Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Channel 13 documentary on China
Message-ID: <5218@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 13:16:21 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5218
Posted: Fri Apr 26 13:16:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 06:28:24 EST
References: <748@mhuxt.UUCP> <5176@cbscc.UUCP>, <802@mhuxt.UUCP> <5199@cbscc.UUCP>, <809@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 158

Another reply to Jeff Sonntag:

}> 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? 

I think it might help.  When people are given more responsibility for
producing their own food on their own land, for their own families (as
well as being able to sell it to others) they generally do a better job.
They have more incentive to improve their land.

The situation in Ethiopia some 20-30 years ago bears some resemblance.
In that country the poor could farm the land, but if they made any improvements
(e.g. irrigation, planting designed to curb erosion and build the soil)
that made the land more valuable, it could be taken away by the rich.
All they had to do is forge some documents that claimed ancestral ownership
of the land in question, and the peasants were legally helpless.  So,
since poor, eroding land was better than no land, the poor didn't improve
their land.  As a result much of Ethiopia's valuable topsoil is now in
Egypt, carried there by erosion.  I doubt there would be famine in Ethiopia
today if there had been land reform.  Curiously enough, many people blame
the famine there on "too many people".

In Communist China, farmers don't own their land either.  There is no incentive
to make it more productive.  If, in fact, the Communist social and economic
structure is contributing to the problems the Chinese face, what right does
the government have to impose forced abortion and birth control on its
people?  How does this take away our right to criticize their "solution"?

}> 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 birth rate and don't
}starve to death, they will within a few decades.)

My point was that a large population density does not automatically lead
to mass starvation.  I also said that the birth rate tends to decline
in developed countries.  In fact, in most developed countries the birth
rate is below replacement level.  As the mean age of the population increases,
so does the death rate (I know life expectancy has increased some, but
it can't keep up with the aging population.)

}> 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.

If you look at China's people as a resource that can be used in developing
farmable land, then I think the intense effort is workable.  As I said before,
incentives that would help the farmers produce more would also cause them
to voluntarily limit their family size.  That is, if they were responsible
for their own land, they would also be responsible for feeding their families
from it and making a living.   They would have to strike their own balance
between what they need to make their farm run and and what they could support
from the farm.  As it is, they have no incentive for either, since all
their productivity is absorbed by the state, and the state has to support
their children.

}> 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.)

Yes, it's long term, but I don't think the term is much longer than what
they're doing now.  Maybe something could also be said about people dying
of starvation vs. killing persons who may be dying that way in the future.
With forced abortion, the Chinese are killing both those that will starve
and those who won't.  If you treat people as individuals, no one can say
at the time of birth whether any given individual will starve, or grow up
to help China solve its problems.

Keeping in mind that the supposed inevitability of starvation for many
of these aborted children is the justification for aborting *all* of them,
is it still the best solution?  If the only justification is to prevent
starvation, why not just kill those who are actually starving (which will
also take care of their progeny)?  Why is this a less acceptable solution?
Only because with abortion, the carnage is less visible?  What do we really
care about, people starving, or saving ourselves from having to watch their
death?  With forced abortion, they are intentionally killing some who will
probably starve, but also some who won't.  Why is this better than
intentionally killing those who are actually starving, and putting them out
of our misery?

For myself, I don't think it comes down to a choice between these two
options.  But I've been hearing that to ward off starvation, forced abortion
is the best option.  It seems, however, that some selfish motives contribute
to that thinking on the part of pro-choice folks.

}> 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 diminishing 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.

The point is that the Chinese solution is not really gaining that much.
They are not decreasing the impact of the problem on the Chinese population.
They are only reducing the scale of the problem.  The percentage of
people starving in the future will be pretty much the same.  The amount
might be less, but that would only be because their population would be
less.  I am pointing toward a solution that would decrease the impact
of the problem while providing incentive for Chinese families to voluntarily
limit their offspring.

}> 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 judging 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?

The problem with invoking "lifeboat ethics" here is that you are advocating
killing the people who haven't even had a chance to get into the lifeboat yet.
It's intersting that you implicate forced abortion as something which does
not cause starvation.  The supposed victim still dies, however (as the result
of our direct intentions as a matter of fact; we aren't even leaving it up
to the *chance* that she will starve).  I suppose I could be prevented from
starving to death too if someone killed me right now.  Is that a solution?
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd