Hacker News Reader

Comment by meesterdude | Hacker News Reader

Really great read; sheds light on some things I never understood about china, but now it makes sense.

Goverment: "Stop making so many babies! that's it, just one per couple."

Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"

What could go wrong?

Yes, woman are gaining some upper hand here; and thats good. But it's not because of a change of outlooks or perspectives of the people, it's simply out of scarcity of the gender.

And what happens when there aren't enough women to go around? why, they import them of course! And by import I mean sex slavery and arranged marriages.

"life...finds a way..." to keep on fuckin'

View on HN

Your comment reminds me of this story: https://sivers.org/horses

"One-child policy" Bad policy.

"Woman gaining upper hand" Yay.

<Insert unintended consequence> Yeah, China's screwed.

I'll wait and see.

I really like that story you are linking to. I first heard it being told by Aaron Weiss from the band mewithoutyou here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZJJtw2DHfY

Hey thanks for linking to the video, really enjoyed it.

>Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"

I get the feeling that the people who invented the "One child policy" where at a different stage in civilization/education/whatever you call, than the people for whom they made the rule. So they didn't even consider that the public might choose to get rid of their girls.

China has been extremely focus on reaching the western standards of living, but their culture haven't been able to keep up. I think it's great that they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do. Their error was that they didn't try to bring about lower birth rates though education and welfare programs and instead opted for punishment. The Chinese where given an incentive to abort girls, so in hindsight it's not a surprise that things have worked out the way they have.

> they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do

India took the path to education and propaganda to voluntarily reduce the fertility rate. I don't think India has failed in its initiatives. Instead, I think they are going extremely well given that there is no legal limit on how many kids you can have. India is on track to reach peak-population by 2060. [1]

Most educated middle class couples would not think of having more than 2 kids (this has been true for the last 15/20+ years) and now we are entering a phase where a small minority is choosing to go without kids, completely.[2]

The total fertility rate in India has gone from 6 to 2.5 in the last 50 years. (Google for "total fertility rate india")

Edit: One more thing - there are 11 states in India that are at or below a TFR of 2.1 [3].

Net net - far from a failure, India is making good progress.

[1]: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-population-w...

[2]: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/...

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertil...

I did not know that. I would agree that going fertility rate from 6 to 2.5 is anything but a failure. It might take longer, but it's probably a much better solution that the "One child policy" in the long run.

It's well known that birth rate decreases as a nation's economic status increases. India has also gone through massive economic changes in the last 50 years, which is likely to have affected fertility rates much more than propaganda.

I'd like to see studies with control groups before believing that voluntary methods can significantly impact fertility rates.

Voluntary: done, given, or acting of one's own free will

India's population control has been voluntary. Aside from a failed attempt in 1975 (declaration of emergency/forced castration of a negligible number of people), all of the decline in fertility in India has been voluntary.

A most bodacious of comments! And spot on - education is a better solution than rules. We see the same changes in the US across class divides; poorer people are less educated and rear more children.

"Different" stage - maybe, but... "not even considering" something that then happens on a huge scale is not a sign of being at a sufficiently advanced stage of "civilization"/whatever you call it. Certainly not sufficiently advanced to be governing those people whose behavior one fails to predict.

Also... if you're saying that "getting rid of the girls" is dumb ("indicative of lack of civilization"), as opposed to "bad" in some other way (say, immoral) - then, well, it might be much dumber for society than it is for individuals, depending on the specifics. (It depends on the various costs of raising a single child who's a boy vs raising a single child who is a girl. If you count on your child to be supporting the family with physical labor from a young age, for instance, a girl would be more costly to raise.) Pushing people to do something which makes sense for them individually but is a disaster for society as a whole is very common for rulers who're out to inflict as much good as possible upon their less-civilized subjects.

"The Chinese where[sic] given an incentive to abort girls"

Only if you actually buy into the bullshit that girls are worth less than boys...

Get some perspective. In some cultures, they actually are. This could be for many reasons:

* The girl will marry and join another family, leaving no one to care for the parents in their old age. * Because of traditional gender roles as well as physical attributes, the girl won't be able to toil the fields (doing so might make it harder for her to find a good husband). A child that can do so is more valuable. * Only sons can inherit land * Only sons can carry on the family name

That was actually the reality in most places of the world for most of human history, and unfortunate as it is, still the reality in some cultures and countries. It isn't bullshit.

Assuming that you don't buy into that bullshit, could you then please explain why the gender imbalance is currently at 1.16 to 1, when naturally you would have slightly more women than men? Because it sure seems like the Chinese believe they have a reason for preferring boys.

"I think it's great that they addressed the issue of over-population"

Yes exactly. Thank You. These types of articles keep popping up but IMOP a much bigger problem was addressed than was caused. Also IMOP the world would be much better off if other nations found a way to reduce overpopulation.

Actually they anticipated exactly that feeling which is why the law allows you to have more children if you have girls.

Seems a better way is to follow the shoes of Germany and Japan. Those coutnries if they don't turn things around will be a 2/3 of what they were in just 40 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/europe/germany-fight...

Whoa, Japan I knew about but I didn't know germany was in similar straights. Interesting considering both of them were heavily involved in WW2; though I can't say how related/coincidental it is.

Actually, most of Europe, but France, is the same boat. Looks like having the some of the best pregnacy laws in the world has its advantages.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com