China demographics thread.

[manqiangrexue]

Because East Asians continue to smoke copium around demographics.

It's a fair balance to people who are completely in a panic and try to infect that onto others by extrapolating current trends 4 generations down to make it look like there will 15 people for every thousand now. It's as useful and accurate as guessing China's GDP growth percentage for the next century.

You see it plenty in this thread where people sell everything from “you can’t predict the future!”

That's not cope; that's common sense. You're attempting to predict the future by assuming that there will be no natural change for 100 years.

to “no need for humans if you have robots!”

American workers are striking against automation at their eastern ports. How many of them depend on that job? Did you see the recent posts about China's offloading ports? That's the power of technology in reducing human burden.

to “only poor countries have lots of children so China having less means it’s doing great!”

Yeah, it's a global trend and people even pointed to Israel to try to debunk it except in Israel, all the educated well-to-do people also have low fertility rates; it's the useless religious nuts that have high fertility. Would it be better if we can buck the trend? Yeah, but so far nobody has figured out how.

And you left out the one about China's rise NOT being in tuned with or dependent at all on population growth or birth rate. China sees an increase in educated STEM personel with a decrease in sustenance farmers, etc... It's migration, not population expansion that put air under China's wings.

There are days when I wonder whether half the people here are actually CIA plants looking to sabotage China.

Oh, you should go on Chinese forums; you might be led to think that all Chinese people work for the CIA when you see how many people support each other's DINK lifestyles, ridicule their parents for putting pressure on them to have kids, and egg each other on with advice for how to disrespect their parents so badly, they permanently lose all hope in grandchildren.

Or you can come to terms with that's just how Chinese ultra-modern society is and we'll probably need to build the next generation without their genetic input.

Other days I am reminded that people really have a hard time with change that occurs over the course of generations. If they can’t see it happen with their eyes then it’s “fake news.”

No, it's mainly to put the threat into perspective and to ask the right questions. Currently, they are:

1. How would you ameliorate the threat of population decline?
2. How can we ameliorate the negative impacts of population decline?
3. How much steam do we have? How far can we get in the global race with what we have and what we can do in the forseeable future?

Those are constructive. "Guys, the situation is bad, so so bad. We'll have 15 people to the thousand at this rate! Curse the skies and ground and the seas; it's so bad. God it's so bad, you don't know how bad it is; it's so bad." Is just not a useful or accurate post by any stretch.

Despite all the math being right there in front of them.

There are places where math is inappropriate and making 4 generation long predictions on something that changes with the situation is one of them. You can try using said math. Take the population growth rates of USA/China/Russia in 1924, then use that to calculate their populations in 2024. How close did you get?

 

[MonkeyEatingEagle]

Generally, CIA intel cells tend to imply that whenever China will undergo its so called "demographic collapse" there's going to be a revolution to unseat the CCP; as if a change of government somehow magically fixes the problem, which it certainly does not. This wishful line of thinking is pretty much a desperate last attempt of trying to win a losing narrative. The same can be said of how to solve the North Korean problem, by waiting for their dear Supreme Leader to die of diabetes. The West has basically given up.

As far as most expert projections on China's future problems, the closest analogy to it should China be unable to manage it well enough would be what's Japan is currently experiencing. By the time its real toll will be felt, China should have already entered at least the lowest levels of a developed high-income country. It would already be too big to fail even more so than now.

 

[HighGround]

Why current TFR of east Asia is almost at extinction lvl (China is at about 1.08 in 2023)

In 4 generation from 1000 people you go to 91 with TFR of 1.1 and unfortunately it looks like China TFR might fall below 1.0, but not this year. We need to push the TFR to the American lvl of 1.6. This is the lvl which the demographics is bad but not terrible. Look at the table and TFR of 1.7 should be the goal.

Gonna be hard to improve fertility when your life doesn't really begin until you graduate, find a job, and make progress in your career. For most women that's closer to age 30, when their fertility starts to decline. I mean really, that's the crux of the issue.

One solution is for some scientific whiz to invent a drug that could drastically boost women's fertility so people can have kids reliably at age 50. That would probably solve a lot of these "demographic collapse" issues around the world.

Bonus points; Since some of you really hate America, you can embargo United States to keep us dependent on immigrants.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Gonna be hard to improve fertility when your life doesn't really begin until you graduate, find a job, and make progress in your career. For most women that's closer to age 30, when their fertility starts to decline. I mean really, that's the crux of the issue.

One solution is for some scientific whiz to invent a drug that could drastically boost women's fertility so people can have kids reliably at age 50. That would probably solve a lot of these "demographic collapse" issues around the world.

Bonus points; Since some of you really hate America, you can embargo United States to keep us dependent on immigrants.

