One Child Policy Update

|

One Child Policy

Back in December, Financial Post editor-at-large Diane Francis wrote a column in which she forthrightly declared:

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days….

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy.

So what does government control of family sizes look like? Earlier this week, the Times (London) reported:

Doctors in southern China are working around the clock to fulfil a government goal to sterilise — by force if necessary — almost 10,000 men and women who have violated birth control policies. Family planning authorities are so determined to stop couples from producing more children than the regulations allow that they are detaining the relatives of those who resist.

About 1,300 people are being held in cramped conditions in towns across Puning county, in Guangdong Province, as officials try to put pressure on couples who have illegal children to come forward for sterilisation.

The 20-day campaign, which was launched on April 7, aims to complete 9,559 sterilisations in Puning, which, with a population of 2.24 million, is the most populous county in the province.

A doctor in Daba village said that his team was working flat out, beginning sterilisations every day at 8am and working straight through until 4am the following day.

Instead of tying tubes or snipping vas deferens, it turns out that there is something constructive that governments can do to reduce population growth—establish economic freedom. As I reported in my column, "The Invisible Hand of Population Control":

In 2002, Seth Norton, a business economics professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, published a remarkably interesting study on the inverse relationship between prosperity and fertility. Norton compared fertility rates of over 100 countries with their index rankings for economic freedom and another index for the rule of law. "Fertility rate is highest for those countries that have little economic freedom and little respect for the rule of law," wrote Norton. "The relationship is a powerful one. Fertility rates are more than twice as high in countries with low levels of economic freedom and the rule of law compared to countries with high levels of those measures."

Norton found that the fertility rate in countries that ranked low on economic freedom averaged 4.27 children per woman while countries with high economic freedom rankings had an average fertility rate of 1.82 children per woman. His results for the rule of law were similar; fertility rates in countries with low respect for the rule of law averaged 4.16 whereas countries with high respect for the rule of law had fertility rates averaging 1.55.

So rather than enforce a one child policy, why not enforce contracts and property rights instead? Governments will get the same or even better population results (and without all those messy surgeries).

NEXT: Reason Foundation's Anthony Randazzo Tells Congress to Ditch GSEs Already; Special Appearance by Rep. Barney Frank

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Doctors in southern China are working around the clock to fulfil a government goal to sterilise ? by force if necessary ? almost 10,000 men and women who have violated birth control policies. Family planning authorities are so determined to stop couples from producing more children than the regulations allow that they are detaining the relatives of those who resist.

    About 1,300 people are being held in cramped conditions in towns across Puning county, in Guangdong Province, as officials try to put pressure on couples who have illegal children to come forward for sterilisation.

    The 20-day campaign, which was launched on April 7, aims to complete 9,559 sterilisations in Puning, which, with a population of 2.24 million, is the most populous county in the province.

    A doctor in Daba village said that his team was working flat out, beginning sterilisations every day at 8am and working straight through until 4am the following day.”

    It’s heaven on earth I tell you. Heaven on earth!

    1. Fuck, man, this is better than Disneyland.

    2. It’s heaven on earth I tell you. Heaven on earth!
      Thomas Freidman agrees.

      One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.

      For those like me who think the man’s an idiot, that op-ed is the gift that keeps on giving.

      1. He’s like Krugman’s conjoined twin, separated at birth, and raised by gypsies.

        1. raised by gypsies

          No, that was me.

          1. Scottish gypsies?

            1. The most dangerous kind.

      2. China is getting close to being as economically free as the US, so Friedman has a point in that regard.

  2. I’ve got four kids already. After reading this, I plan to have four more.

    1. Ok, Mr. Duggar.

  3. Congress still getting hit with $50 mil. health fine

    A memo from the Obama administration may stop Congress from getting dumped off their health care plans, but it won’t stop fines from own health law

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz0lxHhLJ87

  4. When I read monsters like Diane Francis, advocating criminalizing childbirth, I only hope for an ironic death, when it does finally comes for her.

    1. The funny part is, as I remember, she has a couple of kids of her own. I guess the one child rule only applies to the “lesser” folks.

  5. These Chinese are really stupid. Sterilize the babies morons!

    1. You actually make a scary sort of sense.

  6. Well, if people can’t grow up and be adults, then policies like China’s wouldn’t be necessary. I’d have no problem with the U.S. developing something similar to that, with forced sterilizations as a last resort. But screw the externalities of everyone having any number of children they want, right?

