cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/48814505
The one-child policy was perhaps the greatest social experiment in human history. With the goal of curbing population growth at all costs, for just over 35 years China only allowed families to have one child. Communist leaders outlined the measures with a slogan in 1978: “One is better, two at most, leaving a three-year gap.” In 1980 it became state policy. By 1982, 96% of families in cities were having only one child, according to the Urban Household Survey.
Through a system of fines and penalties for non-compliance, the birth rate of what was then the world’s most-populous country was brought to a screeching halt. Until the policy itself became a problem. With the population pyramid inverting, Beijing put an end to the one-child policy in 2016, allowing couples to have two children to “balance demographic development and address the challenge of an aging population.” It hasn’t succeeded. Ten years later, the declining birth rate is one of the biggest headaches for the Chinese government.
The shadow cast is long. During its implementation, the one-child policy gave rise to horrific stories of abortions, abandonment, and children who grew up unregistered. It particularly targeted girls, whom many families rejected. At the same time, a new kind of only-child society was shaped, known as “little emperors” — hyper-developed, pampered children who have grown into adults while China’s GDP grew at an average rate of 10% and the country ascended to the pantheon of superpowers.
Ma Li, 53, raised her only daughter (now 24) hoping she would have “the same rights and opportunities as a boy.” “I raised her to be brave and know how to stand up for herself,” she says over the phone. After giving birth, she had an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted, as millions of women did during the years when birth control was widely available. She maintains that in her case it was a voluntary decision, although human rights organizations have documented that it was a widespread medical practice and, in many cases, subject to administrative pressure.
She acknowledges that, had she had the option, she would have wanted more children.
[…]
In China, the fertility rate continues its freefall, despite the fact that in 2021 married couples were allowed to have up to three children. According to the World Bank, only one child is born to every woman, one of the lowest replacement rates on the planet (for the population not to decline, 2.1 children must be born per woman). In 2022, the country’s population decreased for the first time since the 1960s. In 2023, it was surpassed by India as the most populous country. China is aging rapidly, and society is sustained by a shrinking number of working-age citizens. The birth rate and the number of newborns declined for seven consecutive years before experiencing a slight rebound in 2024. The United Nations projects that China’s population will shrink from its current 1.4 billion to 633 million by 2100, a change that could hinder growth.
[…]
Thus, these issues have become a “national security” priority. “The rise and fall of major powers are often profoundly affected by population conditions,” Chinese President Xi Jinping said in a 2023 speech. “Therefore, demographic security must be incorporated into the broader framework of national security and carefully planned.”
[…]
“The decline in the fertility rate is inevitable, like a giant boulder rolling downhill,” says Yi Fuxian, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It is a consequence of developed societies, and Asia is a prime example, with plummeting rates in Japan and South Korea. “China’s one-child policy accelerated the process,” adds the author of Big Country with an Empty Nest (2007). He believes that, despite the Chinese government’s efforts, it will be very difficult to roll that boulder back uphill.
Yi believes the one-child policy has changed attitudes toward motherhood and fatherhood and “distorted moral values about life,” he writes in an email. “Having only one child or no children at all has become the social norm.” He predicts that marriages will continue to decline (despite brief upticks in 2023 and 2025) and couples will postpone having children. He doesn’t think the policies introduced will achieve much. “What China is trying to do, Japan has already done.” And unsuccessfully. The country “is aging before it gets rich,” he concludes. And “doesn’t have the financial resources to fully follow Japan’s path.”
[…]
Statistics show that there are about 30 million more men than women in China, an anomaly stemming from the preference for sons during the one-child policy. But those like Jin herself haven’t had to compete with siblings for resources, particularly in education. Numerous studies prove that women have, on average, received more years of schooling than men, she writes. And this has contributed to giving their peers greater social and professional standing.
It has also given rise to a generation of more independent women, both economically and personally, and more self-assured. “Now there are more ‘sisters’ who are raising their voices and showing others that we have to fight for more rights and autonomy,” says Winnie Tang, 27, founder of Spring Reel, a series production company, in an exchange of messages. For her, women’s “liberation” means “having the right to refuse and not accept imposed demands.” In her mother’s time, “starting a family was the highest destiny a woman could aspire to.” Her generation, however, prioritizes other goals, such as developing “a career we are passionate about” or enjoying “the pleasure of doing the things we love.”