That miracle drug is not reliable; currently the closest thing is to freeze your eggs so they can be used decades later with a surrogate but that has a significant chance of failure if you don't go a few rounds of IVF and get a good amount stored.

Anyway, it's cultural. Chinese people are obsessed with being the best and putting as much power as possible behind their careers. With this mindset, of course you won't want to have kids until the last minute, then you'll find out you're too old and 1 failure is the beginning of the end. And this mindset has largely been ingrained into China since we found out how terribly we lagged the West and how much ground there was to cover in the catch up. Before this, the obsession was how many fat boys your family had. Quickly, it became how educated your kid was. Now, it's how much wealth you can build for yourself. It's all fast-changing culture that can be changed.

Once China surpasses the West, this obsession to push ahead can taper off. China and Chinese people can realize that although we gave it our all to catch up quickly, it won't take everything we've got to stay ahead. That's when we see that we can have kids and not worry about our careers being less than they had the potential to be! We can have kids at 26 or 28 and just be a manager rather than giving up everything to be a childless director or CEO.

Another boost might be the first generation of the childless nearing their end and dying alone constantly pitifully wailing in sorrow and cold emptiness to warn others that their lives were wasted, that it was too late by the time they realized that a warm family is the only real wealth after all. Those are the things that will increase the fertility rate; we can't wait for artificial wombs or miracle fertility drugs.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Both sides of the argument may be valid at once. It is a fool's errand to predict the population in 2050 or 2100 based on 2024 statistics that are ever shifting with the changing economic and sociocultural landscape.

At the same time, the piss-poor TFR and birth rates are systemic and pressing issues that should spur intervention. The barriers to a high TFR, in my opinion, stem from the following, in decreasing order of influence:
1. Economic difficulties: China is one of the most expensive countries in which to raise children. Youth unemployment is also high.
2. Changing societal expectations: fewer people make it a personal obligation to raise a family. More youths are focusing more on their career than family aspirations.
3. Spillover effects of the One-Child Policy: people who grew up as only children are used to the dynamics of a small family and therefore expect as much as they become parents themselves.
4. Increased toxins in foods & consumer goods: microplastics and other modern pollutants have been strongly correlated with decreasing testosterone levels and rising infertility.

Economic incentives could be managed via government intervention or the collective realization of the population crisis by the corporate sphere. Cultural and societal shifts are much more difficult to reverse because there is no intervention that could be implemented.

 

[GiantPanda]

Because East Asians continue to smoke copium around demographics. You see it plenty in this thread where people sell everything from “you can’t predict the future!” to “no need for humans if you have robots!” to “only poor countries have lots of children so China having less means it’s doing great!”

There are days when I wonder whether half the people here are actually CIA plants looking to sabotage China. Other days I am reminded that people really have a hard time with change that occurs over the course of generations. If they can’t see it happen with their eyes then it’s “fake news.” Despite all the math being right there in front of them.

You tell me one wealthy country that has a high TFR?

This demographic nonsense is more likely to be a CIA plot to sew doubts about China than any real issue.

Right now, China still has far more people than jobs that people want to do -- and that is with the oncoming rush of AI and automation.

China is in a far better shape than countries like India who needs to find work to feed literally hundreds of millions of additional mouths in the next three decades when AI is devastating its back offices and IT outsourcing.

While automation around the world -- but especially in China -- will never allow them to employ substantial numbers in manufacturing. No human can compete with automation in manufacturing with the advent of 5G and AI. Look at the automated ports in China and then look at the strikes in the US ones because of the very fear of automation.

This stupidity of predicting a demographic catastrophy in 2100 when we can't predict change in the next decade is a waste of time to be perfectly honest.

I'll tell you this, by 2100 not one of the stupid parameters you used today would mean anything then.

Even things like child birth might be completely different then. Rich and technically advanced nations might relieve their young women of the pain and risk of giving birth at all. We might have frozen eggs extracted from women when they are young, incubated in artificial wombs and raised in great numbers by the state.

Advanced countries might race each other with the best and most gifted children enhanced by techniques we know nothing of today.

Talking about meaningful demographics collapse for a population like China at 1.4B is basically in the realm of science fiction.

What is more real is the coming shortage of jobs in a world dominated by AI and Automation. Good luck trying to find jobs for them if you're "demographically blessed" like India.

 

[Quan8410]

You tell me one wealthy country that has a high TFR?

This demographic nonsense is more likely to be a CIA plot to sew doubts about China than any real issue.

Right now, China still has far more people than jobs that people want to do -- and that is with the oncoming rush of AI and automation.

