Well there are a few things China does good, this is one of them. (Mind you they also do a lot of bad.) On the opposite site you have Belgium: the more kids you have the less you exponentially (limited) have to pay, why ?!?
Belgium's population has a natural rate of change (i.e., excluding immigration) approaching zero (0.2% per year in this decade, and even lower in the previous one). Neighboring countries already have negative natural growth. Since population crashes also have bad effects on societies, it's not surprising that many European countries have adopted pro-child policies.
Belgium is not contributing in any significant way to world population growth. The 0.1M Belgians born each year are basically cancelled out by the 0.1M Belgians who die in the same period.
You say "China good, Belgium bad" but in fact China's population is growing more than twice as fast as Belgium's (0.5% per year in this decade; much higher in the previous one). In absolute terms, China contributes 300 times more to world population growth than Belgium (2012's natural population change was +6,690,000 in China, compared to +22,000 in Belgium). And that's without taking into account that "families are believed to be hiding tens of millions of babies to evade the one-child policy" in China according to the very article we're supposedly discussing.
And so I am pleased to present you with this award for The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word "Belgium" in a Serious Hacker News Comment.
Forced abortions, forced sterilizations, sex-selective abortion leading to a demographic disaster, promotion of eugenics, overcrowding orphanages, child abandonment, and infanticide.
It's complicated. The overall effect on the country -- significantly contributing to raising it out of poverty -- has all kinds of good effects. You also have to see it in connection with certain disastrous policies that came before it, such as the government's previous insistence that everyone have as many babies as possible, to swell the Red Army's ranks. China is still very much recovering from a few decades of insane misrule.
Try to talk to Chinese parents (especially mothers) who are affected by the policy. First, they are all, in my experience, willing to talk about it, even eager. Second, every one of them has said basically the same thing: It is a difficult policy but necessary, and beneficial for China overall.
Difficult: Most mothers' experience is related to not having the children they wanted to have. Abortions too. They often look like they are about to cry when they talk about it. It's definitely tough, and many are deeply scarred.
Beneficial: In an overcrowded country, the up side is obvious. (The mothers I have met are mostly middle or upper class, so it is a biased sample.) They connect the policy with the radical improvements in quality of life. Not just consumerist measures of quality of life, but also education and all that goes with it (that's another discussion, but it includes a happier home life due to improved equality and rights).
In terms of 'overcrowded'ness, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong all have greater population density than China[1], yet they all experienced income growth to first-world levels without need for any population control. What evidence is there that the one child policy 'significantly contributed' to raising China out of poverty?
Well the idea is good, but the execution creates a ton of problems of-course. Like the things you mentioned. This is why I mentioned "Mind you they also do a lot of bad." The notion of limiting population growth is good (imo) but the execution is poor.
How is it good for the world? We do not have a food problem, we do not use the majority of available arable land as it is. Is it good that advanced nations restrict births? Why not third world or worse? Whose lives are made better?
We should not use the entire planet, this would eliminate all woods and animals. Didn't say we had a food problem. Never said it's only good for advanced nations. Third world, sure, but account for the child mortality rate :(
Also please note that this should be the insensitive not forcing people, or taking any unfair rulings.
Who's lives are made better: everyones I guess (except those who enjoy big crowds). Expatiation of infrastructure? Not needed. Extra inflation of fossil fuels (while we still use them) due to more consumption, reduced well limited.Also helps on population (while still burning stuff, and using non degradable products like plastic). You will also be able to afford not living in a apartment easier since there is just more room for everyone. Ground prices reduce (there are cases where the house you build on the ground are as expensive as the ground itself !)
There are probably some advantages at population increase, but I can't think of any at the moment. But I'd like to hear them.
I'm more thinking along the lines, why do we need more population ? (Well of-course some might want to have more children and we should let them.)
God not the energy thing again. Just no. These two variables are not linked. Pollution is linked to polluting energy sources which remain polluting energy sources regardless of how many people there are.
If you want to fix the problem with polluting energy sources, then you fix polluting energy sources. There is precisely nothing about population which is relevant to energy policy in the current environment. The places of the world with the largest population growth are not at all defined by having aggressive infrastructure projects.
Surely the moral thing to do is develop non-polluting energy sources before bringing more people into the world? Fix the problem ourselves and not make it our kids' problem?
it's nice that in the ideal world in your head, these things aren't linked. maybe someday, that will be the real world, and then I'll be interested in it.
Which problem seems easier to solve? Preventing people from having children (but still relying entirely on coal powered energy, and requiring progressively more of it as various parts of the world develop and demand more energy for various reasons), or implementing the technological solutions - which we have today to allow us to acquire unlimited amounts of energy from non-CO2 and other types of pollution emitting sources?
Bearing in mind that, again, the largest energy consumers in the world - western nations - are all well into having low or negative population growth within their own borders.
you do realise that China has hugely imbalanced demographics and have artificially created their own social security crisis thanks to their their policies?
