Does India need a China-style one child only policy?

[gnosis92]

Curious.
India is rapidly catching up to China in population.

Personally, I think that prospective parents need a license to have children. Any parent who cannot care for children or abuse children may not be allowed to have children in the first place.

[Nialler]

Personally, I think that they should be consulted before you tear up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[premjan]

Under current political conditions, attempts to legislate birth control in India would simply result in a coup. As happened to Indira Gandhi in the past. Unfortunately or not, we prefer the state of nature to control over our reproductive choices. Also there is no fundamental way yet to decide who ought to be allowed to breed. Using the might is right formula will simply result in the might of the unwashed masses being pitted against the elites.

[Caine]

Personally, I think that prospective parents need a license to have children. Any parent who cannot care for children or abuse children may not be allowed to have children in the first place.

:eek:

Forced abortions for people without a license then?

It's a brave new world that some of the people round here seem to live in. Perhaps we could mechanise reproduction to ensure we have exactly the right amount of babies and allocate them to only good parents?

[Marc Higbie]

Hell I think every country should have some reproductive restrictions.

Liscensing is probably too much trouble, but limiting people to one child each would at least cut things back some.

www.vhemt.org is in line with my personal take on it.

Modern prenatal care without proper birth control is a recipe for malthusian repercussions if there ever was one.

Marc

[gnosis92]

Personally, I think that they should be consulted before you tear up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

:devil1:

China has a one-child only policy, and this was decades before I even existed.


Here's a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

everyone can read the entire article, I've chosen relevant quotes to this discussion:

"he Planned Birth policy (Simplified Chinese: 计划生育; Hanyu Pinyin: jìhu�* shēngyù) is the birth control policy of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC). It is known in Western society as the One-child Policy due to the required payment of a "social compensation fee" for couples having more than one child in urban areas. China's generally perceived pandemic overpopulation problem, with the associated social and environmental problems, stimulated the government to take strong unique measures in population planning policy. The policy is controversial both within and outside China due to allegations of extreme methods such as forced abortions and other human rights abuses by the local authorities."

"Gender-based birthrate disparity

The sex ratio at birth (between male and female births) in mainland China reached 117:100 in the year 2000, substantially higher than the natural baseline, which ranges between 103:100 and 107:100. It had risen from 108:100 in 1981 -- at the boundary of the natural baseline -- to 111:100 in 1990. [6] According to a report by the State Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30 million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability.[19] The correlation between the increase of sex ratio disparity on birth and the deployment of one child policy would appear to have been caused by the one-child policy."

[Octavia]

This is looking a lot more political than scientific at the moment. I'll give it a bit longer in case things change, but if it stays primarily political then it'll be moved to one of our bright and shiny new fora.

[premjan]

In order to make such restrictions effective around the world, you would need a substantially socialist worldwide government.

[Draconis]

I thought they sent the surplus here anyway.

[von_rick]

Under current political conditions, attempts to legislate birth control in India would simply result in a coup. As happened to Indira Gandhi in the past.Trying to get such a policy into effect will always result in some kind of a coup. But in a few years, if the population keeps on growing at this rate you will see the quality of life go downhill at an alarming rate. Most of the educated class is voluntaily going for No-Child, or One-child policy without the government telling them anything. But the people who keep the birth rate higher are the very people who can't make their ends meet, a.k.a. people who make their children work in sweatshops to buy the evening meal.

Its a no-brainer that you are taking away some rights from people by telling them how they should reproduce, but what about the rights of children once they are born? Lots of things aren't natural cause if they were kept natural the life expectancy in India would have been around 40 years. Lots of things are already being modulated by politics and human interference in natural processes. By enforcing one child policy you would be easing the amount of competition in the succeeding generations and also adding to their quality of life (which I doubt would be a reality given the amount of ecological damage that has taken place in India).

P.S: I think this discussion would do well in the political forum, but thats just my opinion.

[Philippe*]

I am engaged with an Indian female, her parents have six brothers and sisters each, they all have been "educated" academically speaking, and all of them still alive have no more than two children. I think that for the middle and upper class people in India tend to go to such models.
In Europe the fecundity rate is inferior to 2.1 children per woman which isn't sufficient to renew the generations if we don't count the arrival of immigrants.

Philippe

[Octavia]

Definitely more political than science. As regards to India this is more theory than event, so it's being moved to PE&ST.

[Draconis]

Now I think about it all the Indians I know don't have more than 2 siblings, but then none of them have direct roots in India itself.

[Rhea]

I thought India was already decreasing the rate of their increase due to propaganda efforts at voluntary reductions? Is that false?

Ideally, I would love to have childbearing require a license. The criteria would be that you have to apply. That's it. You don't have to qualify for any minimum anything, you just have to be doing it on purpose. But we're a long way from providing that medically.

