Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on October 29, 2015

Bookmark and Share

China ends one-child policy after 35 years

China ends one-child policy after 35 years thumbnail

China has scrapped its one-child policy, allowing all couples to have two children for the first time since draconian family planning rules were introduced more than three decades ago.

The announcement followed a four-day Communist party summit in Beijing where China’s top leaders debated financial reforms and how to maintain growth at a time of heightened concerns about the economy.

China will “fully implement a policy of allowing each couple to have two children as an active response to an ageing population”, the party said in a statement published by Xinhua, the official news agency. “The change of policy is intended to balance population development and address the challenge of an ageing population,.”

Some celebrated the move as a positive step towards greater personal freedom in China. But human rights activists and critics said the loosening – which means the Communist party continues to control the size of Chinese families – did not go far enough.

“The state has no business regulating how many children people have,” said William Nee, a Hong Kong-based activist for Amnesty International.

“If China is serious about respecting human rights, the government should immediately end such invasive and punitive controls over people’s decisions to plan families and have children.”

For months there has been speculation that Beijing was preparing to abandon the divisive family planning rule, which was introduced in 1980 because of fears of a population boom.

Demographers in and outside China have long warned that its low fertility rate – which experts say lies somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 children a woman – was driving the country towards a demographic crisis.

Since 2013, there has been a gradual relaxation of China’s family planning laws that already allowed minority ethnic families and rural couples whose firstborn was a girl to have more than one child.

Thursday’s announcement that all couples would be allowed two children caught many experts by surprise.

“I’m shaking to be honest,” said Stuart Gietel-Basten, an University of Oxford demographer who has argued for the end of the one-child policy. “It’s one of those things that you have been working on and saying for years and recommending they should do something and it finally happened. It’s just a bit of a shock.”
The Communist party credits the policy with preventing 400m births, thus contributing to China’s dramatic economic takeoff since the 1980s.

But the human toll has been immense, with forced sterilisations, infanticide and sex-selective abortions that have caused a dramatic gender imbalance that means millions of men will never find female partners.

“The gender imbalance is going to be a very major problem,” warned Steve Tsang, a professor of contemporary Chinese studies at the University of Nottingham. “We are talking about between 20 million and 30 million young men who are not going to be able to find a wife. That creates social problems and that creates a huge number of people who are frustrated.”

History showed that countries with a very large number of unmarried men of military age were more likely to pursue aggressive, militarist foreign policy initiatives, Tsang said.

In one of the most shocking recent cases of human rights abuses related to the once-child policy, a woman who was seven months pregnant was abducted by family planning officials in Shaanxi province in 2012 and forced to have an abortion.

Opponents say the policy has created a demographic “timebomb”, with China’s 1.3 billion-strong population ageing rapidly, and the country’s labour pool shrinking. The UN estimates that by 2050 China will have about 440 millionpeople over 60. The working-age population – those between 15 and 59 – fell by 3.71 million last year, a trend that is expected to continue.

From a political, pragmatic perspective, loosening the policy is good for the party
Stuart Gietel-Basten, demographer

There were no immediate details on how or when China’s new “two-child policy” would be implemented. But Gietel-Basten said the policy change was good news for both China’s people and its leaders, who stood to gain from ending a highly unpopular rule.

“From a political, pragmatic perspective, loosening the policy is good for the party but also it is a good thing for individual couples who want to have that second child. It is a kind of win-win for everybody,” he said.

“Millions of ordinary Chinese couples will be allowed to have a second child if they want to – this is clearly a very positive thing.”

Experts said the relaxation of family planning rules is unlikely to have a lasting demographic impact, particularly in urban areas where couples were now reluctant to have two children because of the high cost.

“Just because the government says you can have another child, it doesn’t mean the people will immediately follow,” said Liang Zhongtang, a demographer at the Shanghai Academy of Social Science.

Gietel-Basten said: “In the short term, probably there will be a little baby boom particularly in some of the poorer provinces where the rules have been very strict, like in Sichuan or in parts of the south. But in the long term I don’t think it’s going to make an enormous amount of difference.”

Dai Qing, a Chinese writer who has publicly called for all family planning rules to be scrapped, said the announcement was a positive step.

“It shows that the authorities have understood the changes in the total population and the demographic structure and started to address them,” she said.

But Dai said questions remained, particularly about how Beijing would enforce its new two-child policy.

“Even if people are allowed to have two children, what if they want to have three children or more? What if unmarried women want to have their own children? At the end of the day, it’s about women’s reproductive rights and freedoms.”

They should abolish the family planning system. Only that way can they straighten out their relationship with the people
Liang Zhongtang, demographer

Others expressed concern that the announcement of the new two-child policy, which referred to Chinese couples, suggested children born outside of wedlock would continue to be penalised by the government.

Liang called on the Communist party to completely dismantle its unpopular and outdated family planning rules.

“I think they should abolish the family planning [system] once for all and let people decide how many children they want to have. Only that way can they straighten out their relationship with the people.”

But Gietel-Basten said it would have been virtually unthinkable for Beijing to completely abandon its family planning rules.

“That would in some ways imply that the policy was wrong … which of course would be a smack in the face of the last two generations of policymakers who stuck by it,” he said.

“Getting rid of it completely probably wasn’t an option in the short term. But in the long term it’s certainly not inconceivable that they would move towards a pronatalist policy at some point, maybe over the next five or 10 years, and that they would develop policies similar to in Korea or in Taiwan, or in Hong Kong or in Singapore, where there would be incentives for couples with one child to have a second child. I certainly think that is the future direction it [policy] is likely to go in.”
As news that the notorious policy was coming to an end spread on Thursday, Chinese citizens celebrated on social media, while also lamenting how long change had taken to arrive.

Some government critics expressed their contempt for the policy by altering photographs of the red Communist party propaganda banners that adorn towns and villages across China urging residents to obey family planning rules.

“We reward families with two children and fine those with only one,” read one spoof poster mocking Beijing’s change of heart. “Those who decide not to have children or who are infertile should be thrown in jail.”

the guardian



39 Comments on "China ends one-child policy after 35 years"

  1. HARM on Thu, 29th Oct 2015 11:36 am 

    Bad idea. The rest of the world should be adopting China’s policy, not the other way around. 7.3 billion humans, 8 billion in another 10 years, and 9 billion shortly after that. The biosphere is already strained to the breaking point with the number of people already here, with most large land and sea mammals expected to go extinct within this century.

    The so-called “demographic time bomb” means nothing compared to the ecocidal WMD humans are unleashing in the planet right now.

  2. Rodster on Thu, 29th Oct 2015 1:46 pm 

    MOAR Babies!!!

    To hell with overpopulation, what they need is a good dose of more recruits to pay for all the debt they’ve incurred trying to be just like the West.

    As long as the current money system used around the world continues to be used, NOTHING will get fixed. It’s what drives overpopulation, pollution, resource depletion, ecosystem destruction along with the biosphere.

    The current money system demands that in order for BAU to work, you need infinite growth of EVERYTHING including the money supply.

  3. peakyeast on Thu, 29th Oct 2015 2:54 pm 

    I completely agree with HARM.

    This day is a very sad day – the only partly reasonable government policy concerning population in the world has been scrapped in order to hasten our own demise.

    Or perhaps they hope for a lot of child soldiers to send to their death because it doesnt seem like there is time for them to be adults before they are needed.

  4. Outcast_Searcher on Thu, 29th Oct 2015 3:09 pm 

    Well commenters thus far, it’s fine for first world folks, comfortable and living “high on the hog” compared to most of the world’s population, to say this is “bad”. OTOH, the vast majority of folks in the US (where I live and know the culture the best) live in an “all you can afford to acquire, including borrowing” mode, instead of much (if anything) to do with a “minimize my family’s carbon footprint mode and do what I reasonably can to save the planet” mode.

