Ask anything Thread

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
But doesn't having a larger population = more brainpower? China graduates an enormous amount of stem students. Other nations can build their own robots but the don't have the manpower to innovate at the pace China is at the moment. More stem people the better. I remember reading an excerpt from the US military forum where they're prioritizing more people to the F-47 program since trying to develop 2 6 gens would overstretch their engineers. Meanwhile China can slug around as many engineers as they want.

Only if you can properly feed, house, clothe, entertain, educate and nurture them. Cultivating a large number of high tier STEM experts is no easy task.

If it were only as simple as population size then 1970s China would have suddenly become a superpower overnight. India wouldn't be arguably the world's worst nation to live in with almost no high tech industry outside of software (of which it is just a minor and backwards player on the global totem pole).

Even with half its current population, China with 600M people would be roughly equal to the EU + USA in population size. A nation as small as Sweden has much more tech, scientific, industrial and manufacturing capability + output than India. It absolutely is not simply size of population. Beyond a critical limit, a larger population begins to bring in more negatives on balance than positives. Not every person is going to become a top tier STEM talent and nor should a society be composed of only STEM people.

You can bet that a smaller population China (500M to 700M) is going to perform much better than a 1B+ China. With a smaller population you have same resources for fewer people = more resources per capita and better everything. The engine of progress (STEM) is always a small proportion of your total population and yes even for East Asian nations it's like 30% of the workforce at most and that's defining STEM loosely.

If you're talking nominal size of STEM pool, well you've missed the point that it's the top tier of performers that really push the boundaries. Everyone else is a minor player or a supporting role. Hence you do not need a massive nominal size of STEM people. Proof of this is pretty much every tech capable European and Asian nation (think Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, even UK) is per capita a "better player" than China. This means adjusted for size of population. China can "slim the herd" with zero effect on its current STEM performance. Because 80%+ (number from my ass to make the point) are not pushing anything forward.

The STEM talent of importance is NOT calculated from a % of total population (again look at good and bad examples above) but a natural limit set from the number of STEM experts you have cultivated over the decades to pass their knowledge down and train the next generations, the number and capability of institutions you have, funding, access to capital, access to markets, society that embraces idea sharing (westerners often will call this IP infringement lol we have extreme examples here) and idea taking/stealing whatever... someone taught us maths right, no one has ownership over logic or physics. Factors like these determine STEM engine not % of population. Think India vs Switzerland.

As long as this reduction in population is over many decades or centuries, it is something that should be done by China to elevate its living standards per capita. One may make an argument about consumer market size. Well if it is such a magical thing how come India's consumer market hasn't made it a superpower or even a middle income nation after 70 years of independence from Britain? We should still remember that a China with only 600M people is still going to be one of the top 2 populous nations on earth with the US coming in third at maybe by then 400M people.

Two points - 600M is a massive market, world's second largest market by population and certainly still the largest by far measured by consumption volume and value. It's GDP per capita would be well over 10x India's by today's measure and this is with India overmeasuring themselves as is now abundantly clear. Point 2 is China's development and growth was not derived from market size. It's a low consumption market overall. This will change as it gets wealthier and social protection improves with a smaller population to look after.
 
Last edited:

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
You don't need a billion people to be a world power. The US with about 300 million people proves that. But your population does need to be working age, and China's is both aging and shrinking.
You could do that in 19th,20th century when rest of the world did not industrialize. Then you could bully the world with your lopsided advantages. That world no longer exists. We are moving towards convergance where EVERYONE will be industrial, urban, educated and competent. Then you need the mass to have influence just like it always was in history.
 

SinoAmericanCW

Junior Member
Registered Member
You could do that in 19th,20th century when rest of the world did not industrialize. Then you could bully the world with your lopsided advantages. That world no longer exists. We are moving towards convergance where EVERYONE will be industrial, urban, educated and competent. Then you need the mass to have influence just like it always was in history.
There's little evidence for the world converging anytime soon. Most so-called "developing countries" aren't catching up to the West at all.

China *is* catching up, and indeed in industrial terms it has already outpaced the West. But China is on a very different trajectory than most of the "Global South".

We're heading for a world with three major global power clusters: China, the U.S. and a declining-but-still-relevant European Union, with China on track to emerge as the more powerful of the three ca. the 2030s or 2040s.
 

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
You don't need a billion people to be a world power. The US with about 300 million people proves that. But your population does need to be working age, and China's is both aging and shrinking.
You can't draw a trendline into infinity. It's much more likely that the population will stabilize; likely within a few decades. It's unlikely that China will ever dip below 1 billion people.

There's little evidence for the world converging anytime soon. Most so-called "developing countries" aren't catching up to the West at all.

China *is* catching up, and indeed in industrial terms it has already outpaced the West. But China is on a very different trajectory than most of the "Global South".

We're heading for a world with three major global power clusters: China, the U.S. and a declining-but-still-relevant European Union, with China on track to emerge as the more powerful of the three ca. the 2030s or 2040s.
I'd say that Russia is still strong enough to be a fourth power. But of these, only the US and China will be superpowers for the foreseeable future. If I look into my crystal ball, I'd say that India will eventually become a global power as well. But they're managed so poorly right now that it might take a very long time.
 

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
There's little evidence for the world converging anytime soon. Most so-called "developing countries" aren't catching up to the West at all.

China *is* catching up, and indeed in industrial terms it has already outpaced the West. But China is on a very different trajectory than most of the "Global South".

We're heading for a world with three major global power clusters: China, the U.S. and a declining-but-still-relevant European Union, with China on track to emerge as the more powerful of the three ca. the 2030s or 2040s.
The world has most certainly caught up and only getting closer and closer. Most countries now have solid urbanized middle-class who are well educated and have travelled the world and know things. Technology have defused to everywhere. Gone are the days when the west had cars and air conditioners while a country in Africa was only moving on horses and never even saw electricity.

Most countries have basic industries like Steel, cement and so forth. A smaller but growing list of countries have car production. All important industries in a war.

Many countries are now pursuing self-developed projects in producing military planes, many can produce their own tanks and ships.

These things were not true even 30 years ago during the 90s US dominance. The advantages of the west have declined severely.

Yes, they are earning more money from software, lawyers and all the developing country money pouring their savings into dollar. But they no longer have advantages to invade and takeover even a decent sized country.
 

SinoAmericanCW

Junior Member
Registered Member
Many countries are now pursuing self-developed projects in producing military planes
As a rebuttal, and just on this specific point, here is the *complete* list of countries producing combat aircraft, and/or having active combat aircraft development projects, at the moment:

U.S. bloc
  • United States: F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-35 / B-21 in development / F-47, F/A-XX as projects
  • European Union: EF-2000 (Germany/Italy/Spain), F-35 (assembly in Italy), JAS 39 (Sweden), Rafale (France) / ... / NGF (France/Germany/Spain), Tempest (Italy) as projects
  • Japan: F-35 (assembly) / ... / F-X as a project
  • United Kingdom: Typhoon / ... / Tempest as a project
  • South Korea: FA-50 / KF-21 in development / ...
Independent powers
  • India: Su-30 (licensed), Tejas / ... / AMCA, TEDBF as projects
  • Brazil: F-39 (licensed) / ... / ...
  • Türkiye: ... / Kaan in development / ...
China and friends
  • China: J-10, J-15, J-16, J-20, J-35, H-6 / J-36, J-XX in development / H-20 as a project
  • Russia: MiG-35, Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, Su-57, Tu-160 / ... / PAK DA, PAK DP, Su-75 as projects
  • Iran: Kowsar (?) / ... / ...
  • Pakistan: JF-17 (co-development with China) / ... / ...
Of the 16 countries (out of 193 UN member-states) producing combat aircraft today, two of them (Brazil and Pakistan) only do so thanks to a foreign partner, whereas another one (Iran) can only produce reverse-engineered obsolete types (namely, the U.S. F-5). The only four countries with an indigenous combat aircraft industry outside of the U.S.-led bloc are China, Russia and, on a still-embryonic level, India and Türkiye.

If you look at other categories of military equipment, you'll admittedly find slightly less concentration than in the case of combat aircraft. But the big picture is effectively the same.
 

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
As a rebuttal, and just on this specific point, here is the *complete* list of countries producing combat aircraft, and/or having active combat aircraft development projects, at the moment:

U.S. bloc
  • United States: F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-35 / B-21 in development / F-47, F/A-XX as projects
  • European Union: EF-2000 (Germany/Italy/Spain), F-35 (assembly in Italy), JAS 39 (Sweden), Rafale (France) / ... / NGF (France/Germany/Spain), Tempest (Italy) as projects
  • Japan: F-35 (assembly) / ... / F-X as a project
  • United Kingdom: Typhoon / ... / Tempest as a project
  • South Korea: FA-50 / KF-21 in development / ...
Independent powers
  • India: Su-30 (licensed), Tejas / ... / AMCA, TEDBF as projects
  • Brazil: F-39 (licensed) / ... / ...
  • Türkiye: ... / Kaan in development / ...
China and friends
  • China: J-10, J-15, J-16, J-20, J-35, H-6 / J-36, J-XX in development / H-20 as a project
  • Russia: MiG-35, Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, Su-57, Tu-160 / ... / PAK DA, PAK DP, Su-75 as projects
  • Iran: Kowsar (?) / ... / ...
  • Pakistan: JF-17 (co-development with China) / ... / ...
Of the 16 countries (out of 193 UN member-states) producing combat aircraft today, two of them (Brazil and Pakistan) only do so thanks to a foreign partner, whereas another one (Iran) can only produce reverse-engineered obsolete types (namely, the U.S. F-5). The only four countries with an indigenous combat aircraft industry outside of the U.S.-led bloc are China, Russia and, on a still-embryonic level, India and Türkiye.

If you look at other categories of military equipment, you'll admittedly find slightly less concentration than in the case of combat aircraft. But the big picture is effectively the same.

Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and India were not producing combat aircraft 30 years from now. Iran was not at the cutting edge of missile development. Plenty of countries have space programs now. Again these are just the cutting edge of technology. The big change is the spread of basic industries like steel, chemicals and so on. How many countries even had those in the past?

What ASEAN countries can produce now compared to 30 years ago? What can Middle-east and Africa produce now compared to what they produced 30 years ago. There has been huge improvements in the lives of people in poor countries. 30 years ago, people were dying of hunger and famines. Now it is unheard of.

Again, the west is simply incapable of taking over decent sized countries now. In the past, they could colonize the world. The world has converged and will continue to converge even more until all countries are basically at the same level of technology and development.
 

Inque

New Member
Registered Member
You can't draw a trendline into infinity. It's much more likely that the population will stabilize; likely within a few decades. It's unlikely that China will ever dip below 1 billion people.
Why would it stabilize? For that to happen, the death rate would need to decrease or the birth rate would need to increase. Despite the efforts of various governments, the latter has not happened.
 

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why would it stabilize? For that to happen, the death rate would need to decrease or the birth rate would need to increase. Despite the efforts of various governments, the latter has not happened.
It's because that's not how trendlines work and because nobody is treating it as a serious problem yet. If things don't work themselves out naturally, and low birthrates do become a serious problem, then the different governments in the world will make real effort to resolve it. One way or another, it will stabilize because that's how demographics works. Sure it will take decades, but that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
 
Top