China Records Slowest Population Growth In Decades (bbc.com) 145
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: China's population grew at its slowest pace in decades, according to government data released on Tuesday. The average annual growth rate was 0.53% over the past 10 years, down from a rate of 0.57% between 2000 and 2010 -- bringing the population to 1.41 billion. The results add pressure on Beijing to boost measures for couples to have more babies and avert a population decline. The results were announced in a once-a-decade census, which was originally expected to be released in April. The census was conducted in late 2020 where some seven million census takers had gone door-to-door to collect information from Chinese households. Given the sheer number of people surveyed, it is considered the most comprehensive resource on China's population, which is important for future planning.
Ning Jizhe, head of the National Bureau of Statistics revealed that 12 million babies were born last year -- a significant decrease from the 18 million newborns in 2016. However he added that it was "still a considerable number." [...] China's working-age population -- which it defines as people aged between 16 and 59 -- has also declined by 40 million as compared to the last census in 2010. But chief methodologist Zeng Yuping said that the total size "remains big" with 880 million. "We still have an abundant labour force," he said. However, [principal economist from The Economist Intelligence Unit, Ms Yue Su] warned that going forward, continued drops in the labour force "will place a cap on China's potential economic growth." She added: "The demographic dividend that propelled the country's economic rise over recent decades is set to dissipate quickly." Last month, the Census Bureau reported that the United States population grew at the slowest rate since the 1930s, "a remarkable slackening that was driven by a leveling off of immigration and a declining birthrate," reports The New York Times.
Ning Jizhe, head of the National Bureau of Statistics revealed that 12 million babies were born last year -- a significant decrease from the 18 million newborns in 2016. However he added that it was "still a considerable number." [...] China's working-age population -- which it defines as people aged between 16 and 59 -- has also declined by 40 million as compared to the last census in 2010. But chief methodologist Zeng Yuping said that the total size "remains big" with 880 million. "We still have an abundant labour force," he said. However, [principal economist from The Economist Intelligence Unit, Ms Yue Su] warned that going forward, continued drops in the labour force "will place a cap on China's potential economic growth." She added: "The demographic dividend that propelled the country's economic rise over recent decades is set to dissipate quickly." Last month, the Census Bureau reported that the United States population grew at the slowest rate since the 1930s, "a remarkable slackening that was driven by a leveling off of immigration and a declining birthrate," reports The New York Times.
Bad for the Economy, Good for the Planet (Score:5, Insightful)
I am torn about this in that our economy is built on growth. Until we shift our economic factors, we are going to see this cause problems and panic down the road.
On the flip side, the planet would be better off with far fewer people. We have seen enough species wiped out already. If we actually witness a population decline, the world might be better off even though our economy won't be.
I guess we will have to learn a way to profit from fewer consumers or reinvent how currency is provisioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The economy isn't built on population growth.
Re: (Score:3)
Not directly, no. But the current system is predicated on perpetual growth. One of the major drivers of that growth over the past few centuries is population growth. (Others include industrialization and colonialism, both of which have obvious limits.)
Any time you see someone talking about "sustainable growth", you know they either don't understand what that means, don't understand how exponential functions work, or have a vested interest in the current system. (Perpetual growth is impossible, no matter wha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, *one* of the major drivers. But increased consumption also has limits. Again. Perpetual growth is literally impossible. (And, no, inflation is *not* real growth.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The economy isn't built on population growth.
It pretty much is. The economy is built on growth, of which population growth is one of the bigger factors.
Let's say this. I work in an industry that provides widgets for college students. There are 20 million students today--that's our target market right there. Let's say in 2025 there will be 18 million students. And in 2027 there will be 16 million students. And by 2030 we'll be down to 13 million students. (Completely made up numbers, just go with it)
Will my company be able to sustain as many employees
Re: (Score:3)
Will my company be able to sustain as many employees at that point? Will we have seen a decade of increasing revenue and profits? What about our competitor companies?
If there are going to be 35% fewer students in 10 years, there are going to be 35% fewer employees soon too. The company will either find another market or shrink. Happens all the time in some industries and the world doesn't end.
