Sickening black market

[ThinkAnarchy]

So China with a glorious past didn't enter the twentieth century on a high.
And our pushing opium on them was no excuse for them to embrace that Satan inspired communism, if they had agreed to buy our stuff we wouldn't have had to send the gun boats in.  Ye, so they copped a bit of stick during WWII, and there was no Marshal plan for them, but stuff 'em, they are cruel and we are pure.

I'm kind of confused by all this. The Opium Wars were certainly terrible, and the British were not the only foreign invaders China had to deal with in the 19th Century. I'm just not sure how that affects the issue at hand. I see the obvious correlation between the Marshall plan and Communism, but not the Opium Wars and the one child policy.

As a descendant of Europe's excess population inhabiting a stolen continent, I see criticism of the one child policy and the appeal to human rights as hypocritical.  

I don't automatically trust a Brittish tabloid as truth.

You are talking about something that happened in the 19th century. Granted the British only recently gave Hong Kong it's sovereignty and continues to hold on to N. Ireland as a colony, but you can't say it's hypocritical for British papers to appeal to the human rights. I'm a southerner and have ancestors who owned slaves, by your logic I'm a hypocrite because I feel black's should be treated equal. How long do people have to carry the burden for their ancestors?

The British papers were being mislead by the government during these wars, and the papers were responsible for releasing information about what was actually going on, leading to the change in public opinion. Granted they promoted it in the beginning, but ultimately they helped end the Opium Wars.  

It's also worth noting the Chinese government were as vicious with their citizens as the British were with the Chinese.

I'm just a bit confused about the over all message of your last post.

EDIT You also seem to feel citizens should feel responsible for the atrocities their governments commit, which in some instances is accurate.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm kind of confused by all this. The Opium Wars were certainly terrible, and the British were not the only foreign invaders China had to deal with in the 19th Century. I'm just not sure how that affects the issue at hand. I see the obvious correlation between the Marshall plan and Communism, but not the Opium Wars and the one child policy.

China found itself in deep shit, some of that shit was shovelled by western countries.  They seem to be shovelling themselves out, but some of the methods used to achieve the seemingly impossible seem a bit harsh to western sensibilities.  Some choose to cultivate empathy for those who feel they are entitled to bless the earth with as many children as they can.  I choose not to do this, my sympathy is for the people who have sacrificed much to make a better life for the Chinese people as a whole.

You are talking about something that happened in the 19th century. Granted the British only recently gave Hong Kong it's sovereignty and continues to hold on to N. Ireland as a colony, but you can't say it's hypocritical for British papers to appeal to the human rights. I'm a southerner and have ancestors who owned slaves, by your logic I'm a hypocrite because I feel black's should be treated equal. How long do people have to carry the burden for their ancestors?

The British papers were being mislead by the government during these wars, and the papers were responsible for releasing information about what was actually going on, leading to the change in public opinion. Granted they promoted it in the beginning, but ultimately they helped end the Opium Wars.  

It's also worth noting the Chinese government were as vicious with their citizens as the British were with the Chinese.

I'm just a bit confused about the over all message of your last post.

EDIT You also seem to feel citizens should feel responsible for the atrocities their governments commit, which in some instances is accurate.

It's not necessarily hypocritical, but it risks being seen as such.

The old model for countries was grab what territory you can from those who can't hold on to it.  That's the way it went for quite a while, kind of like a game of musical chairs, but then we got comfortable in our chairs and changed the tune.  See those evil Chinese grabbing Tibet, we civilised people don't do that any more.  But China is learning, it's learnt to embrace the kinder gentler limited liability corporation.  They even use them to graciously assist resource rich developing countries, just like us.

So the colonial model for dealing with excess population is gone, there are no habitable mostly vacant continents left.  I'll posit a Chinese person, say a fifty year old mother who restricted herself to one son.  She could be bitter, or accepting of the way things are because life has improved.  I don't know what proportion of Chinese woman would feel one way or the other.  She may see strident Europeans and those living in stolen lands as hypocrites or allies, I don't know.

I regret China offends some peoples sense of freedom, but I congratulate them for their freedom from the traditional controllers of population, famine, plague and war.  

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm kind of confused by all this. The Opium Wars were certainly terrible, and the British were not the only foreign invaders China had to deal with in the 19th Century. I'm just not sure how that affects the issue at hand. I see the obvious correlation between the Marshall plan and Communism, but not the Opium Wars and the one child policy.

