China demographics thread.

proelite

Junior Member
Demographics cannot be fixed with money and technology. Other countries have tried that and FAILED.

Countries that are not authoritarian single-party states with limited diversity in economic conditions. China is unique and thus uniquely suited to stabilize the demographics decline.
 

Eventine

Junior Member
Registered Member
No. China did not transform because of our demographics; we did because of the quality of our people. There are many many countries in the world with excellent demographics and have had them for decades, but show absolutely no signs of improving into the first world. Those that do, immediately see their TFR drop.
Correction: not just because of demographics. If China had a TFR of 1.08 in the 1960s, it would have failed.

Being big and being technologically advanced are different. India's actually one of the countries that are making progress, much slower progress than China, but still definitely more than most third world countries. And what happened? Their TFR is going straight down, went below replacement a few years back.
India's TFR is 2x that of China's, and its economy in GDP PPP is about 40% of China's. India has until 2040 before it has to realistically worry about demographic decline. I don't really care about India, except to predict that they will prove to be a strong threat for China in the coming years due to their emerging demographics dividend (a sentiment many here do not share; but again, all we have to do is wait).

Being big is an advantage and I love that China is big. But right now, it seems that no one is able to hold a high TFR while being independently technologically powerful, because the work culture required to do this is incompatible with a high TFR, especially when fighting a tech war. We can definitely trade some size for more technological investment because 50 million peasants with 5 kids each are just targets in a modern war compared to 100 elite scientists which countries like the US and Israel will go to all lengths to try to assassinate.
The vast majority of people in China are not engaged in the "tech. war." China has graduated an average of ~1.5 million STEM students per year since around 2000, and <500,000 before that. If we add up the entire STEM educated work force, it is just ~40-50 million people, which is ~5% of the population. There is no basis for saying that the "tech. war" is what is causing low TFR in China.

Like I said before, it's hard for me to understand because my mind can explore 50 different paths while your mind can only comprehend one. So while the "go" command might seem obvious to you, it is not a valid line of instruction to me.

You don't know a number and you don't know what you're asking for. Right now, we are as high as possible given the situation and the situation is that people are incredibly invested in their careers and have no time for kids. This is not a straw man; the straw is in between your ears.
Most people filter out the obviously invalid paths before posting about them.

Not true. You have very poor reading comprehension. I don't want to rewrite it so I'll just copy and paste:
"When China is the unrivaled superpower who can control the global flow of technology like the US does now, the difficulty is much lower. By then, it will not be China vs the US and the whole technologically-capable world. It may be China and half the tech world vs US and the other half. Or it may be China vs the US with the tech world largely neutral. Or it may even be China and the tech world vs the US. By the time we get there, even the US could very well have thrown in the towel and opted for total cooperation accepting that China is a more powerful country in every way. By then, we can likely truly afford to keep a tech lead while spending time taking care of 2 or more kids."

If your only goal is to stay alive, humble, harvestable, and out of everyone's way. If you want to be the best, it's about the innovative quality of the people. It's about training brilliant scientists each of whom contribute more than a million peasants for the technological force multipliers they innovate.

This is another "educated guess" by a person uneducated on the topic, I suppose.

Is this an educated guess or a regular one? LOL Cus it's wrong as always. Evolutionary theory says that a population and species will change and adapt to the changing ecology. Which means that the Chinese nation is shifting from a large and poor population into a smaller but highly technological and individually excellent population due to the stresses of the modern world. Did you catch that when you (pretended) you took the class?

Ah... you must have googled this somewhere and now you think you can talk like an expert... LOL to an expert. This theory was taught in high school biology; you recite the theory without knowing its limitations. This is why book smarts does not equal true intellect. We're not animals out in the fields. We are sentient creatures that are smart, can innovate, and most importantly, KILL each other with those innovations. A population a million imbeciles good for nothing but breeding will be killed by a population of 100K innovators; that's how 100 million Native Americans went from owning the North American continent to owning a handful of casinos on a segregated ranch done in by Englishmen on boats with guns.
Evolutionary theory isn't about every type of change and adaptation. It is about those changes and adaptations that affect reproductive success. If a change affects reproductive success in a negative way, then from the perspective of evolutionary theory, it is contrary to natural selection and will eventually be bred out. Modern East Asian culture constitutes such a change and that is why I am pessimistic on its survival.

