![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouor a philosopher, or a historian.
Okay, the theories on world population control are pretty diverse, and as far as I know, China is the only country (so far) to actually attempt some kind of a major population control. In contrast, Japan's population is holding steady and/or decreasing minutely, as a result of the economic pressures and social changes resulting in people waiting longer to have children, having fewer children, and some folks not bothering at all.
But here are the primary situations facing the worldbuilding experiment I'm working on:
1. the population is significantly higher than the resources can support
2. the government (secular) has been forced to institute controls on the birth rate
3. for various reasons, a significant # of the population is sterile
Without sitting down and figuring out numbers, I'm postulating that if the death rate continues at a steady pace (barring sudden natural disasters and war), it's still too low to balance out the birth rate against the actual population. So, more deaths required, fewer births allowed, until the population reaches a point that's feasible and manageable against the number of resources.
China, currently, has a huge number of baby girls up for adoption, who have been abandoned to the government's care. Part of the feasibility of doing this is that there are other countries who have resources/room for the children. If, however, that were not an option, I'd think the government would be forced to clamp down harder, rather than have the burden of unwanted children shifted onto them. I do know that a Chinese friend told me that although she's a Chinese citizen, she may have as many children as she wants (especially while out of the country, and it helps that she's educated middle-class for China). The clincher is not that her children will be forcibly removed, but that if she returns to China with her two sons, she will lose all health insurance/support, education options, etc, for her second child. As far as the government would be concerned, her second child simply would not exist; China's cost of living is apparently quite high in contrast to possible incomes, so the cost makes such an option completely out of the question for 99.9% of the population. (I'm disregarding, of course, the issue of minorities being exempt from this rule, as well as the fact that my friend could have two sons because she was outside China when they were born and thus out from under the government's control.)
What are the theories on overpopulation? Would such a situation result in anarchy? I've posited a lottery setup for potential parents taking their turn at a chance to have children - "this year, seventy-three children can be born; seventy-three fertile couples will have a chance to concieve; those who cannot will be removed from the lotteries and the unborn # added to next year's lottery". Might a black market situation where the mafia hires itself out to slaughter/destroy large neighborhoods in hopes of introducing more deaths to raise the # of parental couples selected in the lottery? I can't think of any historical examples of such, to demonstate that such callous disregard could occur on the level required, if the proportion were greater than one to one, say, five deaths for every birth. CP has pointed out that even now, we have a recurring pattern of negligence for the elderly - cutting back medicare, attempting to privatize social security - and wouldn't the same possibly occur for those people ranked as 'neutrals' (sterile by birth, drug exposure or malnutrition)? That would shift the gender wars dramatically: male, female, neutral, based solely on one's ability to reproduce. If someone were determined to be neutral and infertile, would this create a second-class citizenship? Is there any historical example of situations where this has occured? I'm thinking of the mulattos and quatroons in Louisiana, where recognition of black ancestry was enough to drop one on the social scale, but it's not like you can look at a person and know they're fertile or infertile.
Glad to hear any/all speculation.
This world-building stuff is kinda fun.
Okay, the theories on world population control are pretty diverse, and as far as I know, China is the only country (so far) to actually attempt some kind of a major population control. In contrast, Japan's population is holding steady and/or decreasing minutely, as a result of the economic pressures and social changes resulting in people waiting longer to have children, having fewer children, and some folks not bothering at all.
But here are the primary situations facing the worldbuilding experiment I'm working on:
1. the population is significantly higher than the resources can support
2. the government (secular) has been forced to institute controls on the birth rate
3. for various reasons, a significant # of the population is sterile
Without sitting down and figuring out numbers, I'm postulating that if the death rate continues at a steady pace (barring sudden natural disasters and war), it's still too low to balance out the birth rate against the actual population. So, more deaths required, fewer births allowed, until the population reaches a point that's feasible and manageable against the number of resources.
China, currently, has a huge number of baby girls up for adoption, who have been abandoned to the government's care. Part of the feasibility of doing this is that there are other countries who have resources/room for the children. If, however, that were not an option, I'd think the government would be forced to clamp down harder, rather than have the burden of unwanted children shifted onto them. I do know that a Chinese friend told me that although she's a Chinese citizen, she may have as many children as she wants (especially while out of the country, and it helps that she's educated middle-class for China). The clincher is not that her children will be forcibly removed, but that if she returns to China with her two sons, she will lose all health insurance/support, education options, etc, for her second child. As far as the government would be concerned, her second child simply would not exist; China's cost of living is apparently quite high in contrast to possible incomes, so the cost makes such an option completely out of the question for 99.9% of the population. (I'm disregarding, of course, the issue of minorities being exempt from this rule, as well as the fact that my friend could have two sons because she was outside China when they were born and thus out from under the government's control.)
What are the theories on overpopulation? Would such a situation result in anarchy? I've posited a lottery setup for potential parents taking their turn at a chance to have children - "this year, seventy-three children can be born; seventy-three fertile couples will have a chance to concieve; those who cannot will be removed from the lotteries and the unborn # added to next year's lottery". Might a black market situation where the mafia hires itself out to slaughter/destroy large neighborhoods in hopes of introducing more deaths to raise the # of parental couples selected in the lottery? I can't think of any historical examples of such, to demonstate that such callous disregard could occur on the level required, if the proportion were greater than one to one, say, five deaths for every birth. CP has pointed out that even now, we have a recurring pattern of negligence for the elderly - cutting back medicare, attempting to privatize social security - and wouldn't the same possibly occur for those people ranked as 'neutrals' (sterile by birth, drug exposure or malnutrition)? That would shift the gender wars dramatically: male, female, neutral, based solely on one's ability to reproduce. If someone were determined to be neutral and infertile, would this create a second-class citizenship? Is there any historical example of situations where this has occured? I'm thinking of the mulattos and quatroons in Louisiana, where recognition of black ancestry was enough to drop one on the social scale, but it's not like you can look at a person and know they're fertile or infertile.
Glad to hear any/all speculation.
This world-building stuff is kinda fun.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 22 Nov 2004 05:02 pm (UTC)The problem with stories like Handmaid's Tale, The Fifth Sacred Thing, Logan's Run, Atlas Shrugged, 1984, etc., is that they're not really science fiction, nor do they often posit a realistic government/society. It's pushed to an extreme to illustrate the author's point about the evils of that society. I refuse to believe that at some point in the future we would care so little for children and/or the act of procreation (regardless of gender or sexuality) that children would become a commodity. Nor do I believe that a society would willingly accept murdering everyone over thirty as a viable way to control the population. And while there have been fully authoritarian governments on this planet, outright dictatorships, it doesn't seem to have coexisted with poverty and bad health and limited resources - and stayed a government for long. Look at the Soviet Union, for instance. Three, four generations isn't much compared to the longevity of some government systems.
Socialist democracies may, by definition, control many things that in the US are privatized: health care, public transportation/communication, entertainment - hell, in Sweden I was informed there's a list of what tobacco products can be imported, and retailers must order from that, period. However, the democratic aspect of this socialism does mean that, within specified boundaries, people do retain some control of their country's future.
In some ways, China might be a more applicable example if it weren't for that society's emphasis on boy-children. This has produced a number of hidden pregnancies (with contraceptives harder to come by in that regime), which are then dumped if they're not male. A curious side-effect, as a Chinese friend pointed out to me, is that the new generation of Chinese children (up to about age 16 or so now; I think the law was introduced in the mid-80's?) are unbelievably spoiled. Previously, a family was expected to have several children, and any wealth was spread between the children. Having only one child - and that being *it* for your chances - means the one child gets the full effect of the attention and affection that any parent will naturally give their children. It's apparently running rampant now for these only-children to be quite selfish, demanding more and more as the One And Only Child in the family. This is especially distressing to many older Chinese, given their tradition of filial piety to the family; having the roles reversed in just the course of one generation has to be somewhat of a bizarre shock.
But then, that's part of what I mean by the unlikelihood that people would be consistently callous in the areas of children and family. Once the child is born, I would expect my posited world to have scores of children who have everything possible lavished upon them, as living proof of the parents' fertility. Almost as though children become a form of visible weath, in their own right, off-setting any second-class citizenship the fertile minority might feel against a neutral majority.
More to consider, eh? Not that this might ever show up in a story - again, I'm not into pendantic lecturing - but it does make for some interesting tensions and constraints on any characters. And that's part of the fun...