If you look at developed countries, you will see that they have economies proportional to the population.
China is not a developed country; it is a developing country and much much more dynamic.
Maybe a small decrease will not cause problems, but it is clear that a large decrease in the population will cause economic shrinkage.
Over what period of time?
I don't understand how such a simple fact can be denied.
Because the premise is hazy and the statement isn't even a fact. Smaller populations can experience more robust growth than larger populations. Standard of living hits a brick wall when overcrowded. There are many more factors to a modern economy than young manpower.
It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen in the future, but when the population decreases by a large amount and the average age rises, China will have lost much more power and will be at a disadvantage compared to the current population.
Not true. China's average age has increased drastically over the decades and our population is about topped off, but we have never been at a greater advantage globally than we are at now, especially not compared to 30 years ago with much more robust demographics. And also, primitive economies are powered by younger demographics but advanced economies reliant on technological innovation have much greater use for older people. After all, would you expect a 20 year old college student or his 55 year old professor to do more heavy lifting at the technological front?
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the population will remain at 700-800 million, it will become increasingly difficult to take measures against the decline of the population, as the number of young people of childbearing age is rapidly decreasing.
LOL That argument is basically saying once there is any contraction in the population, extinction becomes a slippery slope worry. Actually, in human history, many populations can successfully adjust into new and different sizes. It's a matter of balancing the resources, space, and standard of living with birth rate to achieve a new homeostasis.
In addition, the speed of scientific and technological development is also linked to the population . People do scientific research, not robots. When the population decreases, the pace of development will decrease and there will be a risk of losing technological leadership.
Actually, elite populations are better at scientific innovation than populations that rely on number. A smaller population with more resources per capita can enhance education (I've recently heard that Chinese middle school students are starting to learn computer coding) and result in a larger population of the elitely educated, whom are the drivers of innovation. This will be advantageous over a China with a much greater population but less resources, resulting in more people stopping at basic education. Furthermore, the lower population density allows for greater resources per capita including living space and that allows for much stronger talent retention and attraction from abroad. Having a massive population with low resources per capita is a recipe for emmigration of your educated elite, often to rival countries.
All in all, developed countries tend to innovate better than developing or impoverished countries regardless of number due to the advanced tools and high resources per capita that they have. China is transitioning into a new homeostasis as a developed country with high income and powerful tools. Rather than fear the weaker demographics (from a traditional agrarian standpoint), I rather think this will be a new beast, with the resource and enviromental advantages of the developed West but also with most of China's current population and all the competitive drive towards excellence of traditional Chinese culture.