Also, there were not 100 million Native Americans in North America. Best estimates today put them around ~7 (average estimate) million at the time of Columbus. More importantly, British TFR and Native American TFR were similar (both ~5-6), and so neither had a significant advantage over each other in reproductive potential. In a contest between equally fertile peoples, advanced technology and Old World diseases do indeed win out. But if British TFR in 1600 was 1.5 (as it is today), there would have been no way for them to displace Native Americans and North America would have remained in Native American hands, as the British colonists would've died off over several generations.

Which brings us to the question of if there is some sort of Faustian trade-off between demographics and technology/individual excellence. The answer is no because, as an example, the British maintained a high TFR throughout the Industrial Revolution and their Age of Empires (when the UK was the most innovative, productive, and powerful country in the world), only for it to utterly crash right before the 20th century because of a values shift:

1729027056647.png
Which emphasizes, again, that it is cultural values and not wealth, power, or innovation that causes a country's TFR to dive. East Asians have extremely low TFR today because they have copied the Western values shift (towards materialism & individualism, and away from family & fertility) down to the letter, and actually made it worse.

First of all, myself and many others have aready said that it's a cultural change for the TFR. Not your original idea. We've also went further to discuss how to change that culture and which factors would be helpful/antagonistic. Secondly, and now you've realized the evolution of the Chinese population and people. Given all that, that you know nobody will follow your course, what are you still chimping out about?
My primary goal in this thread is to stop the copium around how China will do just fine with a TFR of <1, because it is categorically harmful to the Chinese nation to harbor such delusions. The sooner people understand the urgency of the problem, the better equipped they will be to address it.
 
Last edited:

GiantPanda

Junior Member
Registered Member
Demographics cannot be fixed with money and technology. Other countries have tried that and FAILED.
...
A society can never offer a woman enough money to be a permanent stay-at-home mom, because what she is giving up is time, and time is priceless.
...

This is the reason financial incentives have failed across the board. You cannot pay people enough to give up their free time.

So basically you are saying this can't be fixed and you just want to scream the sky is falling.

In fact, you are saying we should all jump off the bridge now and not bother advancing economically or technologically because it won't matter and we're going extinct.

Sorry but I find that a completely retarded take on things. You should join a doomsday cult.
 

proelite

Junior Member
Let's revisit again how substantial the financial incentives are. The average annual rural income is ~20k yuan. Assuming a family in rural areas has 3 kids, that's an extra 19200 yuan. If you have 3 kids in rural China going forward, you've essentially doubled your income.

140 billion USD a year in incentives is likely the baseline going forward. Increasing that to 200 billion USD annually will add 45 million children for the next ~20 years.
 

GiantPanda

Junior Member
Registered Member
Let's revisit again how substantial the financial incentives are. The average annual rural income is ~20k yuan. Assuming a family in rural areas has 3 kids, that's an extra 19200 yuan. If you have 3 kids in rural China going forward, you've essentially doubled your income.

140 billion USD a year in incentives is likely the baseline going forward. Increasing that to 200 billion USD annually will add 45 million children for the next ~20 years.

Correct. It is a matter of degree of support.

Anything that is worth fixing could be fixed with money and technology.

If it can't be then it is just philosophical unrealistic bullshit concocted by people in ivory towers because they have no attachment to the real working world.