Japan has had negative population growth for like 15 years but the lost decade happened before that and the things about the economy that sucked before still suck the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are going to be 35% fewer students in 10 years, there are going to be 35% fewer employees soon too. The company will either find another market or shrink. Happens all the time in some industries and the world doesn't end.
Yes, I absolutely agree with this. But compound it out to all of society, and the picture changes a great deal.
Many decisions are easy to make if the population is growing. Should my town invest the money into upgrading the old water treatment plant if the population is going to drop by 20%? Can my town make the payments it owes on other projects that have been built on credit and bonds over the past half century if the population growth reverses?
Japan has had negative population growth for like 15 years but the lost decade happened before that and the things about the economy that sucked before still suck the same way.
I just looked it up, and it looks more like the population d
Re: (Score:2)
The US economy is driven on consumer spending. A 35% decline in consumers would be devastating to the US economy. Our economy is designed entirely around growth, without that growth the economy stagnates and then will begin retreating.
Yep I'm gunna go there (Score:2)
How about UBI? *ducks*
Just give the people more money to spend.
"Economy can keep growing"
Re: Bad for the Economy, Good for the Planet (Score:3)
The planet in what sense? That is a nonsensical statement. The planet is a rock. As for all the creatures living on it, well maybe they should reduce their population. As for humans, we can survive by increasing our clean energy supplies and going multi-planetary.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I was always interested in the colonization of Mars.
The whole backup planet in case of disaster thing always seemed like a pretty lame excuse for it, but imagine another Earth worth of people doing science and art and sharing the unique experiences of living on another planet.
Definitely not expecting that much progress in my lifetime, but all the more reason to start sooner rather than later.
Re:Bad for the Economy, Good for the Planet (Score:5, Interesting)
I am torn about this in that our economy is built on growth.
You have it backwards. The economy must grow to support an increasing population. Steady or shrinking population does not require a growing economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But our elites depend on the stock market
So do all of the non-elites. Anyone with a pension or a 401k depends on the stock market for their retirement. Especially after Social Security becomes insolvent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP. My favored solution approach would be regulated and sane growth. If you do the math, exponential growth and geological time can't go together, but at the species level, we should be considering geological time. (At least I hope so.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, fuck off with your misanthropic Malthusian bullshit. The planet is fine.
Oh, fuck off with your disingenuous douchebaggery. When people talk about the planet they are obviously discussing the biosphere, upon which we all depend for survival.
Re: (Score:3)
British Columbia here. We are masters at selective logging. We can provide high quality, ecologically sourced lumber.
Re: (Score:2)
fine.
the planet is fine.
i agree.
but the human population is.
well.
earth will be here.
people.
i am not so sure of
Re: (Score:3)
China NEEDS a population decline.
China does need a population decline, but it will be hard to accomplish without destroying their economy. It will be like what happened to Japan in the 90's, but on overdrive. If you have too many more elderly than you have working age individuals, it is hard to make an economy work. This is why immigration is the only thing keeping the US economy afloat. Without it we would be seeing population decline and our current problems with social security and medical care would accelerate rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
China does need a population decline, but it will be hard to accomplish without destroying their economy.
That's why you need V-Peeps! V-Peeps, the virtual consumer base!
Hi! I'm Martin Breen from V-Peeps! Do you run a country with a shrinking population? Do you need to supplement your population with consumers? Then become a subscriber to V-Peeps! With V-Peeps, we can provide your country with millions of virtual consumers, ready to order consumer goods from local suppliers, as long as their products are available on Amazon or eBay. With V-Peeps, you'll have a consumer base like those in the first world, witho
Re: (Score:2)
You joke but there are economists who think we can overcome the limitations that silly things like ecology and physics might place on capitalism's need for endless growth through a greater consumption of virtual goods and services - presumably things people don't need to spend any of their time to use, since we already live in a world where Fortnite's major competition is Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a solution for this [imdb.com], but I doubt even China would implement it considering how the elderly are held in high regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
American Werewolf in London. Aside from her, one of the best special effect transformations in all of movie history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only ever see this "solution" from people in an academic bubble. Most of these "layabouts" are UNEMPLOYABLE. Were you to give these people a job, they would require more in resources to supervise then could ever possibly recover from their labor and what's more, they inconvenience and infuriate the rest of your workforce and customer base in the process. We actually need to EXPAND these programs until I never have to deal with another mouth breathing jackass at a corner store who fails three times in a ro
Citation Required (Score:3)
The US has 3.8 million square miles versus 3.7 million square miles [nationmaster.com] for China. That's a 2.6% difference. If you get rid of the 1.7 million square miles of mostly uninhabitable Alaska, China is actually larger.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, What's the Gobi Desert?
km square (Score:3)
>> The US has 3.8 million square miles versus 3.7 million square miles
Absolutely Wrong. China has an area of 9,6 million km square. vs 3.8 million square miles for the US
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Bad for the Economy, Good for the Planet (Score:2)
No two jobs are that much harder than each other? So doing brain surgery is just as easy as house painting? If a house painter could do brain surgery why donâ(TM)t hospitals hire house painters to do brain surgery after maybe a 1 week intro course to neural anatomy?
Re: (Score:2)
In Cuba where doctors are trained for free, there is no shortage of doctors and they arent paid any special either.
Its not rocket science. its mostly memorization and if you are a surgeon, steady seamstress type hands and butcher type tolerance of gore.
Um (Score:2)
I see no reason for that, if anything the Earth population should decline substantially which will greatly reduce our huge negative environmental impact and slow down AGW.
Re: (Score:3)
I see no reason for that, if anything the Earth population should decline substantially which will greatly reduce our huge negative environmental impact and slow down AGW.
Nature will take care of population decline if we don't.
Re:Um (Score:4, Informative)
Who makes up these bullshit facts?
Al Gore has said some dumb things, but that's no reason to make up bullshit that he didn't say.
...During the Obama years they literally legislated away the 100w and 60w incandescent bulbs...
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed by Bush, not Obama. (It didn't actually ban incandescent bulbs, but it did put efficiency standards on light bulbs, which means that the old style incandescents wouldn't make the cut. It is possible to make improved incandescent bulbs which could meet the standards. But why bother, since LED lights blow away the efficiency numbers, and last longer as well?)
Re: Um (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the growth rate is declining. Depending on the estimate, peak world population is generally expected sometime between 2050 and 2070, with some estimates as early as 2040 and some as late as 2100, depending on urbanization and spread of women's rights. To get something faster, you need massive and immediate sociological change that just isn't going to happen.
What will happen--and is happening--faster is eliminating fossil fuels. Electric cars will dominate production in less than a decade; most auto manu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument is in bad faith and you've demonstrated an unwillingness to listen in favor of histrionics.
The global fertility rate is 2.3 births per woman. That accords with the roughly 1% annual global population increase, which is half of what it was 50 years ago. It's still going down. Most of the countries with fertility rates much higher than that also have abysmal infant and child mortality rates, but their rates are dropping, too.
I mentioned $2/oz for chicken at the start. In 2013, the first l
Re: (Score:2)
Follow-up from before:
The company that cut the production price of cultured chicken to $2 per ounce, Future Meats, has announced that it has cut production prices to $1 per ounce (or technically $4 per 110 grams) and expects to cut that down by at least half again in the next 12-18 months. I would bet that in five years, cultured chicken, at least, will easily be the cheaper option while also being safer and healthier.
Re: Um (Score:2)
Re: Um (Score:2)
inaccurate [Re: Um] (Score:2)
Forest for the trees? We dont use incandescent bulbs anymore. It wasnt a dig at obama,
Yes, in fact it was. If it was a date, you could have said "legislation passed in 2007". No need to mention Obama.
it was a reference as to when we made the switch.
If it was, it was inaccurate. Your word were: "literally legislated away", so the "when," if you wanted to phrase "when" in terms of presidential administration, would be "legislation literally passed during the Bush administration".
Doubling down on inaccurate [Re: Um] (Score:2)
you are a serious turd, you know that? The lightbulb change did not go INTO EFFECT until the obama adminstration.
And had you said "During the Bush years they literally legislated away the 100w and 60w incandescent bulbs, although the initiative did not actually go into effect until the Obama administration," you would have been accurate and would not have corrected you.
But you didn't say it went "into effect" during the Obama administration, you said it was "literally legislated" during the Obama administration. It was not. It was legislated during the Bush administration.
Right here asshole.. right here.. 30 second google search:
Yes, that very link, which you found with a "
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't mean that though because our economic growth is not reliant on population. If it was, China and India would have surpassed the US and EU in economic prosperity decades ago.
Old people will be fine so long as the government continues to provide a social safety net in the form of healthcare and social security.
Re:Um (Score:4, Interesting)
Economic growth is not entirely reliant on population but is heavily tied to it. Growing populations mean growing markets in a generic sense. Production improvements can help, but that is dependent on how much of the resulting profit is circulated back into society. If it's just cooped up in a small area, it does little good for useful economic growth. If it's spread out, the standard of living can rise. If you look at the US a few decades ago, the basic standard of living was a roof over your head, basic food, water, and a radio. That was enough to get by. Nowadays, not having a phone and reliable transportation puts you on the edge of society, and internet access arguably is also necessary. The minimum standard of living has increased, and that provides population-independent economic growth. But those changes are much slower than population growth has traditionally been.
Regarding old people, as the population ages, a larger fraction of the younger population must be allocated to care for the older generation. This can reduce productivity in other realms such as manufacturing and non-geriatric services, reducing market competition. It also reduces spare time to raise a family, putting additional downward pressure on population growth.
In one sense, this is where automation is helpful: it gives more flexibility for governments to reallocate people to those roles. But it means either encouraging or forcing people into roles they may not want. Healthcare automation in the form of implants and robots can reduce the stress, but China's population is aging quickly. By 2050, less than 60% of the population is expected to be in the range of 20-64 years old, about 9% 0-19, and the remaining 30%+ in the 65+ range. That's going to have a strong impact that will not be easily offset by immigration in a xenophobic society such as China. Japan has been dealing with the results of its own xenophobia and is facing increasing pressure to allow immigration at least for healthcare purposes as it grapples with aging demographics and an already shrinking population. Japan's population peaked in 2008, but it's working-age population peaked in 1995. Since then, the imbalance has just gotten worse. That is China's future and they know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The diaspora is a few tens of millions. Let's call it 40 million on the high side. A good portion of those would not come back. Let's say half. That leaves 20 million. That's not going to make up the gap other than temporarily, and the slide would continue.
I've begun to think that the reasons for China's recent aggressive expansions both geographically around its territory and in contracts across the world is to shore itself up against the coming demographic shift. By securing its place now, it can feel mor
Re: (Score:2)
I'm long past midlife, I have no children and I'm not keen to have any though my mom is definitely not a fan of that. I don't have a car or any other vehicles, I prefer to walk, ride my bicycle or use public transport. I upgrade my computer on average each 10 years, only GPU upgrades happen more often, each three years. I minimize my environmental impact by not using plastic bags, and reusing everything as much as possible. I have a single pair of jeans and often I bring it to the atelier to have it repaire
i don't think they are counting all the chinese (Score:2)
Earners vs retirees (Score:2)
> If they're worried about loss of culture or something along those lines
What they are worried about is when you have twice as many retired people as working-age people, and you haven't saved, each worker has to support both of their parents. As well as supporting themselves and their kids.
The one-child policy of 1979â"2015 means each worker has to support both of their parents. (Though many couples had two children).
Some would suggest playing shell games with taxes and such but that doesn't get you
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about the one-child policy recently in the context of unanticipated changes.
There are entire generations and huge swathes of the country for which the words "uncle," "aunt," and "cousin" are basically unknown. What a huge cultural shift that must be.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're worried about change. And by "they" I particularly mean the politicians. Chinese politicians don't really care about the huáqiáo (overseas Chinese) except as they may be useful to *national* prestige and power. If you are in the US, for example, those Chinese people around you are Americans, or if they are immigrants their children will be and will identify as Americans.
The Chinese government has had a pretty good run since 1990, both in terms of raising the country's internatio
Population pyramid (Score:5, Informative)
"The results add pressure on Beijing to boost measures for couples to have more babies and avert a population decline."
A population decline in China cannot be avoided. If you look at the population pyramid of China (check the one on wikipedia) you will see that the large female cohorts of 10-14 million per age group (one year) in their thirties that are going out of the fertile age range are about to be replaced by cohorts of around 7 million females per age group. No policy will reverse this decline. China is heading for a population bust in the coming decades. And if you look at the fertility rates of other East Asian countries the fertility rate in China is more likely to fall further than to increase.
Re: (Score:2)
China is heading for a population bust in the coming decades. And if you look at the fertility rates of other East Asian countries the fertility rate in China is more likely to fall further than to increase.
Its an increasing issue worldwide. As usual, we always look at these things on the female side. They might want to look into why so many men are choosing to opt out of reproducing.
Re: (Score:3)
China has a surplus of 25-50M men and a culture which does not promote polyamory. Even if they did, no number of men can make a woman have a baby faster.
Re: (Score:2)
True, although through fertility drugs one can increase the odds of having more children per a pregnancy.
Re: (Score:2)
True, although through fertility drugs one can increase the odds of having more children per a pregnancy.
Turn her into a factory, amirite?
The entire idea of women waiting until their fertility declines, then using heroic measures to have children - is a great example of a lack of understanding of both fertility and having healthy offspring, and if a woman is interested in a career - having them take time off at the time when careerists are hitting their stride.
Re: (Score:2)
China has a surplus of 25-50M men and a culture which does not promote polyamory. Even if they did, no number of men can make a woman have a baby faster.
You would think that in such a culture, that men would be fighing over the prize - to impregnate a woman. That's along my point. With all these men - it would seem that the women would have their choice of the best reproductive partners willing to do anything at all to gain her favor. And yet, that is not happening at all.
This is my point. Despite the narrative, there is more than one person involved in creating a family. Perhaps looking at the reasons why men have leaned out is in order.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really - this is well known in demographics - when males are in surplus, the sexual selection gets *less* heated and violent due to individually reduced operational range to take high risks. It's contrary to layman's intuition, but perfectly rational in game-theoretic sense.
It is a general effect present in most zero-sum games. The larger and more stable is the status quo, the less are participants willing to rock the boat. Disillusion a
Re: (Score:2)
Not really - this is well known in demographics - when males are in surplus, the sexual selection gets *less* heated and violent due to individually reduced operational range to take high risks.
But I don't think demographics is so mature that it cannot take more data.
I can certainly agree with the concept of surplus males. In the USA there are ~ 7.43 million more women than men. So there will always be a surplus of unmarried women. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
And there is no argument with your basic statements. But we have thrown another few irons in the fire, at least in the western world.
Note, what I say here is against current narrative, so not to be read if easily triggered.
Women
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really a fan line of argument, as the "career women effect" is too difficult to correlate causally - vis a vis Asian cultures with ghastly demographics especially (Korea, Japan, Singapore), as well as super-patriarchal places like Saudi Arabia that inexplicably slide into the demog
Re: (Score:2)
Do people give up on family values because women no longer have chains in the kitchen, or are there far larger forces at play than feminism?
Depends on how far you spread the concept of feminism. Women initiate divorce in some 70 percent of cases, and unless she is a methhead, or on the sexual offenders list, she's almost certain to get custody. You get to pay for children you see on weekends and every other holiday. And if you do, you can even pay for children that other men have fathered with her, while you were married, You are casting even odds at best of having a marriage that does not end in divorce.
So what it is - is a risk vs reward
Re: (Score:2)
Because some are like this [youtu.be], or like this. [youtu.be]
Re:Population pyramid (Score:4, Interesting)
Because some are like this [youtu.be], or like this. [youtu.be]
True dat. It has been shocking to see the results of the #metoo movement in the workplace.
It's become a sort of gender apartheid. And it's unfortunate, as normal males are leaning way out, because one wrong word, or even a misinterpretation can lose you your career.