    And it’s not like the US politicians do much of ANYTHING to encourage people to live with a small carbon footprint. Intelligent gas price escalation, intended to strongly incentivise conservation, not to mention greatly move the US toward energy independence would be a nice start. It’s a non-starter in the US — politicans are afraid that making US gasoline prices realistic and echoing the realities we live in would be the death knell for their careers.

    The thing I see here is that this is a strong confirmation of the bias toward capitalism as an engine needing long term growth to succeed. Since BAU growth is completely unsustainable in the long term given the physical constraints of the planet — this is a bad sign indeed.

    How about a strong tax BREAK for people with no children or couples with only one child, once they reach the end of their child bearing years (or, say, have operations which make them sterile)? As far as I know, there are few if any governments which do this. Since it would be VOLUNTARY, it’s not like the politicans should fear being called “Hitler” for offering this policy.

    No, the whole world is at fault for wanting endless stuff and wealth, and expecting everyone ELSE to magically live as a poor and childless person and solve everyone’s problems.

  5. Rodster on Thu, 29th Oct 2015 3:27 pm 

    “No, the whole world is at fault for wanting endless stuff and wealth, and expecting everyone ELSE to magically live as a poor and childless person and solve everyone’s problems.”

    You maybe missing the point(s). The world NEEDS endless stuff in order for BAU to function. That’s why we no longer have stuff that last 10-15 years before it breaks. Everything now lasts 1-4 years before it fails and you have to buy MOAR. If the world stopped buying endless stuff the global economy would COLLAPSE. That’s just the facts.

    I have no problem with the Chinese having two babies per family. Hell why stop at two? Take the limits off.

    My point is the Chinese are NO different than the West. For all the talk that they are better than the West, that they will make thru just fine on the other side of the economic collapse is foolhardy because their actions speak louder than words.

    They are no different than the West and their business, economic, financial and monetary policies are a carbon copy of the West just with a few tweaks.

    The fractional reserve banking system in place since the inception of th Federal Reserve has expanded to other eCONomies. Therefore just as we need infinite growth in the West to pay for future debt and government obligations, the Chinese have walked themselves into the same hole, err sinking ship.

    You can’t have infinite growth in a finite world. It’s impossible and the Chinese are about to make the same mistake. So it’s carry on with BAU until the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

  6. makati1 on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 12:33 am 

    Peaky, China already has about 200 million males in the Military age range (20-30) Also, males outnumber females by about 10,000,000. That is a lot of excess energy to keep busy, without a war to kill them off.

    BTW: Their population is actually shrinking, not growing like some seem to believe.

  7. makati1 on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 12:41 am 

    HARM, US GDP per capita PPP = ~$54,550.

    China’s GDP per capita PPP = ~$13,000.

    That means that All of China’s 1.4B population consumes the same as the US who has 1/4 the population. OR, in other words, take the US down to China’s PPP and you can easily support another billion people on the planet. THAT is where the US is headed whether you like it or not. Leveling is the name of the game today.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

  8. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 3:44 am 

    @makati: We all know those figures and facts.

    Its fine that you list them here, but they do not change anything concerning what I write.

    And I totally agree that the US (and Europe) has excessive consumption – and you have never seen me defend that.

    I had hoped other nations would follow the one child policy. – The ONLY GREAT political achievement of the past 100 years to mitigate the otherwise assured self destruction of our species.

    That they disable this one great achievement is very sad.

    And NO there is not space for 1 billion more. There is actually not space for what there is already existing. – Which is exactly why the chinese policy was so great. That their population is shrinking is proof that the policy is good.

  9. marmico on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 5:25 am 

    OR, in other words, take the US down to China’s PPP and you can easily support another billion people on the planet

    China consumes about 25% more primary energy and three times as much coal per dollar of GDP as the U.S. Maybe China should look in the mirror to level the emissions playing field.

  10. makati1 on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 5:31 am 

    peaky, of course we are over populated, but the problem would not be as great if resources were distributed equally. China’s population is shrinking, not growing. THAT is the fact that I was trying to get across to the brainwashed that want to blame their own problems on the Chinese. Not that we need another billion consumers.

    It was not a great achievement. It totally unbalanced one of the largest populations on the planet that now has millions of excess males (w/o wives) to find a use for before they decide to cause trouble internally. I expect more Chinese ‘security’ to pop up all over the world to ‘protect’ Chinese interests. Had they not had the ‘one child’ law, nature would have killed off the excess, as it will anyway, and soon.

    India is growing at 2 1/2 times the rate of China. Even the US is growing 40% faster. And Africa, as a billion plus population continent, is growing at 5+ times the rate of China. THAT is where the population will increase the most in the near future, but it is rarely mentioned. China is the US’ enemy and gets all the bad press these days.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW

  11. Davy on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 5:54 am 

    Makster you are rooting on a lame horse and making yourself look the fool everyone knows you are. This quote is a classic:

    take the US down to China’s PPP and you can easily support another billion people on the planet. THAT is where the US is headed whether you like it or not. Leveling is the name of the game today.

    You don’t understand one thing about global economics. You are pure agenda. You fail to grasp overpopulation and overconsumption issues. The US and China both are part of these overshoot issues but at different poles. We know significant amounts of Chinese consumption is US bound consumption. The same is true of the US with food resources to China. Both countries are in population overshoot but China is off the chart with population within a destroyed ecosystem. You mistake per capita consumption for gross consumption, the efficiency of that consumption, and the vital economic synergies of that consumption. Agenda’s don’t work well in such discussions Makster.

    We cannot support the population we have now let alone another billion. You can’t take the US down and level up Asia to the extent you are claiming. We have seen about as much as we are going to see in recent years. Economics don’t work that way. The system would come apart if we followed your agenda policies. Tell me how you are going to halve US GDP and raise Chinese GDP to US levels and keep the global economy humming along. What a joke Makster. What we have is what we got and that is coming apart as we see daily with ever more disequilibrium of economic and social decay.

  12. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 6:42 am 

    @Makati: I have to disagree with your argument concerning balance.

    You know there is no such thing naturally as a balance in the numbers of a species.

    We became seriously imbalanced after the invention of modern medicine and industry.

    Now we need “serious” imbalance in the other direction – and china were the only ones with the balls to do it.

    If the rest of world had done the same we would have had a better world.

    If china has continued – and the rest of world had implemented we would have had a better world for a longer time.

    You know the “easy” time we had we squandered away – getting back to sustainable numbers is not easy.

    And no amount of dividing resources will make any real difference today.

    If we during the great “power-up” had willingly restricted our numbers and not just mindlessly literally outfucked any progress we would have had a GREAT world today…

    But no.. The humans outfucked any progress and made everything into a fucking catastrophe.

    I blame everybody that got more than 2 children in the past 200 years for our demise. Because they were the ones that ruined our great opportunity.

  13. Davy on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 7:01 am 

    Peak, if we are going to blame anything it should be humanities evolutionary dead end of having a large brain that made basically an ape think he is exceptional. This large brain ape used technology and knowledge to destroy natures balance. This balance is only in regards to the absolutely wonderful ecosystem that once was and now has been destroyed by man. Nature is always in balance it is man’s nature that is out of balance and that is why we are likely going extinct.

  14. Davy on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 7:32 am 

    Here is a good project for the coming die-off. We are going to need a lot of ideas for the billions that perish. I doubt these ideas will scale though.

    “Recycle Your Loved Ones With Eco-Friendly Funerals”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-30/recycle-your-loved-ones-with-eco-friendly-funerals

    “Such afterlife overcrowding has similarly driven an ambitious West Coast startup: the Urban Death Project in Seattle, which aims to minimize the amount of land deeded over to the dead. In short, it aims to turn man into mulch. Picture a three-story-high human recycling center, to which families could bring the corpses of loved ones for a ceremonial laying-in, after which the body would be left to compost in a mix of wood chips and straw. After weeks, more likely months, the remains would go to the bereaved for use on garden or land. The deceased could fertilize ground, rather than fill it up.”

  15. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 7:38 am 

    @Davy: I think you misunderstand my comment.

    You are, of course, correct, but so am I. 🙂

    We are just looking at two different scales of “the action”.

    The competition between prey and predator is never static – it waves back and forth. You will NEVER seen the same amount of prey and predator for a long time.

    But, you are right, that it waves back and forth between some outer limits – and rarely, compared to the prey-predator oscillation exterminates itself. It that respect it is in balance.

    Since we humans has declared that we are far above our natural instincts – and I relunctantly and sceptically accept to play along with this silly notion – I choose to say that we could have chosen a path of a equilibrium between us and nature…

    So we chose instead to do what any yeast culture would do. 🙂

  16. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 7:44 am 

    But remember: 99.9% of all species are extinct. This, I believe, is a sure sign that nature in the long run is not in balance.

    Remember reindeer island. – Situations like that happens “all the time” with or without human intervention – and its perfectly natural and gives space for something else.

    Just like we will..

    There is probably a small chance that we can ruin the environment to a degree that makes earth inhabitable, but I find it very unlikely compared to the event that humans will destroy themselves (together with a lot of other species), but that something else will take over after us and fill out the space.

  17. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 7:46 am 

    uninhabitable… argh… 🙂 why is there no EDIT function here.

  18. Davy on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 8:12 am 

    Peak, I guess it is how we define nature and balance whether nature is in balance so I accept your point.

  19. Rodster on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 8:31 am 

    “There is probably a small chance that we can ruin the environment to a degree that makes earth uninhabitable,”

    That small chance continues to grow every day as we continue to fuck up our skies with Geoengineering aka weather modification and weather warfare.

  20. joe on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 9:06 am 

    News like this takes us into the malthusian sphere of discussion. Those who see only a March forward can be just as wrong as those who are saying this is disastrous. If nothing changes in the next generation then we must simply use up more resources and pollute more, because the population is already set only to rise. We are not talking about the need for population anymore, we are talking about feedstock for a resource allocation machine, we call the ‘economy’.
    Malthusianism is based on the idea that if nothing changes except population then population suffers, and that’s true, except things don’t stay the same, and ever since the carbon economy began in the 1700s things have usually only increased. If anything malthusianism is and arguement in favour of free trade and globalisation, the problem is that western society hasn’t faced an energy shortage in hundreds of years, the last energy shortage was called the Dark Ages, for a reason.

  21. makati1 on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 10:20 am 

    Peaky, you might be interested in this article I referenced at another location here:

    http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2015/10/29/downsizing/

    It explains why nothing will change the course we are sailing and that ‘renewables’ are a sick joke on our kids and grand kids and theirs, if…

    And, yes I understand the predator/prey ecology. I was a biology student in college and nothing has changed in the 50 odd years since.

  22. Kenz300 on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 11:03 am 

    Climate Change, declining fish stocks, droughts, floods, pollution, water and food shortages all stem from the worlds worst environmental problem……. OVER POPULATION.

    Yet the world adds 80 million more mouths to feed, clothe, house and provide energy and water for every year… this is unsustainable…

    If you can not provide for yourself…..you can not provide for a child…… having a child you can not provide for is cruel…….

  23. JuanP on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 3:08 pm 

    Mak, As far as I know, China’s population is still growing. While its fertility index has been under the 2.1 replacement level for a long time, and is currently less than 1.5 child per woman, the population is still growing at around 0.45%-0.5%. To the best of my knowledge, that is, at least according to the CIA, World Bank, and Country Meters.

    I have been following Chinese demographics as a hobby for decades, since I was a child. I have never seen a credible report that China’s population is contracting.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2002.html
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW
    http://countrymeters.info/en/China

  24. JuanP on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 3:21 pm 

    Peakyeast “I blame everybody that got more than 2 children in the past 200 years for our demise. Because they were the ones that ruined our great opportunity.” If we had to blame someone, we couldn’t do any better than that, IMO. I believe it was meant to be one way or another. We are too “smart” for our own good.

  25. JuanP on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 3:29 pm 

    The end of China’s One Child policy is a sad event. I will always consider it one of the very few smart policies ever created by humans in all of our history. This event is clear evidence of humanity’s devolution and clear proof that every human generation is more stupid than the previous one.

    I had a Vasectomy and no children and I don’t concern myself much with humanity’s long term future any longer, but it looks increasingly horrific.

  26. HARM on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 4:11 pm 

    @joe,

    You seem to believe in the infinite growth fairy, and a world where so called “free trade” (an Orwellian misnomer if there ever was one) and the wondrous innovation of globalism/capitalism will save us all. In case you haven’t guessed, the rest of us “malthusian doomers” disagree.

    Thanks to overshoot, What’s coming up in the next few decades could make the Dark Ages look like a Golden Age by comparison.

  27. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 5:12 pm 

    @Juan P: Could you give me a helping hand here?

    I really dont undestand, how the population can grow with a replacement level below 2.0 and a net migration out of the country?

    I suspect that I could figure out whats causing my misunderstanding given enough time, but perhaps you could enlighten me?

  28. peakyeast on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 5:15 pm 

    @Mak: Thanks for your link. It looks like its worth reading – I am looking at it now – but it seems too long to read before bedtime and my weekend is booked with lots of work…

    I will save it for monday.

  29. onlooker on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 6:13 pm 

    Echoing what other posters have said a truly SAD day for the entire humanity. This whole affair of humans on Earth is more and more looking like some kind of surreal Dantes Inferno drama. It belies any rationale cannot the Chinese see where we are headed into further overshoot. Why would they abandon one of the few working policies of any country that was having some positive effect on the runaway train of human overshoot.

  30. Davy on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 6:49 pm 

    Personally, I don’t think population policies are relevant now either way. Excess deaths over births is just around the corner. Economic decline, oil depletion, and abrupt climate change will decimate the food chain. People are going to die in large numbers soon so any population policy is just academic. Nature will begin to lower our numbers through physics not talk.

  31. apneaman on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 7:36 pm 

    That’s right Davy. It do not matter at this point and depletion of food will be the big killer as it always was. Weakened bodies are ripe for disease and once it starts there will be a cascading effect. To win the battle of the super-bugs we need 90% plus of populations vaccinated, vigilant hygiene and ever more high dollar research to come up with new antibiotics (the tide is turning on that evolutionary arms race). To do this we would need even more cheap abundant energy than we had to get here in the first place.

    TB has probably killed more apes than any other disease in our history and like all bugs it evolves quickly.

    Tuberculosis now rivals AIDS as leading cause of death: WHO

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/28/tuberculosis-now-rivals-aids-as-leading-cause-of-death-who.html

    The Forgotten Plague – American Experience

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsaBmJjIDpM

  32. makati1 on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 9:31 pm 

    onlooker, perhaps for the same reason we have 47 million on plastic food stamps? To keep the population from revolt? Governments have to keep internal peace if they want to continue. Some do it by propaganda, some by police state tactics and some by relaxing the family requirements, like China.

    What would the reaction be in your country if the government suddenly said that you could only have one child? And suppose that the odds of that child dying before maturity was high? THAT is the case in the 3rd world. Child mortality is still high. And an adult child/children is/are the old age security for his/her/their parents. No Social Security. The more who survive to provide that security the better.

  33. onlooker on Fri, 30th Oct 2015 11:48 pm 

    Makaki, true China wishes to appease its population. I find it hilarious as per AP that us apes in this case China ruling apes could be so short sighted. They are firm in other regards but decide oh let them have more babies, give them less of reason to bitch. Of course forget about the future habitability of the planet. Davy and AP are so right we are toast!

  34. makati1 on Sat, 31st Oct 2015 2:53 am 

    onlooker, yep, we are toast. The species has painted ourselves into a corner with zero escape. That is why all of the unicorn hugger’s articles, with happy endings, if only we ________ (fill in the blank with a wish) now! But, I guess, as we get closer to the cliff, the noise will only get louder for something to save us from ourselves.

    All the rest of the world wants is what the West has enjoyed for decades. They could care less what happens later. Nor do I as I am powerless to change anything and am resigned to watching the extinction unfold for as long as I have left.

    I feel lucky to be in at the peak and at the end of our civilization. I sometimes wonder how many of the 7+ billion of us actually realize that we are at the end? Not many, I would guess.

  35. JuanP on Sat, 31st Oct 2015 9:24 am 

    Peakyeast, The national population growth rate is calculated considering natality or the number of births, mortality or the number of deaths, and net migration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate

    The generation of people in their twenties and having babies in China today is the largest generation ever in China’s history. The generations of teens and children are already smaller than those in their twenties. So even if that largest generation ever is not having enough children to replace itself, it is still having more than enough children to replace the dying, much less numerous, older generations and the emigrants, too. This is called the Population Lag Effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Population-lag_effect

    If you look at the population pyramid in this link, you will see what I mean. http://populationpyramid.net/china/2015/

  36. Kenz300 on Sat, 31st Oct 2015 6:54 pm 

    The least educated people have the most children…
    The poorest people have the most children………

    conversely

    The most educated people have the least children……..
    The wealthiest people have the fewest children……………

    Hhhhhhhmmmmmmm seems to be a trend here………

    If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child….

    Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness

    http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm

  37. DMyers on Sat, 31st Oct 2015 8:34 pm 

    China situation shows the dilemma we face

    Ponzi Scheme pyramids need an ever growing base

    It boils down to one thing we all should be knowing

    More apes and apes and apes and apes are what keeps economies growing

    Economic growth (EG) requires growing population. EG is a derivative of growing population, as a practical offshoot from the servicing, protecting, and providing for ever larger numbers. State economic paradigms, i.e., Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, and any combination thereof, also require a growing population, either for new Ponzi Scheme participants, an expanding, productive slave force, an army, or for new, expanding markets.

    1. Population reduction will destroy economies and government Ponzi Schemes as they exist, which will lead to massive starvation, civil unrest, and dictatorships to attempt control of the ensuing chaos.

    2. Population growth will lead to diminishing wealth per capita and extreme resource depletion, eventually leading to massive starvation, civil unrest and dictatorships (as stated above for case one).

    Pick your poison?

  38. makati1 on Sun, 1st Nov 2015 4:18 am 

    Actually, it is more and more cheap energy that keeps the economy growing, not people.

  39. Davy on Sun, 1st Nov 2015 8:00 am 

    Bullshit Mak, it is both. A modern economy need people and energy growth based upon its current configuration. This is clearly evident and it is the combination of depletion of oil with our situation of overpopulation and overconsumption per our carrying capacity of the global system that point to our impending die off. This carrying capacity issue is both with our human ecosystem and nature’s macro ecosystem. This is why there is no hope for humans at our current level of complexity.

    We have exhausted our tools of growth which is population growth and oil. We are at the limits of growth in diminishing returns to our efforts at growth. Entropic decay is everywhere both hard and soft. We cannot grow anymore and our growth effort is irreversible without catastrophic collapse. Mak, the reason you shy away from population growth issue is because when you look out the window you see what 20MIL people looks like and that causes you cognitive dissonance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *