May 13, 2004
IT'S RAININ' MEN:
Surplus males: The dangers of Asia's preference for sons (Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. Den Boer, May 13, 2004,International Herald Tribune)
The technology to select male offspring before birth began to spread in the late 1980s, and the birth sex ratios began to rise. In China, the official ratio is 117 boys born for every 100 girls, but the reality is probably 120 or more. In India, the official birth sex ratio is 111-114 boys per 100 girls, but spot checks show ratios of up to 156 boys per 100 girls in some locales. For comparison, normal birth sex ratios are 105-107 boys born per 100 girls.The mortality rate for girls and young women is also much higher than normal in these countries, further exacerbating the deficit. For example, the U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates excess deaths among Chinese females in the first year of life alone to be close to half a million. In India, almost one million more girls than boys die in the first five years of life.
The sheer scale on which daughters are being culled from Asia is unprecedented in history. But if societies are indifferent to the fate of these daughters, then let us turn our attention to the fate of their prized sons.
The bottom line is that there will be appreciably more young men in their societies than young women. Using conservative estimates, in 2020 India will have about 28 million more young males (aged 15 to 34) than young females. In China, the figure will be closer to 30 million; in Pakistan it will probably be 3-5 million.
In China there is a term for such young men: guang gun-er, or "bare branches" on the family tree - males who will probably not raise families of their own because the girls who should have grown up to become their wives fell victim to female infanticide.
Let's hear another round of that old tune about how "reproductive rights" empower women. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 13, 2004 8:39 AM
I'm curious if there is any such effect in the muslim world as well. Given that muslim culture esteems sons over daughters, it would seem to follow that similar things would be happening among muslim populations. I've heard about the Indian and Chinese issues before, but never any indication of the same among the muslim world.
I wonder why? Is the technology simply not availalbe there or is there a consensus against its use?
In the long term, will this lead to a demographic collapse in China and India of the same type as Europe?
One solution that I think is likely to arise will be something like the "mail-order-brides" of the past. Given that China and India will have higher standards of living than many of the surrounding countries, it would be an attractive proposition for many women in the less developed nations. Of course, this would require the men of China and India to get past some of their traditional racist notions about other countries.
It also appears that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" works in population control as well. Is it just coincidence that the two nations with this problem are ones will very large population pressures?
Posted by: BC Monkey at May 13, 2004 8:57 AMBC:
China doesn't face population pressures but population collapse.
ISLAM (not sure where someone found these #s):
Bahrain 1.3 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Djibouti 1.07 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Jordan 1.1 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Kuwait 1.5 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Oman 1.31 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Qatar 1.93 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Saudi Arabia 1.24 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
UAE 1.51 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Boy, you can just about book your seats to the war now, can't you.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 13, 2004 10:07 AMThanks!
I assume that that's the birth ratios. I wonder how many years this has been going on for? How close is the first imbalanced generation to adulthood?
Is there any sign of Egypt or Libya being similarly skewed?
If this trend carries over to the population that Europe is importing, the implications are unpleasant for any sort or peaceful transition to Eurabia.
Posted by: BC Monkey at May 13, 2004 10:17 AMDavid:
And both have nukes! The nuclear winter should nicely compensate for global warming....
Posted by: oj at May 13, 2004 10:17 AMWith those rates, using immigration to make up for low birth rates is just delaying the inevitable. Worse, you lose your culture in the process. Which would seem to make the Japanese response-- robots instead of gai-jin-- sensible. At least until the robots get religion.
The real solution, of course, is for the governments of these countries to actively promote homosexuality for their masses.
>The real solution, of course, is for the
>governments of these countries to actively
>promote homosexuality for their masses.
If your culture up to that point disapproved of homosexuality, wouldn't doing this cause you to lose your culture?
Posted by: Ken at May 13, 2004 4:44 PMDavid: Since they've had a few good wars before, one hopes it's just between India and China, and not between China and us.
Posted by: Chris at May 13, 2004 4:55 PMThey weren't doing all that great under the old system either.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 13, 2004 5:28 PMBeing forced to have an abortion isn't the same as having "reproductive rights", it's the exact opposite !
If women weren't oppressed in China and India, then this problem wouldn't exist, since there'd be no reason to favor male children.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 14, 2004 4:26 AMChris:
Good thing America's nearly got that missile defense laser on-line.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 14, 2004 4:28 AMAbortion is OK as long as it is defined as reproductive right?
The state coerces abortion with the "general welfare" in mind. If it is permitted, even encouraged, individually, on what basis would it be improper for representatives of the "general will" to impose it on all?
Posted by: Tom Corcoran at May 14, 2004 1:30 PMTom:
Are you then of the opinion that ALL actions which are permitted for the individual should be made mandatory ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 15, 2004 6:10 AMMichael-
No. As the state assumes more and more control over the actions of free people under the spell of materialism it would seem wholly natural for things like abortion to evolve eventually into mandatory requirements under the guise of social planning. Some radical feminists have said as much. When the classically liberal view regarding the proper role of the state is adhered to as well as the idea of encouraging a "virtuous" republican attitude among the citizenry and the traditional view regarding life, the contoversy regarding abortion created through Roe v Wade would not exist.
China is an example of top down statism taken to it's logical extreme. The state is the ultimate authority dependant only on who holds the power. The US has been moving along the political continuum in that direction with occasional fits and starts for decades. Federal mandates which exist today could not have been imagined by earlier Americans.
Posted by: Tom-C.,Stamford,Ct. at May 15, 2004 12:35 PM