digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at abcnews.go.com

China Drops 1-Child Rule for Quake Victims

abcnews.go.com — Chinese officials announced Monday that the country's strict one-child policy will make some exceptions for certain families affected by the devastating earthquake two weeks ago.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MikeonTV, on 05/27/2008, -39/+31How noble of China to give (some) its people one of their rights back.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/27/2008, -11/+53Bringing many babies into this world that you cannot support, is not a "right".
      • Tangaroa, on 05/27/2008, -8/+6[ Environmentalism vs. Sexual Freedom ]

        Round one. Fight!
        • RonniSR, on 05/27/2008, -1/+11[ Common sense vs. Senseless comment ]

          10, 9, 8... Knockout.
        • Murdats, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9they can be as sexually free as they want, as long as they dont reproduce more then once.
        • kamisamaji, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6It's not like they can't choose to have another baby: they just get taxed a lot...
        • card51short, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1"It's not like they can't choose to have another baby: they just get taxed a lot..."

          No it's not taxes that they get.
          I just can't believe the government is telling people they can't have babies and Americans here on this board are saying it's a good thing.
      • jspegele, on 05/27/2008, -3/+2You realize the rule also applies to those who could potentially support more than 1 child right?
      • sublingo, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5Sorry, like it or dislike it, good or bad financial sense, making babies is a most fundamental and basic human right.
        • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1I agree. The popular sentiments on this issue are completely backwards. We should invent and innovate out of problems, all problems, including population problems. We should not trim human population like it's a shrub. The 'population control' crowd are proponents of halting human development and evolution. They are suggesting human society not develop any further and are proponents of coercing people not to have children. This amount to eugenics because it is the poor and middle class that must abide. What kind of egos decide *they* have the answer to all problems and it is to prevent *someone else* from procreating. Halting adaptation = death for the species.
    • Shingyboy, on 05/27/2008, -5/+29You have to realize that because they are a poor country with such a huge population, if they kept having too many babies that would mean even more children and families would be starving then currently so they have choice unless they risk having this result.
      • n0c0ntr0l, on 05/27/2008, -3/+3I don't know about poor, as an economic power they'll soon be bigger than the usa.
        • D4r7h3v1l, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7Yea, because GDP is clearly a better indicator of how well off the average Chinese person is than looking at their actual quality of life...
        • Hangly, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5The cities on the coast have money. The interior is very third-world.
      • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3Let them make the decision to procreate or not. Starvation may be the price of a poor decision, but they may also adapt and survive, finding new ways to feed people due to necessity.

        The idealogical 'box sets' American culture provides are so ridiculous. There is a large group of people that reject religion in favor of 'evolution', yet this same group of people would prefer to halt natural selection in China. These two concepts occur side by side in the 'I'm a liberal' box set of ideas provided by the media. Even worse, these same people claim to be against 'social controls' like prohibiting gays to marry. The other box set "I'm a conservative" is just as screwed up.

        As a citizen of the US you have to select your political views like you select your cable package.
        • ramiro, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1It is like that everywhere.

          "Social controls" is not a valid criteria because it just determines coherence.

          What determines political views are higher values (actual higher values in the case of conservatives and supposedly higher values in the case of liberals).
    • cdavaz, on 05/27/2008, -5/+9Caution: Think before opening mouth.
    • hydehk, on 05/27/2008, -11/+6omg thats so retarded to say, you know what will happen when China don't apply 1-child rule??
      China is already populated, if they grew even more bigger there will not be enough food and oil for the world.
      • jspegele, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3wow, that was all over the place you realize what happens when you try to type more than 1 more biggerer thought at the same time there is not enough oil for the world right??
        • card51short, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2but don't americans use way more food and oil than the average chinese?
          ONE CHILD POLICY FOR AMERICA! YAY! IT'S FOR THE KIDS!!!

          You guys are scary man....
    • omgbanana, on 05/27/2008, -4/+3You believe that a Chinese family should have 10 children that cannot be provided education or health care rather than 1 child who can be supported? Just so they can say they are "more free"?

      Down here in Appalachia.. Are we being oppressed by the media blitz to conserve water and fines for excessive lawn watering? Is it my right to use 10 gallons of water when I really only need 1?
    • Hangly, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3FYI, if you can pay the extra fees you can have as many Chinese kids as you want.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Only the very rich can afford those fees.
      • alphavision, on 05/31/2008, -0/+0Isn't the fee proportional to their monthly salary? Something crazy like 70%.
    • ramiro, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4It is incredible that this guy is being dugg down just because he's telling the truth. It is nobody's business how many children you decide to have.

      China is a dictatorship, you bunch of assmorons!

      Why don't you go freaking live there if you endorse their government and their totalitarian policies?
      • mistuhwang, on 05/27/2008, -3/+0I expect you not to whine, bitch and moan about food, gas and resource prices in the future.
        • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3The market will demand new forms of energy an methods of growing food. You are assuming the US will not produce it's own resources and that the current arrangement of the US being a consumer nation will remain, which it won't. The weakness of our currency will see to it that we begin producing.
        • EtherGnat, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Just because the market demands doesn't mean the market will receive. There are limits to how much food and energy we can develop. China is barely managing to support its population now. Without the OCPF policy it is estimated they would have had another 300-400 million people.

          I don't know if China's policy is the best way to do it, but rampant population growth affects *everybody* by making resources more scarce.
        • card51short, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2wouldn't more people = more workers = more food?
        • EtherGnat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Only if you have more land + more tractors + more fertilizer etc.

          China would need a chunk of farm land the size of Arizona to feed an additional 300 million people, which is the low end for how many more people they'd have now without the one child per family regulation.
  • dleesgeetar, on 05/27/2008, -0/+23so it looks like China is making a few exceptions (for example allowing disabled children to not count as the one child) but not completely dropping the policy
    • hauntedchippy, on 05/27/2008, -4/+18It's an inevitable policy if the human population will continue to insist on growing beyond the capacity of Earth to sustain them. Better get used to the idea.
      • blast_flame, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6At least it's better that increasing/maintaining the death rate.
      • mcsenget, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1I guess we better read "The Giver" and get used to some other ideas now, too.
    • Hangly, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4The one-child policy had several loopholes. Ethnic minorities don't have to abide by it, and since the 80's people with money don't either. You can "buy" the right to a second child by paying a tax.

      China had its green revolution in the 90's and is now a net food exporter. Population isn't the problem it used to be.
      • kingmanic, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2The way it works is the government will pay the cost of your childs education and supply public services if it is a single child. If you have more then one you forgo these benefits. Thus practically it means the upper middle class and the rich don't care. They don't do anything to force you not to have a second kid and you aren't buying anything you're just footing the whole bill for their education, public services such as vaccinations and paying a bit extra tax. If you are a single child born after the policy took effect you are allowed more.

        Second hand account, many of my cousins still live there and were the children under this policy. About half of my aunts and uncles opted to have more then one and just foot the bill.
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1How do you explain the tax office that was burned to the ground for demanding extra fees from parents who had a second child? They were not talking education fees, but the punishment fees for having more than one child.
  • 9bpm9, on 05/27/2008, -7/+21Makes sense. Glad to see the Chinese government doing something like this.
  • promoe, on 05/27/2008, -4/+20Finally some good news, and yes, it makes sense.
  • cdigioia, on 05/27/2008, -11/+2From the description: "for CERTAIN families affected by the devastating earthquake" - sounds so confrontational, only CERTAIN families, those assholes.

    However, if you read the article - the policy "exempts families with a child killed, severely injured or disabled in the country's devastating earthquake"

    So everyone whose child was directly affected in any substantial way.
    • Akaricloud, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Oh.. I'm sorry. Did the Chinese government who changed the rule write this article? No, the ABC did. Your acting like the Chinese Government has somehow tricked you.

      Though how this affects you in any way at all I have no idea.
      • cdigioia, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1No, I'm acting like the person who wrote the Digg description tried to mislead us.

        The Digg description makes the Chinese government's decision sound less positive than it is. Re-read my post - how were you confused? Did I phrase it poorly?

        And no it doesn't affect me, nor does it affect you I imagine, nor do most of these articles affect most Digg users. What is your point?
  • anshuman, on 05/27/2008, -5/+17ah. the goverment showing some heart for people and not really doing it for some profit. what a nice change in news.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1I doubt it is 'heart'. People are a renewable resource to all governments.
  • mazzomop, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1I'm glad they made that policy for adoption.
    • Hangly, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3We looked into adopting one of the kids orphaned by the quake.

      Wouldn't you know it, the phone line is ALWAYS busy.
  • Haoie, on 05/27/2008, -1/+13It'd be great too, if the parents who lost children in the horrible quake, could adopt kids who were unfortunately orphaned.
  • eavesdrop, on 05/27/2008, -25/+7"The announcement says that if a child born illegally was killed in the quake, the parents will no longer have to pay fines for that child — but the previously paid fines won't be refunded."

    ------ a child is born illegally? Chinese patriotism is blind, when the government fines you and your wife for creating a product of love.
    • mickstephenson, on 05/27/2008, -2/+15Rights are all very well and good, until over population means you strip the entire Earth of the resources you need to sustain your population, and everyone dies horrible violent deaths in wars over resources. We don't want the Earth to become a scaled up Easter Island, tough decisions like this are going to be inevitable at some point.
      • hauntedchippy, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6And what about the rights of everyone else to food? If people are allowed to breed like bacteria then it's not long before the population is unsustainable. It's common sense no matter how much you don't like to hear it.
        • mickstephenson, on 05/27/2008, -2/+4Did you mean to reply to my comment? because it seems you are just parroting what I said, in a less eloquent manner.
        • hauntedchippy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Oh bugger so I did. Intended for OP, I failed the reply button test.
        • mickstephenson, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Fair enough. ;)
    • cdigioia, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8Actually, babies are a product of sex.

      No lie, I've met many loving couples who don't make babies, and many people who aren't in love yet managed to procreate.
  • archerOFloaf, on 05/27/2008, -13/+2Great more mouths to feed. Que the carpet bombings of pop-tarts and peanut butter. Don't worry world the U.S. will feed you.
    • cdigioia, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1What are you talking about?
    • Akaricloud, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1gotta agree with CDigio.

      What ARE you talking about? Did you get the wrong article?
  • Totz83, on 05/27/2008, -10/+4China troubles me, I don't hate it or anything but.. yeah. something not quite right about that place....
    *hides
    • hauntedchippy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8Irrational, unexplainable fear or dislike for a region or people.
      Well done, thats called xenophobia.
      • Totz83, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2It's fairly well explainable actually, the Chinese government are systematically abusing its peoples right to freedom, it censors anything that could cause doubt and uses an iron fist to put down anyone that could cause them a problem
        • hauntedchippy, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Now that is a fair criticism. But then it's not China that troubles you, it is their government. An important difference
    • mindy624, on 05/27/2008, -5/+2it should trouble anyone with any kind of sense of decency. No government has a right to regulating family. It's just wrong that people get penalized for having children..ever.

      And it's not necessary. Look at Europe...for all of you who promote zero population, Europe is not only at zero population, but loosing population even with immigration. Why?
      Because people are choosing to limit family size on their own, and not being forced.

      I don't personally agree with limiting family size as a unilateral policy, but it should be something people decide without government pressure.

      Chinas policy is inhumane and counter productive.
      Because of their policy,girls are more often abandoned or killed in abortion, so they have more 25 percent more males then females now.

      Government should stick to keeping the general peace, building roads, schools and infrastructure but leave families alone.
      mindy
  • sjmulder, on 05/27/2008, -9/+2China Drops 1-Child Rule for Quake Victims
    One-Way Mission to Mars: US Soldiers Will Go
  • sup3rc0w, on 05/27/2008, -29/+11Message from the Chinese government:
    /advertising voiceover voice on
    Lost a Kid in the Quake? Did little Ling Ling loose her leg? . No fear, now you can make a brand new one, free of charge – and you will enjoy sex better”
    Your Government loves you
    /advertising voiceover voice off
    • QueensGangsta, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Your a sick guy.
    • jaytea90, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4I wish i could be one of those guys that say "I registered just to bury you", unfortunately i'll just have to stick to only burying you
    • sup3rc0w, on 05/27/2008, -3/+2I take it you guys do not understand sarcasm?
      It's a form of humour , stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing (thank you wikipedia).

      I take it you guys are from the U.S of *****'-A? and do not understand such humour?

      OK OK, so that the Yanks can understand what I meant, I shall put it in a way you would understand.
      "Up yours Chinese government, you ***** douchebags"

      That better?
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1***** off.
      • Archeologist, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Oooo I understand sarcasm now. Let me try... You're so smart!
      • QueensGangsta, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1You fail to understand, just because your being sarcastic doesn't make you
        funny.
    • mabhatter, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1it makes economic sense. After all, 2 parents with 1 child is too much negative population growth. The only reason it works is so much of China is still poor and outside the "Party" that the outskirts provide the extra population for growth. The children in that area are dead they didn't grow up. They need to replace them to be future workers and to take care of their parents. There's nothing "nice" about it, just the numbers on somebody's desk that make sense.

      On the other hand, most western cultures have no children at all. Only about 25% of households in the US have children and the average is 2.5 kids per house. Considering there are people with 3+ kids that means the most common number is one... all willingly simply because we value things and social standing to get more things over people. Japan has negative severe negative growth because of the intense competition to be the "best" so they don't have siblings so they don't have to pay for more than 1 school, and can parents get back to work as soon as possible. The US has negative "native" growth, if it wasn't for all the immigrants (illegal and legal) we'd be about like Japan. Capitalists are much more effective at limiting population than Communists ever were.
  • jjive, on 05/27/2008, -17/+4Oh yeah, more freaky hot Communist Chinese sex.
    That's right, me love you long time.
  • FUR10N, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6I didn't expect China to do that, but it does sound like good news (even though there population is still out of control)
    • Hangly, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Here and I thought China was the only country trying to get their population under control in the first place.
    • theducks, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1You didn't expect it? I guess you don't understand the reasons behind the one-child policy, but it is to control resource contention.

      If the one child is no longer consuming resources, or a viable future member of society, or you and your partner are only children, you get to have another one.
  • Jebra, on 05/27/2008, -4/+9These comments are extremely disappointing. Tens of thousands of people have lost their children. PR or not, this is a chance for families to move forward from this tragedy when they are ready. Too many times on Digg, I feel like people don't look past the government to the innocent populace who can't do anything about their situation.
  • HenvY, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9How is the one child rule enforced, anyway?
    • Jebra, on 05/27/2008, -12/+5Fines, and in the extreme, forced abortions.
      • PPCG4, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6Nice try. They are fined and taxed.
        • ciaran036, on 05/27/2008, -4/+3what are you talking about? For a period a while ago tens of thousands of forced abortions were carried out and forced sterilisations.
      • Hangly, on 05/27/2008, -1/+10Forced abortions were true in some cases before the 1980's. Not anymore though.

        Also, some of the really poor uneducated people enforce it themselves...
        My wife (who is Chinese, and a younger sibling herself, by the way) told me when she was little she found a baby's head out in a field.

        That's why hospitals in China are prohibited by law from telling couples the sex of their child before it's born. Some people will rush out and abort a baby if they find out its a girl.
        • Jebra, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4It still exists. Do a news search and there are still instances of it happening. And by the way, my family is Chinese who came from a poor rural background, which is why I take an interest in the human rights practices going on in the country.
        • mindy624, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7Forced abortions DO still happen. Don't try carrying the party line here..it doesn't work.
          During the 90's the Clinton Administration turned a group of pregnant women back to china who were seeking asylum to save their children.
          They were forcibly aborted upon returning to china.

          http://www.womenscommission.org/pdf/liberty.pdf

          NPR did a story on Forced abortions just last year. Business for the abortionist is thriving in china.

          mindy
    • rblancarte, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Fines, and children beyond the second don't have some of the perks (free education, etc).
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/27/2008, -5/+2Forced abortion, forced sterilization, parents tell midwives to kill the infant girls upon birth or parents abandon female or ill children. People who give birth to a second child can be given a bill they can never pay in fees. Ever hear of the labor camps?
  • GrodyChamp, on 05/27/2008, -14/+4How nice of the commies
  • rentmitchum, on 05/27/2008, -9/+1Did anyone else see on that page a link to "Indiana Jones bares his chest" with a pic of Harrison Ford without a shirt? Did any of you, like me, think of clicking it for something about the movies, then realize if you clicked it you'd be gay?
  • mcsenget, on 05/27/2008, -3/+5What if they already sterilized the parents?
    • mindy624, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Thats their 'tuff luck' then.
      Who knows. Maybe they'll allow them to adopt the children who were orphaned.

      I feel so sorry for the Chinese people.
      Communism is so creepy.
      mindy
    • antonycao, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Who do you mean by "they"?
      According to my over 20-year experience in China, no one around me was forced to have a tube-cutting operation.You can do it voluntarily and you have to PAY for such operations.
  • amelia18, on 05/27/2008, -1/+0good news...
  • mindy624, on 05/27/2008, -3/+7Forced abortions DO still happen. Don't try carrying the party line here..it doesn't work.
    During the 90's the Clinton Administration turned a group of pregnant women back to china who were seeking asylum to save their children.
    They were forcibly aborted upon returning to china.

    http://www.womenscommission.org/pdf/liberty.pdf

    NPR did a story on Forced abortions just last year. Business for the abortionist is thriving in china.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Thanks for posting that.

      It is fortunate for the US government that many of its citizens embrace eugenics of their own free will. Come to think of it, it is fortunate for everyone except for the children who will not be born. Those who value convenience over the biological imperative will be slowly weeded out of the population, and over time those with discipline and values will be rewarded by forming a majority. The Chinese that have children despite the pressure from their government not to are heroes and we all benefit from their being.
    • gaoshan, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4It has happened but it is not policy. Those involved in the forced abrotions in the NPR story were prosecuted by the Chinese government. So you know I'm not just making this up:
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china ...

      The truth of the situation is, like so much of what goes on in China, very complex. Yes forced abortions have occurred, no they are not national policy. Yes officials have been involved but in many cases those officials end up in trouble for that involvement. Forced abortions were more common 10 and 20 years ago but China's constant evolution and modernization means that today they are much less common and more frequently prosecuted as the wrong acts they are.


  • itstodd, on 05/27/2008, -6/+4Reading about people commenting on how nice it was for the Chinese government to allow this kills me. Do you idiots know how moronic you are? Someone allowing you not to kill your unborn child is nice? Jesus.....
    • sqhihi, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4you idiot... 1-child policy has nothing to do with killing any unborn child. there're protections so that women don't get pregnant. and if they get pregnant accidentally, the family can pay money to have the baby born.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Wrong. The woman can be forced by the government or even her company to a forced abortion. People there make $90 a year, they certainly cannot afford the fees/fines to have a second child. Women are often sterilized without consent after giving birth to a child. It has everything to do with killing unborn and newborn children.
        • antonycao, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1An annual income of $90 a year? Then they can afford all the Toyata and GM cars and junk food from McDonald's and KFC? You live in your own little bubble, don't ya?

          There are 1.3 billioin people in China and I am sure that some of them were forced to abort their second or third babies. But it is not written in the policy. It is more of a cruel way of carrying out the policy. Blame the local officials or whatever, but the majority of people can have a second baby if they want. If you read the stories of earthquake closely, you'll find that many couples lost two children instead of one. And in the cities, people just simply can't afford two babies...
    • Andrwmorph, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1Yeah the Chinese government definitely forces abortions on couples with a child that get pregnant. How else are they going to make General Tso's Chicken?
      • antonycao, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1General Tso's chicken is not a popular cuisine in China. I actually have never heard of it before I came to the US.

        So, how do you make your General Tso's Chicken in the States?
  • OrlMtgPro, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2the loss of a loved one isn't something to be taken lightly [in any language]... but the gov't 'allowing' people to have children [or child as the case may be]?? Isn't it like passing out the 'right' like passing out food stamps? Maybe the silver lining is that this tragedy has brought light to the subject...

    I can;t be the only one that feels this way...
    • Opiate, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2You must be new.. this is China, don't act so surprised.
    • jtoon, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Abortion is a problem but over population is a much bigger one. It's the root cause of many evils on earth, war and hunger for example.

      There's a way around it, maybe you should write to your local representative and have him/her write a bill to open the US border for Chinese immigrants.
  • onClipEvent, on 05/27/2008, -2/+2it would be more [environmentally/morally] responsible for the parents to adopt all the new orphans created by the quake than to create even more people.
  • MozzieTS, on 05/27/2008, -5/+4the right to resproduce is a human right you ron paulian *****.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Huh? I gotta hear the thought process behind that statement. Mind explaining it?
  • OzzieAlThor, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Almost all the negative digg's are one's suggesting the government shouldn't tell you how many kids to have or not. Bet you most of the people that clicked the down thumb are Pro Choice. Hypocricy = WIN on the internet.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Isn't it funny how these people that value the freedom to 'choose' are for the government taking it away with policy. The fact of the matter the #1 value for these people is their personal convenience. They want to terminate a pregnancy if it "cramps their 'style" and they want the government to tell everyone else they can't have any kids because (this is what I hear most frequently) there's not enough resources to go around.

      Invention, innovation and adaptation are not options to these people. In addition, they claim to embrace evolution, however they don't want to evolve. They want humanity to be trimmed like a shrub so they can live the way they want.

      I'm not religious, a fact which is unbelievable to these people, because it doesn't make sense that someone can shun religion and not subscribe their ideological package.
      • jtoon, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1It's easy to say "Invention, innovation and adaptation", but how long has the world fought world hunger and still no end in sight? Until a real solution is derived, it'll have to do. Can you imagine sharing your home(property) with 4 other family? How much problem would that create?
        • mabhatter, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1resources for growing food hasn't been a problem for 30 years. The problem is that having extra food resources is tremendous power... power that petty dictators and military leaders would rather people in their charge would rather let starve than give up. The USA/Americas have more than enough food to feed all of Africa quite easily. Getting it past the dictators is the hard part. It destroys their power base of starving people they can push around and some people figure we would just become the new "pushers"... look how our capitalist businesses behave (not pretty) when given power of life and death over local populations. In short, capitalism is all about being able to take advantage of somebody else desperate for a little bit of profit. Remove the desperate people and there's no more profit.. even China has learned this lesson that the workers can never be allowed to be "happy".
  • 883XL, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Minorities are also exempt from the one child rule
  • Rizzob23, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6Why do people think that having children is a right? In a world bursting at the seams with 6.5 billion and counting, it seems downright foolish to think that it is one's birthright to reproduce ad infinitum. All the problems we have with resource depletion and environmental destruction can be accounted for by overpopulation. Every new child brings us one step closer to an inevitable Malthusian catastrophe.
    I'm glad the PRC is letting those who lost what may have been their only child to have another, but on the whole I agree with their policy. People are like any other species in that they will blindly reproduce until some disaster culls the population. The Earth simply can't support an ever increasing human population.
    Every day, another 250,000 hungry mouths are added to the world. That is a scary number. I'm usually pretty libertarian, but I do support population laws. If we are unable to control our numbers, mother nature will do so on our behalf, and it will be a terrible, terrible thing.
    • OzzieAlThor, on 05/27/2008, -5/+2If it's not a right, why should I let a bunch of random people who have never met me, don't know anything about me and only seem me as a statistic decide what how many kids I have?

      Are You Pro Choice? If you are, that suggest you don't think the governement should decide what a woman does with her body. But apparently only in America.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3Malthus assumed a static level of technology.

      What makes you think you have a right to live then? What kind of libertarian thinks the government should have power over the individual's right to procreation?

      Mother nature will control our numbers no matter what.
    • Rizzob23, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2While Malthus did not account for advances in technology, his arguement remains valid. I am aware of the "Green Revolution" and its huge contribution to world food supplies. Ask yourself, has technology eliminated the possibility of the catastrophe, or merely postponed it? The people who would have died without the food technology provides have responded by having even more children.
      We can't rely on technology to prevent a future catastrophe. Its seems very foolish to me to assume that technological advances, having saved us in the past, will continue to do so in the future. If you read about global warming, resource depletion, and conservation you will see a mounting body of evidence that the Earth has a limited carrying capacity, and we may be approaching that limit rapidly.
      As for my right to live, I think that right is valid. There is a difference between someone who already lives, and some hypothetical person who may exist in the future. My whole point is that if those of us currently alive can't decide upon a sustainable reproduction strategy, then we and our future children will be doomed the merciless culling of mother nature. The warning signs are there.
      Its easy to criticize my view on the grounds of personal choice. "Why should you or the government tell me how many kids I may have?" they say. Procreation is widely viewed as a fundamental right, and surprisingly also as a "selfless" act. I would ask people to consider whether it is selfless, or indeed the ultimate act of selfishness, the passing of one's own personal genes. ( Why should I only have as many children as YOU (society) claim are sustainable? ) As you pointed out, mother nature certainly will control our numbers no matter what.
      I am libertarian on issues that are entirely personal, but uncontrolled procreation has an effect on everyone's ability to survive. I hope attitudes will change before it is too late.
      • temjrpgh, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1If we stop adapting we will die sooner than later. Adaptation = Technology. At some point our environment is going to change if we survive long enough, this is a fact that we can't change. We're not going to grow gills, but we (some of us, anyway) will develop technologies that allow us to survive in whatever environment we find ourselves in. We may leave this environment, or we may create a new environment. None of this is possible if we kill ourselves off.

        Earth does have a limited capacity, at least on it's surface, and space is limitless. What you are suggesting is the avoidance of adaptation. You've succumbed to propaganda designed to build consent for eugenic policies and programs. This consent, and willful abortion for mere convenience, are an evolutionary filter we are passing through. Millions of children have not been born to the weak minded as a result. Perhaps it is for the best.

        I have a proposition for you. You serve as an example to the rest of us and refrain from procreation. I'll have many children. My descendants will erect a statue to you thanking for sending the genetic disposition for subservience to the evolutionary /dev/null.

        I have a name for libertarian's such as yourself, "Rockefeller Libertarians".
        • Rizzob23, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Where did I suggest an avoidance to adaptation? A concerted effort to have less children is an adaptation to the limits of our environment.
          Also, where did I suggest that we kill ourselves off? There is a difference between population reduction and extinction. I think that humans should continue to have children, but only at a sustainable rate. I do not think that living people should be killed off. The answer to the population problem lies in controlling the birth rate.
          Space is limitless, but you must be aware that any sort of interstellar travel is a technological pipe dream, and likely will remain so for a very long time. We have yet to discover even a single planet capable of supporting human life, and even if we did tomorrow, the challenges involved in colonizing that planet would be long term. There would still be billions of people left to tough it out on Earth, and their survival would depend on a sustainable population.
          I assume that you feel people should be able to have as many children as they want. 6.5 billion today becomes 10 billion tomorrow, the 20 billion, and so on. Surely you can see that exponetial population growth will, at some undetermined point, cause a crisis.
          Finally, I am not a libertarian. I have libertarian views on some issues, but not others. I do not present myself as a libertarian. I plan not to have any children, for I believe that doing so would be an act of selfishness. I could not in good conciousness force someone into existance when I believe his or her long term chances of success and survival are so uncertain.
          Since you do recognize that the Earth can only support so large a human population, what should be done to ensure that our numbers remain sustainable? Should we continue to reproduce at will? In the event of a population catastrophe, would we not regret our lack of restraint? Under the threat of famine and a slow, painful death, would we find consolation in the knowledge that at least the government couldn't tell us how many children we could have?
    • Post2me, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0As you know the ice caps are melting, therefore the water level rises and the land will become submerged thus reducing living space and increasing the problem of over population.
  • chembro84, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6You are no Libertarian if you even think for a second that the government should be able to determine whether or not it's OK for you to have kids.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1That kid is confused. That claim is outrageous. "I'm a libertarian that doesn't believe in personal freedom".
    • Rizzob23, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I said "I'm usually pretty libertarian," not "I am a libertarian." Someone here is confused, and it is not me. Believe what you want, say what you want, smoke what you want, travel where you want. Do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause hardship to someone else. Unrestrained population growth will cause future hardship for billions of people. We should not all be made to suffer because legions of selfish breeders desire more than one or two children.
      An old PRC slogan goes "one is good, two is okay and three is too many." I do not like the government of the PRC for many reasons, but I do recognize these words to the wise.
  • 007kz, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Something POSITIVE about the Chinese government on DIGG?

    I think Hell just froze over.
  • siktath, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Dance, Puppets. DANCE!
  • robthom, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3thats a rule america needed 30 years ago! the chinese are smarter than us.
    • uminatsu, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1It won't be necessary for America to adopt a similar rule because there is no imminent danger of overpopulation yet.

      The rule is a drastic measure and should be only applied when absolutely necessary. Eventually within a few decades China will drop the rule, after the population shrinks to about half a billion or so, because you need at least two kids per family to sustain the population.
    • theducks, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1America had it 80 years ago, but they applied it selectively, to stupid and poor people, and blacks.. and then the Nazis started doing it, so it got a bad name.

      In retrospect, everyone has rights, not just smart people.
    • Post2me, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Finally some who has realized that americans are idiots.
  • uminatsu, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Had China not enforced the one-child policy since 1980, a lot more children would have been killed in this earthquake.

    Without effective population planning, families would have raised 2~3 kids on average. Not only would there be a lot more kids (likely double or triple the current number) in the quake area, but the available per-capita government budget for education would likely be reduced to a half or less. That could either mean a high rate of iliteracy, or a lot of crappily constructed schools that easily collapse to rubbles in a 7.8 earthquake...
  • tinfoilhatboy, on 05/27/2008, -4/+0oh how nice.. the goverment will ALLOW you to ave more than one child. ***** police state
  • LoJack, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3The world owes China a big thanks for helping with the potential population crisis.
  • alextsnet, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1China BOGO special: Bu(r)y one, get one free.
  • Funiculy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0Makes sense, China as it becoming the powerful country in the world , It does try it`s best to present a more humanity appearance .
  • antonycao, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3I just read a piece of news saying that Bush blames China and India for consuming all the food...And there is also fears that China consumes too much oil that otherwise can be used by Americans.
    China started this policy few decades ago to avoid overpoluation and food crisis for the rest of the world, and now China is being blamed for this policy?

    What on earth do you want? A country with 2 billion people and consuming no food and energy??? Greedy people.
    • Post2me, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1What the hell its not like america doesn't eat. And why always america america america its not the only country in the world. what about the rest of the world who use oil and food?
  • Ultage, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0So before if your kid at an early age from an accident, your genetics stopped there? I don't see how everyone is so happy when they really aren't changing the rule at all. They had one kid before, and they'll have one kid now.
  • Rizzob23, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1We are all selfish by nature. Procreation, when unrestrained, is the ultimate act of selfishness.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.