but we need more of it for the production of food (meat, grains and vegetables), for forest to provide wood we use, for mining the metals and minerals used (relatively small), etc., etc., etc.

The study found that for SUSTAINABILIY each person, on average, requires four acres of land. Now, there are 32 billion acres of land on the planet. However, only half of it is usable, livable, productive land. The rest is mountainous, arctic, dersert, what-have-you. The math here is easy. We have 16 billion acres of land we can actually use. If each person, on average, requires 4 acres this means the planet can SUSTAIN 4 billion people. We have over 7 billion now, and counting.

I do not have the answers to these problems. I haven't heard of anyone else who does either. But society is going to look significantly different 50 years from now and it's going to be pretty bleak. I'm not being a pessimist, I'm being realistic.

It sure was my case! I would have loved to have 2 or maybe 3 kids.. However we just did not feel we could properly take care of that many. College for 2 or 3 cars for 2 or 3 etc. So we have just one! He often complained of not having siblings while growing up but now that he is a teenager he is very happy to not have a tag along and baby sitting duties like some of his friends!

I could not bare the thought of having only one child. I didn't feel "complete" until I had my second one. But I have to admit, hindsight is 20/20. The economy was stable and the cost of living was very reasonable when I had my two boys, one born in 1997 and the other one born in 2001. Nothing could have prepared me and my husband for what lie ahead. Had I known what was going to happen, I would have stuck with having only one child. Could I trade either one of them now - absolutely NOT!! But it is definately expensive to have children nowadays. Having only one may have left me feeling incomplete, but it would have definately been easier to weather the storm of our nightmarish economy that we're faced with today.

There is nothing "lunatic" about the comment. There are way too many people in US and elsewhere having children they can not afford.

Absolutely, if you cannot afford to have children you shouldn't. It is not fair to make the taxpayers pay for your irresponsible breeding habits -- like here in the US.

You people are complaining about people having children they can't afford! What about freeloading illegal aliens using our tax money! What's the difference. I believe both is wrong.

The illegal aliens are generally workers, albeit some are entire families. They pay payroll tax, including Social Security they'll never be able to draw from. They also produce lower cost goods and services that benefit everyone else in the economy in such a way as to offset their own social cost (i.e. trip to the ER). The parent(s) having taken the initiative to make a dangerous trip to the USA and start a new life and work, are MORE likely to be employed than the average US citizen. This is an upwardly mobile family who will want their children to succeed in higher economic activity.

US citizens who have children before they're ready often withdraw from the labor force to care for the children as they go on welfare. Their children are raised in the same irresponsible way and repeat the process. This is a downwardly mobile family.

As such, illegals are a net positive to the rest of us, while people who have children they can't afford and drop out of the workforce, going on welfare are a double-whammy negative to the rest of us.

Relax, You must know different illegals than the ones who are known by a fellow I met in the bar a few months back. He was an American of Mexican decent from Alaska. He may have actually been an anchor baby himself. He grew up speaking both Spanish at home and English everywhere else. He told me he didn't like illegals, because they make everybody else's wages lower than they should be. He also told me that they bragged about the big houses that they were paying for back in Mexico. He told me they all are just here for the money. He said they tell him that they don't like it here, because we have too many laws.

I think I'll go with the guy who bases his opinion on what he learned because they think he's one of them.

No doubt some illegals are total @!$%#bags and should be deported. But as it stands they are essential labor, doing jobs for less than minimum wage that regular Americans will not (and should not) do.

Several times some members of congress have tried to punish businesses that employ illegals and these bills get shot down hard once the campaign contributions start rolling in.

And I wouldn't get to envious of this guys big house in Mexico. I mean, if location is everything like they say, his house is not in a great place what with all those drug wars.

There's a bizarrely large segment of the population that truly believes that breeding is an unalienable right.

Breeding is one thing. Having more than a kid or two is irresponsible.

There's a bizarrely large segment of the population that truly believes that breeding is an unalienable right.

There's nothing "bizzare" about a mammal wanting to breed, or a man or woman feeling fatherly or motherly instincts. It's our economy that is creating bizzare conditions in which humans are becoming increasingly estranged from traditional modes of life - NOT the other way around.

Radical_Centrist

There's a bizarrely large segment of the population that truly believes that breeding is an unalienable right.

See Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred.

Four years ago I did some basic math and figured out that (at that time) the ENTIRE population of the earth could fit within the border of Miami-Dade county in southern Florida. That was based on 3sf per person, given the population estimates at the time. I could have been way off and still--I doubt we're overrunning the space we need on earth. We need better management of food, energy, etc. but we have a very long way to go before people take up too much space on earth.

CCM: Overpopulation concerns have nothing do with actual space, but with the resources we consume. Everyone needs food, water, shelter, and a job to pay for it all. Agriculture uses 70% of our fresh water already, with industry using another 20%. Arable land is at a premium even now, never mind in 100 yrs. Places like South Korea have literally run out of space to bury their dead.

Now throw in climate change and the ensuing crop disruptions and rising sea levels, not to mention dealing with the predicted increase in natural disasters, and it's not hard to see the enormous hole we're breeding ourselves into.

As for endangered animals? They don't stand a chance. Say goodbye now.

CCM.....Did you take into account all of the possesions/resources of the entire population? If you took every poor person in a third world country and brought them up to your/my standard of living there would not be enough room. Not enough room to grow the food, not enough room to put the garbage, not enough fuel...the list goes on. There are 315 million people in the USA right now. How many dirty disposable diapers would you say that would be on average? Where will all those people work? Where will all the waste products go? What will the quality of life be? Did you do that math? I don't mean to sound insulting but I've found it's not something most people think about. We are out of space now. We are posioning the planet with our garbage because there are too many people to live the way we seem to want to live. How many species are currently extinct because more room was needed for the human race?

AG99 --

Climate change? What climate change?? :)

Don't sweat the endangered species, AG99. We have their DNA on ice.

Rubbish. People were fretting about the 1 billion mark over a century ago. The planet can easily sustain three times the number of people we have today with present technology.

The problem? We're not using modern technology in most places.

Oh, and the US doesn't need to as our birthrate is down to 1.9. We are now not replacing ourselves, just like most of Europe. (You need a birthrate of 2.1 to maintain a population).

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

Mark from Bridgeport

Rubbish. People were fretting about the 1 billion mark over a century ago. The planet can easily sustain three times the number of people we have today with present technology.

The sad part is, you actually believe that's a rational argument for more breeding.

That is not correct. Already at 7 billion we are on an unsustainable course. The Earth simply cannot sustain 7 billion humans, especially with the increasing consumption of developing countries. Also the US birthrate is low, you are correct. However, our population is still increasing due to immigration.

...and what about the increased stress that comes from overcrowding, or pollution, or increased regulation of movement that is needed as natural population barriers are exceeded and more and more people are crammed into the same amount of space.

Ecological collapse is not the only issue here. There are plenty other reasons why we should avoid increase in population.

If you stack the world's population chockablock, you end up with a 1 mi³ cube. You would be able to lower it into the Grand Canyon with a boom and have plenty of room left over. (Source: some scientist guy on Charlie Rose getting interviewed) The problem isn't overpopulation, it's pollution/overconsumption of resources/CO2 emissions/distribution of wealth and food. These are not caused by simply having too many people, since it's a small minority of the world's population that is creating these problems.

it's a small minority of the world's population that is creating these problems.

No, its pretty much the entire world that's creating these problems. Anyone using a post-Pleistocene form of agriculture or technology is contributing to overpopulation.

Sorry, just blaming this all on the horrible White Man won't due this time...

What bothers me most about China's one-child policy is the forced abortions, often late-term abortions. That is murder. And the numerous voluntary abortions make no sense to me. Would it not be cheaper and certainly more humane to provide sterilization rather than so many abortions? Once a couple has their one child the lasting solution is vasectomy or tubal ligation. A woman doesn't have to kill her children and isn't exposed to the risk of infection, even death, that comes with each abortion.

Travis from Soviet Occupied New England - Post-Pleistocene doesn't necessarily need to mean overconsumption. I don't have a Unabomber-like view of the world. I embrace technology, but the fact is that 16 percent of the world's population is using 80 percent of its resources. At this point, that's rather common knowledge. By the way, I'm white (and I'm not self-hating). And don't try to paint me as some pie-in-the-sky liberal, because you're way off the mark there.

Ok fair enough. But is the use of resources really the issue here? I thought the issue was overpopulation and the implications that has for human life...

@Radical_Centrist: "The sad part is, you actually believe that's a rational argument for more breeding. "

You're here, right? Do you have children? I hope not, by your own arguement!
Personally, I'd say that it is irrational to destroy the most valuable resouce we have as a species: human capital.

@FrugalDemocrat: Ah, the same old tired arguement.

Earth can easily sustain 21 billion with modern technology, maybe more. The problem is that politically and economically feeding people is not a big priority.

Russia, Canada, Australia and the US (and many other nations) are *massively* underpopulated. Japan and Europe have been in population decline for three decades, and the US just joined the list two years ago. Russia is already 7 million below it's 1991 population (that's a Hong Kong or Serbia) and is predicted to have the SAME population in 2030 as it did in 1930!

Further, huge swaths of the planet underproduce food. Don't believe me? Belgium (#1) produces 8500 kg of cereals per hectare. Japan (#15) produces 6000 kilos of cereals per hectare. India (#84) produces a mere 2650 kg and Russia (#88) 2375 kg or so. Most of Africa is under 2000 kg per hectare. Zimbabwe is at 308 kg!

Nevermind how much goes to waste every year. For example, 1/3rd of the Washington State apple crop will lie in the fields this year due to lack of workers. Russia & Ukraine still don't have the same grain storage capabilities that the US had in WW2. Most African rice and grains are sown by hand...

I think there might be some truth to that. All that pent up sexual rage will have to be released in some manner...from the little I know of the subject, past populations with disproportionate numbers of males became aggressive and imperialistic...

I don't think so. The best way to thin a herd is to take out the females. That works better than killing males just on a breeding basis. However, if it also leads to compounding deaths through male aggression, etc, then that will further the culling. These are not problems but, rather, they are solutions. We could try using our brains instead, but we aren't that smart.

You realize there is a difference between being murdered and not existing at all, right? And Mark-515467 is right. The one-child policy in China isn't the issue, it's their societal view that places more value on male offspring than female. This results in the numerous abortions of female babies, and when that isn't an option, some just give them to orphanages when they are born. If you really want to fix the Chinese population, you have to change hundreds of years of tradition, which is not an easy task.

Good point.

Oh, wait. No.

Because my parents were not from China, therefore I am here and I have an opinion.

I think they should allow for at least two children, as that won't increase population growth while giving parents an incentive to keep their female children.

The people who CAN afford more than one might disagree,like me.We have turned darwin on his head.Literally success does NOT breed,not like our paraasites,and new 3rd world 'americans'

How do people like Melinda plan on implementing such a law? Forced abortion? Forced sterilization?

Personally, I don't trust the f'ing government to keep the roads clear - I sure a heck don't want them making those kinds of decisions for anybody.

With so many more males than females, China is facing HUGE problems. It scares me since the only thing I can think of that would even up the gender imbalance involves war...

Or a pandemic, something on the order of the so-called Spanish Flu in 1918.

A flu epidemic would take care of the elder care problem (too many elderly and not enough care givers)... :(

I just do not see a solution that does not involve death and misery.

Ah, maybe you could support free birth control. No one wants children they cannot take care of. Women are not having children for more of your tax dollars.

That's some screwed up logic. I was an only child and I was generous and kind. I had a pony and I let everyone ride it - I did not have a toy that I wouldn't share. My cousin - who had borthers and sisters - wouldn't let me touch her dolls and would tourture me when I cam to visit. I've known plenty of people from large families that were selfish, rude ignorant people who don't give a damn about anyone or anything. I work with Chinese people. They are honest, polite, kind, and hardworking. I don't think you'd hear anything out of their mouths that was a rude and heartless as your post.

Yeah. It's not like we can replant trees and food. It's not like water falls from the sky or something.

Mark, I take it you are not a biology major and are foreign to the concept of sustainability and ecosystems.

There are just so many square feet to plant on and so many gallons of water falling from the sky.

Please tell me you're young.

save the environment: No, but apparently I'm old enough to know better than you, though. I lived through the debates in the late 70s & early 80s about global cooling and "how are we ever going to support 5 billion people on the Earth?!?"

Technology. It's been the answer since we developed agriculture ~4000 BC, and it's going to continue to be the answer as long as we're human.

So what kind of quality of life do you envision for others? 500 people per square yard "vertically integrated" rabbit style, eating genetically engineered food grown upside down on chemical fertilizers?