[copernicus]

One big problem with the idea of population control in places like India is that families are part of the social welfare system. A large family is something like a business. It is a source of income and security, especially as one gets older.
Hence, males, as income earners, are more valued than females. With China's one-child policy, an almost inevitable result is a high rate of infanticide regarding female offspring. A male child is likely to be a greater source of financial security for aging parents.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One big problem with the idea of population control in places like India is that families are part of the social welfare system. A large family is something like a business. It is a source of income and security, especially as one gets older. Hence, males, as income earners, are more valued than females. With China's one-child policy, an almost inevitable result is a high rate of infanticide regarding female offspring. A male child is likely to be a greater source of financial security for aging parents.Some economists predicted that preferences would shift as females became scarce and therefore more valuable. Customs prooved to be stickier than they expected.

On a related topic: Democracy turns politics into a breeding contest. For this reason, I once suggested to a journalist friend that corporations coupd generate economic development better than could politically controlled economies. A sensible policy for a concerned government would be to grant to corporations control of some amount of territory, on condition that they house workers and provide medical care, and education for up to two children. The deal would be: have your kids and get spayed. Refuse to stop at two, and you have to leave the corporation. The incentives for the corporation are to minimize costs (children), and for parents are to stop at two (with guaranteed education, it's a deal). Politicians get tax revenue, avoid the costs of social insurance, and avoid the blame for forced sterilizations.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

1. Value is determined by supply and demand, therefore a world in which human life is precious is a world in which human life is scarce.

2. The world’s human population cannot grow without limit, therefore it will not grow without limit.

3. The world’s human population will stop growing when either:
3.1 the death rate rises to meet the birth rate or
3.2. the birth rate falls to meet the death rate.

4. The world’s human population will stop growing as a result of either:
4.1 non-human causes or
4.2 human agency.

5. Human agency is either:
5.1 Democratic or
5.2 Undemocratic.

6. Humans displace wilderness. Organisms (including humans) which can reproduce at high density have a selective advantage over organisms (including humans) which require lots of open space.

7. Voluntary programs for population control breed non-compliant individuals.

8. Human misery is like heat: in the absence of barriers, it flows so as to distribute itself equally.

Your choices are limited.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Curious.
India is rapidly catching up to China in population.

Personally, I think that prospective parents need a license to have children. Any parent who cannot care for children or abuse children may not be allowed to have children in the first place.

Indira Ghandi tried forced sterilization programs for men...

Assuming India implements such a law, how do you propose enforcing it?

[Pastor's Nightmare]

I thought India was already decreasing the rate of their increase due to propaganda efforts at voluntary reductions? Is that false?

Ideally, I would love to have childbearing require a license. The criteria would be that you have to apply. That's it. You don't have to qualify for any minimum anything, you just have to be doing it on purpose. But we're a long way from providing that medically.

Year/Average Children per woman
1955 5.97 children/woman
1960 5.92 children/woman
1970 5.69 children/woman
1980 4.83 children/woman
1990 4.15 children/woman
2000 3.45 children/woman
2007 2.81 children/woman
2015(projected) 2.46 children/woman
2034(projected) 2.00 children/woman
2050(projected) 1.85 children/woman

Currently, Indian women bear an average of 2.81 children. This does not take into account the high levels of female abortion at birth, which has created a lobsided male/female ratio. Hence, the effective birth rate is lower. Everything taken into account, the population growth rate is 1.6%. This is CIA world factbook info.

If you trust my calculations, population should peak in 2034 with the worst case scenario being 1.65 million. Most likely, it will be less. Probably somewhere between 1.5 million and 1.6 million.

A while ago, I did population projections for the world... I also did a resource and technology projection given global trends. I'll see if I can dig up the links to those posts.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Global population projections:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4305622#post4305622

[Pastor's Nightmare]

1. Value is determined by supply and demand, therefore a world in which human life is precious is a world in which human life is scarce.

2. The world’s human population cannot grow without limit, therefore it will not grow without limit.

3. The world’s human population will stop growing when either:
3.1 the death rate rises to meet the birth rate or
3.2. the birth rate falls to meet the death rate.

4. The world’s human population will stop growing as a result of either:
4.1 non-human causes or
4.2 human agency.

5. Human agency is either:
5.1 Democratic or
5.2 Undemocratic.

6. Humans displace wilderness. Organisms (including humans) which can reproduce at high density have a selective advantage over organisms (including humans) which require lots of open space.

7. Voluntary programs for population control breed non-compliant individuals.

8. Human misery is like heat: in the absence of barriers, it flows so as to distribute itself equally.

Your choices are limited.

You're worrying about nothing... this is how I see things panning out... here is one of my previous posts...

