I was under the impression (and a brief skimming of the article you linked seems to support) that the one-child policy didn't apply in rural areas, so while it was a cute refutation of the government not caring "how many children were born" it seems to be an inaccurate one of the government not caring "how many children were born [...] in some remote village".
... I write this assuming the earlier comment wasn't amended to tack on the phrase; if it was, my apologies...
"The limit has been strongly enforced in urban areas, but the actual implementation varies from location to location. In most rural areas, families are allowed to apply to have a second child if their first-born is a daughter or suffers from physical disability, mental illness or mental retardation. Second children are subject to birth spacing (usually 3 or 4 years). Additional children will result in large fines. Families violating the policy are required to pay monetary penalties.... [ Lots more detail. ]"
So, yes, they do care about "remote villages". Enough to place them under the control of the government; don't know how true this was for the rural areas, but back before a free market in food was allowed, getting on the wrong side of the local functionaries resulted in your not getting ration tickets and dying of starvation, or so I was told by a couple from the PRC in the late '80s. Those same functionaries enforce this policy and they're not polite about it.
Seriously, do some very basic research before you continue to downplay the utter horror of totalitarian societies.
Ah, yes, sorry about the tone. I didn't notice that you were replying instead of the original nsns; he was the one my ire and e.g. last sentence was directed towards.
Upwards of 200 million people are spinning in their mass graves at your abject ignorance of the 20th century history of totalitarianism.
Hint: the world "total" is a clue.