China to Sterilize Couples With More Than One Child

[evasive]

We have the baby-boomers going into old-age pension here (kids born 9 months after WW2). How we pay for it? Nobody knows yet...

[CivilDissent]

Oh, do not worry. Our population is going to double by 2050, I want to see if we start sterilizing people in the US...or maybe we can drop a bomb on ourselves.

I have been to China many, many times and the only overpopulated places are certain big cities. The vast majority of China is not even populated! Most residential areas of China are small villages that support themselves...something people in the US need to learn.

China Population
The Population Growth of the World's Largest Country
By Matt Rosenberg

Population Growth
Jul 30 2008

With just over 1.3 billion people (1,330,044,605 as of mid-2008), China is the world's largest and most populous country.
As the world's population is approximately 6.7 billion, China represents a full 20% of the world's population so one in every five people on the planet is a resident of China.

China's population growth has been somewhat slowed by the one child policy, in effect since 1979.

As recently as 1950, China's population was a mere 563 million. The population grew dramatically through the following decades to one billion in the early 1980s.

China's total fertility rate is 1.7, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 1.7 children throughout her life. The necessary total fertility rate for a stable population is 2.1; nonetheless, China's population is expected to grow over the next few decades. This can be attributed to immigration and a decrease in infant mortality and a decrease in death rate as national health improves.

By the late 2010s, China's population is expected to reach 1.4 billion. Around 2030, China's population is anticipated to peak and then slowly start dropping.

In the next few decades, India, the world's second most populous country is expected to surpass China in population. By 2040, India's population is expected to be 1.52 billion; that same year, China's will be 1.45 billion and India will become the world's most populous country. As of 2005, India has a total fertility rate of 2.8, well above replacement value, so it is growing much more quickly than China.

Notice that Chinas' population growth is attributed to immigration...let me repeat that...immigration....and decrease in death rate. Does any of those ideas ring any bells?

Also, notice that India will soon overtake China as the population leader, maybe we start sterilization there first. Also, notice that China's population will soon start shrinking.

And lets not even get into pollution. I live in one of the pollution capitals of the world, right here on the gulf coast. I have chemical companies surrounding me, in every direction and have worked for one of them and been inside several others. If you want to talk pollution, I have just about every major toxic chemical right here in my backyard and not just the "popular" rinkydink ones.

[thomas_w_bowman]

Trouble with Pension (and in USA, Social Security), although money was paid in - it was spent as fast (or faster) than it came in. That's why even a poor investment (or even shoving money into a mattress) might be better than relying on someone else to 'handle' retirement.

But with todays quality Public Schools, kids today should be able to be much more productive ?



And as the 'Global Warming' conference becomes clear about simply being a way to take 100's of billions from developed nations to give tens of billions to 'under-developed' Nations (Hmmm, wonder where the hundreds of billions are being trimmed to tens of billions ?). Copenhagen's talks seem to be stalling (and frankly, I could not hope for more than stalled talks since I live in a Country that is considered 'Too Rich':

Russians confirm U.K. climate scientists manipulated data
Say weather stations with incomplete records used because they supported warming theory
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/

Chaos at climate conference
Copenhagen confab appears to be imploding from within, exploding from without
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30664.html

[fussnfeathers]

Not so much a problem that SSI was spent too fast, it was spent at the rate it was designed. The problem is SSI/SSDI was not designed to have lasted this long. The lifespan of the program was supposed to be the lifespan of WW2 vets, i.e. my grandfather, who died a few years ago. It was never designed to pay for my 64 year old mother, nor me in 25 years. It's just that every time the alloted money starts to dry up, government comes up with new, absurd ways to pay for it, even though it's a losing battle. The system needs a complete redesign, from the ground up, with pure long-term intentions, if that's what we want. The current system is dead.