Chinese One Child Policy and should it be instated in India?

[Faux]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

 

China 1,336,410,000

India 1,178,352,000

US 308,884,000

 

I think overpopulation is a legitimate problem and for third world countries like these to have that much population is ridiculous.

[OldJoe]

Yes.

Overpopulation, far greater chances of spreading diseases for example. The amount of food and water they all need is massive and you run out of space.

[angel13]

Didn't know their numbers were so close. =/

 

Absolutely, It should be established for the greater good of the world.

[Faux]

Yes.

Overpopulation, far greater chances of spreading diseases for example. The amount of food and water they all need is massive and you run out of space.

 

They'll probably have to take over other countries just to sustain their population. That's what worries me.

[Guthorm]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

[Jeffwilson99]

I don't see this happening. Anyway, the one child policy will screw China over in the long run, as they will have MAJOR problems with an ageing population. That is, they will pretty much be crippled by huge number of retired folk having to be supported by the population of the working age (15-65). With each family only having one child, that one person then has to support two others. To replace the current population, you need an average birth rate of 2.1 (Birth rate = total births/total fertile women in population), so this keeps the population in a steady state (eg, not increasing or declining). Many other countries in the world are facing a similar problem, parts of Europe, Japan, NZ and Australia, but not on the same scale as China however. This is why China is not necessarily a good example

 

I agree that India does have a huge problem with overpopulation, but do you think there governement does not already realise this? They have already taken a number of steps to try and reduce the birth rate. For example, in parts of India men are offer substaintal cash rewards for undergoing sterilisation. In other places, there is a massive drive towards sex and family education, and the promotion of condoms. Of course, this is not an easy task, or a quick fix so the effects of these (or any) policies are going to a bit of take time to take effect.

 

Although there are other problems, such as the poverty cycle which encourage large families, who are born into poverty, hence the cycle.

[Lenticular_J]

India tried it, and it didn't work. They can't get people to use birth control, and India's government isn't powerful enough to force them.

[Will H]

Maybe a 3 child policy is appropriate in the short term? It's extended families that are the root cause of overpopulation. Ideally, the population shouldn't grow or shrink, so given that the ideal birth rate is about 2.1, and considering some families that don't actually have 3 children even though they can, a 3 child policy would make a good enough approximation.

 

But, the Indian government must not use any such policy as an excuse to not invest in contraceptives, sexual education and birth control, or they'll end up in the same boat as China.

[Guthorm]

Hey China is not doing so bad, we just put the elders in retirement homes and it cut down the cost by a ton. Also because of our culture, it is very unlikely for us to have accidental pregency, hell some of us stick to the tradition of not having sex until we get married.

[obfuscator]

Hey China is not doing so bad, we just put the elders in retirement homes and it cut down the cost by a ton. Also because of our culture, it is very unlikely for us to have accidental pregency, hell some of us stick to the tradition of not having sex until we get married.

Mmm, I love the sound of freedom emmanting from this post...I know that when I get old I'd love to have capped medicare expenses and just be stuck in a retirement home.

 

China hasn't had the one child policy long enough to truly witness the repurcussions - an aging population affects most developed countries, and a country like China where it is being pushed to the extreme can only suffer from it all the more.

[Guthorm]

Where the alternative is to have exploding population, I am not saying I like it, but it is a necessary evil.

 

PS: How does freedom have anything to do with I have said? :blink: Is not like if you do not go there you will die.

[Saru Inc]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

 

 

LOL. if you don't have enough food\water, communism isn't going to help. If it's never worked before, why would it now?

[obfuscator]

Where the alternative is to have exploding population, I am not saying I like it, but it is a necessary evil.

 

PS: How does freedom have anything to do with I have said? :blink: Is not like if you do not go there you will die.

I'd like the freedom to have good health care, and not just be stuck in a home to save costs, like you said.

[Guthorm]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

 

 

LOL. if you don't have enough food\water, communism isn't going to help. If it's never worked before, why would it now?

 

With an exploding population we are not going to have enough food/water. :mellow: I think I should have said a one party system I guess? China is not exactly a pure communist country, the decision making process is just faster.

 

I'd like the freedom to have good health care, and not just be stuck in a home to save costs, like you said.

 

We do have health care, the elders are treated pretty well unless they are dirt poor, don't see how this have anything to do with freedom.

[obfuscator]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

 

 

LOL. if you don't have enough food\water, communism isn't going to help. If it's never worked before, why would it now?

 

With an exploding population we are not going to have enough food/water. :mellow: I think I should have said a one party system I guess? China is not exactly a pure communist country, the decision making process is just faster.

Let me explain the repurcussions of an aging population.

 

I'm going to make up some stats here obviously since I don't know the real ones.

 

China has a one child policy... so look at it this way.

 

Earning period is 20 - 65. These people pay, directly or indirectly, for healthcare for those 65+

 

Right now, the majority of china's population is in the 20-65 zone - aka baby boomers.

 

In 20 years, the majority of china's population will be 65+. Basically a minority of the population (say 40%) will be working, trying to generate the funds and sustain the economy to help provide healthcare and services for those no longer earning.

 

With this one child policy - there can never and will never be a sufficient number of people in the earning population to support the elderly population - and at that point huge healthcare cuts will happen, and a global recession is likely, as this is happening in almost all developed countries.

 

So yes, China's population may go down....but at what cost? A two child policy would make far more sense here.

[Faux]

 

I agree that India does have a huge problem with overpopulation, but do you think there governement does not already realise this?