    1. Make that eight more.

    2. Yes. Next quesiton?

    3. Wouldn’t it be nice if you fell into a stump shredder?

      1. Not for the stump shredder.

    4. Someone is spoofing Tony. Tony is a troll. But that is bad even for him.

      1. Unfortunately, the typical quality of a Tony trolling expedition is indeed better than that.

        Calling children “externalities” is more like Chad’s gig, anyway.

      2. I hold with the theory that there is no real Tony. Never was.

    5. God your a fucking idiot. Sans immigration the US has already reached zpg.

    6. Well, if people can’t grow up and be adults, then policies like China’s wouldn’t be necessary.

      If China didn’t treat its people like cattle, they would grow up to be adults.

    7. Guys, I can’t keep this a secret anymore. I am all the trolls. Tony, Chad, MNG, Dan T., Joe, Juanita, Steve Smith, Max, Mathews, they’re all me.

  7. For any interested, this is the new face of pure, fucking evil.

    All it needs is clown shoes.

    1. According to wikipedia, she has 2 children. Time to send one to the soylent green processing facility.

      1. Looks like she had 14 kids originally, then ate a dozen.

    2. There truly is a correlation between how fugly someone is and how much of a control-freak scumbag they are, which is why Waxman tops the list, and Chuckles Schumer isn’t far behind.

      1. Now I understand Nixon. Thanks Epi.

      2. Obama is said to be good looking, while Ron Paul isn’t…

      3. Ron Paul is ugly too. It has more to do with how fugly someone is and how involved in politics they are. Politics is the refuge of the hideous.

    3. Put a sock in her mouth and a brown bag over her head, and I’d still hit it.

      1. I already have. Not sure about that funny aftertaste though…

  8. The China-men are going about this undertaking most wrongheadedly.

    1. Dude, Chinamen is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American please.

      1. what if they are from China?

      2. We’re not talking about someone who built the railroads here.

    2. China-people, you sexist pig.

  9. Let Malthus fucking die already. These people are supposedly intelligent, educated elitists, but apparently they can’t read a fucking graph that predicts population tops out in 2050. That’s only 40 years away people. Are they so stupid that they actually believe we won’t make it another 40 years? Just because Malthus was all the rage when you were at Berkeley or wherever doesn’t mean the world hasn’t progressed since then. Please stay up to date on the data and adjust your opinions accordingly or you might just end up sounding as stupid as the creationists.

    1. Let Malthus fucking die already.

      I believe he already is dead.

      1. He’s only mostly dead.

      2. like Keynes??

  10. “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate…”

    At least the culture war people want us to sacrifice our choices for the sake of the children–which is at least something. These jokers want us to sacrifice our children, and for what? Their vision of a Great Society?

    Isn’t there anything these people think too precious to sacrifice for their Big Vision?

    What are they, Moonies? That’s what you are, basically, if you’re willing to sacrifice everything for someone else’s vision.

    I’m living life for me.

    1. She already has her 2 kids. Sorry, but you proles only get one. Just accept that it’s different for your masters.

      http://spectator.org/blog/2009…..ling-the-p

      1. “She already has her 2 kids. Sorry, but you proles only get one. Just accept that it’s different for your masters.”

        Even if she has ten!

        There’s no reason to stop her from asking people to stop having children…

        But why does she have to go straight to the totalitarian option?

        I was thinking the only thing that stops these progressive types is shame, but recently it’s like they’re trying to outdo each other in a race to see who can advocate the most heavy handed option…

        You wanna talk about population control? Okay. …but why does the discussion have to start with “China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy”?

        The answer is religion.

        Hear me out…

        A lot of religions have various things people can do to show extraordinary devotion. Hindus have pilgrims. Muslims have pilgrimages. If you’re Catholic, you can become a priest or a nun–it shows your intense devotion. To prove that devotion, of course, you have to make a sacrifice of something…

        Progressives have their own version of that. Progressive is a religion based on sacrificing individual interests for the common good–so the most devout Progressives are the ones who call for the most sacrifice.

        Sometimes that “most” takes the form meaning “wide spread”, and sometimes “most” means the thing that’s dearest to our heart. Well she’s got the market cornered here, ’cause she’s calling to force the whole world to make a sacrifice, and the sacrifice is something that’s near and dear to everyone’s heart.

        So she’s the most devout Moonie of all! Congratulations are supposed to be in order, I guess. She must be so proud of herself.

