Author Message

<  Non-Yao stuff  ~  Shanghai's population issues

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:31 pm
Posts: 11987Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 1:31 pm
Yao Ming should read this and start to contribute.

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/col091217sb.pdf


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:47 pm
User avatarPosts: 50743Location: Hong Kong/ChinaJoined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:13 am
superjohn wrote:
Yao Ming should read this and start to contribute.

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/col091217sb.pdf



Start to contribute WHAT???

If CCP won't make any changes or drop the One Child Policy, there is LITTLE TO NOTHING Yao Ming can do EVEN if he wants MORE than 2 children.


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:50 pm
Posts: 8027Location: GuangxiJoined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:14 pm
will need more land for overpopulation. maybe india is a good target :lol:


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:58 pm
User avatarPosts: 50743Location: Hong Kong/ChinaJoined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:13 am



Did you know that the most heated/controversial topic of discussion on the Internet last week in China was the allegation that the Diving Prince Tian Liang had breached the One Child Policy that he had a second child??? :roll:

Both Tian and his wife Ye Yiqian were not the lone child in their family. So they are only entitled to one child.

They gave birth to their first daughter in 2008.

Now his wife had naturalized to become a Hong Kong citizen.

She recently gave birth to their 2nd child, a son in Hong Kong.

But now the Shaanxi authority is investigating into whether Tian Liang is violating the One Child Policy.
If YES, he will be fined a couple of million of Renminbi for breaching the law.

Not that many people are RICH ENOUGH to have to pay that kind of penalty.
:roll:


Quote:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china ... 537529.htm

Ex-Olympic champion
under fire for second child


English.news.cn
2012-04-19

By Yang Jingjie

BEIJING, April 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Authorities in Shaanxi Province are working with their counterparts in Beijing on an investigation into a former Olympic diving gold medalist's alleged violation of the one-child policy by arranging the birth of his second child in Hong Kong.

"We have learned that Tian Liang's hukou (household registration) is in Beijing, so we need to coordinate with departments in Beijing to handle the case," an official with the Shaanxi Population and Family Planning Commission told the Global Times on condition of anonymity.

The commission said it would reveal the result of a probe on whether Tian and his wife were eligible for a second child or whether they had violated the policy.


An official with the Shaanxi Swimming Administration Center (SAC) told the Xinhua News Agency Wednesday that they would work with Tian to collect the right information for the investigation.

Tian, 32, who won the gold in the 10-meter platform diving event at the 2000 Sydney Games and another for the synchronized 10-meter platform diving event at the 2004 Athens Games, retired as a diver in 2007 and became an actor.

Tian's first child was born in 2008. He welcomed his second child, a boy, in Hong Kong earlier this year, and since faced accusations of violating the one-child policy.

The mainland adopted the policy in the late 1970s to contain the fast growth of its population. Authorities have loosened the regulation, allowing eligible couples, including parents who are only children themselves, to have a second child.

Yangtze Evening News said last week that Tian, who is not an only child, had been stripped of his Party membership and dismissed from the post of deputy director of the Shaanxi SAC for violating the policy.

But on Friday, the Shaanxi Administration of Sport denied this report, saying Tian had not violated the one-child policy since his son was born in Hong Kong.

Ma Li, director of the China Population and Development Research Center, however, confirmed with the Global Times that "no matter where their hukou or house registration is located, Tian and his wife broke the law."


An official from the National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC) told the Global Times that the commission is following the case, but could not comment for now.

According to NPFPC's hotline for public inquiries on the one-child policy, a couple who are not eligible for a second child are considered to have violated the policy even if their second child was born outside the mainland. The hotline said the couple will be fined if they bring the child back to the mainland and have the child stay for 18 months out of two years, or if they apply for a household registration on the mainland for the child.

According to the Population and Family Planning Law, the fine would be between two and six times the couple's total income of the previous year, and any future fines would triple for every additional child.