Where do you see your offsprings in this vision? do you have any that you think about?

And you know, technology has seriously advanced over the last 6,000 years yet we are still fighting, starving and the level of happiness is not that great that I can see around me.

save the environment

So what kind of quality of life do you envision for others? 500 people per square yard "vertically integrated" rabbit style, eating genetically engineered food grown upside down on chemical fertilizers?

Please refer to my comment (#4.5) and Mark's comment (#4.10) above. There's plenty of room and arable land available.

I read your posts. So what? We are not a century ago we are now, and we are having climatic issues.

Room maybe, actually if you want to give up your place and give it to another person there is plenty of room for you in the many deserts of the world.

Arable land? Yes, they are finding some everyday in Brazil under the forests they clear cut ( eventually releasing millions of tons of wood-fixated CO2)

@save the environment: The planetary quality of life has risen every decade since at least the Industrial Revolution and most certainly since WW1... even with the population increasing exponentially. I have faith in mankind that as a species we will continue to innovate and make life better.

Note: ...and this is from me, a guy that didn't have power for just shy of 3 days this week due to Hurricane Sandy.

Of course we still have fighting, but wars have become *far* less bloody and invasive over time. Warfare hit a peak between Napoleon and World War 2. Since the rise of regular intercontinental trade, however, wars have generally gotten smaller and generally less fierce and since the end of WW2 (and the Pax Americana) it's only gotten moreso! For example, in 8 years fewer US servicemen were lost than in Iraq than in 3 days at Gettysburg.

In terms of starvation, you are ignoring the inconventient truth that there is LESS hunger today than even in 1980... even with far more mouths to feed!

As for happiness, that's not an easy thing to measure *but* I have to believe (coming from the former Czechoslovakia) that most of the world is much better off than when I was a child in the 70s & 80s. I grew up with outhouses and gravity toilets, 8 hours a day of electricity and no emergency services. Today, pretty close to everyone in even the 2nd world enjoys a life equal or better than mine about 30 years ago!

Re: your second post.
We are not a century ago we are now, and we are having climatic issues.

That is a fallacy. We've had climatic issues for millions of years. I learned in school many moons ago that Vikings used to grow wine grapes in Scandinavia and crops in Greenland, that the Sahara desert used to be a lot smaller and that the Middle East used to be wetter than today. I also remember learning that the arctic ice holds records of freezes and thaws, and that we were due for a new ice age "any year now".

Note that we only have global records from *1850*, and that's like estimating your body mass from a cut off ring finger. Possible, but not exactly a great or accurate method.

As for your Brazil example: you're citing an economic example (clear cutting) as a reason for limiting the growth of the species, not an environmental one. Brazil *could* easily ban the practice and still grow more than enough food to feed its people. But that would be more expensive.

who r u determine what the world needs or don't?

Here - yes.

But in most of the rest of the world, that's pretty much the only option people have for a "retirement plan".

In poor countries where there is no social security, like many African countries, people have 10 kids hoping for 1 or two of them to make it long enough to take care of them in their old days. No healthcare and no condoms plus retarded religious beliefs and lack of education gets them to overpopulation, starvation, scarce resources, powerlessness and soon ethnic cleansing...

Nothing "wrong" with it, I'm sure my human ancestors did the same. But it would be nice to see the whole world move forward out of that groove. It's not about quantity, it's about quality.

Lack of education plays a huge part in this. But I think the US needs to stop policing every stupid 3rd world country and let them figure it out.

Spot on - Christ. The U.S. can no longer afford to be the world bully.

The U.S. can no longer afford to be the world bully.

Yes, it's much better to let things like Jugoslavia, Cambodia & Rwanda happen.

It has also led to parents selling their girl children to wealthy families with a male child who needs a wife.

Um... where on Earth did you come up with that? Did you try the math?

1) Earth has ~58,000,000 square miles of land.
2) Divide by 10,000 you get 5800 of your "habitation zones".
3) Multiply by 40 (your HIGH number) and we get a PLANETARY population of 232,000! That's equal to 1/3rd of Washington DC, or less than half of Wyoming, or about the population of... Barbados.

Mark from Bridgeport. I responded to this question but the response fell to the end of the thread and did not go here, where I put it. Please scroll down a page or so if your question was more than rhetorical. Thanks.