 

thought haven't crossed my mind

 

but seriously, whatever they're doing is obviously not working because they still have higher fertility rate than china. they'll eventually take over china's pop

 

Where the alternative is to have exploding population, I am not saying I like it, but it is a necessary evil.

 

PS: How does freedom have anything to do with I have said? :blink: Is not like if you do not go there you will die.

 

Well for one thing, you said "we put our elders"

[Guthorm]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

 

 

LOL. if you don't have enough food\water, communism isn't going to help. If it's never worked before, why would it now?

 

With an exploding population we are not going to have enough food/water. :mellow: I think I should have said a one party system I guess? China is not exactly a pure communist country, the decision making process is just faster.

Let me explain the repurcussions of an aging population.

 

I'm going to make up some stats here obviously since I don't know the real ones.

 

China has a one child policy... so look at it this way.

 

Earning period is 20 - 65. These people pay, directly or indirectly, for healthcare for those 65+

 

Right now, the majority of china's population is in the 20-65 zone - aka baby boomers.

 

In 20 years, the majority of china's population will be 65+. Basically a minority of the population (say 40%) will be working, trying to generate the funds and sustain the economy to help provide healthcare and services for those no longer earning.

 

With this one child policy - there can never and will never be a sufficient number of people in the earning population to support the elderly population - and at that point huge healthcare cuts will happen, and a global recession is likely, as this is happening in almost all developed countries.

 

So yes, China's population may go down....but at what cost? A two child policy would make far more sense here.

 

Cool thing is we are, right now if a couple marry and both does not have any siblings, then they can have two kids. I do know the con of an aging population as it is a subject that has been discussed to death.

 

Well for one thing, you said "we put our elders"

 

Lack of a better word I guess, how about families send their elders?

[obfuscator]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

 

 

LOL. if you don't have enough food\water, communism isn't going to help. If it's never worked before, why would it now?

 

With an exploding population we are not going to have enough food/water. :mellow: I think I should have said a one party system I guess? China is not exactly a pure communist country, the decision making process is just faster.

Let me explain the repurcussions of an aging population.

 

I'm going to make up some stats here obviously since I don't know the real ones.

 

China has a one child policy... so look at it this way.

 

Earning period is 20 - 65. These people pay, directly or indirectly, for healthcare for those 65+

 

Right now, the majority of china's population is in the 20-65 zone - aka baby boomers.

 

In 20 years, the majority of china's population will be 65+. Basically a minority of the population (say 40%) will be working, trying to generate the funds and sustain the economy to help provide healthcare and services for those no longer earning.

 

With this one child policy - there can never and will never be a sufficient number of people in the earning population to support the elderly population - and at that point huge healthcare cuts will happen, and a global recession is likely, as this is happening in almost all developed countries.

 

So yes, China's population may go down....but at what cost? A two child policy would make far more sense here.

 

Cool thing is we are, right now if a couple marry and both does not have any siblings, then they can have two kids. I do know the con of an aging population as it is a subject that has been discussed to death.

 

That still doesn't help much - you need a solid stream of two kids to keep the population steady - and with that you can have two kids every other generation.

 

The topic has been discussed to death for good reason - it is you and I, just entering the workforce, who will end up having to shoulder the enormous burden of supporting an aging population.

[Guthorm]

Not a huge problem, the policies have only been enacted for around sixty years? The benefit of the policy is greater than the negatives.

[obfuscator]

Not a huge problem, the policies have only been enacted for around sixty years? The benefit of the policy is greater than the negatives.

Not a huge problem? Say that to me when you are paying 60% taxes for health care comparable to a 3rd world country.

 

I see hardly any benefits - the population will slowly shrink only to have to rise again to sustain the economy, and people lose the freedom that many happen to value.

[meol]

But doesn't the policy also mean that education costs will also decrease a lot?

[Guthorm]

Not a huge problem, the policies have only been enacted for around sixty years? The benefit of the policy is greater than the negatives.

Not a huge problem? Say that to me when you are paying 60% taxes for health care comparable to a 3rd world country.

 

I see hardly any benefits - the population will slowly shrink only to have to rise again to sustain the economy, and people lose the freedom that many happen to value.

 

I am interested in where did you get the figures from first of all. Secondly because of the fact that Chinese people save roughly 50% of their income, this added with pensions will pay for their retirement.

 

The population is not shrinking, it is growing slower than before, the population control reduced the population by roughly 300 million people, this is huge. Imagine finding houses/work/food for all those people. Also this was enacted when the People's Republic of China was first build and it was very fragile, a huge population is not something the government can deal with. China may very well break down quite sometime ago because it cannot bear the burden of such a huge population just like what is happening to India right now.

[Bloodstain]

Where the alternative is to have exploding population, I am not saying I like it, but it is a necessary evil.

 

PS: How does freedom have anything to do with I have said? :blink: Is not like if you do not go there you will die.

I'd like the freedom to have good health care,

 

So would millions of americans (but not really because lol communism omg)

[The Dark Lord]

Of course, except India would NEVER do it because of their democratic government. Here is when communism is more benefitual than a democracy.

 

Why would you even need Communism? A Paternal Autocracy does just fine in that situation. Probably even better. Hell, a Republic would do just fine...

 

Maybe a government like Heinlein's concept of a meritocracy (Starship Troopers) would be superior? Democracy is limited to those who have demonstrated that they are committed to doing what's truly best for Society and is thus limited to an elite few. However, anyone can gain the right to vote so long as they are willing to serve at least a two-year term doing dangerous work (military, etc.)

 

"The noblest fate that a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and war's desolation."

[amadcupcake77]

They should just cull anybody over 65.