China demographics thread.

[ZeEa5KPul]

If China can do this, then it will prosper for the next 500 years. If it cannot, then it'll prosper for a time, before falling off the demographic cliff and becoming what Japan, Europe, etc. is today - hiding behind walls and ideologies while younger, hungrier nations pass them by.

How will "younger, hungrier" nations pass the Chinese God AI (and American and maybe European God AIs as well)? There are a lot of "younger, hungrier" nations today like Chad and Niger, population pyramids like you wouldn't believe. Why are they failed states instead of superpowers?

If there isn't the God AI, how will they pass the genetically engineered Chinese posthumans defended by the genetically engineered Chinese ultramarines?

Demographics is destiny.

What a silly idea. The source of power has always been and will always be science and technology. Mind. China will always produce Mind, no matter what form it takes.

 

[Eventine]

How will "younger, hungrier" nations pass the Chinese God AI (and American and maybe European God AIs as well)? There are a lot of "younger, hungrier" nations today like Chad and Niger, population pyramids like you wouldn't believe. Why are they failed states instead of superpowers?

Demographics isn't just about numbers, it's also about culture, identity, and ability to organize. African countries have historically failed at that for various reasons, not the least being their "nations" being constructed by European empires who drew borders based on what they were each able to conquer, and not based on who the natives were related to. The constant civil wars and ethnic violence are a consequence of this. But also relevant is African culture, which by and large, was more distant from industrialization than East Asian culture.

If there isn't the God AI, how will they pass the genetically engineered Chinese posthumans defended by the genetically engineered Chinese ultramarines?

If China was willing to genetically engineer post-humans, then they'd also be willing to do the much simpler thing of fixing fertility rates. Reality is neither is happening.

What a silly idea. The source of power has always been and will always be science and technology. Mind. China will always produce Mind, no matter what form it takes.

Science and technology are a consequence of demographics; and a scientific and technological advantage that is not transformed into a demographics advantage, will eventually be lost. That's what Europeans were so effective at and why their dominance has lasted for so long (even after mother Europe ceased to be geopolitically relevant). They seeded their population across five major regions (North America, South America, Australia, Africa, and Siberia), and now dominate four of them. Even if the US collapses, European descendants will still control 50% of the world, which gives them a strong chance of emerging again as the dominant power a few centuries later. That is the power of demographics.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Demographics isn't just about numbers, it's also about culture, identity, and ability to organize. African countries have historically failed at that for various reasons, not the least being their "nations" being constructed by European empires who drew borders based on what they were each able to conquer, and not based on who the natives were related to. The constant civil wars and ethnic violence are a consequence of this. But also relevant is African culture, which by and large, was more distant from industrialization than East Asian culture.

It very clearly isn't about culture, identity or organization; that's anthropology you're thinking of. Demographics is about only one number, TFR. You know, the one you talk about endlessly.

If China was willing to genetically engineer post-humans, then they'd also be willing to do the much simpler thing of fixing fertility rates.

Genetic engineering and messing with economic and social policies profoundly enough to make hundreds of millions of people go against every current incentive are entirely incommensurate. The latter is orders of magnitude more difficult than the former, contrary to what you think.

Reality is neither is happening.

Could you use your crystal ball to give us stock tips, since you're the final arbiter on reality and all. Being as you're so confident that you're foreclosing on possibilities hundreds of years from now, I'd just like to know if I should buy the dip or does the market have farther to drop. Surely a few weeks out would be trivial for you to forecast.

Even if the US collapses, European descendants will still control 50% of the world, which gives them a strong chance of emerging again as the dominant power a few centuries later.

China missed the Age of Exploration, too bad, so sad. If it listened to you, it would miss the posthuman age instead of ushering it in.

 

[Neurosmith]

What answer? Let AI take over? That's not an answer; that's a surrender.

My thesis has always been that China has a once in a millennium opportunity to achieve civilization supremacy, similar to what the West did, ~400 years ago, during the European Age of Empires. But the path to doing so requires restoring fertility to >2.1 levels, and repopulating key regions of the world (once they've been devastated by demographic collapse) with Chinese immigration, so as to increase the surface area of strategic control over resources.

If China can do this, then it will prosper for the next 500 years. If it cannot, then it'll prosper for a time, before falling off the demographic cliff and becoming what Japan, Europe, etc. is today - hiding behind walls and ideologies while younger, hungrier nations pass them by. Demographics is destiny.

What is your take on the prospect of AI assisting human fertility rather than replacing it? If AI robots are becoming more useful in the everyday household - as they are in assisting the elderly - could it save people enough "time and energy" needed to turn the obligation of childrearing into an attractive thing?

The barriers to increased fertility in East Asian countries are likely a lack of time, long work hours, the advent of personalized entertainment (movies, TikTok/Douyin, etc.), generational expectations of an one-child family, and the massive cost of childrearing. At least a couple of these factors concerning time & effort could be alleviated by the introduction of helper "robots" within the home.

 

[Eventine]

It very clearly isn't about culture, identity or organization; that's anthropology you're thinking of. Demographics is about only one number, TFR. You know, the one you talk about endlessly.

Demographics: statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it.

Genetic engineering and messing with economic and social policies profoundly enough to make undreds of millions of people go against every current incentive are entirely incommensurate. The latter is orders of magnitude more difficult than the former, contrary to what you think.

Genetic engineering post-humans is far, far more disruptive than fixing fertility. Post-humans by definition are a different group than homo sapiens (including homo sapiens Chinese) and will invariably develop a separate identity, where as getting people to have children merely continues what already exists. "Chinese" as a cultural identity likely won't survive the post-human transition.

Could you use your crystal ball to give us stock tips, since you're the final arbiter on reality and all. Being as you're so confident that you're foreclosing on possibilities hundreds of years from now, I'd just like to know if I should buy the dip or does the market have farther to drop. Surely a few weeks out would be trivial for you to forecast.

China missed the Age of Exploration, too bad, so sad. If it listened to you, it would miss the posthuman age instead of ushering it in.

It's impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy whether flipping a fair coin results in a heads or tails. But flip the same coin a million times, and I can tell you within a tiny margin of error that the number of heads will be ~500,000. Just the same, it is far easier to predict the end result of low fertility rate, than it is to predict whether a particular person will have children or not. It's called the law of large numbers.

 

[Eventine]

What is your take on the prospect of AI assisting human fertility rather than replacing it? If AI robots are becoming more useful in the everyday household - as they are in assisting the elderly - could it save people enough "time and energy" needed to turn the obligation of childrearing into an attractive thing?

As long as child rearing is associated with lower class and inferior social status - as it is in modern East Asia - nothing will change; so the question is, will utilization of robots in house holds increase the relative status of child rearing? Perhaps if it is promoted that way, through social elites (e.g. the rich, famous, and powerful) constructing the image of an "ideal life" being getting married & raising children while robots do everything else. Fortunately, China has enough control over its social elites to be able to accomplish this - but only if it chooses to.

My solution to the fertility problem has always been a combination of incentives, punishments, and most importantly, social engineering. Early 20th century China - among other countries - successfully rid itself of feudal practices through campaigns specifically targeted towards eradicating "harmful" cultural elements and promoting "healthy" cultural practices. The same story applies here; everyone knows what "healthy" culture looks like here, but no country so far has shown the will to do anything about it.

 

[tygyg1111]

What is your take on the prospect of AI assisting human fertility rather than replacing it? If AI robots are becoming more useful in the everyday household - as they are in assisting the elderly - could it save people enough "time and energy" needed to turn the obligation of childrearing into an attractive thing?

The barriers to increased fertility in East Asian countries are likely a lack of time, long work hours, the advent of personalized entertainment (movies, TikTok/Douyin, etc.), generational expectations of an one-child family, and the massive cost of childrearing. At least a couple of these factors concerning time & effort could be alleviated by the introduction of helper "robots" within the home.

Not wanting to have children early is a mentality thing - people want to travel, work overseas, do various things or work on things that raising a child would interfere with. A person's mentality changes when they have children and that is something I believe a lot of young people are putting off because they still haven't ticked off all the things on their list.
It would be wrong and impractical to try to divert people's mentalities away from this lifestyle focused behavior, because it comes hand in hand with economic prosperity.
The majority of these people end up having children, but just later in life, where the risk of failed pregnancies and other issues are higher.

I believe the three most important things are:

1 - Ideological / Cultural: Instilling the idea that "family = happiness" in children's minds at a very early age, as they will eventually act on it when they are ready. The ultimate meaning in life is to bring a new generation to the world and further our great civilization, the greatest happiness is watching your grandchildren grow, and the greatest duty to your parents is to give them grandchildren.

2 - Health based: Decreasing the risks and issues with having children later in life (e.g. late 30's to 40's), as I believe this is a big part of why some couples decide to not have children anymore - they are 'too old' and the risks to the health of the mother and baby are too great.

3 - Cost: Free / low cost collectivized childcare - I have some reservations about robot nannies, as they may cause unwanted effects to the socialization and development of a child (e.g. suspicious towards adults because they spent more time with and being cared for by a robot); collectivized free / low cost childcare where children interact with other children and adults may be the way to go as a more sustainable route.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Demographics: statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it.

Are you really trying to spin this like it isn't about your singular obsession with birth rates? Even if "demographics" were a wider field, that's nothing you have any interest in.

Genetic engineering post-humans is far, far more disruptive than fixing fertility. Post-humans by definition are a different group than homo sapiens (including homo sapiens Chinese) and will invariably develop a separate identity, where as getting people to have children merely continues what already exists. "Chinese" as a cultural identity likely won't survive the post-human transition.

Then you should be much more concerned that the first posthumans might emerge outside China, because I assure you that even if Chinese fertility rates returned to the Mao era highs of 7+, China would be subordinated if not crushed by them. That's far more plausible than Australians reclaiming the "European mantle" and launching some campaign of global conquest.

Also, of course genetically engineered intelligent beings developed in China would be "Chinese." Chinese identity is what the people (including people more broadly understood) in China are; that's the definition. It's not some static idea from an arbitrarily chosen historical period belonging to a narrowly understood homo sapiens.

Just the same, it is far easier to predict the end result of low fertility rate, than it is to predict whether a particular person will have children or not. It's called the law of large numbers.

That's not what this is about, you seem to have great difficulty understanding this. Anybody can extrapolate a straight line assuming conditions remain constant and that's the core of the dispute. The conditions are certain to change in any number of ways that forecasting over the time period demographers do is entirely useless.

 

[Neurosmith]

As long as child rearing is associated with lower class and inferior social status - as it is in modern East Asia - nothing will change; so the question is, will utilization of robots in house holds increase the relative status of child rearing? Perhaps if it is promoted that way, through social elites (e.g. the rich, famous, and powerful) constructing the image of an "ideal life" being getting married & raising children while robots do everything else. Fortunately, China has enough control over its social elites to be able to accomplish this - but only if it chooses to.

Interesting; your take seems to be that the low fertility rate is mostly due to societal expectations an self-perceived interpretation of the "ideal life" rather than practical barriers such as cost and personal sacrifice.

For a country that forced its population to have only one child, there's no doubt that they would implement drastic measures to force the inverse if things are dire enough.

 

[Neurosmith]

Not wanting to have children early is a mentality thing - people want to travel, work overseas, do various things or work on things that raising a child would interfere with. A person's mentality changes when they have children and that is something I believe a lot of young people are putting off because they still haven't ticked off all the things on their list.
It would be wrong and impractical to try to divert people's mentalities away from this lifestyle focused behavior, because it comes hand in hand with economic prosperity.
The majority of these people end up having children, but just later in life, where the risk of failed pregnancies and other issues are higher.

I believe the three most important things are:

1 - Ideological / Cultural: Instilling the idea that "family = happiness" in children's minds at a very early age, as they will eventually act on it when they are ready. The ultimate meaning in life is to bring a new generation to the world and further our great civilization, the greatest happiness is watching your grandchildren grow, and the greatest duty to your parents is to give them grandchildren.

2 - Health based: Decreasing the risks and issues with having children later in life (e.g. late 30's to 40's), as I believe this is a big part of why some couples decide to not have children anymore - they are 'too old' and the risks to the health of the mother and baby are too great.

3 - Cost: Free / low cost collectivized childcare - I have some reservations about robot nannies, as they may cause unwanted effects to the socialization and development of a child (e.g. suspicious towards adults because they spent more time with and being cared for by a robot); collectivized free / low cost childcare where children interact with other children and adults may be the way to go as a more sustainable route.

Generally agreed, although it will be very difficult to instill the "family = happiness" belief in young people, especially when Chinese society is developing at such a rapid pace - this is where things like egg freezing could potentially have a place, since that would minimze the risk of health problems that arise when women naturally give birth when they are older.

By AI robots I mean those that are involved in the undertaking of everyday chores and errands rather than childcare itself - the idea is that the robot (or whatever) might free up time for the mother to spend time with her kids.