Another fun climate change thread

Make stupid policies, reap bad rewards. I feel sorry for the elders among them.

This problem is compounded by the oriental disdain for daughters and preference for sons. The sons will have no girls to marry or mate with, the young women will have no desire to be used by either husband or government as a baby factory, and there also is a growing segment of young men who don't want to bother with women and the frustration that inevitably follows having one. Same thing is happening here, too, but without government requiring it. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

But 400 million of them! That's like the whole population of the US and UK combined.

How the fook is that going to work?

 

I don't think it will. Unfortunately, when authoritarian regimes have a crisis, their known favorite method for dealing with it is some kind of austerity program. This will guarantee unfortunate results every time. Not for the regime, mind you, but for their subjects. My best guess is they'll want to do something to encourage a massive die-off. I've heard they'd like to rid themselves of a good portion of their population, and what better way to accomplish such a thing? War and Disease comes to mind here.

Oddly enough, we have a smaller-scale version of this problem over here with the baby boomers retiring, and since they were indoctrinated growing up with the 2.1 child per household model, I'm suspecting that taxes of some kind will have to be raised to support them all, as there otherwise won't be enough younger folks to support them, either. And THOSE kids raised a "one and done" generation, compounding the problem even further.

Bottom line is: If you're gonna' have a grandiose program to make yourself look magnanimous, you gotta' have a way to fund it, and that cash has to come from someone. It isn't simply gonna' fall out of the sky for you. Like Margaret Thatcher said: "....sooner or later you always run out of other people's money."

 

On one hand, most of those will have passed the baton twenty years hence. But the other says they'll have a challenge but find a solution. They'll have to do a more efficient job at managing their elders than we do in the US, but that's not asking a lot. Did you see that clip where all those earth movers were prepping to build a new hospital? Impressive! And I suspect they don't entertain whiners who want to slow progress like we can't seem to avoid here. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

 

That one child policy may have bad consequences, but imagine if China never implemented such a thing.

 

Not everyone thought that was such a bad idea tho.

 

Imagining what would have been is similar to and about as productive as predicting the future.

Still fun, though.

 

Not always as (un)productive. Depends on the details. It's not always done predominantly for fun. If you acknowledge they have a population problem now and that the one child policy had some effect restricting the increase, than the conclusion seems it would be even bigger without making that controversial choice.

 

Yeah but in reality it's a moot speculative argument since we can't do both and directly compare the outcomes.

 

Meh, in this case you can. It's not that complex a calculation to work out the population demographics 40 years later

1. The one child policy introduced in 1979, 10 years after a 2 child policy. Life expectancy in China in 1979 was 66 years

2. The one child policy only ever applied to half the population

3. Didn't make that much of a difference to the gender spread 51% male 49% female in 2018, the reverse of that everywhere else. Anecdotal stories of young men with no money not being able to find a wife, in the west they blame women themselves, in China they blame the one child policy, doesn't make it true.

4. 2017, The life expectancy jumps to 76 years

5. Across the same time frame you had at least 300 million of them lifted out of the lower classes. Populations get to a certain level of wealth and they start to get into negative population growth

That 16% jump in life expectancy, never being able to attract enough immigrants, new middle class not breeding as much as they used to. These all have a far bigger impact on what's going on now than whether there is 30 million more males than there should be

One child policy sounds horrid to us, thus we put more weight into the idea it's causing anything

 

Lolz:


"Generally speaking, the sea level is rising faster on the US east and Gulf coasts compared with the US west coast, partially because land on the eastern seaboard is gradually sinking."


Sea level rise accelerating along US coastline, scientists warn

 

Greenland and Antarctica ice loss accelerating

deniers, what say you?

 

I think the words you are looking for is Global Warming.

 

As bad as America's one parent policy?

 

No, no they're not. I wasn't looking for words.
I was asking how the deniers deny this.

 

"Between them, Greenland and Antarctica lost 6.4 trillion tonnes of ice in the period from 1992 to 2017.

This was sufficient to push up global sea-levels by 17.8mm"


So, how come the sea levels didn't go up 17.8mm?

 

What if it did, but every continent is actually an island so it just floats on top? Floating island theory.

 

Or it's just an indication of how much inaccurate the whole project is

 

From a geological standpoint the continents are indeed floating...On the denser mantle rocks. Ocean floor is denser crust and so doesn’t ride so high. The sea water is a multiple of times lighter than either ocean or continental crust and so fills in the lower areas. None of which has a big impact on the sea level issue right now.

 

Naturally, i couldn't agree more. But that's not was HF wants to hear. so I gotta come up with some sort of other explanations.