Will China change its one-child policy?

[Swampy]

Its population is aging, and the powers that be are thinking of allowing couples to have more than one child. From the looks of things, they'll probably relax or do away with that policy in the next few years, but that will not change the overall trend.

All populations everywhere are aging, even in poor Islamic countries, and China will be no different.

[Sir John]

Agree, and yes they will as they have no choice.

As of now they have created some major problems that will probably never be fixed, at least not in my lifetime. The sex imbalance, with 120 males chasing 100 females, or worse, is the first and the aging population to be supported by ever smaller numbers of working children is the other.

Even if China did a uTurn today it would be 20+ years at least for that situation to turn around.

When all that happens, China's population will pass 2 billion in double quick time. As it will around the world.

TWELVE BILLION (plus) here we come.


SJ

[Swampy]

China will NOT double, at least so quickly; even as its population urbanizes, its people will have increasingly fewer children, which means China will be more and more like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.

[dontom]

Mar 13, 2013 22:19:34 GMT -5 Sir John said:

The sex imbalance, with 120 males chasing 100 females

That will work fine as long as 20% of the males and zero percent of the females are gay . ;D

-Don- SSF, CA

[Sir John]

Don,


I have no real idea of the true figure, I just know that what it is out of whack with the norm, and getting worse!

One day, they will be forced into accepting the reality of it.




SJ

[dontom]

Mar 14, 2013 22:00:08 GMT -5 Sir John said:

Don,


I have no real idea of the true figure, I just know that what it is out of whack with the norm, and getting worse!

One day, they will be forced into accepting the reality of it.
SJ

What does "it" refer to?

But IMAO, the "norm" is out of whack, period.

And that is why:

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
- Joe Ancis

-Don Quoteman

[/size]

[Sir John]

"What does "it" refer to?"


"It" being the on going consequences of the policy, IMO outweighing the benefits of reducing population growth.

Less 'wives', less kids, less providers, is not a good outcome.

JMO


SJ

[dontom]

Mar 15, 2013 13:32:56 GMT -5 Sir John said:

Less 'wives', less kids, less providers, is not a good outcome.

Neither is too many, unless you're trying to destroy the entire planet.

-Don-

[Swampy]

Mar 15, 2013 14:44:26 GMT -5 dontom said:

Mar 15, 2013 13:32:56 GMT -5 Sir John said:

Less 'wives', less kids, less providers, is not a good outcome.

Neither is too many, unless you're trying to destroy the entire planet.

-Don-

If we go into space, as we are beginning to do so, then numbers should not be a problem.

[dontom]

Mar 15, 2013 14:46:05 GMT -5 Swampy said:

If we go into space, as we are beginning to do so, then numbers should not be a problem.

Yes, after we totally destroy planet earth, we can then go look for some other planets to start destroying.

-Don- SSF, CA

[Sir John]

Don,

Agree!

The worlds population is well past 7 billion, and heading for 8 billion inside about 4+ years or so. If you do some research on just when we hit 4 billion and 2 billion and 1 billion, you will see that the 'doubling time' is getting ever shorter. Exponential even!

In about 1948 from memory, we hit TWO billion! In other words it has doubled, and doubled again, in 65 years or so. For the UN to claim that by 2050 it will only be 9 billion, is insane.

Thus the annual increase is in the 100s of millions so any suggestion that interplanetary migration is any sort of answer is fantasy.

But Mother Nature will solve it for us.


SJ

[dontom]

Mar 15, 2013 15:04:18 GMT -5 Sir John said:

But Mother Nature will solve it for us.

Perhaps all we need is a big fat war.

OTOH, that didn't help much in WW2 which resulted in the baby boomers like most of us here.

-Don- SSF, CA

[Sir John]

Hopefully not, but you never know, personally I would put more money on a pandemic of some sort, possibly Bird Flu.

Mother nature would need to kill a few billion to make a difference anyway, probably about 3 or 4.

SJ

[Swampy]

Read, "The Ultimate Resource" by the late economist Julian Simon, who was an optimist like me. You may also read Herman Kahn's work for a similar opinion on how population growth is not a threat.

[mcnoch]

The problem with the resource "Human" is that you can't handle it like other resources and store them somewhere or re-distribute it to locations where you need them.

Nature can send one quick killer; it does this from time to time that is why all the pandemic experts are ready to jump. But normally Nature has more patience and is throttling down the fertility of the over-populated life-forms and so causes an over-aging situation that is burning the resources of the population without any additional growth in population. The inter-dependencies between populations then normally means that dependent populations suffer a negative population growth too, e.g. without development-aid from the 1st world the 3rd world will suffer much higher mortality too. That is already happening, in Europe and with some delay in Asia. It was the most effective regulation of the past three thousand years and is the main reason why great civilizations disappeared.