Maybe when they implemented the one child policy they thought they would be immortal by now?
“For every two of us there should be one of us” doesn’t seem that wise in hindsight.
“For every two of us there should be one of us” doesn’t seem that wise in hindsight.
For a developing nation with a questionable future, one-child-per-family seemed a viable way to solve the problem of finite resources, particularly as a transient "we do this for N years then revert" model.
I notice in the end most of the hand-wringing comes from the economic argument. It's not "Dad needs two children around to care for him in his dotage", it's "who will fill the factories" and "line won't go up without perpetually growing population."
I suspect the loop can be closed with modernization and rising standards of living. If we have 50% fewer people than in 1980, but they're twice as productive, and per-person consumption doubles, aggregate demand remains flat. That can be an interesting play because it keeps demand flat on necessities -- you only need so much rice, so many apartments, so much transport capacity -- but allows for growth in the much more elastic, and less "if we stretch them til they break, our society crumbles", luxury sectors.
Seems arbitrary to equate all Chinese and not just equate all humans. There is no evidence to suggest stupidity is geographically constrained by concepts of nationality.
Take a moment to read the comment I posted under as a response or I'd say follow up to understand the context.