Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Channel 13 documentary on China
Message-ID: <809@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 10:13:11 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.809
Posted: Thu Apr 25 10:13:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 07:12:27 EST
References: <748@mhuxt.UUCP> <5176@cbscc.UUCP>, <802@mhuxt.UUCP> <5199@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 74

> Do you think the Chinese government would accept a solution that would
> require a decentralization of the government and economy?  Suppose that
> were part of a solution.  Is it an inferior solution to forced abortions
> and birth control?  

     I doubt whether the chinese government would accept such a solution, but
that's immaterial until someone comes up with such a solution.  Have you?  How
would decentralizing the government help?  Would it allow more food to be grown
on the same land?  I doubt it.  Would it cause the same people who want large
families so badly that they are willing to risk the government's displeasure
to voluntarily limit the number of their offspring? 
> 
> With the population density of Hong Kong, how much farmable land do you
> think they have there?  Has mass starvation ensued?  Hong Kong has the
> highest population density of any part of China.  If too many people
> "demonstrably" lead to mass starvation, how has Hong Kong supported
> so many for so long? 

    By becoming a manufacturing and trading center, they can presumably
earn enough to import food from elsewhere.  That's a hell of a lot easier
for a people who represent a small fraction of the world's population to do
than for people who represent a large part of it.  The food *has* to come
from somewhere.  The whole world can't just keep reproducing more people than
they can feed and plan to import it from elsewhere.  It doesn't work when
1/2 of the population of the world does it either.  (I know, the chinese
don't represent 1/2 yet.  But if they don't limit their birthrate and don't
starve to death, they will within a few decades.)

> Some other things that ought to open the door wider:
> 
> 1) What constitutes "farmable land" for the Chinese and what can be
> done about the land that is not farmable?  If the farmers could own
> their own land would there be more incentive for them to develop it
> and produce more?  
> 
    As I understand it, these people already farm land that we wouldn't
even consider farming.  I suppose it's possible that intense effort could
terrace a few more mountainsides, but even a healthy increase in the
amount of arable land doesn't stand up against an exponentially growing
population.

> 2) Families in economically developed countries tend to voluntarily limit
> their size.  What can be done to stimulate such economic growth in China?

     I don't know, but this could be a good idea, though it seems kind of
long-term (ie. unlikely to be effective before Malthus.)

> As it is, China is aborting nearly as many future food producers as
> they are food consumers.  They depend on a much larger segment of their
> population for food production than do the more developed countries.

     More people can produce more food to a limited extent, but this is
an example of disminishing marginal returns.  Past a certain point, with
finite land resources, an additional person cannot produce more additional
food than they must consume.  China passed this point long ago.
> 
> 3) In the event that China does experience problems with starvation while
> it is doing all it can to develop sufficiently, would a solution that required
> technological and financial aid, trade incentives and agricultural
> training from the developed countries in the interim be acceptable?
> (If not maybe those countries would gladly share in the blame for China's
> human rights violations?)
> 
    I think 'feasible' is a better word for juding solutions than 'acceptable'.
Maybe it would be enough *if* china can slow it's growth rate.  Nothing like
this can be enough if china's growth rate remains exponential.  Also, solutions
which involve 'helping out' after people begin starving, are (to me) inferior
to solutions which do not cause starvation.
    I know that 'lifeboat ethics' aren't much fun, but can you really blame
them for paddling towards shore?
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "This statement is true."