      2. The rule for professional worrywarts seems to be: the environmentally correct number of children is half as many as you have. Thus Diane “Mama of two” Francis says one child is proper, and Al “father of four” Gore says two is acceptable.

        1. Those are some original nicknames.

          1. Not nicknames, just descriptions.

            I wish someone had the balls to ask Francis and Gore which of their children should never have been born.

            1. Or you could just say that car accident that killed one of his children was Mother Earth’s way of saying “Too many children!”

        2. I thought it was half plus seven.

          1. No. That’s the calculation for dog-years.

  11. Hey Tim Cavenaugh, Why Is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?

    Given the extraordinary sudden turnabout in US policy toward Israel under the Obama Administration, I have become obsessed by the repressed 2003 videotape of Rashid Khalidi and Barack Obama. That tape ? or so we are told ? is ensconced in a safe at the Los Angeles Times building. In the current situation, its release by the paper is more important and newsworthy than ever.

    The Khalidi tape could be of tremendous significance in revealing the provenance of Obama’s views on the Middle East and the degree to which the public was misled on those views during the presidential campaign.

    Rashid Khalidi ? a Palestinian-American historian known for his strong pro-Palestinian opinions ? is currently the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute. After Khalidi received this Columbia appointment in 2003, a farewell dinner party was held in his honor in Chicago. A videotape was made of that party where many good things were said about the Palestinian cause and many bad things about Israel. Then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama was in attendance, as were, some say, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
    http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerl…..les-times/

    1. Sometimes you make a lot of sense, Lou. Other times not so much…

      How do these spambots get on here? And why’d you change your name, Lou?

    2. Your tinfoil is showing.

  12. China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy.

    I am impressed that someone as obviously unintelligent as Diane Francis is capable of breathing without assistance. I would be willing to bet a year’s pay that Diane Francis is rabidly pro-choice. The cognitive dissonance required to be a statist is truly stultifying.

    1. I would be willing to bet a year’s pay that Diane Francis is rabidly pro-choice

      Like most statists who proclaim themselves to be “pro-choice,” they really only support one particular choice.

      The alternative – being truly “pro-choice” (as most people here are) opens them up to WAAAAY too many uncomfortable realizations. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

      1. Most “pro-choice” people thinks it’s perfectly fine to suck the brains out of a 9-month-old skull in order to get it comfortably out of a cunt.

        1. Thanks for the visual.

        2. Is the “cunt” really necessary? That’s not the object of your displeasure, is it?

          1. I’m cool with the word. All words really. Whitch words would you censor if you could?

            1. I pick “Whitch.”

            2. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.

              Yes, they don’t like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.

              1. Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
                She didnt’ care if the whole world looked.
                Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
                She was a sister who really cooked.

                Isadora was the first bra burner
                And you’re glad she showed up. (Oh yeah)
                And when the country was falling apart
                Betsy Ross got it all sewed up.

                And then there’s Maude.
                And then there’s Maude.
                And then there’s Maude.
                And then there’s Maude.
                And then there’s Maude.
                And then there’s Maude.
                And then there’s

                That old compromisin’, enterprisin’, anything but tranquilizing,
                Right on Maude.

              2. Alright, Lebowski.

              3. It’s not the meaning of “vagina” that men have trouble with, it’s the sound of it. It sounds clinical in an ugly way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with vaginas. In fact, most of us adore them, but the word is unwieldy, cold and unpleasant sounding. It sounds to me like a word invented by people who are uncomfortable with females sex organs.

          2. The cunt’s “really necessary” if you want to make babies. Wait, this article is about not making babies…

            erase, erase, erase…

            No, in fact, the cunt is NOT necessary.

  13. The essential problem is brown people fucking too much.

    1. Is this Jamie Kelley’s Latino cousin?

      1. It’s not “Kelley,” it’s “Kelly.” I’m not Scottish, you cunt-slabby shit smear. And yes, it’s the very same “Jamie.” I just like taco-flavored keeeses, ripping off foreigners and being lazy while chugging Cuervo on occasion.

        1. I always thought you were too restrained to be Scottish.

        2. Well then, give me me my extra ‘e’ back, you toe-sucking snog lobber.

      2. The essential problem is brown people fucking too much.

        Is this Jamie Kelley’s Latino cousin?

        Sounds more like Chris Kelly’s twin brother.

        1. Lonewacko never gave any evidence he cared how many Hispanics were born on the other side of the border. From what I could tell he wouldn’t care if they were stacked ten high all the way down to Tierra del Fuego.

