I can only go by the published literature on the subject. — fishfry

I believe that. Simple people have no critical ability, and therefore they can't analyze meritfully the publications they read.

I believe that. Simple people have no critical ability, and therefore they can't analyze meritfully the publications they read. — god must be atheist

China had for decades a one-child policy, which was apparently relaxed to a two-child policy, then just this week was relaxed again to a three-child policy. By your own numbers, their population has doubled in 60 years, implying an annualized population growth rate of 1.2% per year. So you're not making much of a case.

I'd be grateful for references. I've been reading about China's population control measures for decades. If the literature is wrong, or if there's alternative literature that I should be aware of, I would be happy to be educated on the subject. — fishfry

It's not literature you need to see my point. It's brains. And nobody can give you brains beyond what you have already.

I am really at odds with you. There is a perfectly clear explanation that Chinese families on the average had more than two children each for many decades non-stop. Math don't lie. Since you can't understand the concept, I am incapable of convincing you. Don't even try.

By your own numbers, their population has doubled in 60 years, implying an annualized population growth rate of 1.2% per year. So you're not making much of a case. — fishfry

To you. Since you don't know the first thing about math. It is not my fault. Go back to your high school and give hell to your principal, the math teacher and the school board.

And again, the original convo was the State versus the individual. You are claiming China is all-in for liberty and individuality? Really? You have a hard sell, but I have an open mind. Make your case. — fishfry

I made my case. Your intellectual deficit in math makes it impossible for you to appreciate my case. Case closed.

And again, the original convo was the State versus the individual. You are claiming China is all-in for liberty and individuality? Really? — fishfry

This is a question. I don't argue with questions as they have no truth value. State your case in nominative sentences.

To wit, no state is all-in for liberty and individuality. If you want to bring an existing example of a state that is all-in for individuality and not at all for the state, please show me that system.

I made my case. Your intellectual deficit in math makes it impossible for you to appreciate my case. Case closed. — god must be atheist

I think we found something to agree on. Nice chatting with you.

You are claiming China is all-in for liberty and individuality? Really? — fishfry

Where the heck did you get this cockamamie opinion? Not from me? You read into text like a bible-interpreter: with complete disregard to the actual content. You are not worthy arguing against.

For your information: all states have some degree fostering individuality, and some degree of fostering state interests. You are against that? Why? Please state your reason.

if each parent has two children, the growth rate should stay stagnant. — god must be atheist

I will stipulate to being a math dummy, even among Americans, I am a dummy. But if a woman and man replicate themselves with two kids who grow and each have two kids (grandkids) and they grow and each have two grand kids before the original mom and dad die, haven't we had exponential growth?

No, if all people are coupled and every couple only produce two offspring who live long enough to in turn produce two offspring, there will be no sustained growth of population.

I'll have to take your word for it, because, like I said, I'm no math guy, but I see we start with 2 people and end up with 16 in four generations. What am I missing?

I just hope they succeed with a vaccine for all coronaviruses and other viruses that are otherwise particularly good at entering cells and using our hardware against us.

if every person only produces one person in their life, and provided the person produced doesn't die, which would reduce the population, then the population will remain steady. I'm no math guy either, but it seems to me that must logically follow. I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something.

I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something. — Janus

No, you are right. I woke up this morning with my brain on, asked my wife and we worked it out on a piece of paper like some third graders. :blush: As a typical American, thinking of myself only, I was going from one to two, etc. Totally forgetting about the damn in-laws. And the wife.

I stand corrected. Carry on.

You know I just happened to learn yesterday that China will now allow married couples to have three children — fishfry

Interesting. Do couples want more than 3 children?

No, you are right — James Riley

On behalf of Janus, thanks!

I stand corrected — James Riley

You can sit down. It's much easier to correct if you do.

:up:

Interesting. Do couples want more than 3 children? — TheMadFool

That is not even remotely the point. The point is that in China, it's the State that says how many children a couple may have. They enforce, or enforced the rule (not clear if they still do this) with mandatory contraception and sterilization. It's the difference between authoritarianism and liberty; collectivism and individuality; coercion and choice.

But if a woman and man replicate themselves with two kids who grow and each have two kids (grandkids) and they grow and each have two grand kids before the original mom and dad die, haven't we had exponential growth? — James Riley

When the two kids get born, then the two great-grand parents die. When the two kids have two kids, their grandparents die. When the two kids who had two kids have two kids, then the parents die. (Keeping the generations consistent.)

There is no exponential growth. Generations replace each other.

Your theory, James, would only work in a country of Vampires, where nobody ever dies.

They enforce, or enforced the rule (not clear if they still do this) with mandatory contraception and sterilization. It's the difference between authoritarianism and liberty; collectivism and individuality; coercion and choice. — fishfry

That's what they told the rest of the world.

I they did that, there would still be 500 million Chinese, or fewer. Now everyone who reads this thread knows that. But no, you can't accept it, because you cited precisely a great number of FreeWorld Jourals that said the same thing that you bought, hook, line, and sinker. Whereas those who think for five minutes, will see that those who believe the FreeWorld journals are gullible, non-thinking, and incapable of allowing logical conclusions to enter their minds, once they have made it up.

This is the difference between brain-washed American individualism and shrewd Chinese external affairs propaganda.

That's what they told the rest of the world.

I they did that, there would still be 500 million Chinese, or fewer. Now everyone who reads this thread knows that. But no, you can't accept it, because you cited precisely a great number of FreeWorld Jourals that said the same thing that you bought, hook, line, and sinker. Whereas those who think for five minutes, will see that those who believe the FreeWorld journals are gullible, non-thinking, and incapable of allowing logical conclusions to enter their minds, once they have made it up.

This is the difference between brain-washed American individualism and shrewd Chinese external affairs propaganda. — god must be atheist

Just yesterday I happened to run across yet another article about the subject. If you want to claim that everyone's been lying -- that there was no one-child policy -- well, I myself am a huge proponent of free speech, and I support your right to shout theater in a crowded fire. Peace, brother.

The 'One-Child' Policy Was Tyrannical in Theory and Brutally Oppressive in Practice

Pretty bummed. I got the stupid shot and have not noticed any increase in my 5G signal.

I elect not to get the vaccine because I do not believe the science that I have been told. I also do not push my patients to get the vaccine, or to avoid it. I respect their decision either way. You accept the risk of getting the vaccine, choosing not to know the details behind it. I accept that that is your process and that you are comfortable with it. I only ask that we give the same level of understanding to those who do not wish to be vaccinated. I am not an anti-vaxer, far from it; I have all my vaccinations up to date. But not this one. I do not believe we know enough about the virus or its myriad mutations, to move on this vaccine. I have seen too many red flags. As you are comfortable with the risk associated with getting the vaccine, I am comfortable with the risk associated with not getting the vaccine. Both decisions are based on personal risk analysis and acceptance of said risks. Both are equally valid.

The claim that not being vaccinated spreads the virus does not hold up to science. Having been vaccinated does not prevent someone from spreading it, it reduces morbidity and mortality, not spread.

Do what you are comfortable with. Either way, you are the one that deals with the result.

Risk benefit analysis can only be done on available data, not on fear of theoretical possibilities of adverse reactions. Based on available data the benefits far outweigh the risks. We have seem a dramatic decrease in the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. The evidence indicates that not only the person getting the vaccine benefits but others do as well. We also know that the vaccines have been effective against variations and stopping the development of variations.

I do not believe the science that I have been told. — Book273

The claim that not being vaccinated spreads the virus does not hold up to science. — Book273

This type of argument is all too common. You reject the science when it does not conform to your beliefs and appeal to science when you think it supports them.

not at all. I use the same measure across the board, the measure I was taught to use to assess risk and benefit for all my patients. I do not work on behalf of my government, or the agency that hired me, except within the parameters of that hiring agreement, which was to advocate for, and promote, the health of my patients according to their wishes and best practice within the healthcare industry. Pushing the vaccination program is not best practice, or at least wasn't until a year ago, when suddenly my registering body decided to push the public health line. So outside of public policy, I move forward with what my patient wants, not tell them what they want, and offer them the best advice I can, no matter their stance on vaccination or other healthcare positions

Lastly, I am coming at this with a 4 year university degree in a healthcare field, 14 years direct patient care experience including 9 in critical care. I do my research. Where are you coming from? Just wondering.

Pretty bummed. I got the stupid shot and have not noticed any increase in my 5G signal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well you have that tracking chip in you now. It might be interfering.

Well you have that tracking chip in you now. It might be interfering. — frank

ha!