Yes this is true. Population is power. But like any curves on the graph. There's an optimum point somewhere. Otherwise all nations should pursue a policy of having as much babies as possible. See?
I didn't come out with the figures of 800 millions. The Chinese government did back in the days. I dont remember whet I read it. So I already said don't quote me on it. It is something I read years ago in my studies.
Yes China have problems of poverty caused by population in the past, and it doesn't mean it will in the future. But it also mean it won't again in the future!
In any case, all of you are missing the point. Even if it Won't happen in the future, surly a pie that is shared more is better than a bigger pie that's shared less?
I feel all you young guys are born in a time of plenty. And not experienced life of eating rice with soy sauce only!
I remember my brother coming home with a bag of sugar so we can have rice mixed with sugar. And don't forget, even having that we were considered the lucky ones!
As Jeff Bezos said, a trillion people means a thousand more Einstein's or Mozart's. The more Chinese the better, assuming China can secure the natural resources and food required to feed the population.
If for some reason it becomes clear that renewable energy can't replace natural resources entirely, or that food cannot be produced to take care of an arbitrarily large population, then yes, we can talk population reduction.
It is ridiculous to already plan for a Japanese-style decline before any of these things come to pass.