China demographics thread.

[ZeEa5KPul]

You've still not given one advantage your idea has over natural births.

I've explicitly stated the greatest advantage: scientific selection instead of random combination. Like I mentioned before, take the greatest minds humanity has ever produced like Gauss and Newton and mass produce them essentially on a factory line.

There are several other advantages like completely decoupling the birth numbers in China from the desires and circumstances of the population; the government won't have to worry about what house prices or tuition costs are or if people don't like their working hours - frankly, it won't have to kiss people's asses to have more kids. Since it will be raising these children itself, it will ensure that they are raised with proper values - put another way, there will be a "standard" Chinese upbringing like there is Standard Mandarin. One of the things I've been thinking about recently are the centrifugal forces that have been present in China throughout its history and the breakdowns they've led to. These tendencies would be absent in this population since they would not have a regional identity, only a national one.

Bringing up millions of children in orphanages is going to lead to mass autism and criminality in the new generation.

You're confounding two factors: being raised in an orphanage and being an unwanted child. In usual circumstances they would be equivalent but here they're very different. Here these children would be very much wanted; they'd be a national treasure. When I say "orphanage" I mean something more akin to a panda breeding center than orphanages as they currently exist.

 

[Abominable]

I've explicitly stated the greatest advantage: scientific selection instead of random combination. Like I mentioned before, take the greatest minds humanity has ever produced like Gauss and Newton and mass produce them essentially on a factory line.

You don't need IVF for "scientific selection" (i.e. eugenics). You are using an argument for eugenics to support IVF. So nope that's not a valid argument for mass IVF.

What you're also proposing is science fiction and ignores the randomness of sexual reproduction. There is no genetic test that can determine intelligence, sporting ability etc.

There are several other advantages like completely decoupling the birth numbers in China from the desires and circumstances of the population; the government won't have to worry about what house prices or tuition costs are or if people don't like their working hours - frankly, it won't have to kiss people's asses to have more kids. Since it will be raising these children itself, it will ensure that they are raised with proper values - put another way, there will be a "standard" Chinese upbringing like there is Standard Mandarin. One of the things I've been thinking about recently are the centrifugal forces that have been present in China throughout its history and the breakdowns they've led to. These tendencies would be absent in this population since they would not have a regional identity, only a national one.

With the billions it would cost to implement your suggestion there won't be money left to do much else.

You're confounding two factors: being raised in an orphanage and being an unwanted child. In usual circumstances they would be equivalent but here they're very different. Here these children would be very much wanted; they'd be a national treasure. When I say "orphanage" I mean something more akin to a panda breeding center than orphanages as they currently exist.

It's hard to believe you aren't trolling with a post like this. Do you really think bringing up children is the same as breeding pandas?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

You don't need IVF for "scientific selection" (i.e. eugenics). You are using an argument for eugenics to support IVF. So nope that's not a valid argument for mass IVF.

Of course you do. Mass IVF allows you to arbitrarily expand a segment of the gene pool far beyond what it would be able to naturally. To do so "naturally" would mean forbidding the portion of the population who don't make the cut from having children while compelling those who do make the cut to have many more than they would want, with people they don't necessarily want to have them with. And the effects would still be subject to random selection and thus far more muted and haphazard.

What you're also proposing is science fiction and ignores the randomness of sexual reproduction. There is no genetic test that can determine intelligence, sporting ability etc.

There's no test in the naïve sense (i.e., if a person has an A instead of a G at that base pair, their IQ is +10 or whatever) as these are complex properties determined by inscrutable interactions between genes. However, there are definitely correlations and AI is very good at picking out exactly these correlations.

With the billions it would cost to implement your suggestion there won't be money left to do much else.

Billions to China is chump change. And with the trillions that would result from these children remaking the economy (and much else) would pay the billions back orders of magnitude over.

It's hard to believe you aren't trolling with a post like this. Do you really think bringing up children is the same as breeding pandas?

Don't fixate on a specific term and strawman my arguments. The point I'm making is a simple one: the negative outcomes in children raised in orphanages is due to those children being unwanted, not an intrinsic attribute of orphanages. It's not very taxing to imagine orphanages whose employees are well-trained and generously compensated raising children who are wanted.

 

[Abominable]

Of course you do. Mass IVF allows you to arbitrarily expand a segment of the gene pool far beyond what it would be able to naturally. To do so "naturally" would mean forbidding the portion of the population who don't make the cut from having children while compelling those who do make the cut to have many more than they would want, with people they don't necessarily want to have them with. And the effects would still be subject to random selection and thus far more muted and haphazard.

There's no test in the naïve sense (i.e., if a person has an A instead of a G at that base pair, their IQ is +10 or whatever) as these are complex properties determined by inscrutable interactions between genes. However, there are definitely correlations and AI is very good at picking out exactly these correlations.

Have you heard of artificial insemination? IVF was invented in the 70s. Eugenics has existed long before that.

By your suggestion neither Gauss or Newton would have been born as their parents weren't geniuses.

Billions to China is chump change. And with the trillions that would result from these children remaking the economy (and much else) would pay the billions back orders of magnitude over.

Don't fixate on a specific term and strawman my arguments. The point I'm making is a simple one: the negative outcomes in children raised in orphanages is due to those children being unwanted, not an intrinsic attribute of orphanages. It's not very taxing to imagine orphanages whose employees are well-trained and generously compensated raising children who are wanted.

You're ignoring the importance of parents in the upbringing of children. One of the reasons why autism has skyrocketed in the west is the breakdown of the family unit.

No matter how much you pay or train someone in an orphanage, it's not the same as a parent.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Have you heard of artificial insemination? IVF was invented in the 70s. Eugenics has existed long before that.

Eugenics has never been practiced, and the closest it's come to practice is the genocidal and barbaric Western policies of the 20th century. Frankly, I don't like using the term because of the baggage associated with it and whether it has anything to do with what I'm proposing is irrelevant. "Scientific selection" is a perfectly adequate label to attach to my proposal.

By your suggestion neither Gauss or Newton would have been born as their parents weren't geniuses.

Yet the combination very clearly worked. That's why I said there aren't naïve tests to determine optimal combinations and the problem will require sophisticated AI wading through a sea of genetic data and associated traits.

You're ignoring the importance of parents in the upbringing of children. One of the reasons why autism has skyrocketed in the west is the breakdown of the family unit.

No matter how much you pay or train someone in an orphanage, it's not the same as a parent.

In our many exchanges on this topic, this is the first valid criticism you've levelled. Yes, the ideal would be a nuclear family and I would be foolish to assume there wouldn't be psychological effects on these children even if they were raised in the best orphanages imaginable. However, there have been orphans fortunate enough to be raised in orphanages where the staff actually cared for them and they grew up to be happy, well-adjusted people.

I've seen people in this thread arguing for restricting access to abortions. Well and good, but how do you imagine children raised by parents (if they're lucky enough to have the plural apply) who don't want them will turn out? Productive, well-adjusted scientists and engineers? The most important factor in raising a child is that they're wanted and loved, everything else is secondary.

 

[hans_r]

Popular opposition: I'd be concerned about this one if China were a liberal democracy. Thankfully, it isn't.

Beijing City couldn't implement a vaccine mandate but you expect the public to be a-okay with mass social engineering on the most intimate aspect of their lives?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Beijing City couldn't implement a vaccine mandate but you expect the public to be a-okay with mass social engineering on the most intimate aspect of their lives?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, I do, Sleepystudent. Problem?

Quit ducking manqiangrexue.

 

[hans_r]

Yes, I do, Sleepystudent. Problem?

If the government can't do a mildly coercieve action due to public pushback, how do you expect the government to do more coercieve actions over a longer time period?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

If the government can't do a mildly coercieve action due to public pushback, how do you expect the government to do more coercieve actions over a longer time period?

What coercion?

 

[hans_r]

What coercion?

the wrong term but if the public doesn't like mild social engineering with vaccine mandates (and successfully shot it down); how do you expect public opinion not to shoot down mass IVF with foreign surrogate mothers?