Chinese Fed Up with One-Child Policy
show comments
  • China will be down about 40MM women by 2020…. Historically this kind of mismatch always results in war… be interesting to watch.

    There are millions of women in nearby countries being treated as slaves and lower than dogs. China could go and get them, and whack the primary enemy of China’s markets at the same time. Kind of a twofer. It’s part of this: http://premiere.fastpencil.com/china-rising

  • a nissen

    No need to be so smug. Robert Zubrin is most lucid when he records the West’s longstanding interest and concerted actions to rid the world of lesser humans— its poor, with no end in sight.

  • Pincher Martin

    “This incident also serves to reinforce what has been known in China for quite some time: that the “One-Child” policy is an outdated relic of the Maoist era.”

    China’s extreme family planning policy is not “an outdated relic of the Maoist era”, but a feature of Deng’s initial modernization program that could only be implemented after Mao passed from the scene.

    Mao thought population growth helped China, and so he encouraged it. Only after Deng took over, were China’s modernists, some of whom were strongly influenced by pseudoscientific ideas current in the West, able to enforce such a rigid family planning program.

  • The Chinese elite have strived to create a society void of spiritual meaning. This is against human nature and will always fail. See Soviet and German history for more examples.

    What is amazing is how the left still strives for these same goals… turning everything over to the fair and just state, requiring the removal of God from the public square.

  • Stephen Houghton

    a nissen writes “No need to be so smug. Robert Zubrin is most lucid when he records the West’s longstanding interest and concerted actions to rid the world of lesser humans— its poor, with no end in sight.”

    All the facts show this to be nonsense. The fact is that over the past 300 years as capitalism has developed, 100s of millions of people who would have died in pre-capitalist times have been able to live and lead productive and interesting lives.

  • a nissen

    @5 Sorry, there being no way to correct a post, I had to live with “lesser humans —the poor.” The more accurate phrasing would have been “—the less ‘advanced’ and the poor.” Not all of the ‘less advanced’ were poor.

    The facts that matter are far more than the singe fact that the sheer number of people who have lived and live now has increased exponentially since “pre-capitlaist times.” Zubrin’s issue is with the decision-makers deciding who should procreate and live, and who is expendable.

    While not integral with capitalism, hand-in-hand has come the notion that this “uncontrolled” increase is numbers of people is a very bad thing—but like who should resort to transit, the other guy is the one who should pay the price.

    When the number of people practicing what they preach is deemed inadequate, capitalism has resorted to anti-human activities like hiring Planned Parenthood to undertake massive and brutal tricks in ‘less advanced’ places.

    On a much more mundane scale, one thing long known is when the conviction is great, the most effective route is force: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/06/what-really-matters-increasing-transit-ridership-rail-edition/2218/

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.