Tian and his wife have remained silent since the scandal broke. Mu Miaoyong, Tian's agent, declined to comment on the issue when contacted by the Global Times, calling it a "personal affair."

The People's Daily commented that the public's debate about the case showed limited knowledge about the family planning policy.

"If authorities fail to provide a timely response to the public, speculations and misunderstanding will deepen, disrupting people's understanding and bringing much more harm than good to the promotion of the policy," the paper said.

To evade the family planning policy, many celebrities and rich people have chosen to give birth outside the mainland.

The Southern Metropolis Daily earlier quoted a Hong Kong obstetrician as saying that more than 60 percent of the mainland mothers who went to Hong Kong did so for the birth of their second child.

A circular, which outlined population policies for the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15) period, called for the family planning policy to be continued and a low birth rate to be stabilized.


Du Peng, a professor with the Population Research Institute of Renmin University of China, told the Global Times that he expects the policy to be loosened little by little to deal with the country's growing aging population and decreasing birth rate.

"First, families with either the mother or father being the only child can have two children. Then gradually, all families will be permitted to have two children," Du said.

(Source: Global Times)


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:12 pm
User avatarPosts: 50743Location: Hong Kong/ChinaJoined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:13 am
shokenchi wrote:
will need more land for overpopulation. maybe india is a good target :lol:


NAAAAAAAAAAAAH, EVEN with MORE land, even with special arrangement to have the 2nd child born outside of China, it is STILL considered to be a breach of the policy, and the couple will be subject to HEAVY PENALTY.

According to the Population and Family Planning Law, the fine would be between two and six times the couple's total income of the previous year, and any future fines would triple for every additional child.

So for Tian Liang's case, if he and his wife (Ye Yiqian is an actress and singer) make 3 Million Renminbi per anum, then they wil be fined in the range of 6 Million to 18 Million.

For Yao Ming's case, if he wants a third child (as he and Ye Li are entitled for 2 kids, as they both are lone child to their family),
the penalty will be ASTRONOMICAL.


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:32 am
Posts: 10073Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:10 pm
what is that article? about zero population growth in China?

the issue with low fertility is across the developed world. all of the developed Asian countries: Singapore, Japan, Korea have very bad problems with it. there simply aren't enough workers. all those countries have to import from SE Asia and the indian subcontinent to man their work force. which of course then contributes to more problems those countries have with crime, culture clash, social problems etc.

the West is largely responsible. in the 70s in the same political push as Roe v Wade the Left made a concerted effort to export abortion to Asia and the developing world. it actually financed abortions in China and lobbied the government for widespread abortion as a means of contraception and population control. The One Child Policy is something that is identified with the PRC but in fact the West was influential in getting established

like homosexuality today, abortion was seen as a Western (and thus superior) moral issue. in the past reproductive rights had been seen in Asia as a family issue for all the people would be involved in supporting any future children: the father who would have to financially support the kid, the grandparents who would be involved in raising and socializing the kid, the society who would have to educate and give work to the kid etc... in the US we saw it as a woman's right... they would bear it so they owned all the reproductive rights. the belief was that the access to abortion was a moral and civil right and pushing it was seen as a "win" for the West over the evil native mores of East Asia, Africa, India etc... the customs and legacy of these places seen as backward, uncivilized and even evil by the West

what's interesting is that the abortion and contraception policy worked in Asia beyond the wildest dreams of the Western Left even in countries like Japan and Korea which didn't really need it. Asians really embraced the Western values. but in Africa and India, the people were too lazy, stupid, headstrong or resistant to Western mores to heed it and in many areas of Africa and India it's had little significant impact. it's ironic because Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon or Camel-0 will go on and on about sending aid to Africa but what they never tell you is that a large part of why aid is needed in the first place is because the West makes it possible for Africans to have more children than they can hope to support and corrupt African governments would rather get the aid to line their own coffers while kids suffer than to implement an effective control to population growth and development.

