
China to begin two-child policy - majc2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34665539
======
vinceyuan
One-child policy began in 1979. In 1980, My mother hid in her relatives'
houses and finally delivered her second child - me. I was very lucky because
if my mother was caught, I can't sit here to type these sentences.

I do understand the one-child policy because there are too many people in
China, especially in cities. The population should be under control. (However,
as far as I know, one-child policy never really works in the very poor area.
It's common to have 3+ children there.)

In recent decades, China becomes much richer and people have better education.
Many families (in cities) get used to having only one child and don't want to
have the second child because the cost of raising a child becomes very high.
Two-child policy should come earlier.

~~~
erispoe
Why is there too many people in China? What is the standard to determine the
right population?

~~~
BookmarkSaver
There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in
China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature"
and in their own living spaces) is atrocious, but there are too many people to
reasonably switch to a sustainable model. Additionally, if you account for the
fact that a gigantic portion of their land is basically uninhabitable (the
Gobi Desert), they have an unreal population density (among non-trivial
sovereign nations). If their population keeps expanding unchecked, they'll
stop being able to feed everyone.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> there are too many people on the planet to start with

Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just,
currently, quite wasteful with resources.

~~~
WildUtah
_Earth doesn 't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just,
currently, quite wasteful with resources._

What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery,
crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich
and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax.

More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is
enough.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty.
> Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having
> access to parks and open space to breathe and relax.

A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's
population.

More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.

~~~
jquery
> The latter experience can be given to the former's population.

How? Keep in mind only a small fraction of the world's population is even
capable of being a tourist. Imagine how that changes when everyone is well-off
enough to travel at will. Imagine your favorite beach, favorite museum, or
your favorite national park and multiply the number of visitors by 10, 20, 40,
etc. Waiting-lists for years to visit the Louvre. Prices so high that only the
1% of the 1% can afford to visit Maui.

Maybe you are assuming that VR will solve these issues? Perhaps a Matrix-like
future awaits us.

~~~
hightechlowlife
Most of us discussing this are already living a Matrix-like reality. 80%+ of
life in front of a screen, with that last bit of time at the gym (with
screens), cafe/bar (with screens), or maybe an inner-city park (with cellphone
screen out). A diet primarily consisting of processed grain, factory meat and
barren vegetation. Blaming our inevitable neuroticism on a chemical imbalance
or moral failure, not the alienated zoo life we live -- or worse, distracting
ourselves so thoroughly we don't notice it. Of course this kind of person is
going to think we can fit billions more on the planet.

Our wellbeing probably does rely on technology like VR and automation, but
with so many mentally ill, I would say our current situation is already
unacceptable (and has been for thousands of years). Adding billions more to
the equation isn't going to help.

------
sethbannon
From the article "All couples will now be allowed to have two children".

So it seems China isn't so much ending its one-child policy, as augmenting it
by one to a two-child policy. This means the brutal and cruel enforcement will
continue, only it will kick in at the third child instead of at the second.

~~~
funkyy
China managed to succeed in increasing people wealth and loosening laws (still
bad for Western standards, but huge step comparing to China 30 years ago).
Only because West thinks this is "brutal and cruel" dosent mean our laws would
ever worked there.

Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really
wanted it and most of the dictators were much better alternative (still bad,
just better - to clarify).

Same with China - imagine them exploding with an extra 1 Billion people over
next 20 years. Who will feed them? What would be social implications of such a
move?

Our freedoms are not always applicable in other parts of the world.

~~~
rtpg
>Same with China - imagine them exploding with an extra 1 Billion people over
next 20 years. Who will feed them? What would be social implications of such a
move?

Well for one thing, you'd have a billion more potential farmers...

Population growth is a pretty old problem, and if recent developed nations'
demographic reports show, it solves itself once you reach a certain level of
development.

China's success is not necessarily because of the policies in place by the
government. It could very well be in spite of them.

~~~
lostInTheWoods3
a billion more potential farmers yes, but land and water are finite resources

~~~
marrs
Details. We'll just build multistorey farms.

~~~
Dylan16807
If you're going the technical route, you can automate a lot of the farming.
Still might not need more labor.

------
Animats
Before commenting on this, there are two things you need to read.

"China - total fertility rate (graph)"[1]

"List of famines in China."[2]

"China - Population 1950 - 2015" [3]

In 1970, the fertility rate (babies born per woman) was 6. That's huge but not
untypical for an undeveloped country, where a lot of people die young. Once
some basic modern medicine was deployed, the number of people surviving went
way up, and the population doubled in 50 years, even with the one-child
policy. It would have been much, much worse without it. Something had to be
done. China has a history of famines, and the last big one was in 1962, and 20
million to 40 million people starved to death. Keeping that from happening
again is a major goal of policy in China.

The one-child policy worked. The population is leveling off. The fertility
rate is now around 1.55, which is about typical for a developed country. Once
a country develops, the fertility rate drops off without coercion. China has
reached that point, and no longer needs a mandatory one-child policy.

India's population grew by a factor of 3.4 during that period, but India has
more arable land. China is a big country, but most of it is desert, tundra, or
mountains. The US has six times the arable land per capita as China. China has
nothing like the Midwestern US.

Actually, the one-child policy was relaxed years ago. Only some provinces
require it.

[1] [http://www.china-
profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TFR_1.htm](http://www.china-
profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TFR_1.htm) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China)
[3] [http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_Pop_WPP2006.htm](http://www.china-
profile.com/data/fig_Pop_WPP2006.htm)

~~~
humanrebar
> The one-child policy worked.

If you ignore the invasive health monitoring, gender selective abortions,
forced abortions, and other human rights violations, sure.

But I'm not sure this cure wasn't worse than the disease. Especially, as you
point out, since fertility rates seem to regulate themselves in developed
countries.

I guess if you're a pure utilitarian, you could try to make the case that it
all was a net benefit, but I don't see many utilitarians around these days.

~~~
mazerackham
Human rights are not some global constant, but something that evolves from
culture & economics. China has experienced unprecedented growth in the past 30
years, never before seen in history. Hopefully its concepts of human rights
will evolve with time, but to judge it now by the same measure we do for the
West is unrealistic and impractical

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's also worth remembering that the West summoned its human rights by
guillotining people until they finally appeared. It took a lot of blood to get
there. Let's hope China can achieve it without so much bloodshed.

------
s_dev
Overpopulation is an interesting problem, it exponentially affects every other
problem we have -- some balance will have to be found between ultimately
telling people they can't kids or maintaining that those people have autonomy
over their own lives and can make such a decision. I don't know what the
solution is - perhaps making the developing world developed as fast as
possible.

~~~
MC7447a
Overpopulation is a non-problem. Fertility has fallow to near- or below-
replacement rate everywhere in the world, except Afrika (which will likely
follow in the next decades.)

A nice talk from Hans Rosling on this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8)

~~~
tremon
You mean, it is not a problem because the planet can support that many? Or do
you mean it is a problem, but it will solve itself? I don't think either is
correct. The first is only true today because non-First World inhabitants are
living on a much smaller ecological footprint than Europe and the US. However,
that footprint is increasing rapidly. The second reading at least acknowledges
there is a problem, but I think you are underestimating the correction
required. I think the correction will not happen (at all, or fast enough)
through natural means.

We are already at more than twice a sustainable population level. Even the
most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7
billion people. But most estimates say that the Earth can support 2-3 billion
people at modest levels of first-world consumption. The more our planet will
be stripped of its resources now (whether through overfishing, destruction of
forests, or climate change), the lower the sustainable planet population will
become.

