作者：杨辰
编辑：钟然 责任编辑：李聪玲 校对：王滨 翻译：吕峰

计划生育，这项政策是对中华民族最沉重、最深刻的损害，可谓一场种族浩劫。它并非源于人口学、优生学或纯经济学，而是计划经济供给制的产物，并深刻影响了政治、生物和社会层面。

起源：供给制的产物与历史演变

计划生育的提出者马寅初并非人口学家或生物学家。他自己有多个子女，却因从事工商管理，在计算计划经济供给时，发现无法为所有人口提供必需品。在没有市场调节的条件下，即使今日用大数据或AI，也难以精准规划人类需求。马寅初的建议本质上是控制“吃饭、穿衣、上学”的人口规模，以维持供给平衡。这被老一辈领导如毛泽东和周恩来斥为反人类，这种评价并非全无道理——它视人为数字，而非生命。

政策源于50年代城乡二元化：城市“国人”享国家供给（如养老、教育、医疗），农村“野人”则自生自灭，类似于西周奴隶制的模式。城市居民吃商品粮，享有义务教育和文艺科技服务；农村则缺乏这些，农民需上交公粮，生活艰辛。这套体系在共产党统治下恢复顺畅，因为它契合了他们的权力结构。他们不像波尔布特在柬埔寨那样直接摧毁城市人口——CCP不敢冒险，却内心向往这种分层控制。

70年代初，经济濒临崩溃，粮食短缺，城市优先控制人口。1979年强制“一孩”源于知青大返城：上山下乡的青年回流，人口压力激增，经济濒临崩溃、城市承载力不足。1976-1977年，中国经济已近崩溃，知青运动引发1980-1983年的镇压浪潮，包括反革命言论和民主倾向的打压。80年代，城市最严，从北京、上海、广州等核心城市开始；农村相对松弛，老少边穷地区管得不严，因为那里难以提供医疗和生存保障，却矛盾的允许更多生育。

90年代，政策扩展到农村，与GDP考核挂钩：官员为降低失业、提升人均指标，推行野蛮强制，如山东的“百日无孩”运动，强制流产和结扎成高潮。这时期，中国从纯计划经济转向商品化，CCP放弃全面供给，但户籍壁垒犹在，农民工仍如奴工——一个自称工人阶级的政党，竟发明“农民工”这一侮辱性称呼。粮票渐废，人口红利被强调，但政策不放开，因为官员视人口为负担，而非资源。短视之下，忽略了未来养老金危机：如今，一个年轻人需养1.3-1.5个老人，社保体系摇摇欲坠。

三重祸害：政治、生物与社会维度

计划生育的祸害体现在三个层面，每一方面都如慢性毒药，侵蚀民族根基。第一，政治上回归奴隶制与奴化社会。 它将生育权置于国家掌控，民众如商周奴隶：官员（厅局级以上）可多生，甚至多妻；普通人受限，城市国人曾被赶乡下做野人。西周野人、国人可随便生，只限养育能力；现代中国更退步，生育需许可。几十年强推下，民众习以为常，忘却现代文明与奴隶制的区别。天天听“计划生育”，周围实践它，一群人以此谋生，潜移默化中接受不人道管制。当一件反人类的事推行数十年，便被视为“合理”。这强化了城乡二元，奴化整个社会，让民众天然认可专制，丧失追求民主的根基。那些喊民主却不反对计划生育的人，脑中无真民主——生育权被控，何谈选票？

第二，生物学上违背优胜劣汰，导致种族退化。 自然状态下，生育能力强、健康者后代多，促进种族优化，如达尔文进化论所述。共产党一边宣称信奉进化论，一边强制“一孩”：基因优者（身强力壮、教育好）仅一子；劣者借助人工技术（如试管婴儿、催产针）亦一子，抹杀数量差异。结果，人人平均，高素质与低素质混杂，优胜劣汰逆转成“劣胜优汰”。

举例，40-50年代出生者平均寿命最高，因为他们经历自然选择；60-70年代压力大，寿命略降；但80-90年代出生者将面临大规模提前死亡风险。长寿基因无法放大（能活80岁者仅一子），短寿基因平均化（50岁寿命者亦一子）。到50岁，人口减半；过去，多子家庭可放大优势基因。如今，环境和饮食问题加剧退化：中华民族身体素质整体下降，体质虚弱。忽略人类道德和怜悯，仅从生物学看，这中断了种族自然进化过程，造成不可逆损害。

第三，社会上摧毁正义与抗争的物质基础。 作为社会人，我们需道德、正义和担当，但独生子女政策击碎其物质基础。维护正义、保家卫国需代价（如生命）；多子家庭可承受一子牺牲（五个孩子中一子上战场，父母同意）；独子家庭则本能保护唯一血脉，教导“别惹事、活着就好”。这是动物性：成年兽护幼兽，血缘延续高于一切。他死，两家基因断绝。

结果，道德崩坏：父母易成无正义感、无是非的人，好死不如赖活着盛行。CCP乐见此景——独生子女“易管”，不像阿富汗多子家庭，父母不心疼孩子当人肉炸弹。中国抗争声音多女性：男孩被宠成“娘炮”，几代人灌输“别出事、活着就好”，视其为家族延续工具；女孩相对自由。东欧如波兰工会抗争、韩国青年上街，中国却弱——儒家文化同源，但计划生育摧毁基础。若韩国、波兰也“一孩”，抗争必弱。统计学上，独生子女挺身而出者少数：或极强道德（真理胜生命，凤毛麟角），或铁拳砸身（无路可走）。否则，畏首畏尾。

CCP不愿废止，除非养老金、教育崩盘。2015年大数据报告预测人口崩塌，却遭忽视——经济未崩，独生子女“好用”。如今放开二三孩，仍是“计划”，未来或强制：如罗马尼亚“月经警察”。已有单位监测50岁以下女性经期，预示税收、晋升等手段逼生。经济下行掩盖人口损害，但强制社保、保险已现端倪。最终，民众如种猪，被鞭策生育。

结语：卑鄙起源与永恒警示

计划生育源于卑鄙：无法养活，便消灭后代。它中断优胜劣汰，奴化社会，摧毁道义基础，不亚于洗脑，对CCP统治至关重要。马寅初视人为数字，应遭唾弃——他毫无前瞻性，乃反人类罪魁。政策无正面影响，将现代人变奴隶。中华民族需警醒：生育权是自由之本，反对它，方有未来。

Yang Chen: The Profound Catastrophe of the One-Child Policy on the Chinese Nation

Author: Yang Chen
Editor: Zhong Ran Executive Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Wang Bin Translation: Lyu Feng

Abstract

China’s one-child policy originated not from demography or eugenics, but from the logic of a planned-economy supply system. By placing reproductive rights under state control for decades, it produced political servility, biological degeneration, and moral collapse—deeply weakening the vitality and resistance of the Chinese nation. It stands as one of the most profound and irreversible harms inflicted on the Chinese people.

Origins: A By-product of the Supply System and Its Historical Evolution

China’s one-child policy represents one of the most devastating, far-reaching harms done to the Chinese nation—indeed, a demographic catastrophe. It did not arise from population science, eugenics, or pure economics, but from the supply-allocation logic of a planned economy, and its influence extended into political, biological, and social realms.

The policy’s earliest proponent, Ma Yinchu, was neither a demographer nor a biologist. Despite fathering several children himself, he approached population from the perspective of industrial and commercial management. While calculating supply needs under the planned-economy system, he concluded that the state could not provide essential goods for the entire population. Without market mechanisms—and even today, with big-data tools or AI—no government can accurately plan human needs. Ma’s proposal ultimately sought to control the number of people requiring food, clothing, education, and other basic goods to maintain supply equilibrium.Leaders such as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai denounced his ideas as antihuman. Their criticism was not unfounded: his proposal reduced human beings to numbers, not lives.

The policy’s institutional roots trace back to the 1950s urban–rural dual system. Urban “state people” (国人) received state-funded benefits—retirement, education, healthcare—while rural “non-state people” (野人) were left to fend for themselves, a structure reminiscent of Western Zhou-era stratification. Urban residents consumed state-distributed grain, schooling, and cultural services; rural residents had none of these and were required to deliver grain quotas. Under Communist governance, this bifurcated system revived smoothly because it aligned with the Party’s power structure.Unlike Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, the CCP did not destroy urban populations outright—they lacked the daring—yet their governance model aspired to a similar hierarchical control.

By the early 1970s, China faced economic near-collapse and severe food shortages. Population control first tightened in urban areas. The 1979 coercive “one-child” directive was a direct response to the massive return of the “sent-down youth”: millions of urban youths sent to rural areas during the Cultural Revolution flooded back to the cities. The population squeeze overwhelmed the already-faltering economy; urban capacity reached breaking point.By 1976–1977, the economy was near collapse. The aftermath of the sent-down-youth movement helped trigger the political crackdowns of 1980–1983, targeting “counter-revolutionary speech” and democratic tendencies.

In the 1980s, strict controls focused on major cities—Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou—while rural enforcement remained relatively loose. Poor, remote regions lacked medical services and social protection, and paradoxically were allowed more births.

In the 1990s, the policy expanded aggressively into rural areas and was tied directly to GDP-based performance evaluations. Local officials, eager to reduce unemployment statistics and boost per-capita indicators, implemented brutal measures. Campaigns such as Shandong’s notorious “100 days without a single newborn” saw forced abortions and mass sterilizations reach their peak.

During this period, China transitioned from a purely planned economy to partial marketization. The CCP abandoned comprehensive public provision, but the household-registration barrier remained. Migrant workers became a quasi-serf caste—an irony for a Party claiming to represent the working class while inventing the derogatory term “nongmingong” (migrant peasant-laborer).Food coupons were phased out; the so-called “population dividend” was celebrated.Yet the policy remained unchanged because officials viewed population not as a resource but as a burden, short-sightedly ignoring future pension crises. Today, a single young person must support 1.3–1.5 elderly dependents; the social-security system is near collapse.

Three Dimensions of Disaster: Political, Biological, and Social

The damage wrought by the one-child policy appears in three domains—each a slow-acting poison corroding the nation’s foundations.

1. Political: A Reversion to Slavery and Social Enslavement

By placing reproductive rights under state control, the policy restored a form of slave-like governance reminiscent of the Shang and Zhou eras. Senior officials (at bureau-director level and above) could have multiple children, even multiple wives, while ordinary people faced strict limits. Urban residents were once forcibly “sent down” to become quasi-peasants.

In ancient China, both “state people” and “outsiders” could reproduce freely, limited only by ability to rear children. Modern China is more regressive: people require state permission to give birth.

After decades of enforcement, the public grew accustomed to seeing this antihuman measure as natural. Daily slogans, constant propaganda, and an entire bureaucracy devoted to enforcement normalized the abnormal.When an inhumane policy persists for decades, it becomes “reasonable.”

This strengthened the urban–rural dual structure and entrenched social docility, making authoritarian control instinctively accepted. Those who cry for democracy yet do not oppose the one-child policy misunderstand democracy itself:How can one speak of voting rights when even reproductive rights are denied?

2. Biological: Violating Natural Selection and Causing Genetic Decline

In natural conditions, stronger and healthier individuals produce more offspring, promoting species-level optimization—consistent with Darwinian evolution. The CCP proclaims belief in evolution yet imposed a one-child limit: the most capable and healthiest families had only one child; those with poor health or weak genetic traits, aided by medical interventions (IVF, induced labor), also had one.The numerical differentiation—crucial in evolutionary processes—was erased.

The result: homogenization, mixing of high-quality and low-quality traits, and a reversal of natural selection—“the weak outcompeting the strong.”

Historical cohort comparisons illustrate this:

Those born in the 1940s and 1950s exhibit the highest average longevity due to natural selection.

Those born in the 1960s and 1970s experienced stress and hardship, slightly lowering lifespan.

But cohorts born in the 1980s and 1990s face significant early-mortality risks in the coming decades.

Long-life genes cannot amplify (an 80-year-lifespan couple has only one child); short-life genes are averaged upward (a 50-year-lifespan couple also has one child).By age fifty, the population halves. In the past, large families amplified advantageous traits; now environmental and dietary stresses worsen biological decline.Overall physical fitness among Chinese has deteriorated markedly.

From a purely biological standpoint—setting aside morality—this policy interrupted the natural evolutionary process, causing irreversible damage.

3. Social: Destroying the Material Foundation of Justice and Resistance

As social beings, humans need morality, justice, and courage. Yet the one-child policy shattered their material basis. Upholding justice or defending the homeland requires sacrifice, sometimes life itself.Families with multiple children can endure the loss of one (e.g., in military service).But one-child families instinctively protect the sole heir, teaching:“Don’t get into trouble—just stay alive.”

This instinct is biological: adult animals protect their only offspring; survival of the bloodline takes precedence over all else. If the child dies, the family line disappears.

The consequence is moral degradation: parents lose their sense of justice or righteousness; the ethos of “better to live dishonorably than die honorably” prevails.The CCP welcomes this: one-child families are easier to govern—unlike families in Afghanistan, where many children mean parents are less fearful of sacrifice.

Voices of resistance in China disproportionately come from women: boys are pampered into fragility, raised for decades with the message “don’t cause trouble,” valued primarily as carriers of the family line. Girls enjoy relatively more autonomy.This explains why, despite sharing Confucian cultural roots, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland’s labor-union movement) and South Korea show strong youth mobilization, while China does not. Had South Korea or Poland implemented similar one-child measures, their resistance would also have weakened.

Statistically, only a tiny fraction of only-children will stand up:

A few with extraordinary moral conviction;

Or those crushed by authoritarian repression, left with no choice.

Most remain risk-averse.

Why the CCP Will Not Truly Abolish the Policy

The CCP will only abandon birth restrictions when pensions and the education system collapse. A 2015 big-data report predicted demographic meltdown, but it was ignored—the economy had not yet collapsed, and only-children remained “useful.”

Even today’s “two-child” and “three-child” policies remain under state planning.Future coercion is possible—Romania once employed “menstrual police.”

Some Chinese workplaces already monitor menstruation cycles of women under 50. Incentive mechanisms—taxes, promotions—foreshadow coercive pronatalism.Economic decline will mask demographic damage for a time, but compulsory social insurance and rising bureaucratic pressure already signal the direction:

In the extreme, citizens may become breeding livestock, driven to reproduce.

Conclusion: Base Origins and an Enduring Warning

The one-child policy was born of a base instinct: unable to provide for the people, the state chose to eliminate future generations. It interrupted natural selection, enslaved society, and destroyed the moral foundations of civic courage—its impact rivaling political indoctrination.

For the CCP’s rule, the policy is indispensable.Ma Yinchu reduced humans to numbers and should be condemned; his failure of foresight implicates him in a crime against humanity.

The policy produced no benefits—it turned modern individuals into subjugated beings.The Chinese nation must awaken to a fundamental truth:

Reproductive freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms.Only by rejecting state control over birth can the nation reclaim its future.