Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Your view on recent Middle East crisis
Giancarlo:
I'll stay here... I guess I better get some sleep. Catch you all later.
JennyC:
--- Quote from: ekeby on July 24, 2006, 10:42:08 pm ---Back to the unmarried male situation. Brace yourselves. China's birthrate has been 2 to 1 male to female for the last 20 years, and they will soon have about a billion unmarried males.
--- End quote ---
Ekeby,
You are right that China has above normal male birth than female, but it’s definitely NOT 2 to 1 male to female. The normal sex ratio at birth is around 103 to 107 male vs. 100 female. In China, the sex ratio is 108.5 male to 100 female in 1982; 111.3 : 100 in 1990, and 116.9 : 100 in 2000. (you may google “sex ration at birth” to see the ratio around the world). It’s believed that this imbalance is mainly caused by the abortion of female fetuses and infanticide as the technology to identify fetus gender becomes more available to the general public and is relatively cheap. The increasing imbalance has been duly noted by the society. Recently, new laws have been introduced to make any non-medical necessary identification of fetus’ gender illegal. Some official efforts are underway to shift public opinion on the value of daughter, and prompting gender equality.
This, however, is no easy task for a country with thousands years of male dominated culture and agriculture based economy (particularly in the rural areas). China’s One Child policy started late 70’s has long been criticized by the western world. The fact remains that China, with limited resource, can not afford to not have some population control policy in order to improve people’s living standard. Some developed countries may support their population with limited land/resource with more industrialized economy. But not china where the majority of the population still live in agriculture based economy. There is simply not enough land to support the population growth. Without the population control policy, China would have not seen the double digit economy growth rate for more than 10 years. I actually have seen some analysis article that comparing China’s economy development with some other third world counties, like Mexico, Philippine. Relatively smaller size of family has been attributed to be one of the reasons for China’ success.
Some basic facts regarding China's population:
- China reached 1.3 billion population on Jan 6, 2005. This date has been postponed by more than 4 years due to the implementation of One Child policy (or Family Planning policy as referred by some).
- 51.65% of the population is male and 48.5% female (this number may be a few years old)
- 40.53% China's population live in cities/towns, 59.47% live in villages or other rural areas.
- Birth rate in 2003 is 12.41/1000, death rate 6.4/1000, population natural growth rate 6.01/1000
- Based on UN estimate, China's population will reach 1.5 billion around 2030. China's population will peak around 2040.
I am not debating China’s One Child policy here. It’s a tiresome topic for me. For the people who believe its immoral, it will always be immoral. For the people who believe it’s necessary, then what should be debated is the implementation of such policy, not its principle.
Enough of the population talk as it’s really OT for the topic. Let’s go back to talk about Middle East.
Giancarlo:
What the one child policy has done has caused the premature aging of the population. Typically a population would age when a country reaches developed status, because people would have less children. But this is happening at an exacerbated rate in China.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm
Some of you might find this shocking.
This is likely to put enormous stress on China's fragile social system. By these estimates 35-40% of China's population will be above the age of 60 by 2040. This however did as is intended, but controlling population growth and causing future declines:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/argu/trends/trend_10.htm
In 1995, China's population reached 1.23 billion. In its most recent (medium variant) projection, the UN Population Division estimates that China's population will increase to 1.49 billion in 2025 and then slightly decline to 1.48 billion in 2050 (see Table 1). This is equivalent to a population increase of roughly 261 million people between 1995 and 2025 and a population decline of 3.7 million between 2025 and 2050 (see Table 2). In other words, during the three decades between 1995 and 2025 China's population will increase by a number of people roughly equivalent to the total population of the USA. To meet this additional demand is one of the core problems of China's food security.
Not much attention is paid to the aging population of China... here is another report:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/09/content_337985.htm
JennyC:
Giancarlo, thanks for the information on the China's aging population issue. Both sites presents pretty balanced information.
JennyC:
Now back to Middle East.
There is a cover story in The Economist July 22nd – 28th 2006 on the Middle East Crisis. Among many media coverage and analysis on the Israel/Lebanon conflicts, this article sticks with me. I am still sorting out my online access issue with them, therefore can not post the entire commentary here. I typed part of the article (excuse me if there are any typos in it)
"The Economist's primary focus is world news, politics and business. It's known for taking a strongly argued editorial stance on many issues. It does not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles. In their own words: It is written anonymously, because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists." (from wikipedia)
Given the brief introduction of The Economist, please note that the article may present a strong opinion and it’s not neutral. Now on with the article…
****************************
The Accidental War
--A pointless war that no one may have wanted and no one can win. It should stop now.
The war that has just erupted apparently without warning between Israel and Lebanon looks miserable familiar. The wanton spilling of blood, the shattering of lives and homes, the flight of refugees: it has all happened in much the same way and just the same places before. In 1982 an Israeli government sent tanks into the heart of Beirut to crush the “state within a state” of Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization. A quarter of a century later, Israel’s air force is pulverizing Lebanon in order to crush the state within a state established there by Hezbollah, Lebanon’s Iranian-inspired “Party of God”. That earlier war looked at first like a brilliant victory for Israel. Arafat and his men had to be rescued by the Americans and escorted to exile in faraway Tunis. But Israel’s joy did not last. The war killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, along with hundreds of Israeli and Syrian soldiers. It brought years of misery to Lebanon- and, of course, no peace in the end to Israel. The likeliest outcome of this war is that the same futile cycle will repeat itself.
…….
This is madness, and it should end. It is madness because the likelihood of Israel achieving the war aims it has set for itself is negligible. However much punishment Mr Olmert inflicts on Hezbollah, he can not force it to submit in a way that its leaders and followers will perceived as a humiliation. Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon turned into its Vietnam. It is plainly unwilling to occupy the place again. But airpower alone will never destroy every last rocket and prevent Hezbollah’s fighters from continuing to send them off. No other outside force looks capable of doing the job on Israel’s behalf. At presents, the only way to disarm Hezbollah is therefore in the context of n agreement Hezbollah itself can be made to accept.
George Bush is in no rush to rescue Hezbollah. And why, he must wonder, should he? This organization killed hundreds of American marines in 1983. It is part of an alliance, consisting also of Iran, Syria and Hamas, working against America’s interests and friends. Pro-American governments, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, bluntly blame Hezbollah for this latest wasteful war. Israel is asking for more time, perhaps another week or two, to complete its demolition of Hezbollah’s arsenal and create a new order in Lebanon. Though Condeleezza Rice, Mr Bush’s secretary of state, says she is bound for the region, there is no concealing the American temptation to dawdle.
Hurry, please
That is a mistake. Hezbollah can not be uprooted. It is not going formally to surrender. Its past struggle against Israel has won it the fierce loyalty of many Lebanese Shias, and its present one will add to their number even if it comes off worse. Israel’s security will not be enhanced by destroying the rest of Lebanon. By weakening the Lebanese state, and its fragile but well-intentioned government, Israel just weakens the already feeble constrains Lebanon tries to impose on Hezbollah’s actions.
What is needed now is a way for both sides to climb down. Israel must get its soldiers back, Hezbollah’s departure from the border area and an undertaking that Hezbollah will not attack again. The Lebanese army or a neutral force should then man the border. Hezbollah needs to be given a way to consent to these changes without losing face. Squaring this will take times, ingenuity and the full engagement of the United States. It will not bring peace to the Middle Best, but it might silence a dangerous new front. America should start its work at once.
***************************
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version