If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News1 min ago
One child only policy
21 Answers
I've heard that China has a 'one child only' policy. Does anyone know what this means and how it works? Perhaps the state only supports one child. It's difficult to imagine how it could mean anything else - or does it?.
Answers
Quite so. Coldicote.
Virtually every environmenta
Virtually every environmenta
13:20 Tue 05th Oct 2010
-- answer removed --
Thank you Docspot and Jemisa. The reference Docspot gives should be more widely known; also the documentary Jemisa refers to. We in this country should try to learn from it and not be so ready to moan about loss or reduction of child benefits. Over-population is a problem that will only get worse unless it is confronted. Perhaps people who have only one or two children might be compensated with better pensions when the time comes?
Quite so. Coldicote.
Virtually every environmental problem the world faces stems from human overpopulation. Lack of resources and energy, lack of food and water, pollution, and many more all stem from the fact that there are simply far too many humans on the earth.
The global population has increased seven fold in the past 200 years. It has doubled in just the last forty years and is forecast (by some estimates) to double again in the next 60. This is clearly unsustainable.
Ironically the part of the world that can least afford such an increase is sub-Saharan Africa – an area which is least able to cope with increasing numbers. Here the population has quadrupled since 1950 and is set to double again by about 2050 – and eight fold increase in just 100 years.
In all the clap-trap spouted by politicians on climate change, starvation, water shortages poverty and the like none of them has the courage to mention this fact. In Africa the average number of children born to a mother is more than eight. It is true that their average life expectancy is (unsurprisingly) quite low. But whilst they are alive they need feeding and watering.
There is no prospect in the UK of people with few or no children receiving preferential treatment. It is not politically expedient as it would be seen to “unfairly disadvantage” those whose cultures encourage them to have hoards of children. The fact that others are unfairly disadvantaged by having to pay to keep them is somehow lost.
Urgent measures of population control are needed not only in Africa, but everywhere else as the world could desperately do with a decline in human population. To trouble ourselves with building wind farms off Great Yarmouth is peeing in the wind whilst such far more serious problems need to be addressed.
Virtually every environmental problem the world faces stems from human overpopulation. Lack of resources and energy, lack of food and water, pollution, and many more all stem from the fact that there are simply far too many humans on the earth.
The global population has increased seven fold in the past 200 years. It has doubled in just the last forty years and is forecast (by some estimates) to double again in the next 60. This is clearly unsustainable.
Ironically the part of the world that can least afford such an increase is sub-Saharan Africa – an area which is least able to cope with increasing numbers. Here the population has quadrupled since 1950 and is set to double again by about 2050 – and eight fold increase in just 100 years.
In all the clap-trap spouted by politicians on climate change, starvation, water shortages poverty and the like none of them has the courage to mention this fact. In Africa the average number of children born to a mother is more than eight. It is true that their average life expectancy is (unsurprisingly) quite low. But whilst they are alive they need feeding and watering.
There is no prospect in the UK of people with few or no children receiving preferential treatment. It is not politically expedient as it would be seen to “unfairly disadvantage” those whose cultures encourage them to have hoards of children. The fact that others are unfairly disadvantaged by having to pay to keep them is somehow lost.
Urgent measures of population control are needed not only in Africa, but everywhere else as the world could desperately do with a decline in human population. To trouble ourselves with building wind farms off Great Yarmouth is peeing in the wind whilst such far more serious problems need to be addressed.
New Judge, it's a pity your plain straight talking is not more widely read and heard. Are there any politicians listening with courage to even try and face the problem? According to the wikipedia link that docspot gives, a survey in 2008 reported that 76% of the Chinese population supported the policy.
My understanding of it is that you are allowed one child only.
If you have another child you either pay a fine or go to prison, but not necessarily, it is possible to argue your way out of it, I have seen it done.
There are also exceptions for ethnic minorities (I think there are about 48 ethnic minorities in China, up from 5 prior to the P.R.C) I think also if you have a child who is handicapped your allowed another.
If you have another child you either pay a fine or go to prison, but not necessarily, it is possible to argue your way out of it, I have seen it done.
There are also exceptions for ethnic minorities (I think there are about 48 ethnic minorities in China, up from 5 prior to the P.R.C) I think also if you have a child who is handicapped your allowed another.
While the one child policy may seem cruel, you have to admire China to at least try and do something about this growing worldwide problem.
Much of the 'third world' countries are ruled by dictators and don't care about their peoples. They just want a large population to represent them to the world, never mind if they are starving. Large poverty districts get large amounts of foreign aid which is often siphoned off through various ways and mysteriously end up in the 'government's' coffers, mostly to support opulent lifestyles and private armies.
Much of the 'third world' countries are ruled by dictators and don't care about their peoples. They just want a large population to represent them to the world, never mind if they are starving. Large poverty districts get large amounts of foreign aid which is often siphoned off through various ways and mysteriously end up in the 'government's' coffers, mostly to support opulent lifestyles and private armies.
This is not new, it's been the policy in China for many years.
I must admit that woofgang's suggestionrings true with me - many years back if you were unfortunate enough not to conceive naturally, it was a sadness but you learned to live with it - and compensated with other things in your life instead.
I must admit that woofgang's suggestionrings true with me - many years back if you were unfortunate enough not to conceive naturally, it was a sadness but you learned to live with it - and compensated with other things in your life instead.
Bit of a problem doing it here - who is going to fund you all in your old age if there aren't enough children born to be the workers of the future? The problem here is that we are encoraging those who can't afford to raise them and discouraging those who can. The children are also being born into families who have a benefit culture and are therefore less likely to be workers themselves. What we should actually be doing is encoraging middle and upper income families to produce more and benefit families to have less.
Scotland already has a projected population defecit and is actively encouraging immigration in order to fill it.
Scotland already has a projected population defecit and is actively encouraging immigration in order to fill it.
Why is there the notion that there has to be an exponential population increase to support others in their old age?
It is clearly unsustainable and with other less sophisticated (?) animals it ultimately leads to the extinction of the species. Less people being born equals less people to be looked after in their dotage.
Re-think please !!!
It is clearly unsustainable and with other less sophisticated (?) animals it ultimately leads to the extinction of the species. Less people being born equals less people to be looked after in their dotage.
Re-think please !!!
one problem in china has been the dumping of girl children so the family keeps the first male child born...orphanages in china are filled with unwanted female infants and I am sure worse happens if the first born is female...large number of stillborn girls...
another one of the main problems is also the issue of contraception in poorer countries where a large percentage are roman Catholic...and also within cultures where multiple pregnancies are undergone in the hope for a son...while this gender inequality persists we are unlikely to make headway.
another one of the main problems is also the issue of contraception in poorer countries where a large percentage are roman Catholic...and also within cultures where multiple pregnancies are undergone in the hope for a son...while this gender inequality persists we are unlikely to make headway.
judge, that has to be managed over time though. You cant just suddenly decide to halve your population. Other animals also dont have to deal with the way that the finance has been built in this country. But if you are happy to let a generation of pensioners starve in order to have a smaller population in a shorter term then I am sure that they wont mind.
Who said anything about halving it?
I'm simply advocating either a stabilisation or a steady and small reduction. Anything, in fact, that will arrest the ridiculous growth that is currently taking place.
As far as “pensioners starving” is concerned, in developed countries pensions should be funded by the pensioners themselves investing for their retirement. That way there is no dependency on the working population other than for them to ensure that the investments the pension schemes make show a decent return, and this can be easily achieved with a steady or slightly declining population. In the UK all private schemes have, by law, to work like this. It is the State scheme which, for reasons best known to politicians, relies on the current contributions of those working to fund the pensions of those retired. A ridiculous method which should have been tackled years ago.
In “developing” nations this is not an issue as pensions are simply non-existent. All a growing population provides is extra mouths to feed.
I'm simply advocating either a stabilisation or a steady and small reduction. Anything, in fact, that will arrest the ridiculous growth that is currently taking place.
As far as “pensioners starving” is concerned, in developed countries pensions should be funded by the pensioners themselves investing for their retirement. That way there is no dependency on the working population other than for them to ensure that the investments the pension schemes make show a decent return, and this can be easily achieved with a steady or slightly declining population. In the UK all private schemes have, by law, to work like this. It is the State scheme which, for reasons best known to politicians, relies on the current contributions of those working to fund the pensions of those retired. A ridiculous method which should have been tackled years ago.
In “developing” nations this is not an issue as pensions are simply non-existent. All a growing population provides is extra mouths to feed.
I'm not disagreeing with you judge, but a reform of pensions will take generations to sort out. I have no expectation of getting any government pension when I retire - we are already the generation that paid everything in and will get nothing back - I have already funded all the current pensioners and don't want to be funding all the people the same age as me who haven't funded their retirement as well. When I said half - I was meaning halving the size of families.
Reform of the State pension scheme is quite simple, annie, and will not take generations. Most importantly it requires separating those who have funded their State pension (via National Insurance contributions) from those who have not. The former receive a reasonable pension based on their contributions. The latter receive no pension at all and must claim benefits (at a considerably reduced level). Many private pension schemes have undergone radical reform in the last ten years (mainly out of necessity due to the bad performance of the Stock Market and the previous government’s annual raid on their assets).
I don’t understand why, if you have funded everybody else’s retirement you have not funded your own and do not expect a State pension. If you have achieved 30 years of sufficient NI contributions you will, under current arrangements (which do not seem about to change even with the cuts proposed by the new government) receive a full State pension.
The argument for increasing population to support future pensions is fundamentally flawed. This is simply because the increasing population itself eventually becomes of pensionable age and so requires a further increase in population to fund its retirement. This perpetuates until there is no space, no money or no natural resources (probably all three) to support future increases.
So the answer is to re-arrange our economy on a pragmatic basis that does not require continually increasing numbers.
I don’t understand why, if you have funded everybody else’s retirement you have not funded your own and do not expect a State pension. If you have achieved 30 years of sufficient NI contributions you will, under current arrangements (which do not seem about to change even with the cuts proposed by the new government) receive a full State pension.
The argument for increasing population to support future pensions is fundamentally flawed. This is simply because the increasing population itself eventually becomes of pensionable age and so requires a further increase in population to fund its retirement. This perpetuates until there is no space, no money or no natural resources (probably all three) to support future increases.
So the answer is to re-arrange our economy on a pragmatic basis that does not require continually increasing numbers.
Hi Judge - I have funded my own pension - I have been a member of various works pensions since I was 18 - I am now 44 and have accrued pension benefits in 4 schemes as well as the one I am now in - 26 years worth. I don't expect to receive any pension benefit from the state as I still have 20 odd years left before I will be able to claim a pension and I don't expect there to be any payout by then. The way things are going I will probably need to be 70 and it will be means tested!
My own scheme has also undergone a radical re-assessment which means that the benefit I thought I was going to get when I joined, I will no longer get. It just seems to be that those that failed to fund themselves get a better deal than those who have. I have worked since I was 17 (and part time while still at school) I have had two 5 month breaks to have my children. I have supported my family while my OH looked after our children and have apart from child benefit have never claimed a penny for either of us. I have been made redundant twice and temp-ed while looking for a job - I have moved to find employment.
Don't get me wrong, we have a very nice standard of living and we can afford to pay for our pensions, but it seems to me that the previous generation got all the good times in terms of final salary schemes, early retirements etc. and our generation wont get any of that and god knows what the next one will get.
My own scheme has also undergone a radical re-assessment which means that the benefit I thought I was going to get when I joined, I will no longer get. It just seems to be that those that failed to fund themselves get a better deal than those who have. I have worked since I was 17 (and part time while still at school) I have had two 5 month breaks to have my children. I have supported my family while my OH looked after our children and have apart from child benefit have never claimed a penny for either of us. I have been made redundant twice and temp-ed while looking for a job - I have moved to find employment.
Don't get me wrong, we have a very nice standard of living and we can afford to pay for our pensions, but it seems to me that the previous generation got all the good times in terms of final salary schemes, early retirements etc. and our generation wont get any of that and god knows what the next one will get.
