• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Probably worried about population decline. They abandoned their 1 child policy quite awhile ago and now have a maximum 3 child policy.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah and according to wiki the 3 child policy isn’t even enforced?

      …allowing each couple to have three children and cancelling restrictive measures including fines for couples having more children than permitted.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        The 1 child policy only ever applied to around 30% of the population anyways. It was just Han Chinese in major urban centers.

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think this quite tells the whole story. This is what I found in Wikipedia at least:

          China’s family planning policies began to be shaped by fears of overpopulation in the 1970s, and officials raised the age of marriage and called for fewer and more broadly spaced births.[3] A near-universal one-child limit was imposed in 1980 and written into the country’s constitution in 1982.[4][5] Numerous exceptions were established over time, and by 1984, only about 35.4% of the population was subject to the original restriction of the policy.[6]: 167  In the mid-1980s, rural parents were allowed to have a second child if the first was a daughter. It also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities under 10 million people.[7] In 2015, the government raised the limit to two children, and in May 2021 to three.[8] In July 2021, it removed all limits,[9] shortly after implementing financial incentives to encourage individuals to have additional children

          • novibe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’m not sure if what you shared invalidates what I said at all… Wikipedia is 1st of all not the best source for these kinds of things. But even they say the policy only applied to 35.4% of the population only 4 years after it was first implemented. And it was loosened up even more over time.

            What are you trying to say with that quote…?

            • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m trying to say… exactly what I said. That your message didn’t tell the whole story. In fact it’s not much of a stretch to say it’s actively misleading. I’ll try and do more to articulate why, see if you agree with me.

              You said:

              The 1 child policy only ever applied to around 30% of the population anyways. It was just Han Chinese in major urban centers.

              First of all, the statement itself is actually false because whilst it was changed after a few years, it did in fact apply to everyone initially so you can’t truthfully say that it “only ever” applied to 1/3 of the population.

              Secondly, the 35.4% figure is of people who were subjected to the original one child policy restrictions. There was still a one child policy in place even for rural people except in the case that the first child was a girl. Given this happens about 50% of the time, effectively around 67% of families would still be restricted to one child, even under the revised policy. I’m neglecting the exception for minorities as by definition they are a small share of the population.

              So yes, I maintain that what you said did not provide a complete or particularly accurate picture. It’s true that the policy wasn’t as simple as “nobody can have more than one child ever” but your comment was about equally accurate as that statement I would say. By saying the policy only ever applied to about 30% of people you are in my opinion misrepresenting the sheer scale and impact of the policy.

              Hopefully that helps to explain why I felt the need to comment, but feel free to tell me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something.