Fake videos show frustrated, unmarried, childless middle-aged women crying and venting in hospital hallways about their life choices.

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    They actually had massive overpopulation after industrialization and then limited it with the One Child Policy, then later the Two Child Policy, but one of the repercussions of the One Child Policy and the inability of women to inherit wealth was that female babies were murdered at birth and a large gender ratio disparity formed. Now that the population has started to decline while average lifespan rises due to improved medical science, two new problems have formed:

    1. The ratio of elderly to young is skewed, meaning one young has to take care of more elderly or do their equivalent of work.

    2. The dictatorship’s most recent leader has realized he personally benefits from more manpower regardless of the consequences and suffering that increased population will cause.

    • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      You’re correct. It’s an oversimplification…but not a big one.

      Cold hard predicative and replicable facts are better than “it must suck in China so they don’t want kids, bro”

      • ɯᴉuoʇuɐ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s an oversimplification…but not a big one.

        It’s a massive oversimplification that seems to whitewash China’s policies.

        Every country that undergoes industrialisation and urbanisation has a big drop in birth rates. Same in capitalist and socialist countries, there’s no essential difference in how it plays out (the tempo is different from case to case for many reasons, but the trend is the same). But China additionally made the rates plummet through govt intervention.

        So you stressed and praised the part that wasn’t truly crucial for the outcome (socialism), but ignored the part (one child policy) that drastically contributed to the outcome and that can’t be presented as nice or intuitively desirable (regardless of whether it objectively was or wasn’t a good decision). That’s not simplification but selectiveness.

        (Yes, it is true that many lemmings who live outside China just project their own “China sucks” logic onto the Chinese, and their approach is wrong, I agree with you on that count.)

        • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yes…because those things create wealth. Sounds like you agree but are trying to find an argument. We know birth rate and wealth/poverty are directly related…it’s is what it is. Once upon a time it was just understood that was the case…before everybody injected personal politics into everything.

          For the purposes of my comment I’m ambivalent about the political “vehicle”…I’m just plainly stating what happened: social policy raised billions out of poverty….then the capitalist elements of the society demanded labour. We know it’s not the other way around. If you think I’m assigning value to either capitalism or socialism, you’re projecting.

          Meh…what, in your headcanon, am I “selecting” for? I don’t even know if you got “offended” about socialism or capitalism, I don’t want to debate something I didn’t say.