China is in a far better shape than countries like India who needs to find work to feed literally hundreds of millions of additional mouths in the next three decades when AI is devastating its back offices and IT outsourcing.

While automation around the world -- but especially in China -- will never allow them to employ substantial numbers in manufacturing. No human can compete with automation in manufacturing with the advent of 5G and AI. Look at the automated ports in China and then look at the strikes in the US ones because of the very fear of automation.

This stupidity of predicting a demographic catastrophy in 2100 when we can't predict change in the next decade is a waste of time to be perfectly honest.

I'll tell you this, by 2100 not one of the stupid parameters you used today would mean anything then.

Even things like child birth might be completely different then. Rich and technically advanced nations might relieve their young women of the pain and risk of giving birth at all. We might have frozen eggs extracted from women when they are young, incubated in artificial wombs and raised in great numbers by the state.

Advanced countries might race each other with the best and most gifted children enhanced by techniques we know nothing of today.

Talking about meaningful demographics collapse for a population like China at 1.4B is basically in the realm of science fiction.

What is more real is the coming shortage of jobs in a world dominated by AI and Automation. Good luck trying to find jobs for them if you're "demographically blessed" like India.

The doctrine of Communism is not about creating jobs. It is free humanity from the burden of getting job. We are communists and we will doing anything for that to happen so that people only need to do whatever they like and produce their offspring without worry about anything.

 

[Eventine]

I don't know how to put this exactly, but why are we talking about people being replaced by robots like it's a great thing? A world where robots have replaced most humans, won't be fun for humans - whether they're Chinese, Indian, or American. It's sheer dystopian to talk about this outcome like it's desirable. Who cares if "robot China" is strong? Are you a robot? If not, why do you wish China's population to be replaced by robots?

The basis of any nation is humans. If a nation isn't doing well supporting its humans, then it is failing its job, regardless of how wealthy, powerful, or advanced it becomes. Robots should not be replacing people; they should not be destroying humanity's basis for sustaining itself. Continued, successful human reproduction should always be the highest goal of a human community, for without it, the community's extinction is just a matter of time. It may not be possible to predict the future, but it is certainly possible to say when a vision for the future is just wrong.

 

[jli88]

Why current TFR of east Asia is almost at extinction lvl (China is at about 1.08 in 2023)

In 4 generation from 1000 people you go to 91 with TFR of 1.1 and unfortunately it looks like China TFR might fall below 1.0, but not this year. We need to push the TFR to the American lvl of 1.6. This is the lvl which the demographics is bad but not terrible. Look at the table and TFR of 1.7 should be the goal.

Thanks for this table, a good visual tool for explanation.

It's a fair balance to people who are completely in a panic and try to infect that onto others by extrapolating current trends 4 generations down to make it look like there will 15 people for every thousand now. It's as useful and accurate as guessing China's GDP growth percentage for the next century.

People panic because people want things to change, once they change the panic would go. Panic is a reaction to the current situation. And yes, while the trend might change in the next 75 years, it might also not change, or even be worse. These numbers are being produced to help people understand why things need to change, and what will happen if they don't. Why sustained TFR of 1 can simply not be tolerated.

You tell me one wealthy country that has a high TFR?

Israel: 2.9
Denmark: 1.7
United States: 1.7

And yes, 1.7 is a much higher TFR compared to China's 1. 70% Higher. And just look at the impact in @Jiang ZeminFanboy post above of 1.7 vs 1.

Even getting to 1.7 would be better.

Right now, China still has far more people than jobs that people want to do -- and that is with the oncoming rush of AI and automation.

Number of jobs are not fixed. They are dependent on economy, which is dependent on consumption by people. Number of Jobs available or required is a useless metric. What is better is unemployment rate, or no. of jobs available per 100 people.

While automation around the world -- but especially in China -- will never allow them to employ substantial numbers in manufacturing. No human can compete with automation in manufacturing with the advent of 5G and AI. Look at the automated ports in China and then look at the strikes in the US ones because of the very fear of automation.

Not true. Automation through out history has nothing to do with overall job creation, because people just find different stuff to do.

At one time > 90% people were engaged in agriculture. Today, less than 10% people (in modern) countries can produce much more grain and feed the entire population. Still no net job decrease, people just shifted to something else.

Today even if all current manufacturing jobs are destroyed, humanity will just find something else to do.

I'll tell you this, by 2100 not one of the stupid parameters you used today would mean anything then.

Even things like child birth might be completely different then. Rich and technically advanced nations might relieve their young women of the pain and risk of giving birth at all. We might have frozen eggs extracted from women when they are young, incubated in artificial wombs and raised in great numbers by the state.

Advanced countries might race each other with the best and most gifted children enhanced by techniques we know nothing of today.

Talking about meaningful demographics collapse for a population like China at 1.4B is basically in the realm of science fiction.

No it is not. We are already saying that given TFR trends are this and this, the population projection is this. PLEASE bring policy measures or whatever to change the TFR trends.

It is very simple maths to predict demographics. The assumption is about TFR trends, immigration/emigration trends, life expectancy etc. And almost every demographer who has been predicting Chinese births/TFR trends over the last decade has been wrong. But for the worse. Births and TFR was lower than forecasted. And these people are already predicting Chinese population of some 500-700 million by 2100.

It is understood that things can change, but they are far from easy to change. And people will adjust their forecasts when people see stuff happening. Right now, not much is happening. TFR continues to decrease, births have basically halved in a decade.

What is more real is the coming shortage of jobs in a world dominated by AI and Automation. Good luck trying to find jobs for them if you're "demographically blessed" like India.

AI is a branding label. Today's statistical models, while advanced and useful in various ways, are probably dumber than an ant in many respects.

I don't know how to put this exactly, but why are we talking about people being replaced by robots like it's a great thing? A world where robots have replaced most humans, won't be fun for humans - whether they're Chinese, Indian, or American. It's sheer dystopian to talk about this outcome like it's desirable. Who cares if "robot China" is strong? Are you a robot? If not, why do you wish China's population to be replaced by robots?

The basis of any nation is humans. If a nation isn't doing well supporting its humans, then it is failing its job, regardless of how wealthy, powerful, or advanced it becomes. Continued, successful human reproduction should always be the highest goal of a human community, for without it, the community's extinction is just a matter of time. It may not be possible to predict the future, but it is certainly possible to say when a vision for the future is just wrong.

Not to forget, even if total automation was possible, this will present other issues:

1. If population doesn't matter, then wouldn't Japan, South Korea, Israel, US, and China all have basically equal strength? Population doesn't matter right?
2. Who will consume?

 

[Index]

Thanks for this table, a good visual tool for explanation.





People panic because people want things to change, once they change the panic would go. Panic is a reaction to the current situation. And yes, while the trend might change in the next 75 years, it might also not change, or even be worse. These numbers are being produced to help people understand why things need to change, and what will happen if they don't. Why sustained TFR of 1 can simply not be tolerated.



Israel: 2.9
Denmark: 1.7
United States: 1.7

And yes, 1.7 is a much higher TFR compared to China's 1. 70% Higher. And just look at the impact in @Jiang ZeminFanboy post above of 1.7 vs 1.

Even getting to 1.7 would be better.



Number of jobs are not fixed. They are dependent on economy, which is dependent on consumption by people. Number of Jobs available or required is a useless metric. What is better is unemployment rate, or no. of jobs available per 100 people.



Not true. Automation through out history has nothing to do with overall job creation, because people just find different stuff to do.

At one time > 90% people were engaged in agriculture. Today, less than 10% people (in modern) countries can produce much more grain and feed the entire population. Still no net job decrease, people just shifted to something else.

Today even if all current manufacturing jobs are destroyed, humanity will just find something else to do.



No it is not. We are already saying that given TFR trends are this and this, the population projection is this. PLEASE bring policy measures or whatever to change the TFR trends.

It is very simple maths to predict demographics. The assumption is about TFR trends, immigration/emigration trends, life expectancy etc. And almost every demographer who has been predicting Chinese births/TFR trends over the last decade has been wrong. But for the worse. Births and TFR was lower than forecasted. And these people are already predicting Chinese population of some 500-700 million by 2100.

It is understood that things can change, but they are far from easy to change. And people will adjust their forecasts when people see stuff happening. Right now, not much is happening. TFR continues to decrease, births have basically halved in a decade.


AI is a branding label. Today's statistical models, while advanced and useful in various ways, are probably dumber than an ant in many respects.



Not to forget, even if total automation was possible, this will present other issues:

1. If population doesn't matter, then wouldn't Japan, South Korea, Israel, US, and China all have basically equal strength? Population doesn't matter right?
2. Who will consume?

The new meta is to just make third world countries do your consuming for you.

The country that first cracks the increased efficiency industry is going to have a huge advantage on everyone else. Arguably China already has. Japan, Russia, US would not have equal strength, because they cannot crack the code towards an equal level of automation and industrial technology as China, and because China already makes everything, they will continue to fall behind because they accrue less experience.

Demographics go in waves, when a country is more depopulated, it becomes fashionable to have many kids. Especially with childbirth having much reduced difficulty using future technologies.

As long as China can keep a tech and industry lead, the best option is to just let trends follow naturally, rather than trying to break the trend with mass immigration which actually just kicks the can further down the road.