"Krypsis" wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
A ratio of 1.35:1 isn't a particular problem in any society. That's dead
even for any practical purpose. I had read that the ratio was more like 5:1
or 7:1, and I have never heard of 35:1 until it was posted here.
But China already has a one-child policy that effectively curbs population
growth. The problem is that males are more valuable to a farming economy
than females, so there is a significant amount of selective abortion going
on where the female children are aborted and male children are carried full
term. This has lead to societal problems where there are loads of men ready
to marry, but no women for them to get married to.
In a polygamous society, there is an advantage of multiple wives, but there
is never an advantage to multiple husbands. A man with many wives can have
many children, but a woman can only have one child at a time no matter how
many husbands she has. I'm not suggesting that China is a polygamous
society, I am only illustrating how there can be a problem with 5 or 10 men
for each woman as opposed to 5 or 10 women to each man.
There is something wrong here because with a one-child rule it would seem
that the ratio of males to females would be far greater than 1.65:1. A ratio
that close would have to be almost ideal in terms of maintaining a gene pool
that would be diverse and still support a single child per couple.
Your data does not fit the data that I have read that says the ratio is more
like 5:1, males:females. Perhaps what I read was about people of
marrying/child bearing age. If your data is about children, then this means
that in 20 years there will be equal numbers of men and women to marry and
have kids, and my data set says that today there is a serious imbalance. I
wish I had a citation handy, but there is something amiss between the
studies you read and those that I have read.