I’ll be interested to see if China turns strongly to immigration to shore up the missing population, though I highly doubt it. Either way, it’s going to be ugly
More than likely enough minority slaves.
It was an “experiment” in the same sense that Mengele was doing medical experiments. Fines and penalties on paper; forced abortions and sterilizations in practice.
Short version - there’s too many elderly people in China and not enough working age so the economy is suffering. So they changed it to max of 3 but people aren’t interested in having more than one. This will take a long time to recover from. As their society has seen a drastic disparity in age and sex, the importance of women to societal growth means that women have more bargining power to push for woman’s rights. While India continues to breed like rabbits.
As a side thought, I wonder if this will push China to take drastic measures rather than see their country wither away.
Short version - there’s too many elderly people in China and not enough working age so the economy is suffering
More children is never the answer becase all that does is kick the can down the road, in 30 years time they’d have 3 billion and a shit ton more elderly, so wjat then doibke down and make even more kids ?
We can already see if we empower women and let them choose they’ll mostly have 0,1 or 2 kids. The only other solution is to force women to breed and have no choice (religious scum fuckery). Even the nordics with way better supoort for women and childbirth etc are still less then 2.1
We’re better off learning lessons from xenophobic counties like Sth Korea and Japan and seeing what solutions work in regards poulation degrowth, becase every country will eventually face this issue
This contlstat framing of less people on the planet as a bad thing is ridiculous, should we have 1000 billion and all stand shoulder to shoulder ? How tobdecide ? there is some sort of sustainable level, why not let those expert in the area advise us ? if you do that, the number is less then a billion. Classical and neo liberal Econonics should play no part in the debate.
Drastic like forcing them to have unwanted children so there’s an entire generation of kids who aren’t loved to further destroy the world?
Playing devil’s advocate here, is this really a problem? It should be obvious that if you suddenly cut population growth you’d end up with this elderly vs young imbalance eventually as the generations that reproduced freely age out. This is part of the adjustment as things reach equilibrium. Now, granted, this 1 child policy will still create the same issue moving forward but in a less drastic scale. Ideally you’d have a 2 child policy to actually replace parents 1:1 with kids. But the point is, this imbalance was bound to happen regardless and you really won’t see equilibrium until every person alive was born under the restricted policy. This is still too early to call it a failed experiment. It’s right at the most crucial part.
It should be obvious that if you suddenly cut population growth you’d end up with this elderly vs young imbalance eventually as the generations that reproduced freely age out.
The problem is they did it too quickly. There’s a huge number of aging people that won’t be producing anything, but they will be consuming in their old age. The amount they consume will be far greater than the younger, smaller, population can produce. Additional, the young must produce goods and services for themselves to live their own lives.
This additional preasure on the younger generation is already also reducing birth rates accelorating this demographic crisis to a worse degree. The young aren’t having kids in any significant numbers so there won’t be enough to support the current young when they get old.
This is part of the adjustment as things reach equilibrium.
That is a massive understatement for what will be the hell that the aging population will encounter when they go unfed or uncared for when they need it the most and have no option to do for themselves.
Ideally you’d have a 2 child policy to actually replace parents 1:1 with kids. But the point is, this imbalance was bound to happen regardless and you really won’t see equilibrium until every person alive was born under the restricted policy.
2 child policy would still result in population decline. Equal replacement rate is 2.1. Some kids will die before having kids of their own. Others will grow to adulthood and choose not to have kids. So you’ll need some sets of parents to have more than 2 kids themselves to make up for these shortfalls.
This is still too early to call it a failed experiment. It’s right at the most crucial part.
The “soft landing” point was a couple of decades ago probably back in the late 80s or mid 90s. Its going to be brutal in the future for China.
I’m not saying this exact system worked. What I’m saying is pointing to the old vs young imbalance is disingenuous because ANY system that attempts to limit population growth will experience the same “sudden change”. Hell, any system that limits ANYTHING will eventually have “group that had it” vs “group that didn’t”. Saying “there’s a lot more old people from before we limited the population” is like telling me fire is hot.
The question shouldn’t be “is the transition perfect” but “does the system that follows actually work?”. We shouldn’t discount all systems that want to limit population growth like this because ones with better metrics could actually work. And as we’ve seen, this program DID WORK. It lowered population. Just not in socially healthy ways.