Put differently, we need to lose at least 5 billion people in the next decades
without replacing them with a younger generation to be able to sustain the
emancipation of emerging countries. It's not about population growth
stabilizing, we need both massive negative population growth and halving of
current energy use in developed countries. The only "natural" means through
which I can see that happening is massive food shortages or horrific wars, and
I think it's a pretty safe bet that the former will trigger the latter. It's
also a pretty safe bet that our global society will disappear in that
scenario, so I'd rather we have better solutions before that happens.

~~~
flgb
The earth doesn't have a "carrying capacity" or a "maximum population". The
earth has resources that are used more or less sustainably at different times
and in different places. If we all still lived like hunter gatherers we would
have run out of resources and become extinct thousands of years ago. Luckily
we've had social, economic, and technological development.

As soon as anyone frames sustainability challenges in terms of the earths
"carrying capacity" they are revealing a bias that is unhelpful. Even if you
accept the premise that the earth does have some 'maximum population' then so
what? It's a useless proposition -- what are you going to do, force everyone
to only have one child, that is unsustainable as China discovered.

Luckily, as the parent pointed out, overpopulation is not a problem. The rate
of growth continues to decrease, and global populations will peak in my
lifetime.

~~~
tremon
"Ecologists define carrying capacity as the maximal population size of a given
species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the
same species in the future"
[http://www.dieoff.org/page112.htm](http://www.dieoff.org/page112.htm)

In the interest of (scientific) discourse, it is generally unhelpful to
redefine or ignore generic definitions. Are you asserting that the earth
doesn't support any species, or that is perfectly possible to have googolplex
people living on earth without reducing earth's ability to support googolplex
people in the future?

~~~
hguant
I think the post is saying that defining the carrying capacity of a
technological species is an exercise in futility. Malthus was writing about
this many years ago - humans have a habit of raising the bar.

In answer to your googolplex question - I think it's safer to bet on the
technology developing to support such a population than against it. (Though I
think we'll either be extinct or an interstellar species before then.)

~~~
tremon
I (think I) understood the GP post, I just have very little tolerance for
idiotic and easily falsifiable statements. Therefore, I chose to respond to
the first sentence only, and ignore the rest of the post.

My use of that population number was simply that: a refutation of the
assertion that the earth has no population limit, as it will be hard to argue
that our planet can support 10^9980 humans per square millimeter of land area.
A genuine "argumentum ad absurdum", to counter the GP's completely nonsensical
opening statement.

~~~
ubercore
I interpreted the opposition to using carrying capacity to mean that it's not
helpful from the perspective of a technological species. If we had that many
humans, the odds seem high that we would have a way to supplement resources
available to use from outside Earth. Carrying capacity is really about an
_ecosystem_ and the resources it can provide vs competition with other
species. We effectively have no competition, and we can create our own
ecosystems, so it's kind of a strawman to apply the wildlife biology concept
to our understanding of how human populations will evolve in the future.

~~~
tremon
Ah, but that would have been an interesting discussion. We could have
discussed the merits of carrying capacity with respect to a species that
builds its own ecosystem, or whether it makes sense to consider the entire
planet a single ecosystem. We could have a meaningful discussion about the
various population estimates and what they're based on. Or we could have
discussed whether it makes sense to consider ourselves in competition with
future generations.

But instead of that, the initial reply:

\- refused the basic premise that would have allowed that discussion, by
indirectly positing that space on earth is infinite

\- followed it up with a very questionable assertion that earth's resources
are used "more or less sustainably" (which is already at odds with the
previous assertion that resources are infinite, and ignores the many species
we've already hunted to extinction)

\- added a non-sequitur that we would have run out of resources as hunter-
gatherers (again at odds with the initial statement)

\- justified the plain refusal of the basic premise with an ad-hominem about
bias

\- continued on with the apathetic rationalization that nothing can be done
anyway

\- concluded by reiterating the initial statement without further
substantiation

Now, you may argue that my refusal to engage in that discussion is my weakness
and it would still have been possible to salvage something positive, however
my time is finite and there's better, less taxing discussions to be had.

(/me out, accepting that meta-justification is considered offtopic and will be
downmodded).

------
nabla9
Once-child policy was brutally enforced and cruel. It was also highly
effective way to reduce poverty.

China vs. India: GDP per capita versus fertility rate

[http://www.google.se/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ct...](http://www.google.se/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_x=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&idim=country:IND:CHN&ifdim=country&tunit=Y&pit=1382997600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false&icfg&iconSize=0.5)

~~~
logicchains
>It was also highly effective way to reduce poverty.

Citation needed; correlation does not equal causation. Other East Asian
countries showed similar reductions in fertility in spite of no similar
policies, and much greater reductions in poverty.

China vs. India vs. Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea): GDP per capita
versus fertility rate

[http://www.google.se/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ct...](http://www.google.se/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_x=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&idim=country:IND:CHN&ifdim=country&tunit=Y&pit=1382997600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false&icfg&iconSize=0.5#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_x=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&idim=country:IND:CHN:HKG:KOR:SGP&ifdim=country&pit=-289566000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false)

Taiwan excluded because it seems to be missing from that dataset.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
It could be that it worked in China, in concert with other policies. Because
it didn't work elsewhere is also correlation without causation.

------
Keyframe
Are there any psychology/sociology studies how one-child policy impacted
China's society? It has been documented how having one child vs siblings
impact one's psyche. I wonder what kind of impact it has on a culture/society
as a whole if most are from single-child families.

~~~
chriskanan
See this Science paper:
[https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/953](https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/953)

Their main finding: "[We find that the one-child policy] has produced
significantly less trusting, less trustworthy, more risk-averse, less
competitive, more pessimistic, and less conscientious individuals."

~~~
o0-0o
In my personal experiences dating women from China that now live in the US:
There is also a loneliness, depression, and generalized malaise to their
thoughts due to being an 'only child'.

~~~
Keyframe
If we take that observation as general rule (not that it is, but let's
pretend) - wouldn't that make for a stronger collective then? In order to
mitigate those issues. Lots of interesting speculations can be made.
Sociologists and psychologists must have a field day there.

------
paublyrne
This has been expected for a while.

Hopefully it can help address the increasing gender imbalance. It has reached
6:5 male to female births, resulting in huge numbers of Chinese men who cannot
find marriage partners.

~~~
lalalandland
There are 9 million more boys than girls, according to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China).
That is a massive number.

~~~
adaml_623
Sorry I'm not sure which bit of the article you are referencing.

The 2011 projection says 19 million more boys than girls (Age 0-14).

And 34 million more males than females if you look at the whole population.

------
pmontra
I've been on vacation in China this summer and a tourist guide told me that
they can have as many children as they want, but 1) they have to pay some sort
of one time fee for the second and successive children (maybe 10,000 Yuan?
can't remember) and 2) school, healthcare, etc are to be paid in full for
those children. Basically if you're not reasonably wealthy you can afford only
one child.

------
austenallred
This link has a bit more information:
[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-11/15/c_1328919...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-11/15/c_132891920.htm)

(Yes, it's from a couple of years ago, but it describes China's thinking).

~~~
GordonS
"China will loosen its decades-long one-child population policy, allowing
couples to have two children if one of them is an only child, according to a
key decision issued on Friday by the Communist Party of China (CPC)."

So there are still rules, just not as stringent.

~~~
jpatokal
The parent links to an old article, and that's the old rule which was just
overturned. Now everybody can have two -- but apparently still no more than
two?

~~~
GordonS
Presumably you can still have more than two if you afford it (you pay a hefty
fine).

------
Mimick
Overpopulation isn't that of a big problem as the politics make it seem.

~~~
trymas
Why (I am serious, as IMHO today's global population is too big)?

~~~
anunderachiever
If you place all 7.3 billion people onto an area of the size of Austria, every
one has more than 11m² to their own.

Of course this illustration is a simplification but it brings the world
population back to perspective.

~~~
trymas
But problem is resource consumption, no?

It's a complete speculation, because I can't cite this, but isn't Earth not
capable of sustaining 7+ billion people? Exponential population growth brings
even greater exponential rise of greenhouse effect, oil consumption,
deforestation, etc. IMHO it is the main problem of overpopulation.

~~~
UK-AL
Nobody knows what its capable of sustaining. There's stuff like using
resources more efficiently, recycling etc. We aren't good at these things yet,
consumption could go a lot higher with improvements to those.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _We aren 't good at these things yet, consumption could go a lot higher with
> improvements to those._

That's an Malthusianism[0] right here. Why recycling and increased efficiency
themselves aren't a solution? Because people will increase their consumption
to offset all the gains.

C.f.:

"Why are even some affluent parts of the world running out of fresh water?
Because if they weren’t, they’d keep watering their lawns until they were."

[0] -
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=418](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=418)

~~~
UK-AL
Increasing consumption isn't necessary a bad thing.

------
r-w
_The Giver_ ’s portrayal of systematic euthanasia of the elderly comes to
mind. I _really_ hope we never have to make that kind of decision. After all,
what choice could possibly be compatible with our principles of liberty,
equality, respect, and fairness? This may be the hardest ethical problem we
can’t afford not to solve.

~~~
electricblue
Seems fairly easy to me. Pay 18 year old boys $10k to get a vasectomy. Watch
birth rates plummet. Captialism gives us systematic inequality, we should use
it to fix more problems

~~~
bilbo0s
???

That's not the way you control birth rates.

You control birth rates by controlling FEMALE fertility... not male fertility.

There are mathematical reasons behind this, but for the purposes of simplicity
I'll give the lay explanation. ie - A female can only have one (or so) child
every 9 months. A single human male can produce one every day. So having a
population with only one male, but 100 females, allows for a FAR higher
reproduction rate than a population with 100 males, but only one female.

~~~
electricblue
Vasectomy is currently the only permanent sterilization procedure without
serious health risks. Barring some strange shift in cultural attitudes where
fertile males suddenly become irresistible to every female on earth it should
do fine until we find a better way for both genders. Don't let the perfect be
the enemy of the good.

~~~
bilbo0s
In that case... I hope you have some strange shift in cultural attitudes
planned for preventing females from being forcibly used by fertile males. I'm
not saying we need a perfect method... I'm saying we need a method that
acknowledges the realities that many populations around the world live in.
Female victimization is a reality in a lot of places on this planet. (To be
completely fair... it's a reality even here in the US. Even on the university
campus I'm sitting on.)

~~~
electricblue
Do you have any proof that rape makes a significant contribution to population
growth or just grasping at straws?

~~~
bilbo0s
Rape was the major contributor to population growth in Eastern Kivu back when
Nkunda was running rampant. And, to keep everything honest, it still is.
(Particularly in Goma). It's not like rape and massacres went away because the
Rwandans decided to replace their warlords. The Rwandans still do what
Rwandans do I'm sure.

I'm only saying that you ascribe certain properties to the populations you are
dealing with. And there are definitely places in the world where your
assumptions fail to hold up. But biology ALWAYS holds up.

By the way... I was being kind. Rape is only ONE whole in your plan. There are
many. For instance, your plan also assumes women will never simply get horny.
Or that they will only "get off" in certain predetermined ways that your plan
deems acceptable. Your plan assumes a lot ... and all of it from your own
perspective and belief system. If we work within biological limits... we
achieve our goals regardless of the local belief system.

~~~
tormeh
You can have sex with an infertile man. Vasectomy does not make the man lack
lust, it just makes the man infertile.

~~~
akshat_h
One possible problem I see is that females becoming comparatively
"irresponsible" about birth control due to perception of males having
vasectomy, which may increase accidental pregnancies. I am not taking birth
control methods used for STD protection into account here, but the the award
of 10k may need to be carefully set so as to have an optimal ratio of
infertile vs fertile males. Seems like an interesting proposal though.

------
paradite
Talk about bad things about China -> Get upvotes.

Talk about good things about China -> Get downvotes and people rebutting you
with clearly one-sided sources.

Am I surprised? No.

Am I pissed? No.

I believe time will tell.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I don't know. Going through the comments, people here seem to be ahead of the
curve in accepting that China may actually have had a point. But it's hard to
agree with for many, because that would mean conceding that undemocratic
solutions can be good and effective.

~~~
mazerackham
Ya I find that westerners in general have a REALLY hard time dealing with the
success of China in the past 30 years, all of which springs from undemocratic
policy. All media articles I read about China are ridiculously spun to grasp
at straws for flaws in the government, while glossing over the tremendous good
that the government has done for the people.

------
TorKlingberg
The once-child policy has been gradually weakened for some time. It will be
interesting to see the future population trend in China. I can see it going
one of two ways:

1\. Multiple children has previously been reserved to those with political
connections or money. Now that everyone can have two they will jump at the
opportunity.

or

2\. Almost every young person in China has grown up in a single child family
and sees it as the normal family. Social norms are also based around parents
dedicating a lot of resources to one child. So they continue to have only one
child. In about a decade China may have to start encouraging people to have
more children, like Japan.

~~~
neolefty
I like that question, and I've asked a few people here (I live in Chengdu,
China) about it. Anecdotally, it's some of both. City people tend to view
raising a child as very expensive, mainly because of education, so many expect
they can only afford one. And since that has become the new norm, they're
comfortable with that. But many also plan to have two children.

Most I've met who already have a child and could feasibly have a second, don't
plan to. I suspect they've already gone through the decision to only have one
and don't want to revisit it.

However, I don't know what the rural attitudes are, since I haven't talked
with people in the countryside.

I think China's demographic future looks a lot like South Korea's or Japan's,
with a shortage of young people:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan)

~~~
zhemao
> I don't know what the rural attitudes are, since I haven't talked with
> people in the countryside

Rural families have largely been exempted from the one-child policy for a
while now. This new development won't change anything for people living in the
countryside.

> I think China's demographic future looks a lot like South Korea's or Japan's

Yeah, China already has an issue with a rapidly aging population. It's called
the 4-2-1 problem (4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child). But this happens in
most developed countries. For instance, the average age in the US would be
much higher if it weren't for immigration. The native birth rate isn't very
high.

------
netcan
China's 1 child policy (now 2 child, I guess) is a difficult to fully form an
opinion on.

On one hand, "population crisis" is something a lot of people are concerned
about^ and the policy was a direct and practical way of tackling it. On the
other, it is unmistakably totalitarian.

Going to 2 is a strange choice. It's just as totalitarian, but probably has a
fairly negligible effect on average fertility rate. I guess they don't see

^On a tangent, I don't totally buy population crisis and judging from how
rarely I hear it mentioned these days I think I'm not alone. There is
obviously some natural limit on human population, but I don't think we're near
it.

The fact that we hear less concern about it is says something interesting
about the zeitgeist. I think people believe in technological progress more in
2015 than they have since the space age and nuclear age of 50 years ago, maybe
more than ever. At our current rate (ignoring the projected gradual reduction)
we'll double every 65 years. I can certainly see us absorbing doubling
population density in that time considering all the empty oceans, deserts, the
potential for landless food productions, megacities and all that jazz. I mean,
If the US & Australia went to the population densities of Germany and France
(moderately dense with quite a lot of open spaces), we would be good for
another 100 years.

Basically, I think we have the space.

~~~
laotzu
We've definitely got the space and the resources. The demographic-economic
paradox shows that solving the problem of overpopulation is simply a matter of
distributing the renewable surplus we have of food water and shelter to the
close to 50% of the world which struggles to obtain. This would create a
positive feedback loop which would in turn pay for itself.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-
economic_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox)

>There exists a realizable, evolutionary alternative to our being either atom-
bombed into extinction or crowding ourselves off the planet. The alternative
is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation
to accommodation of all humanity at an aerospace level of technology, with the
vastly larger, far more enduringly profitable for all, entirely new World
Livingry Service Industry. It is statistically evident that the more advanced
the living standard, the lower the birth rate.

-Buckminster Fuller, Foreword to Grunch of Giants

[https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-
giants.pdf](https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-giants.pdf)

------
chaitanya
So many people here with really outdated ideas about what causes over
population and how to control it. Wish they would read this article by Melinda
Gates on some myths around this subject: [http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-
We-Are/Resources-and-Medi...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-
Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014#MYTHTHREE)

------
jobu
The sad part is the policy was likely unnecessary given what we now know about
the effects of urban migration and modern healthcare on reducing population
growth.

It's often too expensive to have multiple children in a large city, and when
infant and child mortality is reduced there's less incentive to have lots of
kids (so people use birth control).

------
tonomics
A pension crisis in China would be tremendously disastrous; something one can
barely picture.

With growth and technology, fertility rates goes down and emerging
markets,specially BRIC nations, will be severely affected by this.

------
known
China doesn't qualify as per
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecologica...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint)

------
theworstshill
Thats a good thing. Pressures like these have pushed technological progress
forward. Either that, or a natural cycle of starvation and death, unlikely but
possible. Let's see what happens.

------
hippich
I though one-child policy wasn't enforced for quite awhile, but after reading
comments it appears if still was until today.

------
alltakendamned
Can someone shine a light on the expected macro economic effects of this
decision, both in china and worldwide ?

------
lugus35
Africa : 2,5 billions by 2050 China ends one-chile policy

bye bye green Earth, hello surpopulation and pollution...

------
novaleaf
is it just me, or are the axis on the graphs all messed up?

------
wangii
Future historians will regard it as the #1 contribution of Xi's presidency.

------
code4life
"A Christian Manifesto" by Francis A. Schaeffer gives a reason why.

Our creator inspires freedom and love. When we follow him we seek to spread
freedom to not only ourselves but to others as well. A population willingly
adopting the new testament Biblical principles will spread freedom willingly.

The humanist world view on the other hand has no moral absolutes and must
enforce the popular or elected rules onto the majority by force.

America has been slowly transitioning from a Bible believing nation to a
humanist world view. The result is predictable, the loss of individual freedom
and the increase in the use of force to preserve the lack of these freedoms.

~~~
gnaritas
> America has been slowly transitioning from a Bible believing nation to a
> humanist world view.

America has been slowly transitioning from a superstitious nation to a more
rational one.

Fixed that for you.

> The humanist world view on the other hand has no moral absolutes and must
> enforce the popular or elected rules onto the majority by force.

No one has moral absolutes, they do not exist except in the minds of those who
want to force their morality onto others who don't agree with them. Laws
aren't about morals, they're about reason.

~~~
c0achmcguirk
> America has been slowly transitioning from a superstitious nation to a more
> rational one.

lulz

Rationality requires laws of logic--which do not exist in a humanistic,
materialistic world.

Tell me, can you stub your toe on the law of non-contradiction? No? How does
it exist then?

~~~
Dylan16807
I guess liquid water doesn't exist.

I'm really unsure what point you're trying to make.

~~~
c0achmcguirk
It's an expression. Liquid water has mass and takes up space. It's material.
It exists in a materialistic universe where the only things that exist are
matter an energy.

On the other hand, there's nothing physical about "laws." They lose their law-
like properties and become conventions of thought rather than regulators of
truth and rationality in a world where only matter and energy exist.

------
eccstartup
Oo0o0ps, you know this before us Chinese.

------
nitin_flanker
Isn't this an old news?

------
b0ner_t0ner
Need more of them to make iPhones.

~~~
ck2
You say it in a crass way but actually, the point of the growing middle class
and shifting of China's economic base means there are going to be fewer people
making iphones.

Next it will move to Vietnam

~~~
TeMPOraL
Maybe we can abuse the fine folks in Shenzhen one last time and automate the
entire manufacturing industry away?

~~~
ck2
China is getting really good at assembly robots too.

However if the process can be completely automated then why not do the
manufacturing right where the bulk of consumption is going to happen to reduce
shipping costs which are always growing.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's a good point, but we still need to reach that outcome, and this will
happen graudally. Whatever the end results of robofactory revolution, it will
have to _start_ here, in the factory of the world, because that's where we
make robots for cheap.

------
ck2
Middle-class in China is going to be fascinating to watch as it consumes all
resources.

(four times the entire population of the USA for perspective)

I guess the logic is it will help their economy?

~~~
oblio
The interesting thing about humans is that they adapt. There's a reason
economic growth exists, and not all of it relies on: suck up more oil, chop
down more wood.

