Sickening black market

[Sweetdeath]

Taking what Whitney has said into consideration, do you honestly think any of these children will lead a life outside the family?

Do you think anyone will want to date them and deal with all that baggage? I sadly think not.

[ThinkAnarchy]

No country I'm aware of has overcome the problems of advancing such a huge population as effectively, India is the only comparable country.

We will simply have to disagree here. I would not say China is handling their population well at all. Japan seems to be comparable, at least in populations, and doing a better job than China. In regards to India, I'm not very familiar with the area.

WordWeb Definition - Verb: Sacrafice 1. Endure the loss of.

Well dictionary.com says differently, but it isn't worth arguing.

I offer you a story, a little fiction.

A few decades back a government representative gives an inspiring speech, for too long our people have died of hunger, too many nights you've gone to bed hungry, too many mothers have buried too many children, for too long we have worked in the fields like beasts, but this can change.  If we all work together, control our fertility, learn and build.  Perhaps you will have only one child but by our efforts we will work to ensure you don't have to bury it.

So some people, most people accept the story and they refrain from having more that one child, their standard of living improves over the decades.  Yes I have some sympathy for them.  Those that have more than one child, I suppose I would have sympathy for them too, but I understand why they'd have to suffer some penalty.  If I was one of the majority who'd adopted the shared dream and made the sacrifices I'd probably see it as just.

If the politician were simply appealing to the population to refrain from having multiple children, there would be nothing wrong with that. When the government forces individuals to have only one child, it is pure evil. Why is it justified to start punishing people for not doing what was optional?

So because I could be seen as a hypocrite for believing blacks should have equal rights I should keep my mouth shut?

Is this relevant?  There's some difference between urban and rural policy.  I suppose the more wealthy would be in a better position to face economic penalties, elites probably do as they want as elites do.  But still I see it as a broadly shared sacrifice, not ill treatment aimed at a minority.

Yes it is relevant. I was following the logic you used in saying British papers have no authority on human rights issues due to the Opium Wars.

I see the modern corporation as relieving powerful countries of much of the need for colonies.

I doubt it. Colony building has often been about resources, trade routes, bases, etc. Simply because many nations are adopting semi-free markets, does not alleviate their need for the above. Especially resources. The powerful nations continue to raise giant armies that require a ton of resources. I'm sure there are more reasons, but I'm a little strapped for time right now.

Yes, I'm a bit dense, must have fallen on my head when young.

It's cool, my mom dropped me as well.

The way I see it if a country had a favourable climate and wasn't already teeming with people it's was liable to be filled up with colonists from a great power.

I agree, for a big chunk of history this was the repeating theme.

I am kind of stuck on the population issue, I see it as key to whether 22nd century humans live in a dystopia or an age of technological wonder.  That aside too much of the natural world has been lost and what's left is threatened.  I would support a program to prevent a million births to save the last thousand gorillas.  If humans want to see themselves as the pinnacle of life they should act like it and stop trashing the planet.  The argument that population doesn't matter, technology will solve everything doesn't comfort me, I do not have faith.

We are not the only animals that drive other species into extinction. I also respect human life more than the life of other creatures, although I am an animal lover (not in a creepy way.) As we have advanced, we have actually been able to take better care of the environment. Forests, at least in the developed world, are not being destroyed as they were in the past. Most of our wood now comes from farms, where the trees are replanted as soon as they are harvested. It's all economics.

Apple has plans to build a new facility on a lot that is pure asphalt. The plans have the parking underground, new trees covering the lot, and a circular building capable of holding 13,000 people with an net gain to nature. I have already explained how technology has increased the level of population we can sustain.

If overpopulation were to occur, and technology couldn't keep up, yes their would be repercussions. There would be famine, violence, etc. However, I don't agree with draconian measures because of what "might" happen.

The New Zealand business I assume is a joke."

No they actually have a larger population of sheep than people.

She can feed herself and her child, perhaps she has a roof that keeps the water out, as you so eloquently say "That's a huge fucking improvement".

The communist government did not invent homes for the people. If you are referring to the famine in the mid 1900's that was mostly a result of the communist government. Granted they are at least nice enough to count twins as one child I believe. And certain privileged people are allowed a second.