in the West there are built in safeguards and checks to abortion. various religions oppose it. there are dark minorities and immigrants who pump out babies and there's some cultural preference among groups like mormons to have a lot of kids. in Asia there are no such safeguards and having swallowed the Western agenda entirely without even the thought of questioning it, there's a lot of issues in Asia, not only in China. for their part the Left in the West never considered the consequences of negative population growth or the human rights abuses of aborting for sex... 40 years later you have population deficiency and population imbalance (male versus female) in entire generations of Asians.

white Europeans however are also having issues with population growth. for example Russia. at one time Russia controlled 1/5 of the land mass on Earth and was a dominant superpower going back to the time of the Tzars. however in the 20th century the ruling Communists painted large families as something criminally bourgeois, because at Russia's height Russia's enormous land expansion necessitated a growing population. during Tzarist times large families were a badge of honor and a hallmark of rich and middle class Russian families, which meant of course, that had to be disgraced and torn down. the Communists instilled a sort of disdain for large families (much like in many Asian countries today among Westernized women) that remains after the Communists are gone. Russia has about 150 million people but by 2050 there might be as few as 110... which will be devastating for its very viability to retain control of its current landmass. Russia has been trying for 10 years to increase its population growth including financial incentives for 3 or more kids etc

the bottom line is that the world is changing. whites and Asians are going to diminish. Africans and Indians are growing. even China which throughout the 20th century was seen as an endless population base will be smaller than India. Nigeria will eventually be LARGER THAN THE US, inclusive of foreign immigration.

the numbers are crazy and most people are unaware and never even think about the shift in population. they send money to africa and the thought of WHY there are issues never even comes to mind

in 1900 Africa had about 130 million people or about 8% of the world population.

in contrast Europe had 400 million or about 25% of the world population. Europe was about 3x larger than Africa

Asia had about 950 million or about 60%

that's because at that time the population of each continent was based on and restricted by the economic development of each area/

Africa is a massive continent (about 20% larger than north america and 8x larger than the US including Alaska) but in 1900 even including developed European areas and Mediterranean areas like North Africa and Egypt, Africa was small because it was restricted by the ability of Africans to support their kids. In contrast Europe and Asia had large developed economies that could support large populations. Africans would have a ton of kids but any more than they could support would not make it. today, they have the same babies but the West helps support them. fewer die but now most grow up with no hope of education or even hope of a job, because the West gives them enough to live, but cannot support the infrastructure to educate, train, employ, support and develop these humans. of course the SOLUTION is for the West to do MORE. food and clothing is not enough. the West must now help educate, support infrastructure for, provide health care for, allow immigration away from, and other things in Africa to make sure these humans who are just brought into this world without any logical planning as in Asia or the West are given the same opportunities. in return, these humans will have even more kids etc

today Africa has about 850 million people while Europe has 550 million. Africa has passed Europe and will someday dwarf it. sometime in the next couple of decades Africa will pass China in population and by 2100 will be 2-2.5 times the size of China. eventually China will no longer be as it is today... a nation that must be accorded the prestige and respect of a country larger than continents. meanwhile, Europe a place that one hosted 20% of the world's population will be diminished, until it is similar in relative size to South America with about 5-6% of the population. while Africa and India become 50% of the world.

malorkayel will hop in here and say one day everyone will be brown and look indian. that's not going to happen, because a lot of people have preferences... for example the number of interracial marriages among Asian Americans has stabilized the past decade. but the world is going to look different. at one point africa was about 10% of the world population, Europe was 20% and Asia was almost 70%. in the next few centuries, barring war and worldwide meltdown only 5-7 people out of 100 on the planet will be white. probably around 1 in 5 will be East Asian and maybe 1 in 2 will be black African. the rest will be somewhere in between: Indian, SE Asian, Latin, eurasian etc


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:07 am
Posts: 11987Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 1:31 pm
Image

China


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:53 am
Posts: 8027Location: GuangxiJoined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:14 pm
pryuen wrote:
shokenchi wrote:
will need more land for overpopulation. maybe india is a good target :lol:


NAAAAAAAAAAAAH, EVEN with MORE land, even with special arrangement to have the 2nd child born outside of China, it is STILL considered to be a breach of the policy, and the couple will be subject to HEAVY PENALTY.

According to the Population and Family Planning Law, the fine would be between two and six times the couple's total income of the previous year, and any future fines would triple for every additional child.

So for Tian Liang's case, if he and his wife (Ye Yiqian is an actress and singer) make 3 Million Renminbi per anum, then they wil be fined in the range of 6 Million to 18 Million.

For Yao Ming's case, if he wants a third child (as he and Ye Li are entitled for 2 kids, as they both are lone child to their family),
the penalty will be ASTRONOMICAL.

u didnt get my point :lol: one child policy is a good thing to avoid overpopulation. hk is gonna be even more densed in the future if mainland mothers keep going there. thats y need more land for china :lol:


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:23 am
User avatarPosts: 1725Location: West BankJoined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:11 am
temuchin wrote:
Russia has about 150 million people but by 2050 there might be as few as 110... which will be devastating for its very viability to retain control of its current landmass. Russia has been trying for 10 years to increase its population growth including financial incentives for 3 or more kids etc

the bottom line is that the world is changing. whites and Asians are going to diminish. Africans and Indians are growing. even China which throughout the 20th century was seen as an endless population base will be smaller than India. Nigeria will eventually be LARGER THAN THE US, inclusive of foreign immigration.

the numbers are crazy and most people are unaware and never even think about the shift in population. they send money to africa and the thought of WHY there are issues never even comes to mind

in 1900 Africa had about 130 million people or about 8% of the world population.

in contrast Europe had 400 million or about 25% of the world population. Europe was about 3x larger than Africa

Asia had about 950 million or about 60%

that's because at that time the population of each continent was based on and restricted by the economic development of each area/

Africa is a massive continent (about 20% larger than north america and 8x larger than the US including Alaska) but in 1900 even including developed European areas and Mediterranean areas like North Africa and Egypt, Africa was small because it was restricted by the ability of Africans to support their kids. In contrast Europe and Asia had large developed economies that could support large populations. Africans would have a ton of kids but any more than they could support would not make it. today, they have the same babies but the West helps support them. fewer die but now most grow up with no hope of education or even hope of a job, because the West gives them enough to live, but cannot support the infrastructure to educate, train, employ, support and develop these humans. of course the SOLUTION is for the West to do MORE. food and clothing is not enough. the West must now help educate, support infrastructure for, provide health care for, allow immigration away from, and other things in Africa to make sure these humans who are just brought into this world without any logical planning as in Asia or the West are given the same opportunities. in return, these humans will have even more kids etc

today Africa has about 850 million people while Europe has 550 million. Africa has passed Europe and will someday dwarf it. sometime in the next couple of decades Africa will pass China in population and by 2100 will be 2-2.5 times the size of China. eventually China will no longer be as it is today... a nation that must be accorded the prestige and respect of a country larger than continents. meanwhile, Europe a place that one hosted 20% of the world's population will be diminished, until it is similar in relative size to South America with about 5-6% of the population. while Africa and India become 50% of the world.

malorkayel will hop in here and say one day everyone will be brown and look indian. that's not going to happen, because a lot of people have preferences... for example the number of interracial marriages among Asian Americans has stabilized the past decade. but the world is going to look different. at one point africa was about 10% of the world population, Europe was 20% and Asia was almost 70%. in the next few centuries, barring war and worldwide meltdown only 5-7 people out of 100 on the planet will be white. probably around 1 in 5 will be East Asian and maybe 1 in 2 will be black African. the rest will be somewhere in between: Indian, SE Asian, Latin, eurasian etc
Well, "low fertility" is only a "problem" to aging Baby Boomers who need a bunch of lowly serfs to support their pyramid retirement schemes. That's completely self-centered. In reality, it'd be great for the planet if the global population dropped back down to a few bil..
Image
So, the real problem is overpopulation of . And I just love how the West constantly criticizes China's population control...yet remains completely silent on one of the greatest threat to this planet's future - African overbreeding. Where's all the "Black Peril" white papers on that?
Image
Global Detroit, here we comeee!!!! :shock:


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 10073Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:10 pm
Low fertility is only a problem to developed countries yes. They need population to support their economies. In macro, it really doesn't matter to the planet or to the continuation of the species if there's low fertility in Europe or Asia. Truthfully it doesn't really matter to the planet if we have WWIII or if all the blacks were wiped out tomorrow. There could be a worldwide virus that kills 90% of the people next week. Macro it wont matter to humanity in general

For developed countries, however this has a couple of indications

1) obviously you need a working force to support the various entitlements, social security etc that Obama and his ilk have imposed on the West since the 1920s

2) low fertility means a smaller workforce, smaller industrial power base and less technological power. if the West and Asia go into decline it means fewer advancements and a lower general standard of living/technological/medical advancement for the entire human species

3) Europe, Japan, etc have few natural resources, they are dependent on economic and technological superiority to maintain their political, moral, social and military advantage. decline means a fundamental power shift to the darkies from teh whites and yellows

there's also a couple of considerations about Africa's population growth

1) population growth is based on economic viability. if you go back 1000 years Europe was backward, and thus small in % population. in fact Europe was similar in population as Africa at the year 1000. was by the year 1900 Europe had already undergone their population explosion (which happened in China 2000 years before that point) and was at the height of their power. the past 100 years, propped up by the West Africa is now undergoing its own period of population growth

2) population swings are normal. for example in the year 1000, it's possible that Europe had a total population of around 35 million while North and Central America had 25 million. obviously by 1700 Europe had exploded and Native Americans had been literally decimated (reduced to 10%)

also keep in mind that abortion is in fact murdering your own offspring, which in any moral and biological system is the primary crime you can make for the continuation of the species and your own genetic fitness but the implications across society in macro are not all bad.

1) without the 1 child policy China would be mired in terrible social problems trying to even feed and educate 2 billion people. keep in mind that even 5 years after the One Child policy was implemented, even FEEDING the country was a concern. it was only in the 80s that China finally could even reliably feed everyone. a couple of bad harvests in the 70s and they struggled like it was Europe in 1500. if for example that had been extended another 10 years into the 90s, China would not have developed as it is today. keep in mind that China's development (despite how unstoppable it looks in 2012 looking backwards) was far from a GIVEN. even in 1990, the question of WHETHER China could develop was an open question. with hundreds of millions of more mouths to feed and educate, it's possible China would have struggled.

2) for EVERYONE, even blacks in Africa the longer lifespans of humans across the board way past their productive years and growing world population is a huge issue. humans were only designed to last 30-40 years. thats why everything starts to shut down, there was no evolutionary advantage to aging gracefully or being like 80% of a 20 year old at age 70. when you have people live until 80 years it's a huge burden for society.

3) keep in mind that the Africans are actually being the normal ones. humans evolutionarily were meant to have babies until they couldn't support any more. the failsafe is LITERALLY you have too many kids and most of them die. the good/lucky ones survive, but you dont stop having kids. the Africans and ignorants are the ones on the natural trajectory, the West and Asia would be growing at the same pace as they are and there would be like 10 billion people on Earth. its not that the Africans are necessarily having too many babies but that the developed world is retarding theirs on purpose. something like HALF of all fetuses are aborted in New York City.... that's Sodom and Gomorrah ****** right there. Abortion is necessary but just in terms of raw human cost, philosophically it's staggering.

think of all the Tim Tebows, Steven Jobs etc that were snuffed out by their own parents. in the broadest sense huge segment of the greatest talents and minds the world would have ever seen are just being extinguished. I guess you can argue that it's better than the greatest minds and talents being born and then starve to death or one great talent kill another great talent in war like in Africa when the world can't support everyone....


Offline Profile

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Page 1 of 17
167 posts
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Search for:
Post new topic  Reply to topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum