One important takeaway from this article is what we see as a recurring theme in this blog and from the speakers we have heard from so far in our preparation - “American” cultures and “Chinese” cultures can be vastly different - but it doesn’t make one or the other correct. What we may consider gruesome may be normal and vice versa.

I also wonder what the psychological impact will be and how to address it. When only allowed one child, does a family choose the first one they are naturally given, or do they abort in hopes of having their one child be a boy. I am referring to Dr. Carr’s statement that boys provide more long-term financial security for a family. It is too simplistic to pass judgement on a family who chooses to have their one child be a boy, at the expense of a female’s life. “There, but by the grace of God, go I.” What would any of us do? If we lived our whole lives in a poor, rural area of China, and we know we are only allowed one child and that a girl could lead to more financial hardship than we can afford, what would we do?

What can China do, then, to change the circumstances for those in rural Chinese communities? One answer, as Felipe mentioned, is to provide extra subsidies for those who have girls. There is also the option of increased educational programs on ways to save and support oneself without the reliance on children (though this would also entail changing an embedded cultural tradition). It may also happen, though, that the Chinese people would regulate the population on their own if the “one-child” rule was lifted, and, simultaneously, jobs were created that provided wages that could support a family with money left over to save for the future. In the United States, when children were needed for labor, financial support and future security there were more children in each family. As those reliances on children diminished, so did family size.

My final point is that, I don’t know that it is the country that figures out how to take care of its aging citizen population that will rise to the top. Instead, I think it is the nation that provides for its citizens in a way that the citizens feel a loyalty to maintain the country’s economy and push it forward that will succeed. One cannot start to think outside of oneself, until basic needs for food, shelter and security are met. It is the nation that can secure those basic needs for the majority of its citizens that will see its citizens working for the betterment of that nation.

They are doing this under the guise of limiting rabies but there is also clearly an aim of limiting overcrowding. As Felipe pointed out, having such a large population may be contributing greatly to China’s rise as a manufacturing power but now China encounters challenges in maintaining the resources necessary to support that population. Another article posted on here pointed out that development is encroaching on the 6% arable land the country has availabsuch a large population could be a benefit for the Chinese economy but it comes with consequences. China is now struggling with the balance between increasing productive population andle to feed the population. Increased population brings along increase in pets (and the diseases they can carry), pollution, traffic, and other strains on resources that China is now trying to control. All these problems fall under the greater category of sustainability.

Coming off Professor Carr’s question, the US also faces these strains and is trying to strike the balance between productivity and sustainability. On the other hand, China comes at the problem with the attitude that the US had a headstart in using resources without regard for the consequences. They feel it would be unfair for them to now have to try to catch up without the same ability. China now faces the difficult question of whether to let its economy run unhindered or to work toward the same balance the US now seeks. I think this will be a determining factor in whether China or the US will achieve stronger economic gains. In the long-run, I think sustainability is an inevtiable battle (both politically and economically) and China will be on the tail-end if they choose to overlook it for short-term gain.

My point is that yes, China’s population issues are a cause for concern, but I think it will cause more social unrest than economic. Many articles have already talked about Vietnam and other countries as being better than China for cheap human labor. One would hope that with all the money from foreign investments being poured into China that it would increase per capita GDP, and the standard of living would improve for Chinese citizens.

I believe Dr. Carr and Dr. Wu talked about the male/female gender ratio unbalance before, and I think that is a bigger concern for the Chinese government.