I'm glad you've straightened out my flawed value system, after all what is a stunted underfed body when compared to free access to Google.

The government should not be feeding people, nor should they be infringing upon freedom of information. I never claimed freedom didn't come at costs.

I have a healthy suspicion of authority, I don't think the Chinese authorities are a bunch of saints, but I don't have an authority phobia or nightmares of a new evil empire.

All governments are inherently evil. They have a monopoly on force and use it to bend the will of the people. They have a special moral and legal code which grants them the right to steal, murder, kidnap, etc. I'm not claiming they are much worse than most of the other governments out there, the article Death posted was about China though, hence my criticisms of them.

For someone who so vehemently talks of freedom you seem unusually keen to tell me what I think.

I never said what you think, I was simply replying to what you said. Simply because I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist does not mean I'm going to be accepting of others views. You are certainly entitled to believe what you like, but in no way am I obligated to not discuss these things. If at any point I "put words in your mouth," I apologize.

I could see where you may of thought that, often times I was simply duplicating your logic to bring them to conclusions on other topics.

[The Magic Pudding]

We will simply have to disagree here. I would not say China is handling their population well at all. Japan seems to be comparable, at least in populations, and doing a better job than China. In regards to India, I'm not very familiar with the area.

Japan has been having major problems for decades, despite its history of assistance from the US and a very low military expenditure.  They don't seem to be led very well, twelve prime ministers so far this century, all seeming unable to help their troubled economy.  Meanwhile China enjoys a long boom.

So because I could be seen as a hypocrite for believing blacks should have equal rights I should keep my mouth shut?

Is this relevant?  There's some difference between urban and rural policy.  I suppose the more wealthy would be in a better position to face economic penalties, elites probably do as they want as elites do.  But still I see it as a broadly shared sacrifice, not ill treatment aimed at a minority.

Yes it is relevant. I was following the logic you used in saying British papers have no authority on human rights issues due to the Opium Wars.

I don't remember saying that.
I would say I'm sceptical of British tabloids.  The linked article which inspired this thread doesn't seem like a balanced analysis of the one child policy.  It seems to be a sensationalist attempt to excite its demographic, whose primary interest appears to be the doings of celebrities.  I particularly liked the photo of a totally unrelated child and the heart stirring "Sickening trade: A boy like this is worth £1,200 to China's child snatchers."

The one child policy has created a demand for children (possibly) and the Chinese government is a bit slow cracking down on child traders.  Well if this is the case I'd encourage them to crack down on the trade.  It might involve impinging someone's freedom though, cracking down usually does.  

This is the heading "Babies for sale: The scandal of China's brutal single child policy"
No, I can't say that looks like a balanced introduction to the issue.  It is setting China's government up once again as a bunch of inhuman sadistic bastards.  I kind of resent people attempting to play my emotions like that.

"British papers have no authority on human rights issues due to the Opium Wars".
As I said I don't remember saying this, I'm looking at seven definitions of authority and don't think under any definition the word should be applied to a news paper.  My ideal news paper has the responsibility to present issues in a balanced manner, not manipulate, not feed people a daily dose of outrage.

I see the modern corporation as relieving powerful countries of much of the need for colonies.

I doubt it. Colony building has often been about resources, trade routes, bases, etc. Simply because many nations are adopting semi-free markets, does not alleviate their need for the above. Especially resources. The powerful nations continue to raise giant armies that require a ton of resources. I'm sure there are more reasons, but I'm a little strapped for time right now.

You can come here buy some rights and do some mining, we prefer you leave your massive armies at home though.  China has sent companies here, which we're OK with, they've tried to buy large existing companies and we've said no.  No Chinese armies as yet, just companies.  BHP Biliton the world's largest mining company is based in Australia.  But obviously it wouldn't have attained this status without the threat of our huge standing army, I'm sure the USA wouldn't respect BHP operating there without us striking fear into their hearts.

I can think of a couple of canals with a history, mostly trade routes are about cooperation, laws of the sea and such.  

We are not the only animals that drive other species into extinction.

