|
| Thread: Chinese couples now allowed two children. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 02, 2015 08:04 AM |
|
|
It's pretty simple, actually, isn't it?
Hunger Actually, the number of malnourished people is decreasing (slowly), still nearly 900.000.000 people are suffering from malnutrition worldwide, and 1% of those, or nearly 9.000.000 people, are virtually starving to death each year, most of them children. Of course that's not counting those who die from the consequences of malnutrition in combination with having no meds or eating crap and so on.
I don't think, it needs special mentioning that you'll find the overwhelming majority of these in the countries (the other list I linked to) with the highest birth rates.
Now for us, there are really only two stances that makes sense:
1) We let them simmer in their collective misery - and shut the hell up, no matter how they try to solve their problem as long as they are not trying to steal from us
2) We feed them - then we can tell them how to deal or not to deal with things
Half-arsed stuff, like sending them a rice corn each month, so that 1.000 people less die is no alibi to tell them what to do.
It might be interesting to have a look at nature's way here. For nature and evolution, "overpopulation" is the direct consequence of having no or not enough natural enemies and/or "competition" which leads to uninhibited breeding until food is depleted - at which point overpopulation is regulating itself - those who come last feed last and therefore die.
Is that REALLY the way we want to go at the problem as a species? Does it make sense to postulate a right to procreate as often as you want in the face of a duty to feed the offspring or have them suffer and die? Isn't it a thick-as-a-brick move to go, "hey, we're hungry and have nothing except a little fun in the sack - and if that produces more children, that's God's will, inevitable and just fine?"
So the problem is education, and education eventually leads to the inevitable conclusion that it makes sense to control the INDIVIDUAL birth rate (in any way possible) - which is happening where we have good education (and note that the educational differences within a country can be massive, just look at the US) - and if there are people telling us there is a god who doesn't think that's cool, then
these people are fools who should be treated as such.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 09:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So the problem is education, and education eventually leads to the inevitable conclusion that it makes sense to control the INDIVIDUAL birth rate (in any way possible) - which is happening where we have good education (and note that the educational differences within a country can be massive, just look at the US) - and if there are people telling us there is a god who doesn't think that's cool, then
these people are fools who should be treated as such.
Well you certainly seem determined to introduce religion into this discussion. But could you please not call religious (or otherwise) people fools who don't believe the government has the right to oppress our reproductive rights? That will keep the discussion much more pleasant. Thanks.
As for starvation being a justification for government control of our bodies I disagree. Firstly, the reason for starvation in certain places is primarily political oppression.Secondly the government beaueocrats can kindly keep their hands off my body. If leaders of "The Party" (whatever it is called in a particular nation) feel the need to sterilize someone they can do it to themselves. If they want to kill in the name of population control let them kill each other. We do not need their well intentioned dictation of our sex lives or of any part of our lives.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 09:09 AM |
|
|
Ugh, children are annoying.
If I can't change my own diapers at the age of 80 then I'm not fit to live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 09:58 AM |
|
|
It's not me who is introducing religion into the debate. You don't think so?
Name ONE non-religious reason NOT to INDIVIDUALLY control your INDIVIDUAL birth rate - that is, to leave it to "fate", how many children you sire or birth - once you know, how things work, women have a say, and options other than pulling out or no intercourse-based sex most of the month are available.
That's the two reasons of overpopulation: Religion and a lack of education, strangely enough in combination with a social disregard of the female part of the population.
And, no, I'm not prepared anymore to tap-dance round the issues.
If there are people who want to tell others that any deity wouldn't want them to interfere with the natural order of procreation, tell them they should have a good look around and tell where we would be as a species, if we hadn't started to change the natural order of things. Ask them, why a deity would want us to procreate like mad and kill each other for scraps of food and water - or watch helplessly while our offspring starves to death.
For me, people who tell others what some deity wants them to do, when it's obviously irrational and counter productive in a spectacular way, are THE DEFINITION of being fools, and I'm not shying from calling them for what they are.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 04:55 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:01, 02 Nov 2015.
|
Sigh. You started disparaging religion on page 2 and I've sought to avoid discussion of religion. But since you insist.
No, religion is not the cause of starvation. In fact Christianity has always sought to feed the hungry, as we believe every life is precious. For us religion is not singing a few songs and tossing a dollar in the offering plate. It is how we live our lives. Jesus said the core of his teaching is to love God and love our fellow man as much as we love ourself. If we all lived as though each life were precious there would be no starvation. Indeed the world would be a virtual Paradise.
Quite often dictators stand in the way of Christian groups who attempt to bring in food to starving people. "The Party" often confiscates the good and keeps it for their supporters. Food is used as a weapon against the people.
The primary cause of starvation is political oppression. Specifically dictatorial freaks in charge of nations who keep the people down and expend the nation's resources on themselves and members of "The Party." The dictators chose not to invest in agriculture, irrigation, warehouses, and a sufficient road system to move food, seed, fertilizers, laborers, ect around. This ensures poor harvests and limits the ability to transport food to places it is needed. The goal of the dictator-Party is to keep the people poor and weak so that the people pose no threat to their evil dictatorial rule. "The Party" will confiscate the major part of what is produced, using food as both a whip to control the people and a carrot to reward those who bow to "The Party's" demands.
Of course sometimes mass starvation is caused by a dictator who is a blooming idiot. Like the Marxist freak Mao who had all of the "evil capitalist pigs" murdered in his Marxist revolution--including the farmers and millions starved as a result.
The degree to which all human life is considered to be precious is a measure of the political oppression that will likely be found in a nation.
The more free a people is the less likely it is that there will be any starvation. The less freedom the more likely there will be starvation.
In conclusion, governments and ideologies which do not recognize all human life as precious are oppressive and often cause starvation. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. Population is not the problem. Failing to see all human life as precious is.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 05:09 PM |
|
|
Agree, especially with the part I quoted. Not a matter of debate for me.
Elodin said:
The more free a people is the less likely it is that there will be any starvation. The less freedom the more likely there will be starvation.
In conclusion, governments and ideologies which do not recognize all human life as precious are oppressive and often cause starvation. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. Population is not the problem. Failing to see all human life as precious is.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 07:46 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Name ONE non-religious reason NOT to INDIVIDUALLY control your INDIVIDUAL birth rate - that is, to leave it to "fate", how many children you sire or birth - once you know, how things work, women have a say, and options other than pulling out or no intercourse-based sex most of the month are available.
No answer to that - NO POINT!
That simple.
|
|
khalbrae
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 08:23 PM |
|
Edited by khalbrae at 20:27, 02 Nov 2015.
|
Elodin said:
Why do people put up with a government that dictates how many kids they can have? They should rose up and overthrow the communist freaks and put in place a legitimate government.
The average amount of children being had by China's 1 billion + people at the time was 8 per couple. I agree that a hard law like this is terrible but the government did have a responsibility to try to curb its population before it got to a completely unsustainable level. They should have really just tried to give their populace better educations sooner. They are more educated now than they once were. So the government has loosened its draconian law a bit. Hopefully it can be fully phased out sooner than later.
Why doesn't the people of China rise up against the government?
Well, they have their information controlled very strictly. There have actually been many small uprisings within China in the last couple decades but they never manage to merge into a larger whole because of the government's strict control and its huge military force it is not afraid to use against demonstrators.
How unfortunate.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 08:39 PM |
|
|
|
I don't know if on a large basis they are less educated, but all the chinese people I met or discussed on internet have top education, way above the ordinary. Then also, I never met any chinese which had a negative opinion of his political leaders, to the point of fermenting a coup d'etat. In fact, all those I've met were extremely proud of their country and its recent and past achievements. Guess is a very different culture, where people are aware that for the whole nation's safety, certain sacrifices must be done, including the so praised individual freedom.
|
|
khalbrae
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 08:47 PM |
|
|
The population is much more educated than it was when the policy was instituted.
The majority of Chinese outside of China though are rich, they have strong ties to the party through their wealth so they have a vested interest in keeping it going.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 02, 2015 09:26 PM |
|
|
|
The Chinese form of oppression is too mild to provoke an uprising on its own, it's not like they have concentration camps with chemical showers for dissidents (or if they do, they hide them very well) or terrorize the population on regular basis to prove the might of the One Party. The regime itself has become visibly softer after Mao, even though it's far from what you would normally call liberal democracy. There has been a steady improvement of the living conditions of the general population for years, people living better lives think less or don't think at all about overthrowing the government. Then you have the Confucian values which put the common good (from family to the whole country) before that of the individual and you have the final picture.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 03, 2015 04:25 AM |
|
|
elodin said:
The primary cause of starvation is political oppression. Specifically dictatorial freaks in charge of nations who keep the people down and expend the nation's resources on themselves and members of "The Party." The dictators chose not to invest in agriculture, irrigation, warehouses, and a sufficient road system to move food, seed, fertilizers, laborers, ect around. This ensures poor harvests and limits the ability to transport food to places it is needed. The goal of the dictator-Party is to keep the people poor and weak so that the people pose no threat to their evil dictatorial rule. "The Party" will confiscate the major part of what is produced, using food as both a whip to control the people and a carrot to reward those who bow to "The Party's" demands.
Hmmm, so many countries from Africa are also like the Muppet version of cold war era Soviet bloc with "the Party" in your imagination.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 03, 2015 08:14 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
JollyJoker said:
Name ONE non-religious reason NOT to INDIVIDUALLY control your INDIVIDUAL birth rate - that is, to leave it to "fate", how many children you sire or birth - once you know, how things work, women have a say, and options other than pulling out or no intercourse-based sex most of the month are available.
No answer to that - NO POINT!
That simple.
I have no problems with actual contraception. Snuffing out human life in the womb is of course murder.
People have large families for various reasons. Some may have a religious reason. Others just love kids and want a lot of them.
Kids in underveloped parts of the world have a high mortality rate and so people have more of them. Also kids are used as a workforce for parents who may have farms. Additionally children are used as a safety net to support old parents.
Religious people are not the boogeyman who causes all of the world's problems and they are certainly not the cause of starvation or overpopulation.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 03, 2015 09:35 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Religious people ... are certainly not the cause of starvation or overpopulation.
Starvation and overpopulation are different things. I don't think starvation has any direct connection to religion, although it is certainly related to population via simple supply and demand. Focusing on overpopulation and religion - it depends on what you mean by "overpopulation" but it is certainly true that religious people contribute far more to population growth than nonreligious people, even after normalizing for the fact that there are FAR more of the former than the latter. Christians and, especially, muslims, reproduce at a much higher rate than those unaffiliated with a major religion, as well as Jews, Buddhists, and even Hindus.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
Whether or not you want to draw further causative connections between religion and problems allegedly associated with population growth... well, have at it. But remember that things can be correlated without actually having a causal relationship. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2015 08:58 AM |
|
|
That wasn't the question, though.
The question was whether there was a non-religious reason for avoiding "family planning", and I didn't get one so far.
Family planning isn't related to the question of whether you like to have (many) children or not. Family (children) planning comes into play in the same sense as family (budget) planning. You may WANT to have 3 or 4 children, eventually, however, the economics should work out (and interestingly enough it seems that poop people make up for their poorness with a richness in children).
Family planning means, that you don't leave individual "birth rate" to blind fate, which is obviously the reasonable way to go at things, considering that you need time and money (food) to care for children.
Which brings us back to education and religion. If you are taught as part of a whatever rudimentary education there is that god doesn't want you to have sex knowingly just for fun, making sure it cannot result in offspring, then consequences are disastrous, because any form of austerity is against human nature, and that's especially true when you are poor and cannot compensate.
Therefor it's first and foremost a DUMB teaching, because it's bound to fail (but I won't digress to discussing whether there is a method behind this kind of bound-to-fail teachings and why). As such, it's even dumber than alcohol prohibition, and as much as that did a lot to criminalize a big part of the population, as much this one is plating guilt into the hearts of people - that and a feeling of failure.
Like Corribus says, (over-)population is only half of the equation - starvation is another.
However, the thread is about China and their laws, and obviously China made these laws not in order to dictate people their family planning for the sake of bossing them around - it was done as a means of making sure pop growth wouldn't go through the roof, with people starving to death and so on.
Now, of course, they have the same problem that all low birth-rate countries have: lots of old people to take care of and comparatively few to pay for it.
|
|
susanrey
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 04, 2015 10:25 AM |
|
|
Kayna said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSwGVCL0JQ
Yes, China had announced the policy of two children. because the amount of aging population will be out of control.So Chinese government had issued this. however, some people are still worrying the effect of this policy.
[url=http://www.creative-proteomics.com]CP[/url]
____________
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted November 04, 2015 10:52 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
In conclusion, governments and ideologies which do not recognize all human life as precious are oppressive and often cause starvation. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. Population is not the problem. Failing to see all human life as precious is.
But it is not just food. It is also water, a home and other things what one may deem as important for a human's life. You can feed one child. You can feed two children. But you will also experience the bigger demands, which you may not be able to complete.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 04, 2015 07:33 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
That wasn't the question, though.
The question was whether there was a non-religious reason for avoiding "family planning", and I didn't get one so far.
You evidently failed to comprehend what I wrote. Allow me to connect the dots.
Some reasons people have as many kids as possible are:
1) They love kids and want to have as many of them as possible
2) Some people live in places with high mortality rates. Some of these people will chose to have as many kids as possible to ensure some survive.
3) Some people in third world nations need free labor for such things as farm labor and so have as many kids as possible so they will have as large of a free labor pool as they can get.
4) Some people in third world nations will have as many children as possible to ensure there will be enough to provide for them in their old age.
JollyJoker said:
Family planning means, that you don't leave individual "birth rate" to blind fate, which is obviously the reasonable way to go at things, considering that you need time and money (food) to care for children.
Sometimes the more children the better is viewed as the more rational position.
As in some of the cases I mentioned above.
JollyJoker said:
Which brings us back to education and religion. If you are taught as part of a whatever rudimentary education there is that god doesn't want you to have sex knowingly just for fun, making sure it cannot result in offspring, then consequences are disastrous, because any form of austerity is against human nature, and that's especially true when you are poor and cannot compensate.
Therefor it's first and foremost a DUMB teaching, because it's bound to fail (but I won't digress to discussing whether there is a method behind this kind of bound-to-fail teachings and why).
The irrational idea that casual sex does not lead to problems has caused many problems for individuals, their sexual partners, and for society in general. Other people are much more precious to me than to embrace such a selfish philosophy. Other people are not merely objects for my pleasure.
No, all forms of austerity are not against human nature. A well balanced adult is mature in spirit and mind as well as in body. To such a person the liberty to do something does not equate to the doing of that thing as being wise or good for onself or good for the well-being of others. One who stuffs himself with his favorite food every day is engaging in self-destructive behavior and will wind up obese and likely have health problems. One who never denies himself sexual gratification will likewise cause himself and others many problems.
Again, "religiondunit" is not a rational reason for all of the world's ills.
JollyJoker said:
Now, of course, they have the same problem that all low birth-rate countries have: lots of old people to take care of and comparatively few to pay for it.
Yeah, the elitist Marxist freaks who do not think all human life is precious murdered many human lives in the womb, causing problems that will last for decades. China will be short on marriage partners for those males who were not murdered in the womb. This is going to result in more unrest. China's labor force will also be lacking and it will be hard to support the elderly.
Hopefully the Marxists have wounded the Party enough through their innane and immoral actions that the People will overthrow their tyrany and establish a government that will protect their human rights.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted November 04, 2015 08:34 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
3) Some people in third world nations need free labor for such things as farm labor and so have as many kids as possible so they will have as large of a free labor pool as they can get.
Speaking about morality, you actually support such a fact, to have a child just so it can work? Well, do you?
And that is why there ought to be rules. Because if you have more than two children, you are likely less have money, time and patience to provide them with vital needs.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2015 08:50 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:57, 05 Nov 2015.
|
Elodin, what you are not gettng is, that we talk about completely different things.
That you may have reasons to have MANY shildren, doesn't mean there is no family planning, PLUS, you must be able to feed the kids.
Also, the point, "children as some kind of economic value", has led to families killing female children, because they are a liability in said societies, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom - on the contrary: is actually a very basic utilitarian economic decision (just as the decision to breed children as organ donators).
So the point is not whether there are non-religious reasons to have "many" children - this is some kind of family planning as well, based on certain economic conditions.
Actually, I think you know EXACTLY what the point is, which brings us to your defense of the RELIGIOUS point against family planning, the only one:
Quote:
The irrational idea that casual sex does not lead to problems has caused many problems for individuals, their sexual partners, and for society in general. Other people are much more precious to me than to embrace such a selfish philosophy. Other people are not merely objects for my pleasure.
No, all forms of austerity are not against human nature. A well balanced adult is mature in spirit and mind as well as in body. To such a person the liberty to do something does not equate to the doing of that thing as being wise or good for onself or good for the well-being of others. One who stuffs himself with his favorite food every day is engaging in self-destructive behavior and will wind up obese and likely have health problems. One who never denies himself sexual gratification will likewise cause himself and others many problems.
This is a completely irrelevant statement - it's your personal opinion to a point not in debate here. It's complete bull ****, because we talk about FAMILY planning. FAMILY, as in married. Contraception within marriage - we could talk about the rest as well, but it's not necessary.
MOD EDIT: Censored according to rules.
|
| |
|
|