Leave the doomsday cult behind and put time and effort into growing the economy and climbing up the technology ladder. Those are the only practical things that will help deal with problems coming up -- demographics or otherwise.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Correction: not just because of demographics. If China had a TFR of 1.08 in the 1960s, it would have failed.
This is why professors, not uneducated people, make corrections to other people's work. Your mind seems incapable to grasping the trend the TFR drops as technological sophistication rises. Thus, you made this stupid comment pretending that both were lost. Yes, if you're backwards as fuck and you have no kids, you're doomed. That was never the discussion.
India's TFR is 2x that of China's, and its economy in GDP PPP is about 40% of China's. India has until 2040 before it has to realistically worry about demographic decline. I don't really care about India, except to predict that they will prove to be a strong threat for China in the coming years due to their emerging demographics dividend (a sentiment many here do not share; but again, all we have to do is wait).
They are currently below the replacement level so that is demographic decline, and they are nowhere near China in any area of development.
The vast majority of people in China are not engaged in the "tech. war." China has graduated an average of ~1.5 million STEM students per year since around 2000, and <500,000 before that. If we add up the entire STEM educated work force, it is just ~40-50 million people, which is ~5% of the population. There is no basis for saying that the "tech. war" is what is causing low TFR in China.
They may not be directly engaged, but your workforce which produces GDP to support your tech efforts, are the foundation of any war.
Most people filter out the obviously invalid paths before posting about them.
Most people filter out retarded 120 year projections before posting them. "As much as possible" without any number in mind, means nothing as always. Does it mean, as much as possible preserving maximal work effort? Does it mean, as much as possible shedding 25% work ambition? Shedding 50% career ambition? Shedding all ambition of non-child-related activities and being fully devoted to family? As much as possible preserving women in the workplace or while moving to a dichotomy of bread-winner husbands and stay a home wives? Does it mean as much as possible including semi-legal overseas surrogacy? Or just trying within your biological bounds? Does it mean promoting teen pregnancy is ok? Or do as much as possible but only after a completed secondary/tertiary education? As much as possible spurred by how much financial incentive? A bit every month to ease the food costs? Subdisize all childcare? Can we redirect military/tech development budget to subsidize these things?

Your skull is empty to everything except, "I just want more. Don't know how, don't know how much." My 1 year old thinks like that.
Evolutionary theory isn't about every type of change and adaptation.
No, it is. See this is why people shouldn't talk about things they don't know. Every type of adaptation is a reaction to enviromental stimuli and a driving force of evolution.
It is about those changes and adaptations that affect reproductive success. If a change affects reproductive success in a negative way, then from the perspective of evolutionary theory, it is contrary to natural selection and will eventually be bred out. Modern East Asian culture constitutes such a change and that is why I am pessimistic on its survival.
You clearly missed it last time when I said that after high school biology, which is what you're regurgitating, you have to learn about the limits of the theories. According to the most basic theory on reproduction, fitness is defined by the number of surviving children. By that definition, a Senegalese tribesman living in his hut with his 7 kids has higher biological fitness than a billionaire tech mogul with 6 kids. If you want to be that Senegalese tribesman, you go on ahead. That's not the ship that Chinese people want to be on.
Also, there were not 100 million Native Americans in North America. Best estimates today put them around ~7 (average estimate) million at the time of Columbus.
Peak populaton over 100M, estimates between 8M-100M, most estimates say 50M when the Brtish arrived. That's what wiki says, didn't look into it beyond that. The point, is, a very very small population on fucking 17th century boats overtook a population in the millions by technology.
More importantly, British TFR and Native American TFR were similar (both ~5-6), and so neither had a significant advantage over each other in reproductive potential. In a contest between equally fertile peoples, advanced technology and Old World diseases do indeed win out. But if British TFR in 1600 was 1.5 (as it is today), there would have been no way for them to displace Native Americans and North America would have remained in Native American hands, as the British colonists would've died off over several generations.
The same TFR doesn't mean that a population in the hundreds should overtake and almost kill off one in the millions, should it?
Which brings us to the question of if there is some sort of Faustian trade-off between demographics and technology/individual excellence. The answer is no
That is a very premature conclusion from your evidence.
because, as an example, the British maintained a high TFR throughout the Industrial Revolution and their Age of Empires (when the UK was the most innovative, productive, and powerful country in the world), only for it to utterly crash right before the 20th century because of a values shift:

View attachment 137341
To a certain point, technological advancement improves lives and lifts people out of poverty. Working to that end, it should actually have a positive effect on TFR as it makes life easier. However, we are past that. We are in a tech competition, making things to outsmart and kill the other person before he does it to you. This high stress environment caused by a tech drive frenzy is without a doubt, horrible for TFR.
Which emphasizes, again, that it is cultural values
Did you not get this from me? I posted this... more than once. But it is only part of it.
and not wealth, power, or innovation that causes a country's TFR to dive. East Asians have extremely low TFR today because they have copied the Western values shift (towards materialism & individualism, and away from family & fertility) down to the letter, and actually made it worse.
Yup, I said those things but only partially, which is why they can only be partially addressed by culture. And that might be good enough for a boost, but the stress of the Sino-American power struggle is very real and loss of productivity from child-rearing is guaranteed. If we lose, we're gonna be in for a century's worth of problems, demographic including, in an instant.
My primary goal in this thread is to stop the copium around how China will do just fine with a TFR of <1, because it is categorically harmful to the Chinese nation to harbor such delusions. The sooner people understand the urgency of the problem, the better equipped they will be to address it.
But you have always lacked evidence, provided poor evidence, and ignored direct counter-evidence to your arguments being wrong. And therefore, you can't make any progress.

The fact is that most people here would like China's TFR to be higher than it is, myself included. We've discussed many potential solutions. However, we do not accept the view that there is doom on the horizon, especially compared to our enemies and rivals. Raising TFR is a self-improvement project, NOT a desperate struggle to stay alive.
As much as it pains me to say it, we are probably living in the era of "peak East Asia." Japan is already in decline, while South Korea just hit the other side of the curve. China, the most important country in East Asia, still has about a decade of its demographic dividend left, while Vietnam and North Korea are both about ten to fifteen years behind China.
Just saw you edited this into a post from yesterday after I commented.

First of all, the peak of East Asia is entirely dependent on China. South Korea and Japan are antagonistic to the rise of East Asia because they're chained American mutts. The weaker they are, the stronger Asia is. Vietnam and North Korea are too weak to matter. China doesn't grow on demographic dividends because basically there is absolutely no positive correlation, time-lagged or otherwise, between China's TFR and its national power on the world stage. It's because your mind is simple that you cannot exit the thought of needing more people to have more strength.
You don't have to believe me; you just need to wait.
Needless to day, I don't believe you because your logic is broken while the logic against you is strong. Asking someone to wait 10 years to prove that you were right simply means that you cannot logically win the current argument and need to escape.
 
Last edited:

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
Chinese provinces by births in 2022 and 2023

aa042db336252ff4.png
246.jpg
 

GiantPanda

Junior Member
Registered Member
Most people filter out retarded 120 year projections before posting them. "As much as possible" without any number in mind, means nothing as always.

He has no real understanding of data and statistics except parroting the worst of Western media.

In 1970, China had a fertility rate of 5.8 while India had 5.5. The per capita income was the same at around $112 each.

When China was at per capita income of $950 in 2000, its fertility rate dropped to 1.62. India was at $442 and 3.34.

By 2023, China had a per capita income of $12174 and a fertility rate of 1.74. While India was at $2239 and and 2.13.

1) China's fertility dropped rapidly during the the initial market transition between 1970 and 2000 that led to rapidly development. It went from actually having more kids than India per woman to less than half of that of India by 2000. This was the result of a 100% increase over India in per capita income. This same growth stage of rapid income growth combined with lowering fertility rate was experienced by EVERY developed nation in both West and East. I don't care if it is Germany, S Korea or China. Fertility drops are a symptom of development.

2) By 2023, China's fertility rate had stabilized and actually went up a bit from 2000. From 1.62 to 1.74. But its lead in per capita income had gone fivefold over India to $12K. Meanwhile, India's fertility continue to drop as it grew to $2K.

Looking at those trendlines, India will have a fertility rate below 2.0 by 2030s when per capita income will still only be at around $4500. And that's a very optimistic 100% increase from today. Only East Asia had kept that kind of growth over extended periods.

I took a deeper look at China's trendlines with Chatgpt. Using only historical data.

No, China is not going to die out. And India, with the most optimistic view, will have a fertility rate as low as China when its per capita income is only a fraction of China -- $5000 or even $10000 to China's $18K to $30K by 2040.

Looking at China’s historical data:

• 1970: Per capita income = $112, fertility rate = 5.8

• 2000: Per capita income = $950, fertility rate = 1.62

• 2023: Per capita income = $12,174, fertility rate = 1.74

Per Capita Income Growth:

China’s economic growth has been extraordinary:

• From $112 in 1970 to $950 in 2000: ~8.5x growth over 30 years

• From $950 in 2000 to $12,174 in 2023: ~12.8x growth over 23 years

If China’s growth rate moderates but remains significant:

• By 2030, per capita income could reach ~$18,000–20,000.

• By 2040, China could see its per capita income rise to ~$25,000–30,000.

Fertility Rate Projection:

China’s fertility rate dropped drastically from 5.8 in 1970 to 1.62 in 2000, and it has since leveled off with a slight increase to 1.74 in 2023.

• By 2030, fertility may stabilize around 1.7–1.8.

• By 2040, fertility could remain stable or potentially decrease slightly to around 1.6–1.7 due to urbanization and economic factors.

Summary Projection for China:

• Per capita income in 2030: ~$18,000–20,000


• Per capita income in 2040: ~$25,000–30,000


• Fertility rate in 2030: ~1.7–1.8


• Fertility rate in 2040: ~1.6–1.7


These projections assume continued strong economic growth with stabilization in fertility rates. However, economic shifts, government policies, and global factors could affect these outcomes.



IMG_4296.jpeg
 
Last edited:

SinoSoldier

Colonel
He has no real understanding of data and statistics except parroting the worst of Western media.

In 1970, China had a fertility rate of 5.8 while India had 5.5. The per capita income was the same at around $112 each.

When China was at per capita income of $950 in 2000, its fertility rate dropped to 1.62. India was at $442 and 3.34.

By 2023, China had a per capita income of $12174 and a fertility rate of 1.74. While India was at $2239 and and 2.13.

1) China's fertility dropped rapidly during the the initial market transition between 1970 and 2000 that led to rapidly development. It went from actually having more kids than India per woman to less than half of that of India by 2000. This was the result of a 100% increase over India in per capita income. This same growth stage of rapid income growth combined with lowering fertility rate was experienced by EVERY developed nation in both West and East. I don't care if it is Germany, S Korea or China. Fertility drops are a symptom of development.

2) By 2023, China's fertility rate had stabilized and actually went up a bit from 2000. From 1.62 to 1.74. But its lead in per capita income had gone fivefold over India to $12K. Meanwhile, India's fertility continue to drop as it grew to $2K.

Looking at those trendlines, India will have a fertility rate below 2.0 by 2030s when per capita income will still only be at around $4500. And that's a very optimistic 100% increase from today. Only East Asia had kept that kind of growth over extended periods.

I took a deeper look at China's trendlines with Chatgpt. Using only historical data.

No, China is not going to die out. And India, with the most optimistic view, will have a fertility rate as low as China when its per capita income is only a fraction of China -- $5000 or even $10000 to China's $18K to $30K by 2040.

Looking at China’s historical data:

• 1970: Per capita income = $112, fertility rate = 5.8

• 2000: Per capita income = $950, fertility rate = 1.62

• 2023: Per capita income = $12,174, fertility rate = 1.74

Per Capita Income Growth:

China’s economic growth has been extraordinary:

• From $112 in 1970 to $950 in 2000: ~8.5x growth over 30 years

• From $950 in 2000 to $12,174 in 2023: ~12.8x growth over 23 years

If China’s growth rate moderates but remains significant:

• By 2030, per capita income could reach ~$18,000–20,000.

• By 2040, China could see its per capita income rise to ~$25,000–30,000.

Fertility Rate Projection:

China’s fertility rate dropped drastically from 5.8 in 1970 to 1.62 in 2000, and it has since leveled off with a slight increase to 1.74 in 2023.

• By 2030, fertility may stabilize around 1.7–1.8.

• By 2040, fertility could remain stable or potentially decrease slightly to around 1.6–1.7 due to urbanization and economic factors.

Summary Projection for China:

• Per capita income in 2030: ~$18,000–20,000


• Per capita income in 2040: ~$25,000–30,000


• Fertility rate in 2030: ~1.7–1.8


• Fertility rate in 2040: ~1.6–1.7


These projections assume continued strong economic growth with stabilization in fertility rates. However, economic shifts, government policies, and global factors could affect these outcomes.



View attachment 137393

Uhh, wasn't China's fertility rate 1.09 in 2023? That's lower than Japan's.
 
Top