          1. He wanted to stack them ten high on this side of the border too.

          2. Would Saint Abraham?

  14. Confucius must be crying.

  15. Anyone who thinks it’s government role to regulate procreation, has no understanding of freedom whatsoever.

  16. The actual effects of China’s “One Child Policy” are much worse than a loss of freedom.

    China has a shortage of women. Because retirement there is largely living with your children, people abort and abandon baby girls more frequently. There are over 20 million more men than there are women in China. 20 million men who can not find a wife. (Should we consider them lucky, JW?)

    There is only one thing you can do with an excess of men. Fight wars.

    1. Or open a chain of gay bars.

    2. Well, you can have civil unrest, instead. Or send them to open the frontier if you’ve got one handy.

      So we can probably count on China having a go at lots of little imperialist wars. Unless they opt for a big one.

    3. Except they’re not really ‘excess’. They are needed to support their parents. You think their parents will be happy to sacrifice them fighting building an empire?

      What they are, are men without women. Men without women are, at best, semi-civilized. Also, being only children (little princes), they are a bunch a Mama’s boys – not the best material for conquering Siberia. So I think they are, and will be, a source of crime, social and political disruption and the key early adopters of Fembots, that will get the industry off the ground.

      1. Agreed. Those sex robots are made with the small Asian penis in mind.

  17. Don’t forget about the gender imbalance. Chinese girls get aborted, killed, or adopted out much more than boys, so China’s currently at about 120 boys for every 100 girls. The population’s aging, too. (About 8% of the population is over 65 now. It will be about 25% in 2050.) Other than that, China’s a model for us all.

    1. Ha! Beat you to it by one minute!

      1. I have links! And you missed the “aging population” bit.

        1. I have links! And you missed the “aging population” bit.

          [hangs head] Yes, yours was much better and more informative.

          But I was first!!!

      2. I bet India comes up with a plan to sell women to the Chinese. Not slaves or anything–the women get paid, too.

        1. North Korea is already doing this. Except about the slave part…

    2. Other than the gender imbalance, that sounds like most Western countries if you don’t take immigration into account.

      And there are plenty of gender-balanced, deathly poor countries bordering China to import women from. I bet they’re starting to get the “find your Laotian bride” ads on their websites nowadays.

  18. And they’re specifically ferreting out and aborting the girls. By 2020, some say that they’ll have 30 million more boys than girls or marriageable age.

    Are Americans fucked because they don’t know economics? Yes. But the Chinese are even more fucked because they don’t understand demographics. Or human rights.

  19. I highly recommend the book “The Tomorrow File” for anyone interested. Science fiction in which the US creates a “fertility control act” and do some whacked out shit with prisoners. Medical experiments and such. It was a disturbing book.

    1. In the ARM, you gotta stay busy, lest you get assigned to the motherhunts. No one likes those.

      1. Gil worked for the UN, right?

        1. And presumably flies a black aircar.

    2. I highly recommend the book “The Tomorrow File” for anyone interested. Science fiction in which the US creates a “fertility control act” and do some whacked out shit with prisoners. Medical experiments and such. It was a disturbing book.

      Yep, I will never forget that one. Especially the guy who they keep only his head or brain alive.

      1. Dan Simmons had something like that in the Hyperion series – “heavy interrogation” meant they removed your brain from your body and hooked it up to AI interfaces. Great series!

      2. The Brain That Wouldn’t Die

        It’s one of those wonderfully bad early 1960s low-budget scifi movies.

  20. global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days

    Wow, really? On the brightside, like 3million* people are dying in the same period. If the deathrate is lower than the birthrate, then the solution is obvious.

    *yeah, i pulled that number out of my ass.

    In seriousness, what’s the infant mortality rate for the same comparison. Sure, they might have twice as many kids, but how many will actually make it to adulthood?

    So rather than enforce a one child policy, why not enforce contracts and property rights instead?

    Where’s the control-freak-fun in that?

  21. All your embryos are belong to us.

  22. Fuck. My prediction probably won’t come true. Some years ago I predicted that China’s one-child policy would end within a decade because they would realize that with their explosive economic growth, they would find themselves a shortage of workers- plus other social problems, and thus would abandon it.

    This isn’t looking good for the home team. It looks like deep down inside, China still has the same old great-leap-forward communist thinking: that more bodies are a drain to the system.

  23. I always like the social-realist mural China where the happy couple are handing their child over to a smiling representative of the state.

  24. Of course, then there are always these sunny depictions of China’s policies.

  25. Have you ever noticed that most of the women against the choice of their family’s size are women you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?
    There’s such balance in nature.
    *Hit tip to …* _____________

    1. They’re not against the choice of their family’s size; they’re against the choice of everyone else’s family’s size. And yeah, most control freaks are ugly.

  26. Actually, the one-child policy itself hasn’t had much of an effect on Chinese birthrates. The birthrate spiked in 1960 after the famine, but quickly came down to barely-replenishment levels by the mid-1970s. By the time the one-child policy was made “official” (it’s always only been a recommendation), the birthrate was below their goal. Studies have been done showing that even if the policy were lifted, that most women wouldn’t have second children for economic reasons.

    The horror stories you hear are government busy-bodies trying to make themselves seem relevant. There are constantly media stories about the harm extra children do to the country, yet population studies have consistently shown that the situation won’t change whether the policy is lifted or not.

    It completely fits within the libertarian mindset at multiple levels: meddling bureaucrats trying to seem relevant, strong-arm tactics used by local governments, government-pushed media reports on the coming horrors despite academic research showing no such thing. It’d really be a great article for Reason, if they were interested in the international side of things.

  27. There are certain places in the world where population is so concentrated that people in the midst must think that human civilization is hell on earth. If you live there, you must certainly be tempted to look favorably on some kind of population control law.

    Elsewhere in the world — over MOST of it — there are vast expanses of nothing but nature, at its best and its worst. Many areas are inhospitable, but many are just not well-inhabited (yet).

    In my own state of California, it is trendy for people who live in the thickly populated coastal cities to talk of “too many people.” But just an hour’s drive from most of them are vast expanses of land and water that go on for hours, with hardly a person or a sign of civilization other than the road you travel and some power/telephone poles to remind you that there IS a civilized world somewhere.

    Why do people stick to the cities and overcrowd them, when there is so much open space available in the world? Answer that question, and you will have the answers to many other questions about why things seem so bad.

    1. there is a tendency of people – at least many people – to want to cluster together. Even on the highway you see that certain folk feel compelled to drive in clusters of cars. Me, I hate it. Whenever I drive anywhere it feels like a constant struggle to keep myself clear of these clusters of cars and in my life I have the same instinct. It is very clear that many others do not share this instinct. Don’t hold me to it, but I read somewhere that humans only occupy around 15% of the habitable surface of the earth, so, yeah, we have a ways to go before we overwhelm it.

  28. This is an abominable violation of human rights. I am completely disgusted after reading this article and being informed of forced sterilization in China. A “one-child policy” in itself is a outright infringement upon the rights of a person, and I am surprised that the international community has been so accepting of these policies.

    1. I’m sick of people thinking that destructive levels of reproduction is a human right. When did people get this idea in their heads? When was it decided that the right to introduce more people into the world was more important than protecting those who are already in it?

      Overpopulation infringes on EVERYONES rights, as it effects everyones well being. Fundemental resources are running thin and the world as of right now is incapable of providing everyone with a decent standard of living. Why let people further push the limits of the global carrying capacity?

      The international community is well aware of this, and as such they know that the One Child policy is doing more to create a sustainable economy and boost the standard of living in China than any other policy it has.

      1. Here here. You have the idea. Yet wait to see the response to your comment. The Logic is plain to see, the fervor of the sentimental heart is the clouds and mist of fools. We need to thin out. Now!

    2. The international community, as you call it, is fully aware that this is a policy of great merit. Shake your head. Look at the world around you.

  29. I can understand the sentiment of the mothers, and the fathers, yet I find it difficult to sympathize with the selfishness of your ideas. Humans are destined to become extinct just like every other species that has ever roamed the earth. Being one of the few sentient species, it would be best for us to try to be on the planet as long as we can. Our population growth is what will kill us. Think about this carefully. We need to thin out. The need to survive is strong, and yet, the more we do survive and elongate our health, the sooner we will be wiped from the face of the earth. The earth will go on without us, regardless of what our societies tell us. Nature is nature. It is all greater that we are.

    1. 200 years ago such view was expressed already by Malthus, but somehow humanity managed to deal with the “menace” of overpopulation.
      And it will succeed again ))

  30. I’d like to offer a modest proposal to control the current population issues. I think it’s a viable solution for everyone. Click on my link for more info.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.