I don't know... I like to stay informed about current events world wide, but this is difficult to swallow.
I don't know..how this world could be so evil, yet people will pester and preach to me. My girlfriend is Chinese, and I love her very much. I just want to hug her extra tight after reading this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486083/Babies-sale-The-scandal-Chinas-brutal-single-child-policy.html
Heartbreaking result of the only country on earth attempting tackle the issue over over population. A particularly toxic mix of history and culture.
Regardless of this and a few other related issues, I, for one, applaude the Chinese government for enforcing the one-child policy. There are too many humans around as it is...
Allowing a population to grow and then letting starvation do it's work is worse.
The option of taking some one else's country for expansion, such as Tibet isn't very admirable either.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 05, 2011, 10:47:36 AMThe option of taking some one else's country for expansion, such as Tibet isn't very admirable either.
They all do it or have done it in the past. The USA, France, Germany, England, China, Russia, Israel, may it get hit by a meteor... Even the Scandinavian vikings, if you go back far enough. Someone was, is, and always will be trying to annex or conquer his neighbour. Something to do with green grass and other sides, or so I hear.
Maybe it is not admirable, but it's very common... Humans are not an admirable race after all.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 05, 2011, 10:36:14 AM
Regardless of this and a few other related issues, I, for one, applaude the Chinese government for enforcing the one-child policy. There are too many humans around as it is...
The one child policy may seem like a good idea. I for one think no one -needs- more than two children, but China is a bubble dome culture, living with Arcaic susperstitions. The idea of aborting a child because it is female is beyond inhuman. They want male children to care for them when they are elderly? Wtf?
This goes back to China basically having NO retirement plans for people unable to work after a certain age, or due to injury.
The aborting of a child due to its gender is cgerry picking genocide. As a result, there are fewer and fewer females within the country to reproduce with. Not counting chinese women leaving the country to be with a non asian. That country is insane. Yes, they have a long hisyory, bleh bleh. As a people and society, they have yet to evolve....
Have you considered that with such a shortage of females that they would be more valued? I realise this is zero recompense for the girls never born in the first place.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 05, 2011, 06:34:40 PM
As a people and society, they have yet to evolve....
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F0901%2Fracial-bigotry-demotivational-poster-1231794256.jpg&hash=7621f9605b809945dc755a0adabb8faa55cc9e37)
Um, okay. :-\
I think you just missed the entirety of my post, Will.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 05, 2011, 10:47:36 AM
Allowing a population to grow and then letting starvation do it's work is worse.
I'm going to leave this one alone, but just want it stated on the record, I completely disagree with you. My blood is already starting to boil, so I really don't feel like arguing this right now.
I will say this however, since my fingers keep moving. It is not a governments place to "control" the birthrate.
*hugs Think Anarchy* ;__:
For people who like communism, this is a great example of how bad it can be.
The individual is forsaken and the community is everything.
You are expected to sacrifice yourself and your family for the greater good.
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.)
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.
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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 05, 2011, 06:23:37 AM
I don't know..how this world could be so evil,
Ye it hurts some times. I've been thinking I don't don't like the tooth and claw arrangement. I tried watching those beautiful wildlife shows with my daughters, but cute animals are always getting killed by the fierce ones. But that's the way god made it, the herbivores have to live in constant, constant, constant fear, watch their young fall to predators, and suffer the same themselves if they have an off day.
How else do you keep populations increasing and destroying their habitat?
I thought well you give them antelopes a brain, they'll find some contraceptive plant to eat and lions will no longer be needed. Sorry cats, but that wasn't a very nice niche you were filling, maybe we can teach you to grow some lab meat.
Birds, fish, reptiles, mammals large and small are no more or are now threatened by us.
Some wise folk say we can become the mind of the earth, not in a mystical dance naked in the moonlight way, not necessarily anyway. And then there is the we are a disease destroying beauty everywhere viewpoint.
Have you seen the aerial view of those old African volcanoes where the gorillas live, besieged by humans?
@The most awesome magic pudding: No, I haven't seen that. ;; aw, yeah, I always think about the whole circle of life. I'm a vegitarian, because I know if I had to kill an animal survive, i'd starve. XD
It boggles me how there are animals like lions who just eat and sleep and don't contribute. At least bees do something! Lol It would be nice if no animal had to kill ;;...
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 06, 2011, 04:49:19 PM
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.
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 03:30:48 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 03:30:48 AM
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.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 07, 2011, 06:26:35 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 03:30:48 AM
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.
QuoteSome 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.
QuoteIt'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?
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteThey 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.
QuoteSo 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.
QuoteI'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.
QuoteI 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 (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 (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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=3806.msg116242#msg116242)
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
Quote from: TMPBut 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.
Quote from: TMPThey 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
Quote from: MPI'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".
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 06, 2011, 04:41:30 PM
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.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding link
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)
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...
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.
@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....
Or white uber religious:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ferniebufflo.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2Fmichelle-duggars-vagina.jpg&hash=527b50d6a044f24121a4060858d8d2952a96797f)
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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 04:56:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on June 07, 2011, 08:06:58 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 04:56:49 PM
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.
@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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 09:44:37 PM
@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.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 07, 2011, 11:13:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 07, 2011, 01:03:35 PM
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.
QuoteWordWeb Definition - Verb: Sacrafice 1. Endure the loss of.
Well dictionary.com says differently, but it isn't worth arguing.
QuoteI 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?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
So because I could be seen as a hypocrite for believing blacks should have equal rights I should keep my mouth shut?
QuoteIs 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote
Yes, I'm a bit dense, must have fallen on my head when young.
It's cool, my mom dropped me as well.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote
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.
QuoteThe New Zealand business I assume is a joke."
No they actually have a larger population of sheep than people.
QuoteShe 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.
QuoteI'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.
Quote
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.
QuoteFor 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 08, 2011, 10:10:59 PM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on June 07, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
So because I could be seen as a hypocrite for believing blacks should have equal rights I should keep my mouth shut?
Quote from: MPIs 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: MPI see the modern corporation as relieving powerful countries of much of the need for colonies.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
Quote from: MPThe 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
Quote from: MPShe 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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy
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.
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.
I don't know why original_gender, but that made me laugh. XD
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 17, 2011, 08:32:06 PM
I don't know why original_gender, but that made me laugh. XD
Yeah, I suspect my response may have been a bit cheesy.
Ironically enough, it makes sense.
The pizza pie could refer to earth's very limited, natural resources. D: