First time I’m going to criticize the CPC here.
Also, Allyson Horn, you’re on my list for using “crack” in relation to “China”,
which instead you could perhaps use for, you know, ICE maybe,
or Western ‘regimes’ versus pro-Palestinian protesters, except for Israel,
where ‘kidnapping and torture’ could be used in place of capture.
That said, I’ll go even a step further than @obvs,
who correctly points out that this is like building spikes on park benches,
so the homeless have nowhere to sleep.
If the CPC wants to “reverse the falling the birth rate”, it should think of a couple of things:
Why would you even want that?
We’re in the 21st century and curing age related diseases to the point of rejuvenation could be just around the corner.
I would in fact argue that the world is less than 10 years away from it and since China is rapidly advancing with pharmaceuticals, there’s no need for me to say the West instead of the world.
Increase income security. Especially at young ages.
No one is going to want children if they’re not secure in their finances
and if it takes 40+ years to be secure in one’s finances,
then you’re gonna have to hope solution #1 to come true.
The most controversial one. Increase the operational sex ratio of female:male to slightly above 1, which is where I think the demand/supply equilibrium sits. Right now in China it’s 117 males per 100 females at age 20.
How are these 17 extra men going to find a partner? And why does this article mention a 17 year old girl when I’m quite confident that it’s 17 young men per 117 men who have a for more likely issue to not find a suitable relationship,
because it’s going to be impossible for 17 out of 117 for them.
No amount of social skills will help 117 20-something year old men magically turn their chances having a relationship with a potential 100 20-something year old women into an equivalent potential of 117 20-something year old women, but still remain with 100 20-something year old women for 117 20-something year old men.
If the numbers don’t add up, then it’s going to be physically impossible to solve this issue.
This should be textbook dialectical materialism 101.
Mandatory social skill lessons then comes in 4th.
And the these teachings should give students
a complete overview of society,
give a complete list
of all forms of communication options available
and all their possible consequences depending on
character, something I call “time slots of desire”
(offering someone a bowl of spaghetti that just ate spaghetti and feels full),
and mood (offering someone a bowl of spaghetti when that person is balancing a heavy object),
instead of list of random list of author advisories
(Sarah was afraid to talk to John, then she said this to him, and it all went well.)
plus a dose of optimism (Communicating is fun! Do it often! You’ll have a blast!),
which I got.
First time I’m going to criticize the CPC here.
Also, Allyson Horn, you’re on my list for using “crack” in relation to “China”,
which instead you could perhaps use for, you know, ICE maybe,
or Western ‘regimes’ versus pro-Palestinian protesters, except for Israel,
where ‘kidnapping and torture’ could be used in place of capture.
That said, I’ll go even a step further than @obvs,
who correctly points out that this is like building spikes on park benches,
so the homeless have nowhere to sleep.
If the CPC wants to “reverse the falling the birth rate”, it should think of a couple of things:
We’re in the 21st century and curing age related diseases to the point of rejuvenation could be just around the corner.
I would in fact argue that the world is less than 10 years away from it and since China is rapidly advancing with pharmaceuticals, there’s no need for me to say the West instead of the world.
No one is going to want children if they’re not secure in their finances
and if it takes 40+ years to be secure in one’s finances,
then you’re gonna have to hope solution #1 to come true.
How are these 17 extra men going to find a partner? And why does this article mention a 17 year old girl when I’m quite confident that it’s 17 young men per 117 men who have a for more likely issue to not find a suitable relationship,
because it’s going to be impossible for 17 out of 117 for them.
No amount of social skills will help 117 20-something year old men magically turn their chances having a relationship with a potential 100 20-something year old women into an equivalent potential of 117 20-something year old women, but still remain with 100 20-something year old women for 117 20-something year old men.
If the numbers don’t add up, then it’s going to be physically impossible to solve this issue.
This should be textbook dialectical materialism 101.
Mandatory social skill lessons then comes in 4th.
And the these teachings should give students
a complete overview of society,
give a complete list
of all forms of communication options available
and all their possible consequences depending on
character, something I call “time slots of desire”
(offering someone a bowl of spaghetti that just ate spaghetti and feels full),
and mood (offering someone a bowl of spaghetti when that person is balancing a heavy object),
instead of list of random list of author advisories
(Sarah was afraid to talk to John, then she said this to him, and it all went well.)
plus a dose of optimism (Communicating is fun! Do it often! You’ll have a blast!),
which I got.