Just as an example, a woman and her supervisor were walking in my direction at work. She placed her hand in the crook of his elbow, certainly an affectionate move, but not sexual. His arms flung up like he was told to come out with his hands up, in order to get out of the situation. He also looked at me to get my concurrence that he had not in fact touched her, nor said anything. Career is more important than interaction with any particular person.
That's just one example. I've seen many more where men do not want to get on elevators with women, will not be in an office alone with a woman, and avoid any interaction other than a minimum required to do the job. It's like sharing space with a grenade with it's pin pulled.
The insane thing is that as prudent men who would never bother a woman have decided that now that any women can cost him his career have chosen to have as little interaction as possible, the only men who will interact with them are the creeps. Which reinforces their dislike of men.
And no, I'm not an incel.
Re: (Score:2)
Its an increasing issue worldwide. As usual, we always look at these things on the female side. They might want to look into why so many men are choosing to opt out of reproducing.
I think that is primarily due to the biological side of it. It's somewhat like pipelining. One man's reproduction is constrained basically only by female availability. One woman can reproduce at fastest something like every 18 months. When that demographic bump of fertile movement ages past reproduction, the maximum possible rate of reproduction goes down dramatically.
Re: the MGTOW discussion, are there actual statistics? I would be curious to see if there are any numbers on females who want to be married a
Re: (Score:2)
Its an increasing issue worldwide. As usual, we always look at these things on the female side. They might want to look into why so many men are choosing to opt out of reproducing.
I think that is primarily due to the biological side of it. It's somewhat like pipelining. One man's reproduction is constrained basically only by female availability. One woman can reproduce at fastest something like every 18 months. When that demographic bump of fertile movement ages past reproduction, the maximum possible rate of reproduction goes down dramatically.
Re: the MGTOW discussion, are there actual statistics? I would be curious to see if there are any numbers on females who want to be married and have kids but lack male availability, vs males who want to be married and have kids, but lack female availability.
The urge to reproduce exists in both sexes. But it tends to be stronger in females. This isn't too surprising. Men also have the drive, but it is different, Men are more focussed on the physical act of sex.
Whether on a natural level, or something gained through social conditioning, it doesn't take an Einstein to deduce that at best, women tolerate men to a certain extent. As often as not, they actively dislike us. My guess is that naturally they tolerate us, but social mores have cultivated something ak
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that I disagree with you, or that I think MGTOW is completely ridiculous. I don't personally find the MGTOW mindset appealing, but I have to admit that the older I get (as a married male) I think I understand it more and more.
Why is the reproduction rate falling off a cliff? Well, sex and procreation are barely linked anymore in the remotely developed world, so I don't think that explains anything.
In the US:
Conservatives say it's liberal policies, the destruction of the family, sexual promiscuity,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: the MGTOW discussion, are there actual statistics? I would be curious to see if there are any numbers on females who want to be married and have kids but lack male availability, vs males who want to be married and have kids, but lack female availability.
Sorry - I missed this part of your post.
As with a lot of social aspects, actual numbers are hard to find, and people often ascibe their own opinions to them, but here are a few things:
A real hatefest! There are some little graphs. https://www.wsj.com/articles/S... [wsj.com]
The story most often cited: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/fe... [dailymail.co.uk]
We are awful! http://theworthywoman.com/good... [theworthywoman.com]
A little over the top reaction by a male https://thepatriotdad.wordpres... [wordpress.com]
the Bad boy trap:
https://dailypositiveinfo.com/10
Re: (Score:2)
GP is bothered that China has half the women but if each woman had 4 instead of 1 kid that would double the population back up so that cohorts down the line would be bigger. So its not unsolvable from a biology perspective. However culturally after 2 generations of single child families people would find it weird to have more than one kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Men can reproduce with multiple females but a female can carry only one baby at a time so for reproduction no of females is always the bottleneck.
True. This is why men are quite expendable. I wonder if humanity is approaching a new paradigm, where most women mate with only a very few men. The sort of structure that is similar to the herd, where only one male sires all of the children, until a new alpha male knocks him off his perch.
GP is bothered that China has half the women but if each woman had 4 instead of 1 kid that would double the population back up so that cohorts down the line would be bigger. So its not unsolvable from a biology perspective.
Exactly. And if men lean out, eventually society will lean into social change that allows women to mate with "donor males" if men and women cannot work things out by themselves.
Dichotomy (Score:2)
Seems like many (not all) of the people who have concerns about "overpopulation" when discussing climate change or other global issues are the same that turn their nose up at social welfare spending, urbanization and infrastructure.
Nations and cultures will always have lowered birth rates when they industrialize and standards of living rise. It's what's happening in China and it would happen everywhere else if these nations are helped to develop their economies instead of being left poor so they can contin
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like many (not all) of the people who have concerns about "overpopulation" when discussing climate change or other global issues are the same that turn their nose up at social welfare spending, urbanization and infrastructure.
They are describing a conservative, largely older mindset. Certainly the old fashioned have their outlook.
But there are huge disadvantages that have been thrown up that make reproduction a losing bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like many (not all) of the people who have concerns about "overpopulation" when discussing climate change or other global issues are the same that turn their nose up at social welfare spending,
And some of the people who have concerns about overpopulation are exactly the same people who say we need to improve our social welfare net.
...Nations and cultures will always have lowered birth rates when they industrialize and standards of living rise.
Indeed, a point worth emphasizing. Demographers have pointed out that three factors are known to decrease the number of children produced per family:
1. Improving the standard of living. Get people out of poverty, and they have fewer children.
2. Increasing the level of education.
3. Increase the access to birth control. (Note: not mandatory birth control, like the Chi
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like many (not all) of the people who have concerns about "overpopulation" when discussing climate change or other global issues are the same that turn their nose up at social welfare spending, urbanization and infrastructure.
Is that really true? I have always associated the "overpopulation" crowd with technocrats (e.g., Asimov), leftist environmentalists, etc. The people who are in favor of welfare spending.
Urbanization and infrastructure? I don't know about that. There are some interesting bedfellows there too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the other way around. People who are in favor of welfare are in favor of limiting population growth. At least the rational ones are. There's simply no way to support an exponentially increasing population with a resource-limited planet. If the population is stable or increasing linearly, welfare can be sustained indefinitely as technology allows an ever falling working fraction of the population to support the rest.
On the other hand, people who are opposed to welfare do not care about population growth
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say "one child policy"? Sure you can. This is what happens when your government enforces such a policy. And it's going to cause China some problems down the road.
Mind you, farther down the road, it's going to be to the good, at least if the Chinese government can increase the child-bearing a tad. It's REALLY hard to take proper care of your elderly when t
12 Million is LA (Score:3)
Adding 12 million people per year is a lot!
In 20 years those kids will be adults in need of their own domiciles, jobs, restaurants, and shops. China still needs to add nearly a Los Angeles worth of civilization infrastructure every year for decades to come.
Slower growth is still growth. And, as others have noted, bending the curve is ultimately good for our environment even if it is momentarily less good/differently good for our economy.
Re: (Score:3)
From TFA. The issue is not just slowing growth, but an imminent decline in total population.
A report by the Financial Times in April also quoted people familiar with the matter as saying the census would reveal a population decline.
This did not happen with the 2020 report but experts have told various media outlets that it could still happen over the next few years.
"It will in 2021 or 2022, or very soon," Huang Wenzhang, a demography expert at the Centre for China and Globalisation told Reuters.
Re: (Score:2)
12 Million sounds like a lot until you consider how many elderly there are that are moving to nursing homes or in residence with their adult children. It's not quite as simple as you make it.
As others have noted China has gone through 3 generations of single child families. As that moves through the system each decade halves the number of couples of child bearing age. For example the number of potential child bearing females in their 20's is half the number in their 30's. And it halves again with the number
Less than 1.4b (Score:3)
Some people think were is a sort-of over-reporting of births because it's apparently a thing to report births in a big city (better schools later on) even if you live outside in the boonies.
Local governments don't really crack down on this because apparently they get more influence the more people they report...
That's why this time, the Chinese census-bureau was apparently very thorough.
Just in time for robots (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what tech China is betting their farm to develop now? 5G/6G, AI, EV, robotics.
Putting these together means fully autonomous or real-time remote controlled mobile robots than can replace manual labor. Shanghai has a fully autonomous container port that can load and unload container ships with only a few staff managing the whole port, with autonomous EV moving containers around where traditionally human driven trucks do. More are springing up in other cities. The next generation have more powerful AI that can work on traditional ports without special magnetic markers all over the place, the first one being setup in the south.
Fully autonomous taxis are being trialled. Robotic delivery trucks and robotic mobile vending machines are showing up in Chinese streets. Delivery robots and robotic guides are showing up in Chinese hotels.
Robots are a real thing in China. Which means China can maintain productivity increase with a flattened or even declining population.
Other developing countries that wanted to duplicate China's path using cheap manual labor, good luck competing against AI controlled machines that can work 24x7 the whole year around. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile in the US, unions are preventing companies deploying automations.
Do you want to live in a world where robots do all the work for humans? Or one where humans have to work like robots?
Re:Just in time for robots (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile in the US, unions are preventing companies deploying automations.
Not hardly. Union membership in the US is at an all-time low.
Do you want to live in a world where robots do all the work for humans? Or one where humans have to work like robots?
A tricky question. If robots do all the work, and all the profits go to the handful of billionaires who own the companies which own the robots while the humans are unemployed and make nothing, is this a utopia or a dystopia?
(posting as AC so I don't get my previous mods revoked, sorry! This is an real question, not trollery, honest!)
Re: (Score:2)
The red-herring is what we want. We will get robots working for us - either in our country or in China.
Just make room for corona.
It's okay for populations to decline (Score:2)
This is fine. I'm not one of those "over population fear" guys, but it's okay for populations to decline if the reason for the decline is that babies are living into adulthood.
The truth is we are improving manufacturing and farming and construction and engineering every day and need fewer and fewer people to meet people's basic needs. That's okay.
So do what's best for you and your family. Most people are choosing to have fewer kids and focus more on individualized parenting. That's fine.
No women, no population (Score:5, Interesting)
When you can only have one child and your culture prefers male children, this is what happens. It won't reverse for another 20 years, since (1) there's no real migration into China, and (2) the one-child policy is now gone but it takes time for girls to grow.
Oh, and (3) the muslims, who tend to have more kids, are now in camps...which makes reproduction less-than-optimal.
Re: (Score:3)
When you can only have one child and your culture prefers male children, this is what happens. It won't reverse for another 20 years, since (1) there's no real migration into China, and (2) the one-child policy is now gone but it takes time for girls to grow.
Oh, and (3) the muslims, who tend to have more kids, are now in camps...which makes reproduction less-than-optimal.
I'm waiting for them to do the inevitable totalitarian move and set up breeding camps. It's going to happen sooner or later given their complete indifference to human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Long ago, I was told that China, in their 'everybody is equal' communism during the 1950s, developed a city-wide plan for no-marriage no-parents breeding. I can't find any evidence of it being used, but impending 'interesting times' may revive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Long ago, I was told that China, in their 'everybody is equal' communism during the 1950s, developed a city-wide plan for no-marriage no-parents breeding. I can't find any evidence of it being used, but impending 'interesting times' may revive it.
Did someone confuse China with Plato's Republic?
-1 verboten but true (Score:2)
Let's see: news search, "suicide bombing", time frame: past day
Suicide bombing by Somalia's al Shabaab group kills six [reuters.com]
Guess what, kids? Santa Claus isn't real, and there is only room for one form of government in CCP controlled China.
And why is this a problem? (Score:2)
I'd suspect that the *existing* internal market for goods is so large that they don't need to keep adding population. And, since they're a heavily regulated capitalism, they can make sure that happens....
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't think it's the "green" factor that is driving this the most. It's that babies are living to adulthood today and mothers and fathers can choose to focus their parenting on individualized growth rather than volume.
No matter which way you slice it, this is a good trend long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Works well for communist group dynamics. You dont have any special loyalties to siblings if you dont have siblings - your loyalty can be to the group.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I was thinking as well. A week ago the story was that they were GOING to report [slashdot.org] the slowest population growth in five decades. But now I guess they DID report it, so we get the actual figures.