It’s just not logical to complain that if you have less of a growing population that your elderly population outnumbers them. That’s LITERALLY THE PURPOSE OF POPULATION CONTROL. To have less being born. Of course the elderly from before will outnumber them - you weren’t controlling their population!
What I’m saying is pointing to the old vs young imbalance is disingenuous because ANY system that attempts to limit population growth will experience the same “sudden change”.
You’re treating this as a binary situation “growth” or “decline” but its not nearly that simple. The important factors are the amount of growth or decline and at the rate that is the problem with China’s implementation.
We shouldn’t discount all systems that want to limit population growth like this because ones with better metrics could actually work.
No one is suggesting that.
And as we’ve seen, this program DID WORK. It lowered population. Just not in socially healthy ways.
…and…
It’s just not logical to complain that if you have less of a growing population that your elderly population outnumbers them. That’s LITERALLY THE PURPOSE OF POPULATION CONTROL.
That is empty logic, because it follows the letter of the goal* while entirely violating the spirit of it. Using that same logic we could fix global climate change just by murdering every human on the planet. See? It “DID WORK”. Climate change fixed, but like China’s situation, the cure is worse than the disease because in fixing climate change this way would mean there would be no humans around to benefit from the fix. But hey, it “DID WORK”, right?
Of course the elderly from before will outnumber them - you weren’t controlling their population!
Again, binary thinking. A complete stable system is okay if the elderly outnumber the young by a small consistent percentage over time. That isn’t what is happening in China. They are falling off a demographic cliff! Both match your statement of fewer young to elderly, but one is a sustainable controlled decline and the other is a crisis!
2 child policy is also not a good idea. There’s gonna be people not having kids, no matter what.
Unless you introduce state mandated big-tiddy goth gfs for breeding, it’s not gonna work out.
And even then, there are gonna be people dying before they can reproduce.
So morals aside, it simply isn’t that simple.
Your comment misses a lot of points. The catastrophic consequences for are seen, and they were foreseeable. It’s just that the dictatorial government didn’t listen to researchers. As you say that “ideally you’d have a 2 child policy to actually replace parents 1:1 with kids”: No, ideally, you have no ‘child policy’. It’s not a government’s role to say how many kids everyone should have.
I wrote in another threat that China’s one-child policy has many issue caused by the government, and there are many consequences unique to this Chinese policy and that the article doesn’t contain, such as unrecognised children in China’s post one-child policy landscape:
… Although gender may seem to be a less obvious element of China’s one-child policy, it was a crucial component. Not only did this cultural gender preference cause a large demographic imbalance between boys and girls, but it also led to phenomena like mass adoptions and even infanticides of baby girls. The government has also occasionally contributed to unethical and extreme measures by carrying out forced abortions and sterilisations in order to make families comply with the policy …
The one-child policy, which reigned in the country for more than 30 years, has also resulted in the development of an entire generation of children—who are now also adults —that do not appear in Chinese state records. People who fall into this group are popularly called “Heihaizi“, China’s “black children” who could not obtain a hukou— an official household registration. Such children were primarily second-born or later children who, upon birth, had no recognized right to exist due to this family planning policy …
Even in the case that families would want to regularize their Heihaizi’s administrative status and obtain a hukou registration, the cost to do so is often too prohibitive for them. This aspect has additionally highlighted economic and social disparities, as wealthier and more affluent families have been able to circumvent the norm by paying the fee for a hukou.
Not registered Heihaizi, therefore, end up being forced to stay away from society and even public spaces, spending most of their time confined to exclusively familiar spaces …
This is devastating and absolutely incomparable in its cruelty to any other country afaik.
And you completely missed my point. My point was that any kind of population change will have an imbalance of old vs new. Until that imbalance passes, you haven’t seen the final results of the experiment, you’re still in it.
That’s it. Wasn’t touching on the gender imbalance or any of that. So thanks for that giant wall of text, but it’s not the point I was touching on at all.
And you don’t need to tag me in response to my own comment. I see it just fine.
Is this phenomenon that much different than the ones in Japan and South Korea? People have less kids these days. Im sure their one child policy didnt help but I’d imagine they’d be in the same place without it, only there’d be even more elderly becsuse people would have had more kids back when it made sense to have more kids.