China found itself in deep shit, some of that shit was shovelled by western countries.  They seem to be shovelling themselves out, but some of the methods used to achieve the seemingly impossible seem a bit harsh to western sensibilities.

The seemingly impossible? You are acting as if no other peoples have been able to overcome unjustified hardships. This is not a new occurrence. People have been negatively affected throughout history, by both foreign and domestic governments. If they are shoveling themselves out, they are doing it very poorly.

Some choose to cultivate empathy for those who feel they are entitled to bless the earth with as many children as they can.  I choose not to do this, my sympathy is for the people who have sacrificed much to make a better life for the Chinese people as a whole.

You seem to contradict yourself. You claim to have sympathy for those who have had to sacrifice in order to make a better life for the Chinese people. Those who are scarifying are the citizens of China who are not able to have the amount children they please. You actually seem to have sympathy for the people who enforce this policy, not those that actually sacrifice.

A sacrifice is a voluntary action, when it is forced by the government, it is no longer a sacrifice.

It's not necessarily hypocritical, but it risks being seen as such.

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

The old model for countries was grab what territory you can from those who can't hold on to it.  That's the way it went for quite a while, kind of like a game of musical chairs, but then we got comfortable in our chairs and changed the tune.

I agree with you here. Developed nations continue to infringe upon developing nations. Though I don't agree with your narrow view of this. The seizure of land, whether done by a nation or individual is evil. That is still the model for nations, the "civilized" ones simply changed their formula. They set up democracies that are friendly (hopefully, but rarely) to the conquering nation, which is the modern day equivalent to colonies.

But China is learning, it's learnt to embrace the kinder gentler limited liability corporation.

This makes no sense, so I'm not obligated to respond.

They even use them to graciously assist resource rich developing countries, just like us.

I'm assuming you are referring to China's trade with western nations, but I need you to clarify before I can respond.

So the colonial model for dealing with excess population is gone, there are no habitable mostly vacant continents left.

You seem to misunderstand the basic premise of colonization. Colonization has more to do with stealing resources, setting up military bases, or simply citizens expatriating from an oppressive government. I can't believe I have to explain the major reasons for colonization. A simple Google search would end your confusion.

You seem to be stuck on over population as an excuse for these types of inhumane policies. Over population has been a problem for different groups of people for centuries, and humanity has seemed to find a solution most of the time.

Some solutions were to pillage and conquer, as was the Vikings case. That was not the only solution, however. For instance, after the fall of Rome, people of the overpopulated Germanic tribes moved down into Europe and set up new communities. Take into consideration, I'm not referring to the Visigoths. Why is this not an option for the Chinese? Why can they not move south to New Zealand where there are more sheep than people? The problem lies more with the polices of China's government than with overpopulation.  

I'll posit a Chinese person, say a fifty year old mother who restricted herself to one son.  She could be bitter, or accepting of the way things are because life has improved.  I don't know what proportion of Chinese woman would feel one way or the other.  She may see strident Europeans and those living in stolen lands as hypocrites or allies, I don't know.

How has life improved? Because she is now simply being oppressed by one government as opposed to two? That's a huge fucking improvement.

I regret China offends some peoples sense of freedom, but I congratulate them for their freedom from the traditional controllers of population, famine, plague and war.  

I find it immensely humorous that you congratulate China for "their freedom from the traditional controllers." In case you were not aware, China is a communist country that controls almost everything the people do. While you may see freedom, you are disillusioned. Not only are they unable to have as many children as they want, they are not able to do basic Google searches like we can. Yes they are the epitome of "freedom from the traditional controllers."

The U.S. google search for Tiananmen Square: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=utztTeSxGY62tgfy_uSXCQ&ved=0CDAQvwUoAQ&q=tiananmen+square&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e28a97840bb57e9&biw=1211&bih=645

The Hong Kong results are virtually the same, now. Five years ago you got modern pictures of the square with bright colors and flowers. The only reason it is different today is because it is a Hong Kong domain, which is currently a sovereign territory (not a part of China) thanks to Great Britain's treaty with China when they relinquished control of the island.
http://www.google.com.hk/webhp?hl=zh-CN&sourceid=cnhp#hl=zh-CN&source=hp&q=tiananmen+square&oq=tianim&aq=0s&aqi=g-s2g-m2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1309l6179l0l12l12l3l0l0l0l257l1137l4.3.2&fp=30c19ae11636f3d&biw=1211&bih=645 Prior to this, there were no tanks in the images. Yea, that's fantastic freedom.

Again you have sympathy for the policies of the government and not the people. If you actually had sympathy for humanity you would abhor these types of policies and look forward to the day the Chinese people could be free of such horrendous and outrageous laws.

Edit: If you would like more on my view on overpopulation, you can view this thread: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=3806.msg116242#msg116242

[The Magic Pudding]

The seemingly impossible? You are acting as if no other peoples have been able to overcome unjustified hardships. This is not a new occurrence. People have been negatively affected throughout history, by both foreign and domestic governments. If they are shoveling themselves out, they are doing it very poorly.

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

First, you seem to contradict yourself. You claim to have sympathy for those who have had to sacrifice in order to make a better life for the Chinese people. Those who are scarifying are the citizens of China who are not able to have the amount of children as they please. You actually seem to have sympathy for the people who enforce this policy, not those that actually sacrifice.

A sacrifice is a voluntary action, when it is forced by the government, it is no longer a sacrifice.

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

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.

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.

I agree with you here. Developed nations continue to infringe upon developing nations. Though I don't agree with your narrow view of this. The seizure of land, whether done by a nation or individual is evil. That is still the model for nations, the "civilized" ones simply changed their formula. They set up democracies that are friendly (hopefully, but rarely) to the conquering nation, which is the modern day equivalent to colonies.

Ah yes the narrow view, alas it is forever a limitation for we of narrow mind.
But in this case part of my view is hiding in a clumsy attempt at irony below.

I'll let the evil thing go, all this cutting and pasting is getting complicated.

But China is learning, it's learnt to embrace the kinder gentler limited liability corporation.

This makes no sense, so I'm not obligated to respond.

They even use them to graciously assist resource rich developing countries, just like us.

I'm assuming you are referring to China's trade with western nations, but I need you to clarify before I can respond.

No I'm not referring to trade with the west, this is my attempt at irony.
I see the modern corporation as relieving powerful countries of much of the need for colonies.  Companies from everywhere do good and bad, China uses companies too, providing jobs here and disasters there no doubt.

You seem to misunderstand the basic premise of colonization. Colonization has more to do with stealing resources, setting up military bases, or simply citizens expatriating from an oppressive government. I can't believe I have to explain the major reasons for colonization. A simple Google search would end your confusion.

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

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.  This would fit with most of the Americas, southern Africa, Australia.  Asia's been crowded for a long time, so you just send a few white folk to oversee things, other places in the tropics take to much of a toll health wise, better to just make do with the locals or transfer some of your brown folks from elsewhere.

You seem to be stuck on over population as an excuse for these types of inhumane policies. Over population has been a problem for different groups of people for centuries, and humanity has seemed to find a solution most of the time.

Some solutions were to pillage and conquer, as was the Vikings case. That was not the only solution, however. For instance, after the fall of Rome, people of the overpopulated Germanic tribes moved down into Europe and set up new communities. Take into consideration, I'm not referring to the Visigoths. Why is this not an option for the Chinese? Why can they not move south to New Zealand where there are more sheep than people? The problem lies more with the polices of China's government than with overpopulation.  

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.

The New Zealand business I assume is a joke.

I'll posit a Chinese person, say a fifty year old mother who restricted herself to one son.  She could be bitter, or accepting of the way things are because life has improved.  I don't know what proportion of Chinese woman would feel one way or the other.  She may see strident Europeans and those living in stolen lands as hypocrites or allies, I don't know.

How has life improved? Because she is now simply being oppressed by one government as opposed to two? That's a huge fucking improvement.

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".

I regret China offends some peoples sense of freedom, but I congratulate them for their freedom from the traditional controllers of population, famine, plague and war.  

I find it immensely humorous that you congratulate China for "their freedom from the traditional controllers." In case you were not aware, China is a communist country that controls almost everything the people do. While you may see freedom, you are disillusioned. Not only are they unable to have as many children as they want, they are not able to do basic Google searches like we can. Yes they are the epitome of "freedom from the traditional controllers."

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.

Again you have sympathy for the policies of the government and not the people. If you actually had sympathy for humanity you would abhor these types of policies and look forward to the day the Chinese people could be free of such horrendous and outrageous laws.

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.

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

[Stevil]

I honestly don't think this is because of communism. I mean, sure, the Chinese gov is communist, but I seriously think China's problem is more Nationalism and old superstitions that aren't left behind. If you ever met a chinese family (even in America) they have an extremely difficult time assimilating. I have a lot of chinese friends who won't date another race because of cultural issues.

I mean, Cuba is communist (right?)   Only China has the one child policy, and it has been that way forever.  It's sad, but even when some people leave China, they are not sure how to live. (i said some.)

Not all communism leads to single child policies, but communism does lead to a foresaking of the individual. Chinese culture and customs are certainly special and hard to fathom for an outsider. There are many races/cultures that don't like interracial relationships. There are many religions that don't like interreligion relationships. But as the older generations die and the newer ones come, so does change in mindset. The world is evolving and globalising, it is hard for communists to maintain the control and propoganda positions of the past.

[Ihateyoumike]

The option of taking some one else's country for expansion, such as Tibet isn't very admirable either.

I don't see why not... I mean, when people are driving around with bumper-stickers advertising that they're willing to give it away for free. Get your Tibet for free, while supplies last.




(insert hides behind the computer smiley here)

[Sweetdeath]

I do kinda agree with Magic pudding about overpopulation. It's a scary thought. While our planet is vast, no one lives in insane climates such as Antartica.  I am very concerned about our limited resources running out. We already have so many habitats destroyed for human residency. If ecery person who WANTED to give birth only had one, we could build a much cleaner, efficient future for everyone. It should never be as harsh or insane as China, but the idea in general to be concerned with overpopulation should cross everyone minds.

Don't you get tired of seeing horror stories about poor countries with three children, all starving? That really saddens me...

[Whitney]

if each couple only had 1 and we actually stuck to that then population would go down.

If we just wanted to sustain then everyone could choose to replace themselves...meaning 2 kids per couple or 1 kid per single parent.

[Sweetdeath]

@Whitney:   That would be interesting. I have also heard about people who pop out 6-7 children in the U.S (manly mexicans who are uber religious and don't use birth control) and don't register their children in the census or other things. That really bugs me....

[Davin]

Or white uber religious:


19 or so kids from two people, might be a little over the replacement rate.

Look up "QuiverFull", it's all good fun... A group of people having as many kids as "God intends them to have." They determine the amount of kids god wants them to have by having frequent sex and not using birth control.

[Stevil]

Don't you get tired of seeing horror stories about poor countries with three children, all starving? That really saddens me...

Its the way of the world in some of those places, they know a percentage of kids will die so they have lots of them to ensure some live. That's one theory a Southa African once told me.

[Twentythree]

Don't you get tired of seeing horror stories about poor countries with three children, all starving? That really saddens me...

Its the way of the world in some of those places, they know a percentage of kids will die so they have lots of them to ensure some live. That's one theory a Southa African once told me.

There is more to it than simply death replacement. It's more of asset replacement. In well off countries children act only as economic liabilities, costing parents tremendous amounts of time and money but not returning anything to the household economy. This is very true for many families in affluent countries, whereas in more rural and impoverished countries a surviving child old enough to hold a rake or milk a cow or sell tiny pieces of bubble gum to tourists at border crossings are an asset returning man hours and liquid cash back into the family economy. There is a bell curve where at a certain point of affluence in a country children become and expenditure only. There are poor families and zealous families that still have an  unreasonable amount of children in affluent countries but I think this has more to do with lack of education or indoctrination (religious and cultural). These would be the exceptions to the family economy parable I stated above.

[Sweetdeath]

@Davin:   that seriously made a huge shiver run down my spine.  What's worse are these idiots are going to pass on the "be fruitful and multiply values" onto their braindead children.

[Twentythree]

@Davin:   that seriously made a huge shiver run down my spine.  What's worse are these idiots are going to pass on the "be fruitful and multiply values" onto their braindead children.

How do you know their children will be brain-dead? Values changes as cultures evolve and it's forums and discussions like this that move societies in different directions. Dawkins put it best when he said that there are no Christian children, only children of christian parents. Hopefully some of those children will find forums like these and educate themselves.

[Whitney]

Hopefully some of those children will find forums like these and educate themselves.

That family was on a reality show....but they don't let the kids watch tv or use the internet.  So unless they go to a normal college (and not some conservative christian college); they're primed for continuing the cycle.