Hacker News Reader

Comment by stanrivers | Hacker News Reader

A lot of people are asking why a policy is even still needed - why not go for no limit at all?

1) There is an entire family planning bureaucracy within the CCP setup to manage this; would do you do with all those people if they are not needed anymore?

2) China is more strict on population planning for certain minorities - not officially, but in the background; think Muslims in western China or Tibet or Mongolians, or ethnic Koreans in northeastern China... If you had no population planning for all the Han chinese, you might have a brighter light cast on this small in number but impactful population control actions.

3) Once someone has power, why let go of it? The CCP survives by creating a fairly good life for the majority in China - and it has done that extremely well - in exchange for control. It is easier to go from 3 back to 2, than it is to go from unlimited back to 2, for example.

View on HN

I've always wondered about the timing when population control was first implemented, and their intent.

1. Did population control allow Han Chinese/CCP to maintain their dominance in size over the growing minorities who were largely still living the agrarian lifestyle? 2. Minorities' would have their growth exponentially reduced over a hundred year. 3. And by increasing it now, Han Chinese can now exponentially grow again with momentum over minorities.

So in the background, it seems there's more than meet the eye to maintain Han Chinese power over other minorities in the country.Similar to Japanese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people) and other "race"; same strategy and intent, different tactic.

I believe the decision was made mainly over the concern of food supply. If you haven't already known, 195* many people died from hunger. Minorities have enjoyed more relaxing restrictions and often these policies are not enforced unless they have proper jobs (governments, CCP members and so on, breaking this could mean the end of your career). Many minorities are in small number to begin with, then the large minorities such as Tibetans and Uygurs are in tens of millions anyway. It is very different from Japan or other countries.

"The ASPI report said birth rates in counties with a 90 percent or greater indigenous population declined by an average of 56.5 percent from 2017 to 2018, far more than other regions in Xinjiang and China during the same period."

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-uses-coercive-poli...

56.5% decline in birth rates in one year when the right sample is taken. Beyond shocking. Doing such a thing with your left hand while allowing more births for Han Chinese with your right hand must be seen for what it is: genocide.

You’re absolutely right and this comment has no business being grayed.

Uncomfortable truths

Indeed, this seems to have touched a nerve. Interesting that no one has tried to refute my point directly.

There are others in the thread who seem to be suggesting that because Han Chinese have also been subject to population control measures, that my point is somehow invalid.

No one has yet explained why we see such steep birth rate declines, specifically in Uyghur regions, relative to the rest of China, only in the last half decade or so.

You know, right around the time they started rounding up millions of people in that same ethnic group and putting them in camps. The Chinese government has many euphemisms and rationalizations for these camps, but they don't dispute their existence. In any case we have satellite imagery.

What can one conclude about these coinciding actions by the Chinese state if not genocide? If it's not that, what is it?

the problem with that report is that I can't find anywhere the exact number, it only states decline by 56.5% without showing any specific numbers. I'm mildly suspicious that they originally had a much higher birth rate than Han Chinese since the same policy allowed one kid for Han Chinese allowed two to four kids for minorities

update, in a related voa newspiece, it reads 'For example, in Hotan prefecture, where the Uyghurs make up about 97% of the population, the birthrate was 8.58 per 1,000 people in 2018. Before 2017, it was more than 20 births per 1,000 people' at the same time the national average was around 11

That's one specific example, yes.

You can find the 36 page report here:

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2021-05/Fami...

Edit: via this summary from ASPI (in case the AWS link above breaks in the future)

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/family-deplanning-birthrates-...

Thank you so much. The full report is much more genuine than the abstract from the press. For example, it writes 'in Kashgar prefecture in 2014, the birth-rate soared to nearly 68 children per thousand people' at the same time the national average was around 12, perhaps because people in those regions are allowed more kids and the policy are rarely enforced compare to other region.

so if the birth rate in that region simply fall to national average, it will went down 80%. I think it's an perfect example of how numbers lie, but most people don't have any vested interest to find out.

I’m glad you had time to digest that report thoroughly in the 11 minutes between my comment and yours. Of course, everyone here should be aware that you are cherry picking. The conclusion of the report is that on average, there was a steep drop in birth rate in minority counties.

The report is named: "Family De-planning: The Coercive Campaign to Drive Down Indigenous Birth-rates in Xinjiang". This is not a case of media misrepresentation no matter how badly you want it to be.

The conclusion is typically found at the end of a report. Why don’t you go back and try again.

I don't mind to examine the full dataset if they are available. And the report is kind of only 20ish pages, excluding the references and covers.

After rereading as you suggested, it also said 'Urumqi is also a Han-majority city .... In 2018, the city’s birth-rate grew by about 25 percent compared to the pre-2017 baseline, from 8.5 births per thousand people to 12 per thousand.' So at the same time Han in Urumqi were having 8.5 per 1000 birth, Minorities in Kashgar were having 68 per 1000 birthrate. If that's anything, I'd say the CCP is genociding Han Chinese for selectively enforcing the policy.

I think the act to list only percentages without listing exact number is dubious, and I am confident the pattern would be similar.

Now you're comparing apples to oranges, in addition to cherry picking.

You're comparing birth rates of a major city full of unmarried Han who have been lured to the area by government incentives and other work arrangements, to a predominantly rural area. Those birth rates will always be divergent; anywhere in China, and most of the rest of the world. The part about Han being purposely incentivized to move to Xinjiang is explained in section 5 of the report.

The report does not dispute that Uyghur birth rates were higher relative to Han Chinese in the past. It makes a convincing case that Uyghurs are being targeted now, at the same time birth control policies are being loosened in Han Chinese parts of the country. That policy discrepancy is intentional, and we should expect it to continue unless we speak out against it.

Finally, we can agree that the Chinese government is also evil for controlling the births of Han Chinese and ruining life for generations of their own people who had to contend with the CCP's signature and unique natal authoritarianism.

You have a love for fruit, don't you? But that's not apples and oranges, nor are they cherries. That's the most specific data you can find in that report on the actual birth rate. You're more than welcome to share more data and maybe we can examine.

The actual data is public record. Official from the Chinese government.

It's linked in the Methodology appendix on page 28 of the report. I copied it here for you since it seems you haven't made it that far yet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dH-GMlRZ8Kc1Lp5or5vS...

Understandable considering you were confused about the report only being "20ish pages".

As for the fruit: Yes, what a wonderful bounty you've brought for us on this fine Memorial Day.

It's really wonderful for you to link the dataset here. I think neither of us would have the time to compile the dataset manually. Admittedly and regrettably I didn't check the appendix.

So the conclusion was from Xinjiang's 2017 and 2018 birthrate, which respectively as included was 15.88 and 10.69, so that's where the 50% drop came from. However, the same index for China overall was 12.43 and 10.94, where we see around 20% drop. I don't think it can be categorically concluded it's some racially-motivated policy. (whether it's a good policy or bad is a whole different matter.)

So to summarize our discussion:

Me: Here’s an article about this report.

You: The press is misrepresenting the abstract.

Me: Nope. Here’s the full report.

You: The report draws the wrong conclusions. Besides, they don’t even share the dataset.

Me: Nope. Here’s the dataset linked in the report.

You: The data show that Xinjiang birth rates declined 30% more than they did in the rest of China. As you can see I was right all along.

I’m curious how you managed to make this journey. It doesn’t seem like you’ve been participating in this discussion in good faith, frankly. I could be wrong though. In that case, I would recommend you actually read what people are trying to show you before attempting to criticize it. You are clearly working backwards from your priors.

Well, I guess you know how to spin a story. My point the whole time has been that percentages can be misleading without the actual number presented, still you seemed to be only cares about the percentages.

It's quite easy to see that birth rate in Xinjiang falls around the national average in 2018. Stil, I'm glad you found the actual dataset in the appendix.

Correct [1].

In addition, ASPI is notorious for being sponsored by the US, UK and Australian weapons industry who have a vested interest in drumming up this kind of thing. I would take anything they have to say with a massive grain of salt [2].

[1] https://twitter.com/drStuartGilmour/status/13938342716939632...

[2] https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors

Incorrect [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1394089300199821313

In case any potential down voters are not educated on the matter, the U.N. convention on genocide specifically prohibits targeting ethnic or religious minorities for forced sterilization/birth control:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Anchoring. A lot of people would otherwise only have the idea to have two, but you tell them they can only have 3, they might max out their limit.

Most of Chinese want to have a girl and a boy, some may go on to have another child if they are missing a girl or a boy. I do echo other comments that the limit of 3 is not necessary. I also don't see a declining population as a problem as economists see it. They weren't right to begin with. The main drive for productivity and economy output is going to be technology, not human labors anyway, with unlimited supply of money, you can increase consumption just by printing money. Even better, when you don't need to slave human for taxes, you don't need to increase their consumption anyway.

I wouldn't call at least 1 million uighurs interned and reportedly forcibly sterilized or put on other types of birth control a small number. Though given the huge size of China out of 1.3bb it's a rounding error.

Historically, minorities were allowed to have more children than Han Chinese, FYI. Han only reached the same child allowance recently.

source?

https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/what-did-china's-one-c...

> When the policy was implemented, 26 [out of 31] Chinese provinces allowed ethnic minorities to have an additional child.

There were other exemptions too - for example, rural farmers could often also be exempted, particularly if their first child was a daughter.

Actually rural area as well. Done of my chinese have a brother or sister ... surprise me a lot.

absolutely.

ethnic Korean from north east China here, many of my relatives had 2 children while our Han neighbors only had 1

Sinophobic propaganda on English speaking Internet has reached an amazing level. It's quite amazing how this can get unchecked so much.

> China is more strict on population planning for certain minorities - not officially, but in the background; think Muslims in western China or Tibet or Mongolians, or ethnic Koreans in northeastern China... If you had no population planning for all the Han chinese, you might have a brighter light cast on this small in number but impactful population control actions.

LAMO

My mother was almost forced to sterilze, which would make me disappear in 1984, she is Han Chinese. That was because local beauracrats' stupid idea of birth planning.

Can you stop making CCP looking better by saying it's discrinating against minorities...

Edit: I was the 2nd child.

Very curious - why was she selected for this?

It was a broad policy that affected millions of women.

Understood - but I think he was saying that before she even had one child, they were trying to force sterilize his mother, who was Han Chinese.

That is a new concept to me, unless maybe it was wealth / income / genetic disease related?

She was a poor rural village woman.

Of course, forced sterilization is not going to work in the cities. Because people with some form of certain degree of intellect understand the use of contraception and can just forgo their job or certain possession to pay the fine.

Forced sterilization was never an explicit policy. Everyone with decent intellect knows that's ridiculous.

It was practiced, of course, out of middle and low level bureaucracy's sense of "meeting the goal".

Of course CCP has not enough resources to enforce a ridiculous policy anyway.

Well I am glad that she was able to avoid it for your sake. Unfortunately, I am sure many women were not able to do so. It is very much a terrible thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com