Bush also recognized the importance of nuclear fusion. Blair and Bush have advocated its benefits. Nuclear fusion will allow us to produce the same amount of energy from 1 gallon of sea water as we can produce from 5000 gallons of gasoline. This is one component of the solution to the world energy crisis. This will allow us to produce virtually unlimited electrical energy. The increased awareness as well as research funds will accelerate the development of nuclear fusion. Increased awareness will increase political support for nuclear fusion funding.
The next component of the solution to world energy is the production of dense and relatively safe renewable energy, which replaces gasoline, for fuel. The solution is E85. Currently, there are two limitations. The first limitation is the amount of arable land, which is available worldwide. The second limitation is energy. Currently, there are 57 million square miles of land, and 12 million square miles of arable land. However, it is important to keep in mind two things. First, non arable land can be converted into arable land. The current limitation is the availability of desalinated water and energy. As energy becomes available, desalinated water will become limitless. So will the capacity to ship it into the interior of continents. These systems will evolve with time. Second, the productivity of land can increase a thousandfold. Imagine glass skyscrapers growing crops by using hydroponics. Artificial light and reflectors can also be used. These two factors will allow the available land to produce sufficient food and E85 for billions of people and vehicles. Bush has taken the initiative to start the E85 production economy.
An additional component of the E85 production economy is automation and robotics. Robotics technology is experiencing rapid innovation. However, there is a lot, which needs to be done. Defense spending will accelerate the development of robotics. The next big wave of US defense spending will go into robotics both macro and micro. Bush seems to be laying the foundations for the political will to go in this direction. Remote controlled robots could help ease troop deaths. Currently, robots are used to deactivate mines. In the future, they can be used to build buildings, put out fires, and deal with insurgents in certain scenarios. There are limitations on what robotics technology can do, but robots can definitely be used to make military operation safer and help ease the manpower shortage of troops. Once the technology has been developed, robotics can be used to grow crops in an automated way... within glass skyscrapers using hydrophonics. Our ability to produce food and E85 will grow exponentially. We can unquestionably deal with the 7-8 billion people at the height of the earth's population. Afterwards, the population will start to decline. And, we'll reach some sort of steady state...

[Caine]

We are never going to be able to conquer the Milky Way with only a paltry 7 or 8 billion. We have 200 billion stars damnit, that's going to take some serious administration! Even when all that is under the human yoke, we have another 30 galaxies nearby ripe for invasion. If people have problems with overcrowding then that's just motivation to come up with faster than light technology.

[premjan]

I thought they sent the surplus here anyway.Probably only a small fraction thereof.
I am OK with democratically imposed reproduction restrictions, enforced at the village and district levels. As pointed out, middle class indians tend to one or two children (occasionally three).

[von_rick]

As pointed out, middle class indians tend to one or two children (occasionally three).Sometimes its not as simple as that either. Once you scan the fertility rates vis a vis economic status, you will see that within the middle class itself there are tremendous fluctuations based on the beliefs of people. Muslims in particular tend to have far more children than the national average, rough estimates put that number at 4.2 children born per Muslim woman.

Earlier when I mentioned the middle class Indians voluntarily having lesser children, I was talking about the average trend - based on the numbers. The lowering of birth rate wouldn't be a sustained process until government implements some kind of a workable plan, like something based on economic benefits for people with one child or no child, and higher taxes on people with 2 or more children.

[copernicus]

Earlier when I mentioned the middle class Indians voluntarily having lesser children, I was talking about the average trend - based on the numbers. The lowering of birth rate wouldn't be a sustained process until government implements some kind of a workable plan, like something based on economic benefits for people with one child or no child, and higher taxes on people with 2 or more children.

This can get pretty messy. The problem with high taxes is that it penalizes the children for the sins of the parents. Rich parents would pay the tax, and the poor ones would find ways to subsist. I think that the only sustainable long run solution is to build the middle class. Although there are exceptions, wealthier parents do not see large families as an economic advantage, and they don't have the strong need for all those children to go to work for them around the house as they are growing up and as a social security system in old age.

Come to think of it, maybe a general tax could be raised to provide economic benefits and social privileges that would diminish as the family grew in size. The idea would be to provide a carrot, not a stick.

[von_rick]

I should have worded it properly. I meant tax benfits for people who have lesser children, not (necessarily) higher taxes on people with more children. I know it would be hard for children though its no fault of their, but if its a huge famiy (3 or more), the quality of life for that child wouldn't be the same had there been fewer children in the household.

The tax system I am thinking of is opposite of what they have in the US, where singles pay highest tax (meaning, you get no incentive by being single).

[premjan]

As pointed out, middle class indians tend to one or two children (occasionally three).Sometimes its not as simple as that either. Once you scan the fertility rates vis a vis economic status, you will see that within the middle class itself there are tremendous fluctuations based on the beliefs of people. Muslims in particular tend to have far more children than the national average, rough estimates put that number at 4.2 children born per Muslim woman.
A lot of Muslims also have the same 1-2 kids per couple. Do you have some figures handy to show the difference?

[premjan]

del

[von_rick]

The data from 2001 with a difference calculated over 10 year period ('91-2001) gives you numbers in the rough estimate of what I mentioned

religious Breakdown of Indian Population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Religious_breakdown)