# Fewer babies, more brainy babies



## mjscott

hly2004 said:


> Hi, everyone:
> 
> Fewer babies, more brainy babies(note: higher quality)
> Be it a she baby or a he baby
> It is your treasury baby.(something like :apple of your eyes)
> 
> This is a slogan of one-child family planning. I wonder if it sounds oK to you.
> 
> More explanation:
> (1)As a traditional viewpoint of my country. Parents show a preference to baby boys.
> (2)And a family will give more than one birth so as to have a baby boy.
> 
> 
> Best wishes


 
This was a question in the English Only Forum. What will happen to people in a society where only one child is born to the family? What will happen to the old people when they get old? What will happen when one husband is responsible for supporting his elderly parents, and his wife's elderly parents, if his wife can't work (or the wife if the husband can't work)? Will there be enough resource to raise a child?....

....And what if the male child is preferred, and the female child is left somewhere in a ditch forgotten, and there are not enough female children--where will the mothers come from for the society in the future?

These are questions that I have asked myself since China has encouraged one family, one child.

Any comments?


----------



## hly2004

Hi:

It is said that if every family gives one child. In time, the total population of the world will fall back to that at the beginning of the 20th century.


----------



## Sepia

hly2004 said:


> Hi:
> 
> It is said that if every family gives one child. In time, the total population of the world will fall back to that at the beginning of the 20th century.



However, the average age of the population will be higher. I am not sure about the mathematics behind this - I think theoretically it should be decreasing. But at least it is a fact that people live to be older than a 100 years ago, which together with low birth rates must be the reasons for the average age of a population increasing. So we'll obviously have to work longer before retiring. This, again is probably OK because we have the means to keep people healthy enough to still work an an older age - technically at least. Financially also? The average per capita medical costs will obviously be higher. Or will we save that money again in the school system that has less children to serve?

Any economists around? Help! Heeeellp!!!!


And by the way, how are people supposed to plan to have "brainy babies"??!! I don't even want to know which idiot came up with such an idea.


----------



## elizabeth_b

I remember some years ago I saw a documental at the TV in which they explained that in China there were already having problems amongst the children.  This derive from the fact that most of the children were unique sons, as the government motivates families to have only one or two childs.  I remember they baptized this new generations as "the little emperors" because as unique sons, the children have this egocentric attitudes.

In the other hand, I also read that in Europe some clothing firms were changing their designs in order to adapt their production to the market (mostly adults 35 - 60 years)  This article stated that European population is older now and that there are not so many young people as before.  The birth rate in Europe has been falling and some economists attibutes this to the fact that people don't want to have children due to economic and social changes going on and also in the fact that now contraconceptive techniques are more developed and easy to achieve.

So, yes i think we're dealing with a complex problem, in one hand in some countries policys are working in order to control the birth rate but in the other hand there are problems such as the "little emperors" syndrom.  Also in other countries the population will be older and the work force will decay in the future if the birth rate don't stop falling.  

I think we're dealing with a quite complex issue here.  Let's see how we solve it.  Surely we'll think on something.


----------



## hly2004

Hi,Sepia:
Actually, it is my translation. The original meaning is "good quality". Thank you for your idea. Could you give me a better suggestion？
：-）


----------



## hly2004

elizabeth_b said:


> I remember some years ago I saw a documental at the TV in which they explained that in China there were already having problems amongst the children.  This derive from the fact that most of the children were unique sons, as the government motivates families to have only one or two childs.  I remember they baptized this new generations as "the little emperors" because as unique sons, the children have this egocentric attitudes.
> 
> In the other hand, I also read that in Europe some clothing firms were changing their designs in order to adapt their production to the market (mostly adults 35 - 60 years)  This article stated that European population is older now and that there are not so many young people as before.  The birth rate in Europe has been falling and some economists attibutes this to the fact that people don't want to have children due to economic and social changes going on and also in the fact that now contraconceptive techniques are more developed and easy to achieve.
> 
> So, yes i think we're dealing with a complex problem, in one hand in some countries policys are working in order to control the birth rate but in the other hand there are problems such as the "little emperors" syndrom.  Also in other countries the population will be older and the work force will decay in the future if the birth rate don't stop falling.
> 
> I think we're dealing with a quite complex issue here.  Let's see how we solve it.  Surely we'll think on something.


Hi:


(1)To tell you the truth, I don't think China's population is too huge to sustain. 
One reason is that we don't own have one or two cars each family. 
I think that is impossible in the future too. Because there will not be enough energy. So, the imprint per person to the environment is much less. 

(2)"egocentric attitudes"
Yes, I agree. That is the fact. But I think all parents around the world love their children. But maybe they love them in different ways. The whole family (father, mother, grandparents） will revolve around (many times literally, because most Chinese people live in a large family at that time because of factual conditions） their son/grandson. They want to give love to him in their ways which you may call "indulge". For example, when people could only afford to have meat three times a month, parents know that their children need more meat than they do, and naturally will give their shares to their children or eat less. 
If they have only enough money to buy one clothes, naturally they will buy one for their children. All these come naturally when material living level is limited.

However, it does not mean "no discipline". There are moral education in the family. And children's behavior cannot cross that line (not like an emperor). Sometimes a father （uncommonly, a mother) will play the "tough role". and the other will play the "kind role".
I think "egocentric attitude" is not all bad. It makes children feel they are important, and thus feel more responsible for the society in the future. 
These attitudes could not exit in their parent's or grandparents' childhood, especially in a time of culture revolution. All of people do the same thing, wear the same clothes. I think they want to make up for their children.

(3)I think most of Chinese people like to have two children（a boy and a girl). In fact, rich people in China can have more than one children by paying an amount of punishment, which seems a drop in the bucket for them, but an arm and leg for average. I suppose, the idea here is that more educated people or people in developed area (Shanghai, Beijing)are encouraged to have more than one baby.

(4) a reality check.
Things are different from those a decade ago here. People pay attention to quantity as well as quality.


----------



## mally pense

Hmmm... the only relevant saying I can think of in English is:

_An only child is a lonely child_

That's not exactly going to help, is is? (Sorry!)


----------



## hly2004

I don't think "an only child" is "a lonely child". 

Because, little people in China have their own houses. (Those who have are farmers who built their own lands, or really rich people, celebrities. Even provincial -officials may live together,but not one in a house)

For people living in cities, they live in low apartment buildings.

So children can easily go to their friends' homes.

I'm the only child of my family. I never felt lonely. We would have lots of things to have fun.



But things are changing. The buildings are higher and higher. People may not know neighbors now.:-(


----------



## mally pense

No, you're right. An only child would only be a lonely child if society and/or its parents did not properly take care of its social needs, or were not able to through circumstance etc.

However, it does represent a way of thinking that may have been prevalent at the time the saying was devised. Clearly societies and attitudes change, as do their needs, values and perceptions.


----------



## nichec

Well, I hesitated to reply because I don't know much about Chinese society, and this seems to be a "huge" question to answer, but I will try to say what I have in mind (nervous as usual, I don't like to post in CD forum too much )

I remember I heard this in a conference "We have many people to feed, but very little useable land." I don't know if this qualifies as an excuse to force all the families to have only one child, but my impression is, this seems to be the reason why the Chinese goverment insists on the policy.

I think the average age of the society is going up everywhere, at least I know it's going up in most of the countries in Europe, and it's going up in Asia too. People of my generation tend not to have too many kids even when they are not forced in anyway not to have many kids. This has many downsides to a society, or should we say, to human beings as a whole, but sometimes I wonder if this is a "natural" developement of our so-called "civilization".

People do tend to expect "the only child" to have certain traits. As the saying goes, they are expected to be spoiled, self-centered....and so on. I know my share of "only child" who fits the "expectations" perfectly, but at the same time, I know my share of "only child" who's nothing like that. I think every kind of "generalization" has its own flaws, which is inevitable. Perhaps human beings are just too complicated a kind of creatures to be generalized.

What I feel somehow "personal" about this policy is the death of all the female infants that are killed by their own parents just because they are, well, female. But this is not done by the policy alone, the main reason of this is, I am afraid, the fact that through the long 5000 years of history, the Chinese society has always loved men/boys much more than women/girls. The policy is a mere trigger to these murders. 

I don't agree or disagree with the "one baby policy", but I think all the problems that are caused by this policy should lead us to learn and hopefully be better. (but as usual, I am way too cynical to believe that would ever happen......)


----------



## hly2004

The reason why the Chinese society has always loved men/boys is that China is an agriculture based society. A boy will grow into a man who can help family with farming work.


----------



## fenixpollo

The "little emperors" phenomenon is at work in US culture as well, and can be seen in the permissiveness that has been a trend in parenting in the last 20 years. Not just a Chinese thing. 





mally pense said:


> However, it does represent a way of thinking that may have been prevalent at the time the saying was devised. Clearly societies and attitudes change, as do their needs, values and perceptions.


 As the parent of an only child, I can tell you that the attitude that "an only child is a lonely child" is common today in North America. Until my son was 4 years old, we would continually receive questions about why he's an only child, and we found ourselves being almost defensive about our decision to have only one. My conclusion (correct or not) is that a very large segment of the society in which I live does not approve of having only one child. 





hly2004 said:


> The reason why the Chinese society has always loved men/boys is that China is an agriculture based society. A boy will grow into a man who can help family with farming work.


 I find it hard to believe that this is the only reason that male children are preferred. When there are 2 men for every woman, it speaks to something larger than a family's desire to have a boy child because they need a farmhand. I'm sure that there are cultural attitudes that also come into play. 

One has to be envious, in a way, of the Chinese women of the new generation -- they get to have their pick of the best men!  On the other hand, in order to find the best men, they have to wade through throngs of egocentric little emperors!


----------



## nichec

fenixpollo said:


> I find it hard to believe that this is the only reason that male children are preferred. When there are 2 men for every woman, it speaks to something larger than a family's desire to have a boy child because they need a farmhand. I'm sure that there are cultural attitudes that also come into play.
> 
> One has to be envious, in a way, of the Chinese women of the new generation -- they get to have their pick of the best men! On the other hand, in order to find the best men, they have to wade through throngs of egocentric little emperors!


 
Me too. All societies are based on agriculture, in fact, our whole civilization is based on it, not only the Chinese society. Yet men are like kings in the Chinese society, well, at least it seems to be.....important enough to kill you own newborn female babies in the hopes of having male ones next time.


----------



## karuna

I don't know if one child policy is good or bad for Chinese but I strongly disagree with the way how it is implemented. As for little emperor, China is already know for rude personal relationships between people, especially in big cities. Anybody who have gotten a little more wealth looks with contempt to others who are poorer. Drivers don't respect pedestrians, people use abusive language to each other in public etc. 

The reasons probably has less to do with the fact how many siblings one has but that in authoritarian societies things tend to be like that. It is the same in the former Soviet Union. People can have very warm relationships within their families and with close friends but to anybody else you should be as tough as possible. Don't even think of showing your smile to people you don't know. 

Having only one child means that there will be the whole generation of lonely and miserable old people. And mostly they will be poor as well because the rich people have more opportunities to have more than one child.


----------



## mjscott

The "only child" syndrome was not the focus of my question, but brings about interesting points as to the personality of the future inhabitants of China. My concern, is if there are no women, where will the women come from to make future societies?

It has been shown in history that when there is a larger male population than female population, (for whatever reason) war has erupted within that generation. Will they war for wives? Will they quietly submit to the fact that there are no women to be found? Will they look to other cultures and societies to supply their female-need quota?

These are just questions to ponder....


----------



## hly2004

In fact, the problem is not as serious as you said. Many people now want to have a baby girl. People's minds are changing. 

Karuna, you are very correct, except this one:


> Anybody who have gotten a little more wealth looks with contempt to others who are poorer.


That's not true. It's always the other way around.
People who are poorer always "hate" the rich people in their hearts. Because in China "rich  people" are seen by many as "bad people" who made their fortune through unlawful ways.  I don't think rich people show any contempt to others. That's why, recently, a new law--Property Law-- is made, which essentially I think is to protect the property of the rich.

I'm surprised how well you know about China.


----------



## aurilla

The last I heard was that due to the shortage of women in China, because of the one-child policy, the men where going, or arranging with other Asian countries, such as Thailand, to find brides. 

In a male-dominant society, the male child is preferred. In China, the wife has to go live with the husband's family, leaving her own. The male child carries forth the family surname, and traditionally financially takes care of his parents, while the daughter does not.


----------



## Etcetera

I'd been an only child for 10 years, and, like many children in my position, I wanted to have a brother or a sister. When I was 10, my dream came true; I can't say it meant utmost happiness, though. There were times when I felt myself more lonely than I had been before my sister was born. Still, I'm glad she's with me, and I think two children are optimal.

But I believe that, when you decide how much children you want to have, you should take into consideration your possibilities, including your financial possibilities.


----------



## alexacohen

fenixpollo said:


> My conclusion (correct or not) is that a very large segment of the society in which I live does not approve of having only one child.


 
And it is not approved here either; An only child is seen as a lonely (and spoilt) child.
Two kids seem to be the limit. Three is rare. And if you decide to have four, or six, or as many as they come, people will think you're a religious freak. 
But what I find most strange about the thread is not the "only one baby" thing.  What I find so strange is this:


> Fewer babies, more brainy babies(note: higher quality)
> Be it a she baby or a he baby
> It is your treasury baby


How on earth can anyone know beforehand how their baby is going to be?
What does "more quality" mean? 
It sounds quite nazi to me.


----------



## hly2004

The slogan aims to advise parents to pay attention to their education rather than the number of kids.
That's my translation. I guess it is misleading now.


----------



## tinlizzy

In a word it is called eugenics. Alexa I agree that it is very Naziesque.

Didn't China recently decide to pay a stipend to couples willing to have girls as pre-reimbursement for the girl's future dowry?


----------



## hly2004

No,No,No, it's not what you think. It's not about eugenics. But ask parents to raise their babies into talents. Give them better education. Send them to  college (as oppose to let them work at young age to help family businesses, farming, etc). In a word, to ask parents (especially new young parents) to raise their children well.

Eugenics:
study of the possibility of racial improvement through selective breeding and  other methods 

:-）


----------



## etabetapi

alexacohen said:


> How on earth can anyone know beforehand how their baby is going to be?
> What does "more quality" mean?
> It sounds quite nazi to me.


 
There's a misunderstanding here. "More quality" babies here isn't about the Nazi idea of eugenics. In the argument between "Nature or Nurture", the Nazis clearly believed in "Nature". However, the slogan here is about "Nurture"; having fewer babies means that each baby gets more resources and hence a higher quality of education and nurturing, therefore growing up into better quality individuals.




fenixpollo said:


> One has to be envious, in a way, of the Chinese women of the new generation -- they get to have their pick of the best men! On the other hand, in order to find the best men, they have to wade through throngs of egocentric little emperors!


 
We have to keep in mind the theory of evolution to see the magnitude of this disaster of unbalanced sex ratio. It is the nature of a female creature to select the best mate she can find to ensure that her baby has a higher chance of survival, hence increasing her chance of having her genes pass on to future generations. (The male solution was simpler; to impregnate as many females as possible, but this no longer works in human society.)

So this means that a female tends to look above her station. I'm not looking down on farmers, but it is still a fact that the Chinese farmer is a lot poorer than the Chinese city dweller. Where can the males babies in the rural areas look for their brides, when the female babies in the rural areas are being abandoned?

On the other hand, the female babies in the city have higher survival rate, because the argument that "a boy can help with farming" is no longer valid in cities. However, these females won't be looking for farm boys to marry.

To aggravate the situation, the rare females in the rural areas are looking above their stations too. Remember the phenomenon of mail order brides a decade ago? Mail order is no longer in vogue now (and I hate it for objectifyng women), but they are actively looking for better prospects beyond their farmland.

The farm boys are not marrying, they are not having babies; what will become of the farmland?


----------



## tinlizzy

Ok, not having read the first thread I now understand. Nurture, resources.


----------



## nichec

etabetapi said:


> We have to keep in mind the theory of evolution to see the magnitude of this disaster of unbalanced sex ratio. It is the nature of a female creature to select the best mate she can find to ensure that her baby has a higher chance of survival, hence increasing her chance of having her genes pass on to future generations. (The male solution was simpler; to impregnate as many females as possible, but this no longer works in human society.)
> 
> So this means that a female tends to look above her station. I'm not looking down on farmers, but it is still a fact that the Chinese farmer is a lot poorer than the Chinese city dweller. Where can the males babies in the rural areas look for their brides, when the female babies in the rural areas are being abandoned?
> 
> On the other hand, the female babies in the city have higher survival rate, because the argument that "a boy can help with farming" is no longer valid. However, these females won't be looking for farm boys to marry.
> 
> To aggravate the situation, the rare females in the rural areas are looking above their stations too. Remember the phenomenon of mail order brides a decade ago? Mail order is no longer in vogue now (and I hate it for objectifyng women), but actively look for better prospects beyond their farmland.
> 
> The farm boys are not marrying, they are not having babies; what will become of the farmland?


 

This is a great post   

It scares me just to think about all those men who won't be able to have "a regular companion", both physically and mentally.

What are they going to do then? I don't even want to imagine that......

And I seriously doubt that it's a "good thing" for females....As a female, I don't see "having a lot of choices regarding men" as something desirable (is it good in, like, many men fighting for your attention? Or, like, many men trying to seduce you? Or, like, many men trying to get you on their beds? What if things get nasty? Or is it good in, like, many men who's not able to have a girlfriend trying to rape you?) 

I think balance is important in the rules of nature, and I fear when the balance is broken, there will be the hell to pay.......


----------



## alexacohen

hly2004 said:


> No,No,No, it's not what you think. It's not about eugenics. But ask parents to raise their babies into talents. Give them better education. Send them to college (as oppose to let them work at young age to help family businesses, farming, etc). In a word, to ask parents (especially new young parents) to raise their children well.
> :-）


 
OK, I understand. But, still, it doesn't make any sense to me.
I have twins. I've given them the best education available; they have had the same opportunities, the same teachers, the same everything.
Yet one of them gets really high marks at school; the other twin's marks are consistently low (some of them very low).
Because it's not about how many opportunities you're given, but what you do with the opportunities you find.


----------



## etabetapi

alexacohen said:


> Because it's not about how many opportunities you're given, but what you do with the opportunities you find.


 
That's true. But in some situation of scarce resources, brilliant people are not given the freedom to develop themselves because they don't even have the luxury of opportunities.

If the family has only enough money to send one child to university, what'll happen to the other 5 children? In such situation, the parents may decide that none shall be given the opportunity just to be fair.


----------



## tinlizzy

Alexa- I agree with you and most studies, including twin studies favor nature over nurture as the dominant force.

etabetabi- Albert Einstein was labeled retarded by educators as a child. It was another brilliant person, if you will, that recognized the overlooked intelligence. I don't think you can "raise" a brilliant mind- they're organic.

Another example but less extreme is Bill Gates. He dropped out of college to pursue his obsession.

We have all had bosses or met people that were not very smart, but because of education were elevated to a higher status. We ignore intelligence and rely on academic credentials and training for the most part (that's usually when lawyers get involved). To put it another way- _someone _always finishes last in their class.

Do you all think you can make an intelligent brain? At some point a less intelligent brain will fail in education or the information will merely become training versus comprehension, don't you think?


----------



## hly2004

I think the biggest issue is finance. With limited finance, the fewer children a family have, the more investment in education and other things each of kids will get.


----------



## etabetapi

Hi tinlizzy,
I agree with your view point. But the situation in China is not really the same as with Einstein and Bill Gates. The slogan is targeted at people with scarce resources. There is a higher chance for a child to break out of the poverty cycle if the parents can concentrate their resources on a single child instead of spreading their resources thin and only making sure everyone has enough to eat.

Bill Gate dropped out of college to pursue his obsession. He did not drop out because he has to give the opportunity of college education to his brother. How many can achieve what Bill Gate has anyway? The difference between genius and mere mortal is the difference between whether they need a degree to get ahead or not.

Having more or lesser number of children will not affect the quality of the children's growing up if the parents are financially comfortable. But when you are talking about people who are only making ends meet, the difference between feeding 1 child and feeding 2 children could be the difference between being bankrupt or not.

The slogan is targeted at parents who have never heard of Mattel or Lego or Pokemon; and the only toys their children ever get are those made by their mothers.

Edited: Upon reflection, I believe the controversy is caused by hly's translation. What do you mean "fewer babies, more brainy babies"? The brain grows by itself with or without feeding the babies with nutritious food. It should be "fewer babies, larger share of the pie"; just like my username: eta beta pi (eat a better pie).


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: Please refer yourselves back to the thread opening post and answer to the cultural questions asked there


----------



## tinlizzy

mjscott said:


> This was a question in the English Only Forum. What will happen to people in a society where only one child is born to the family? What will happen to the old people when they get old? What will happen when one husband is responsible for supporting his elderly parents, and his wife's elderly parents, if his wife can't work (or the wife if the husband can't work)? Will there be enough resource to raise a child?....
> 
> ....And what if the male child is preferred, and the female child is left somewhere in a ditch forgotten, and there are not enough female children--where will the mothers come from for the society in the future?
> 
> These are questions that I have asked myself since China has encouraged one family, one child.
> 
> Any comments?


 
I talked to 2 girls from Hong Kong about this while in mainland China. They said that people in Hong Kong only want to raise one child by choice. But there is no preference for a boy or girl, either is loved and treated equally. They also wondered if China was creating a big mess with their one family, one child law. 

Our guide in Yangshuo was a farmer's wife. She probably had more money than most because she "just picked up" (her words ) English and made money as a guide on her bicycle. She had a son but then paid to have a daughter- and had to agree to sterilization. She said no way farmers can have girls because the dowry is too expensive and they must move to their husband's family (like you said). So maybe if China outlawed dowries that would be a first step. 

She also said that husbands regularly take mistresses and those women are allowed to have a child if the man can support both families. There are a lot of kinks in China's policy.


----------



## ireney

Well in Greece it's like in most countries: An only child is suspected of being spoiled. The tradition of preferring boys to girls is still somewhat in existence in some places and there are people even in the big cities who want to have at least one son but it is a minority, these days, that would prefer one sex over the other for their progeny.

I can't really comment on the situation in China since not only that would be against the rules but, well, I don't have any first hand information about how things are.

In general however I think I can safely say that imposed restrictions and policies in general don't work in the long run. If the people do not really change then the cultural habits that have been "outlawed" will resurface in the future unless of course we are talking about really strict inforcement of the rules/policies for a very, very extended period of time (more than one or two generations if you ask me).


----------