Yes but we are the one (or one of the few) with a consciousness, there is no excuse to behave like a rodent.  

I also respect human life more than the life of other creatures, although I am an animal lover (not in a creepy way.)

Humans have the ability to change their behaviour, animals aren't so fortunate.  When people disregard other life and the environment, my respect is sorely tested.

As we have advanced, we have actually been able to take better care of the environment. Forests, at least in the developed world, are not being destroyed as they were in the past. Most of our wood now comes from farms, where the trees are replanted as soon as they are harvested. It's all economics.

Apple has plans to build a new facility on a lot that is pure asphalt. The plans have the parking underground, new trees covering the lot, and a circular building capable of holding 13,000 people with an net gain to nature. I have already explained how technology has increased the level of population we can sustain.

This sounds like the press release of some extractive industry group.  We haven't even mentioned the parlous state of the oceans, Peak Oil, Peak Superphosphate, food diverted to bio fuel, declining resources, climate change.

If overpopulation were to occur, and technology couldn't keep up, yes their would be repercussions. There would be famine, violence, etc. However, I don't agree with draconian measures because of what "might" happen.

So your philosophy may deny us the opportunity to save ourselves from extinction? Well my philosophy allows for cooperation with other sane people who think nature and human survival is important.  IMPORTANT, not important but...
We can cooperate and put people with antisocial habits in jail, that's what they're for.

The New Zealand business I assume is a joke."

No they actually have a larger population of sheep than people.

So having a healthy rural sector makes it acceptable for another country to invade?
One country has 1000 people per kilometre, another has 10, I don't see this as justifying invasion.  If you are unable to control your fertility that's your problem, I don't see why my lifestyle should be brought down to some squalid common denominator.  People have the choice to behave like rodents or control their fertility.

One grasshopper is a grasshopper, many are locusts, destroying everything that grows.  Maybe there should be an equivalent term for humans.  The list of extinct New Zealand animals caused by human colonisation is too long to quote, and with every loss the world is less.

She can feed herself and her child, perhaps she has a roof that keeps the water out, as you so eloquently say "That's a huge fucking improvement".

The communist government did not invent homes for the people. If you are referring to the famine in the mid 1900's that was mostly a result of the communist government. Granted they are at least nice enough to count twins as one child I believe. And certain privileged people are allowed a second.

No they didn't invent homes, but they did organise the people and industry and got them built.  

Yes the famine of the mid twentieth century that was nasty, I won't deny government responsibility.  But the government seemed to get their act together after Mao.  They even introduced the one child policy and modernised to prevent such a thing recurring.

The government should not be feeding people, nor should they be infringing upon freedom of information. I never claimed freedom didn't come at costs.

That is an attitude I can not, take seriously let people die so your ideal of freedom isn't offended.  The funniest part is if people didn't cooperate and follow rules there would be no internet, which ironically was a creation of the military.  Honestly the best communication a society based on such a philosophy could produce would be rooftop shouting.

All governments are inherently evil. They have a monopoly on force and use it to bend the will of the people. They have a special moral and legal code which grants them the right to steal, murder, kidnap, etc. I'm not claiming they are much worse than most of the other governments out there, the article Death posted was about China though, hence my criticisms of them.

That is just plainly and obviously wrong.  Gangs exercise force, the drunken abusive husband exercises force.  Most people want the government to control such people, that's why governments always play the law and order card at election time.  

My government is my government, I don't agree with everything they do but they are a tool of cooperation, they enable a better life style for all.  If someone can't accept the rules set by a civilised society they should go live in tree, they'd have to go wireless for their Google searches though.  

[original_gender]

So, let's say you invite 8 children to a birthday party and there is only enough money for one 8-slice pizza. The invitation specifically states that your child cannot bring a friend, or the friend will go hungry. These parents brought a friend.

[Sweetdeath]

I don't know why original_gender, but that made me laugh. XD

[original_gender]

I don't know why original_gender, but that made me laugh. XD

Yeah, I suspect my response may have been a bit cheesy.

[Sweetdeath]

Ironically enough, it makes sense.

The pizza pie could refer to earth's very limited, natural resources. D: