China demographics thread.

[manqiangrexue]

Nope, no hype from my end. We just seem to have a different view of the urgency that is required for this issue.

You say it's a serious problem. I challenge your assertions, prove them wrong, and here, you have simply ignored or failed to address them from your supposed point-to-point response. So continuing to express logically defeated views as truth is hyping the issue on your end.

My reasoning doesn't go on forever. But fertility rate predictions are quite reliable over the next 5-10 years. By any reasonable estimate, they'll decrease further, and this problem will worsen.

So now it's just 5-10 years LOL. China has a population of 1.4 billion. How much decrease do you expect in 5-10 years? Why do you believe that a population of this size is insufficient to realize China's ambitions of becoming the world's most powerful nation?

When it comes to population, my point is that as long as there's enough food security and basic education (which China has been good at), having more people is a good thing. If not, then at least maintain the share of the world population that we've always had, at least 25%.

Yeah having more people is a good thing; nobody disagrees. But I'm arguing against your assertion that China's low fertility rate is an immediate and massive danger to China overtaking the US.

We could spend a lot of time discussing what lies ahead. The further into the future you look, the more assumptions and uncertainties arise. However, when it comes to factors like fertility and population demographics, reasonable estimates can be made. Unless there are significant government interventions and cultural changes, fertility rates are likely to decrease.

For what? 5-10 years again? LOL You're free to suggest policies, and I've joined in on that. But you will not go unharassed for hyping up a long term tepid issue into an immediate emergency.

I want the government to acknowledge this issue and take action, which is why I'm bringing attention to it.

And which one of us do you think works for the government whose attention you must catch with your posts here?

 

[Index]

The way to go hasn't been spamming useless mouths to feed since a long time already. Africa is populous. India is populous. Where did that get those places?

As I see it, the future of position China is not as an unitary nation by itself, but a network of nations with current China as its political, industrial and scientific center. China can go down to 1 billion population by the end of the century, or even 800 million. That means less elderly to take care of, and a ripe societal environment with plenty of room for a new baby boom, as population groups are cyclical in nature.

But then who will keep alive the industries? Technology will. China did not acquire a strong industry by having a large manual labor population, it got a strong industry because it had a large educated population that could make innovations in efficiency, and the large population market to test out said inventions on. Even as China's demographics are slowing, industrial expansion isn't slowing. These 2 factors are nearly decoupled.

Who will do the consuming? The countries in China's orbit will.

Who will make sure we stay ahead in science? China still have many less educated people from the interior, and once those run out, immigrants will.

The British Empire were once an island of maybe 60 million, that controlled India, vast swathes of Africa, and successfully became world hegemon for a century. I'm not saying China can decrease to 60 million, because British fell to shit for a reason. But 800 million of well educated people in the most advanced industrial economy in the world can realistically govern and be the industrial center for the rest 7 billion.

Hence the government does not fear the issue of decreasing population, rather, if it is correctly done, it will reduce burden caused by overpopulation at a later date.

China just needs to make sure to reach out and pull in as many countries as possible.

 

[tygyg1111]

The way to go hasn't been spamming useless mouths to feed since a long time already. Africa is populous. India is populous. Where did that get those places?

As I see it, the future of position China is not as an unitary nation by itself, but a network of nations with current China as its political, industrial and scientific center. China can go down to 1 billion population by the end of the century, or even 800 million. That means less elderly to take care of, and a ripe societal environment with plenty of room for a new baby boom, as population groups are cyclical in nature.

But then who will keep alive the industries? Technology will. China did not acquire a strong industry by having a large manual labor population, it got a strong industry because it had a large educated population that could make innovations in efficiency, and the large population market to test out said inventions on. Even as China's demographics are slowing, industrial expansion isn't slowing. These 2 factors are nearly decoupled.

Who will do the consuming? The countries in China's orbit will.

Who will make sure we stay ahead in science? China still have many less educated people from the interior, and once those run out, immigrants will.

The British Empire were once an island of maybe 60 million, that controlled India, vast swathes of Africa, and successfully became world hegemon for a century. I'm not saying China can decrease to 60 million, because British fell to shit for a reason. But 800 million of well educated people in the most advanced industrial economy in the world can realistically govern and be the industrial center for the rest 7 billion.

Hence the government does not fear the issue of decreasing population, rather, if it is correctly done, it will reduce burden caused by overpopulation at a later date.

China just needs to make sure to reach out and pull in as many countries as possible.

Just to clarify, I expect 'immigrants' to be majority East Asian and SE Asian. I also expect the government will have soft maximum quotas for non-Asian immigration so as to not affect social cohesion.

 

[Eventine]

Population structure keeps getting ignored by the rhetoric “it’ll all be fine.” The next twenty years will show why it cannot be. It’s like the fall of Japan taught people nothing; hopefully South Korea will provide a more convincing example.

 

[Index]

Just to clarify, I expect 'immigrants' to be majority East Asian and SE Asian. I also expect the government will have soft maximum quotas for non-Asian immigration so as to not affect social cohesion.

To some extent yes, but you should also remember that China didn't become great because of racial homogenity.

Back then, the known world was only Asia, and the Empire did not disqualify people from even the furthest corners of the known world to join, if they had the correct expertise. Today, the known world is the whole world, so if China is to rule long term when it returns to its historical position as leader of the known world, it also needs to accept people from any corner of the world and let them become Chinese.

Of course that does not mean unrestricted Indian or other third world immigration so they can come just to reap economic benefits, but it means having 0 discrimination in nationality/race while having immigration policy based on merit.

 

[Eventine]

To some extent yes, but you should also remember that China didn't become great because of racial homogenity.

Back then, the known world was only Asia, and the Empire did not disqualify people from even the furthest corners of the known world to join, if they had the correct expertise. Today, the known world is the whole world, so if China is to rule long term when it returns to its historical position as leader of the known world, it also needs to accept people from any corner of the world and let them become Chinese.

Of course that does not mean unrestricted Indian or other third world immigration so they can come just to reap economic benefits, but it means having 0 discrimination in nationality/race while having immigration policy based on merit.

Historical China was not a nation of immigrants but an empire, and its lack of racial homogeneity was due to the empire conquering / unifying other peoples. This process began in the Shang Dynasty if not earlier from the Shang Kings engaging in political intermarriage with surrounding states. The Zhou was exactly the same. This is why the core ideological principle of Chinese politics is unification.

As an imperial state you accept the submission of foreign peoples by adding their territory and population to your own. You do not give them access to your sovereign territory BUT they also get to keep their own sovereignty. That's how you get yourself colonized. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If, say, Muslims or Indians were allowed to immigrate to China but not the other way around, the end result will be more power to Muslims and Indians, NOT more power to Chinese.

Allowing large scale immigration from groups who have much higher fertility than you is also probably the worst idea any nation-state can have, and it is being proven in Europe with the rise of the radical right and increasing chaos and civil conflict.

 

[Serb]

Population structure keeps getting ignored by the rhetoric “it’ll all be fine.” The next twenty years will show why it cannot be. It’s like the fall of Japan taught people nothing; hopefully South Korea will provide a more convincing example.

Keep in mind that you are, for some reason, constantly criticizing and talking down the 3 most successful countries in the history of the modern world in the last hundred years that also didn't develop due to colonialism, and are also now leaders in automation. I would guess that they surely know more about what they are doing than some Indians, for example, as the majority of them can't even literally understand each other across state lines, pay zero taxes to the government (only 2.2% of the adult population actively pays government taxes for example), and live in some kind of a feudal age caste system, culturally, and some of the worst types of illegal slums, with very scarce basic services, made of scrap.

 

[Eventine]

Keep in mind that you are, for some reason, constantly criticizing and talking down the 3 most successful countries in the history of the modern world in the last hundred years that also didn't develop due to colonialism, and are also now leaders in automation. I would guess that they surely know more about what they are doing than some Indians, for example, as the majority of them can't even literally understand each other across state lines, pay zero taxes to the government (only 2.2% of the adult population actively pays government taxes for example), and live in some kind of a feudal age caste system, culturally, and some of the worst types of illegal slums, with very scarce basic services, made of scrap.

Successful in what sense? They are occupied colonies of the US. They host US bases despite their people being regularly harassed by the soldiers, their politicians are all controlled by the US, their companies are mostly owned by Western investors, they obey every US command, and their economies cannot function without the US.

The US has them by the collar. I don't consider that "successful" even though by some definitions it might seem so, as they have no independent state power but are instead an arm of the US. India, by contrast, is much less developed, but it is far more independent of US power.

 

[Serb]

Successful in what sense? They are occupied colonies of the US and developed only because of the US export market. If you look at the historical % of their GDP that came from exports, that will become immediately obvious. Japan was built up by the US as an instrument against Communism in East Asia; they could've just as well remained poor if the US decided to keep them that way.

The US has them by the collar. I don't consider that "successful" even though by some definitions it might seem so, as they have no independent state power. India, by contrast, is much less developed, but it is far more independent of US power.

They are indeed occupied by the US, but saying that they developed due to the US is beyond delusional and uneducated as they would be even much better off today had they not been occupied.

Yeah, they needed the US for exports, but the US economy also needed their superior, competitive products. And why do they make such products from the most fundamental kind of standpoint?

- High levels of intelligence, education, conscientiousness, agreeableness, performance, basically everything that Indians on average don't have.

 

[yungho]

The way to go hasn't been spamming useless mouths to feed since a long time already. Africa is populous. India is populous. Where did that get those places?

As I see it, the future of position China is not as an unitary nation by itself, but a network of nations with current China as its political, industrial and scientific center. China can go down to 1 billion population by the end of the century, or even 800 million. That means less elderly to take care of, and a ripe societal environment with plenty of room for a new baby boom, as population groups are cyclical in nature.

But then who will keep alive the industries? Technology will. China did not acquire a strong industry by having a large manual labor population, it got a strong industry because it had a large educated population that could make innovations in efficiency, and the large population market to test out said inventions on. Even as China's demographics are slowing, industrial expansion isn't slowing. These 2 factors are nearly decoupled.

Who will do the consuming? The countries in China's orbit will.

Who will make sure we stay ahead in science? China still have many less educated people from the interior, and once those run out, immigrants will.

The British Empire were once an island of maybe 60 million, that controlled India, vast swathes of Africa, and successfully became world hegemon for a century. I'm not saying China can decrease to 60 million, because British fell to shit for a reason. But 800 million of well educated people in the most advanced industrial economy in the world can realistically govern and be the industrial center for the rest 7 billion.

Hence the government does not fear the issue of decreasing population, rather, if it is correctly done, it will reduce burden caused by overpopulation at a later date.

China just needs to make sure to reach out and pull in as many countries as possible.

Had me until immigrants. Ignoring the societal problems immigration causes, immigration is not a sustainable way to stem demographic issues. You are replacing demographic problems with a new set of problems that come with immigration. Not that there aren't benefits, but the core demographic issue is never solved.

China and the world need to find sustainable solutions to demographics. We must accept that the line does not always go up.

On the UK point, I don't think the UK outcome is desirable for China. UK was the supreme power for 200 years and look at them now. I would personally rather see China be number 2 or number 3 for a thousand more years than see it follow the path of the UK.